Talk:International law and Israeli settlements/Archive 2

Confused lead paragraph
The first paragraph currently states: "Adam Roberts and Marco Pertile write that the international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. Israel disputes this judgment as it does not consider that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day war. That view has been rejected by the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice. The majority of legal scholars also hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views." Aside from being not particularly good writing, this is confused. The first sentence is a broad opinion, which, I guess, tells the readers the conclusions they should draw from the article, (i.e. the TRUTH™) so that they do not actually need to read any of the rest of the article. The next sentence doesn't accurately represent the sources; we don't really know what Israel thinks about the view of the "international community" on the topic. The sources that support the next two sentences aren't about the illegality of the settlements per se, but instead about the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories, which is a different (although obviously related) question. This needs a significant re-write. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to consider a different text. Not necessarily this exact wording, but along these lines: "A large majority of members of the United Nations have declared that Israel's settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are contrary to international law", with a citation to the most recent UNGA resolutions.  It is more precise, more scientific, and not anyone's opinion. Zerotalk 00:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a much better approach, in my opinion - much more accurate and informative. I'd reword it to something like "A large majority of members of the United Nations have supported General Assembly resolutions declaring that Israel's settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are contrary to international law". Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It isnt particularly good writing because you made the lead say that. I dont understand why you are putting in in-line attributions to undisputed, so far at least, facts. Can you provide any sources that dispute that the international community considers Israeli settlements to be illegal under international law. If not, can you explain why the statement the international community considers Israeli settlements to be illegal under international law is a "POV" that needs the attribution you added to the lead?  nableezy  - 03:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only good writing there is the first six words, which I wrote. The rest is pretty terrible. Now, please try to respond to the issues raised; why does this paragraph make claims about illegality of the settlements based on sources that are talking solely about the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories? Why does it pretend or imply that Israel is commenting on the view of the "international community", when it is actually responding to legal arguments about the Fourth Geneva Convention's applicability? Please stop simply opposing, and instead start trying to improve an obviously badly written paragraph, particularly the last two sentences. Jayjg (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(od) Lets look at this one sentence at a time, so that we can try to see whether there is any substance to any of your complaints. Prior to your attempt at reducing to two names what can be cited to any number of sources, the lead had the following sentences and citations The only thing that the last sentence does not have well-sourced is that other legal scholars have offered dissenting views, but the source directly supports the fact that the "majority of legal scholars" view the settlements as being a violation of international law. I dont quite follow what you are objecting to in the second sentence, it doesnt say, as far as I can tell, that Israel is commenting on the international community. It says that Israel has a different view from the international community. But what would you like that sentence to say? How would you word Israel's view on the legal status of the settlements? For the first sentence, I still have trouble understanding how you can claim that it is an "opinion" of the authors. If this is a "POV" that needs attribution to the author, you should be able to find a source that disputes it, with it being a reference to the sentence "the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law". Can you?  nableezy  - 06:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law.
 * 2) *This was cited to the following two sources:
 * 3) Israel disputes this judgment as it does not consider that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day war. That view has been rejected by the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice.
 * 4) *This was cited to the following sources
 * 5) The majority of legal scholars also hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views.
 * 6) *This is cited to 1.2
 * 1) The majority of legal scholars also hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views.
 * 2) *This is cited to 1.2
 * 1) The majority of legal scholars also hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views.
 * 2) *This is cited to 1.2
 * OMG, is it possible for you to make a comment without some sort of dig in it? What on earth do you imagine the phrase "so that we can try to see whether there is any substance to any of your complaints" adds beside more of this pointless sniping and bickering? Why don't you remove that statement from your comment, and any other personal stuff I haven't noticed, and then I'll remove this comment here, and work on a thorough response for tomorrow. Let's just get this lede improved already. Jayjg (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

UNSC voting
Bdell555, your claims about the Security Council are original research. Voting against a resolution is entirely different from voting for the opposite of the resolution. There are many reasons why the US could veto something apart from disagreeing with its contents. And in fact, "the representative of the United States explained that her country rejected in the strongest terms the legitimacy of settlement activity" despite voting against it. The fact that the international community overwhelmingly regards the settlements as illegal is untouched by this event. Zerotalk 00:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, your view is WP:OR because you are straining to interpret the resolution(s) to mean more or other than it does on a plain reading. A resolution declaring "illegal" came before the UNSC and it was vetoed.  End of story.  If you want to derive some other, more convoluted implication out of that result you need a source (review the "original research" guidelines and you'll see that this is basically what they say).  Your speculation that the US vetoed the resolution while actually agreeing "with its contents" is just that, speculation (absent a source).  From the UN earlier this year:
 * The United States today vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning all Israeli settlements established in occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 as illegal, saying that while it agreed that the settlements are illegitimate the resolution harmed chances for peace talks.
 * "Illegitimate", yes, if you can find a source that says directly that the UNSC as a whole finds the settlements "illegitimate", as opposed to synthesizing US government statements with other sources to derive this conclusion (a common problem when engaging in original research). Your quote further proves this point, ie illegitimate, yes, illegal, no (although even here, "illegal" was in a formal document, "illegitimate" might be in oral comments that are not 100% official US position).  There's a fair argument that the USA considered them "illegal" pre-Reagan, but it is no longer 1979 which brings us to the problem with the cite you are reverting to.  Besides not being a unanimous vote (the abstentions mean that while you can assign a positive belief to the "yes" votes. you can't assign anything to the abstentions... here the article does not say "does not dispute a finding of illegality" but makes a positive claim of illegality), it is from more than 30 years ago!  I generally agree that "the international community overwhelmingly regards the settlements as illegal" but you can make that argument by going into detail in the second paragraph of the introduction or in the body of the article, not by reducing the history of UN resolutions into a single line that implies that the contemporary USA thinks the settlements are unambiguously "illegal".  This isn't even a grey area because the wording in the February resolution was crystal clear, "illegal", and had it passed it would have settled the matter.  But it did NOT pass.  It was the first US veto under Obama and cannot simply be ignored.  The second paragraph of the lede says Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law.  I think that makes the point well enough.  If you want to quote US remarks about "illegimate", go ahead (if that's appropriate for the lede) but don't insinuate the USA agrees with "illegal" given that when push came to shove the US declined to support such terminology on the UNSC.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When the USA votes for a resolution saying that the settlements are legal, you will have a point. As for OR, you are making an elementary error of logic.  The US took pains to say that it vetoed the resolution for strategic reasons, not because it denied that the settlements were illegal.  Please look up "illegitimate" in a dictionary, mine says "not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules".  The record of the UNSC should be described in more detail in this article, but it can't be claimed that the UNSC rejected the international consensus since it absolutely did not. Zerotalk 10:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The error of logic here is your argument from ignorance. When you say "when the USA votes... you will have a point" but they haven't, so I don't (have a point), you are saying the ABSENCE of something constitutes POSITIVE proof of your claim.  That's a logical fallacy.  I'm quite willing to concede that I don't have an argument, because I'm not the one making an argument!  I'm rather challenging YOUR claim that the US vote in February supports some conclusion other than what it directly appears to support, which was a rejection of "illegal."   In other words, I am not arguing that "the UNSC rejected the international consensus."   Where did I attempt to introduce this claim you are assigning to me to the article?  I am rather saying that YOUR claim that the UNSC has deemed the settlements "illegal" is not only limited by the reality of historical abstentions (abstentions do not support either positive or negative claims) there is actually a US veto on this exact point.  Think about the fact that my edit REMOVED a claim, in favour of leaving the more qualified/nuanced language in the second paragraph, whereas you want to ADD a claim (which assumes that there is positive evidence that the US government still stands by its pre-Reagan policy).  Wikipedia guidelines place the burden of proof on the party adding material.  re "illegitimate", if the terminology is entirely identical then why does the US not use the terms interchangeably and why not have the lede say "illegitimate" instead of "illegal"?--Brian Dell (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly as Zero wrote. You cannot conclude based on the US veto that the US accepts the opposite of the text of the resolution. This is a good outline of the US position, what its official policy is and what various political leaders have said over the years.  nableezy  - 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "You cannot conclude... the US accepts..." is a Straw man because I am not concluding anything about what the US accepts. You are the  party insisting that the US accepts something, namely, a finding of "illegal".  I am rather noting what the US did NOT accept, namely, the text of the February resolution.  I am not drawing the inference that NO means YES to something else (like a finding of "legal").  On the contrary, NO means NO (to a finding of "illegal").  To reject this in favour of the claim that the NO was really a YES that was expressed as a NO for "strategic" reasons is to head off in the direction of original research.  Can you at least agree that the Americans, at least post-Reagan, do not want to be absolutely unequivocal on the issue of "illegality" and that they would rather be careful or more nuanced about their language?  Well then Wikipedia should also be somewhat less than absolutely unequivocal.  As I've noted, something a little less strong could still be very strong; it's not like restraining oneself to what the facts support would mean "losing" the general point that Israel is diplomatically isolated when it comes to the merits of settlement building.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But you are making a conclusion based on the veto, you are concluding that the US, and thus the UNSC, does not consider the settlements illegal. "NO means NO" is a bit too simplistic for this discussion. The US, over the past 10+ years, has either abstained or vetoed a number of UNSC resolutions because, in their view, the resolutions are one sided, not necessarily because they actually disagree with them. Additionally, the resolutions that have passed are what makes up the UNSC position. That position remains unchanged unless, or until, another resolution passes that changes the position. The position of the UNSC is, present tense, that the settlements violate GCIV.  nableezy  - 15:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not drawing that conclusion. The only conclusion I am drawing is that YOUR conclusion is doubtful.  See my response to Zero, above.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, there are several UNSC resolutions declaring the settlements illegal. Those resolutions remain the position of the UNSC. There are also secondary reliable sources that say that the UNSC considers settlements illegal. What exactly is my conclusion, the one you say is "doubtful"? That the UNSC considers settlements illegal? Really? Because there are several reliable sources that say that is true. Do you have any that say it is not?  nableezy  - 16:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "That the UNSC considers settlements illegal," yes, when the specific term "illegal" is used and there is no qualification, elaboration, or other nuance. It is in fact not as "simplistic" as that, to use one of your terms.  In February the UNSC considered a resolution with language that clearly and unambiguously declared the settlements "illegal" and the resolution was vetoed.  You can try to characterize this rejection as a non-action that therefore proves nothing but in fact it IS an action, an action to reject.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but that simply is not true, and unless you have a secondary source that backs the view that the UNSC does not consider settlements illegal there is not much of a point in continuing to argue the point with you. Several reliable sources say that the UNSC considers settlements illegal. The UNSC has repeatedly said that they do consider the settlements illegal. That they did not pass a measure that would once again declare the settlements illegal does not mean that they magically wiped away the resolutions that do call them illegal. It is not my conclusion that the UNSC considers the settlements illegal. Sources say that. And even if they did not, the lead does not even say that the UNSC specifically considers the settlements illegal, it says the UNSC says that GCIV applies to the occupied territories.  nableezy  - 20:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is true, the vote really did happen, and please stop with the false allegation that I am advancing "the view that the UNSC does not consider settlements illegal." Show an edit diff that indicates that I have attempted to introduce such language into the article.  Paring back an overstatement is just that, it is not the introduction of some other statement.  I don't have any objections to the lede as it currrently reads.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of making an obvious point, the views of the UNSC should be determined from resolutions that do pass, rather than ones that don't. For example UNSC resolution 446: "1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity" and 452 ("no legal validity"). 452 also calls on Israel to urgently cease building the settlements, which Israel to this day hasn't done despite the resolution passing in 1979! I wonder when la Clinton will draw the conclusion that the Israeli regime has lost its legitimacy. --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the second paragraph of the lede identifies resolutions that have passed. The first paragraph should not be saying something stronger.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolutions don't "pass" unless they are superseded by other resolutions. That's not my opinion, it's the ICJ opinion. Zerotalk 12:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero, since you're well-informed on the subject area, I'll address my comments to you. Isn't it the case that U.S. administrations have generally and deliberately avoided describing the settlements as "illegal", instead preferring to use phrases such as "obstacle/impediment to peace"? Jayjg (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Recent administrations have studiously avoided the word "illegal", using "illegitimate" instead. I remember some US official describing this as a considered choice.  In ordinary English those words have the same meaning, but I assume they want to avoid public statements specifically referring to international law. Zerotalk 01:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence Wikipedia should likewise show avoidance unless Wikipedia makes it clear that the American view is being excepted.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there are a large number of UNSC resolutions that declare the settlements illegal (as Zero helpfully lists below). The resolutions that have passed remain the position of the UNSC until they are superseded by one that takes an opposing position. That a particular resolution is vetoed does not make it so that everything that happened in the past no longer applies. But either way, there are many sources that say that it is the position of the UNSC that says the settlements are illegal. The original research that is occurring is your insistence that because the US vetoed a resolution on the illegality that this means that the UNSC does not consider the settlements are illegal. That is both original research and false.  nableezy  - 14:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You continue to declare that I am insisting that "the UNSC does not consider the settlements are illegal" and that is simply not true. Please cite the edit where I attempted to insert such language into the article if you are going to continue to make this allegation.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding UNSC resolutions, those I know declaring the settlements illegal are 446, 452, 465 (1979), 471, 476 (1980), 605 (1987), 1544 (2004). Others which arguably do the same by declaring that the Geneva Conventions apply are 592 (1986), 607, 608 (1988), 636, 641 (1989), 672, 673, 681 (1990), 694 (1991), 726, 799 (1992), 904 (1994), 1322 (2000). The USA started vetoing anything critical of Israel in 2001, not sure how 1544 snuck through. A summary of this would be appropriate in the article. Zerotalk 12:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Zero! These resolutions typically say the settlements have "no legal validity", rather than stating they are "illegal". There must be a reason for using that wording; do you know what it is? In addition, many of these don't actually make any statement about the legality of the settlements, but instead call on Israel to "to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention etc.", is that correct? Finally, it appears that the U.S. abstained from many of these resolutions - do you know which ones, if any, it actually supported? Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is any difference between "illegal" and "no legal validity". The latter expression seems very common in SC resolutions on many topics and it must come from somewhere, but I don't know where.  446 and 452 use that phrase, while 465 says "constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention".  My first list 446–1544 contains the resolutions either mentioning the settlements directly or "reaffirming" an earlier resolution which did.  Some of the second list would be included there as well except that I wasn't sure that "recalling" is as definite as "reaffirming".  Resolutions which the USA voted for were 465, 607, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726.  It abstained from most of the rest (not sure about 799, 904 or 1322). Zerotalk 01:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the significance of how the US voted, as opposed to whether the resolutions passed or not? --Dailycare (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No legal significance at all, only significance to the question of the USA's position. Incidentally, another time when the US had a chance to make a definite statement on the settlements was its submission to the ICJ on the wall case.  Over 32 pages, not a word on it.  The only relevant statement is firm support for the "road map", which requires immediate cessation of settlement development. Zerotalk 03:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And to be specific, the US position before the vote as surely the USA abides by UNSC resolutions that do pass. But concerning recent definite statements, senior members of the Obama administration are on record saying the settlements are illegitimate, so I don't see any ambiguity there. --Dailycare (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Confused lead paragraph (2)
The first two sentence of the (current) version of the article are as follows: "The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law.[1][2][3][4][5] Israel disputes this judgment as it does not consider that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day war." What is the source for the second sentence? What "judgment" is being referred to here? Where does "Israel" comment on the claim that "The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law"? Please quote the source for this. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would to know as well which formal "judgment" we are speaking of...? Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is from the Israeli MFA Web site :
 * "As the West Bank had no prior legitimate sovereign, under international law these areas cannot be considered as "occupied" Arab or Palestinian lands, and their most accurate description would be that of disputed territories.


 * However, Palestinian spokespersons not only claim that the territory is indeed occupied, they also allege that occupation is - by definition - illegal. However, international law does not prohibit situations of occupation. Rather, it attempts to regulate such situations with international agreements and conventions. Therefore, claims that the so-called Israeli "occupation" is illegal - without regard either to its cause or the factors that have led to its continuation - are baseless allegations without foundation in international law."
 * -asad (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand how your post answers my question. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "claim" is not The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. Please stop doing that. The "claim" (or judgment, for those of us less inclined to attempt to portray reliably sourced material as random claims) that Israel disputes is Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories [are] illegal under international law. The word "formal" does not exist in the sentence, so the request for a pointer to what "formal" judgment referred to is not something I understand.  nableezy  - 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede as quoted above indicates that Israel disputes the view that "The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law". If you want it to mean something else, you'll have to write something different. That's one reason why the lede, as explained before, is poorly written. I'm happy to improve it, if you need some help; I'll have to fix it all at some point soon anyway, so it's probably best if you take a crack at it first. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentences as given here above at the beginning of the section are perfectly clear and correct. There is not of a judgement to state that an action is illegal under the law. Eg, in the context of the Holocaust, many Nazi criminals were not judged at Nuremberg but they are still criminals (do you agree Jayjg or not ?). 9/11 attacks were also illegal and are an act of war. I add that the here above sentence takes care to write "according to the international community", which is not mandatory but is done in respect of wp:npov. Not a single coma has to be changed in this sentence. 81.247.84.166 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As has already been amply demonstrated, the first two sentences are both unclear and incorrect; the term "international community" is at best meaningless, and Israel has never commented on the "international community's" opinion. I don't really understand the rest of your statement, but please try to avoid affirming Godwin's law. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In summary, multiple reliable sources were provided that use the exact phrase "international community" and none were produced that argue against it even in general terms. This argument has gone on long enough. Jayjg, you lost. Zerotalk 03:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In summary, multiple reliable sources were provided that show the phrase "international community" is at best meaningless; even you agreed it is an "imprecise expression". Wikipedia is not a battleground, Zero, so I haven't "lost" anything: you might want to review Wikipedia is not about winning. Several editors have agreed that the writing is bad, and that the first sentence, which uses an essentially meaningless phrase, is in particular highly problematic. We're going to clean that up. Please try to be part of the solution. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayjg there is no WP:RS that tells about the views of Israel government about this issue.So the lead should be rewritten.--Shrike (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Israel's view is sourced straight to the horses mouth, so to speak. The international community's view is also well sourced, and the wikilink to the International community page is perfect for elucidating to interested readers the meaning of that term. --Dailycare (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)--
 * The first two sentences, as quoted at the top of this section, are confused, confusing, and bad writing. That should be fixed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is only confusing for those that wish to argue, contrary to the policies of this website, that what is cited to top quality sources, which directly back the sentence, with not one source disputing it is somehow not "neutral" or it is an "impartial tone". We go by the sources here, and the sources say that the "international community" considers settlements illegal under international law. That is clear, not confusing or confused, and well written. Nobody has yet provided a single source that disputes the first line. Not one. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is not confused bad writing for those that wish to argue, contrary to the policies of this website, that what is cited to top quality sources, which directly back the fact that the term is meaningless, with not one source disputing that fact. We go by the sources here, and the sources say that the "international community" is a meaningless term at best. Nobody has yet provided a single source that disputes that statement. Not one. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jay, you are free to use the sources discussing the use of the term "international community" in the article international community. The fact remains that the term is not considered meaningless by the top quality sources that use it in the specific context of the topic of this article. Can you or can you not provide a single source that disputes what peer-reviewed journal articles authored by scholars in the field of international law say is the view of the international community? Yes or no please. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review false dilemma and loaded question - the fact that one can find reliable sources stating something does not mean that the statement is therefore clear, good writing, or compliant with WP:NPOV. And, in fact, SilverSeren has actually googled up a source that contradicts this statement anyway (see below). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If a statement is supported by reliable sources and there are no sources disputing that statement that statement is, by definition, a neutral statement on Wikipedia. SilverSeren provided a source that says much of the international community. That does not contradict the other sources. Ill take your refusal to answer the question, a question asked of you more than ten times, to be a no, you cannot google up any sources that contradict the well sourced fact that the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:OR and WP:NPOV yourself, particularly WP:NPOV. An opinion can be voiced by reliable sources and still not be appropriate for stating in Wikipedia's voice, and the fact that a source says much of the international community views the settlements as illegal already contradicts the current statement in the lede that the international community views them as illegal. I'll take your refusal to address these points, which have been raised at least ten times, as being an admission that you cannot google up any sources that contradict the well sourced fact that "international community" is a misleading/meaningless term, that "most of the" is not the same as "the", and that the first sentence is a poorly written abuse of WP:NPOV. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources that use the term "international community" clearly do not find it meaningless. Much does not contradict the, as all satisfies many or most or much. A greater degree of accuracy is provided by the other eminently reliable sources, sources that you have yet to find any that contradict. Also, how exactly is it an "opinion" that "the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law"? Finally, what about the sentence is not written in an impartial tone. Your assertions that such and such is not neutral are, once again, lacking in any sources that dispute the sentence. In order for a statement to be non-neutral, as defined by WP:NPOV, there must be sources disputing the statement. Are there any such sources? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources that point out that the term is meaningless admit to using it themselves, despite the fact that it is meaningless - read the first source I provided. Regarding exactly is it an "opinion", please read and respond to Plot Spoiler's comment of 02:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC) below. And finally, there is a source that contradicts it, an actual fact that you keep avoiding: "most of the international community != "the international community". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't find the two sentences quoted in this section to be confusing at all. They seem to be pretty straightforward actually and a proper reflection of major views. Just from a simple search, like this, I can find plenty of sources that support the statement that the international community considers the Israeli settlements to be illegal. For example, this from the UN Security Council, this by Malcolm Bruce, this by Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch, this transcript of statements made in Parliament. I could really go on and on. Silver  seren C 16:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked those links, and, oddly enough, not one of them stated that the international community considers the Israeli settlements to be illegal. I would also know this without checking the links, because Nableezy diligently scoured the internet, and in the end was only able to Google up four books in which reliable sources stated this. If you think your new sources do say this, then please quote them saying so directly. Also, I'm really not interested in the tediously predictable prevarications and quarter-truths breathlessly repeated by banned sockpuppeters on terminally dull offsite whining-boards. And I must give props to a friend of mine who alerted me today to Silver seren's post and the reason why he showed up here to disagree with me - you know who you are, and thanks buddy! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Google up? Two of those sources are in academic journals not available on Google Books (as far as I know) and are not books. But, as Ive seen you say elsewhere, I have added sources that I can find discussing the view of the international community about the legal status of the settlements. There may well be other sources discussing their view. You are welcome to add any you find. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Googled up, or found in a similar way though other database searches (e.g. JSTOR) - or are you going to claim you found this material some other way? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The one by Ruth Lapidoth specifically says that the international community considers the settlements illegal, but here's some more, here, here and here. Silver  seren C 19:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "one by Ruth Lapidoth" is not by Lapidoth, but rather a 1980 letter to the UNSC from the "Acting Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations"; Pakistan does not even recognize the existence of Israel, and speeches by politicians and their representatives are not particularly relevant here. The Pertile source is already used in this article. Regarding the book Marwan Muasher, it actually proves my point, since Muasher actually says "Jordan—and most of the international community—" has always regarded these settlements as illegal...". Not "the international community", but "most of the international community". This source alone is enough to put the lie to the really poorly written first sentence.
 * Silver Seren, it would make more sense for you to actually do proper research on the subject, rather than just presenting the results of google searches that you have obviously only looked at in a very cursory way; but then again, it would make even more sense for you not to act as a proxy for a peanut gallery of cry-babies. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And then we have the BBC here and here and here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're already aware that the BBC has an explicit policy of trying to insert this claim into articles related to the settlements, but it's also not particularly relevant to this discussion. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, to explain exactly why the first sentence is confused, confusing, and poorly written, the issue here rests on the use of the phrase "international community", which is meaningless at best (as made clear by reliable sources). To use an analogy which I hope will clarify the problem, I could write an article on The Nuer (film) whose first sentence was: "The Neur is a beautiful film  about the Nuer people, released in 1971." Now, despite the fact that there are reliable sources (as cited) stating that The Nuer is a beautiful film, and there are "no reliable sources stating it is not a beautiful film", I think it would be evident to anyone familiar with policy why this is bad, un-encyclopedic writing - why the opening sentence would contradict both the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Made clear by reliable sources? Really? Sort of like "the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law" is made clear by reliable sources? Your analogy fails because you are, once again, falsely constructing what the "POV" is here, claiming that the "POV" is the "claim" that "the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law". That is not the "POV", the "POV" is "Israeli settlements are illegal under international law". That is what must be attributed, and we attribute it to who holds that view. Several reliable sources say that the group that holds that view is called "the international community". In you example the "POV" is "the film is beautiful". That is what must be attributed. And here we do that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, you aren't responding to the point being raised. You can find reliable sources stating all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean they are repeated in Wikipedia's voice. If "the international community says the settlements are illegal" is not an opinion, then what is it? A scientific fact, like the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second? Or is it simply THE TRUTH? Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Im not responding?!? I have asked several of you several questions, never receiving a response. I have asked Jay, several times, if he is able to find any sources that contradict the sentence. He has yet to respond. I have asked you, multiple times, how the sentence is not written in an impartial tone. You have yet to respond. What is the statement? A verifiable fact backed by a number of reliable sources and disputed by none. Which is what Wikipedia articles are supposedly built on. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Way to pat yourself on the back. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Plot Spoiler is not me, and I am not him. And you've assiduously avoided the point that there's no difference between stating in Wikipedia's voice "The Neur is a beautiful film" and "The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law" - both are opinions supported by reliable sources, and both are non-encyclopedic writing using unclear terms and stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice. If it's a "fact", then explain the equations or proofs that were used to establish it as fact - particularly in light of the reliable source that contradicts it. Here's a mathematical equation for you: "most of the international community" != "the international community". Would a Venn diagram help you understand the logic of why a part does not equal the whole? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BS, I have not avoided the "point", I have directly answered your analogy. Whereas you have ignored the direct questions asked of you several times. Would a repeat of the questions help you understand the point? Here, one more time: can you provide any reliable sources that dispute the sentence? and what about the sentence is not written in an impartial tone? and How exactly should the near unanimous consensus on this issue among states, multi-national organizations, non-state members of the "international community", be worded in the lead? The next time you accuse others of assiduously avoid[ing] the point you may want to ensure that you have not been the one doing so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, it has been pointed out to you numerous times, by more than one editor, that the questions you are asking are not relevant to the policy we are citing. I will also give an analogy so that you might better understand (the analogy Jayjg gave is perfectly fine, but you seem to have ignored its logic).
 * Let's say there is a gas explosion in a town called Sometown. A number of independent media sources, including the BBC, al-Jazeera and AFP, speak to a local resident and report that "George McIskandar, a local resident, said that he heard an explosion, and debris went flying everywhere". Now let's say that a user named Tfiduuyan created an article on George McIskandar with the text "George McIskandar is a resident of Sometown, who bore witness to a gas explosion in that town[1][2][3]".
 * Someone quickly speedy-tags the article, but User:Tfiduuyan removes the tag, arguing that there are numerous reliable sources that support the information, and challenges the speedy tagger to provide sources that dispute it.
 * Obviously that is not relevant, because the problem is notability, not WP:RS, and you are acting very much like this hypothetical User:Tfiduuyan. Please stop citing irrelevant policies when clearly the issue here is WP:NPOV, which the statement you wish to see in the article violates, as shows by several editors here.
 * Hopefully the above analogy will encourage you to respond to the valid concerns of the many users who have spent their valuable time posting in this discussion.
 * —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, have you actually read my responses? Several editors have indeed asserted that this sentence violates WP:NPOV, but each of them have neglected to answer repeated requests as to how. They have instead chosen to continue making the same unfounded claim. One is that the sentence violates that impartial tone requirement. Requests to explain that claim have gone unanswered. But the issue of reliable sources is directly related to the issue of the neutrality of the sentence, as I have repeatedly said, and your argument that one is independent of the other fails on a reading of even the first sentence of WP:NPOV. If there are no reliable sources that dispute the statement the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, then that statement is a neutral statement. It fairly, proportionately, and without bias describes a significant view as published by several reliable sources. But as much as I may have enjoyed your display of your short story writing abilities, I think it may be more productive if you actually answer the questions asked instead of waving them off as irrelevant. I ask them for a reason. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as I am tired of repeating myself over and over and being ignored, I will say it again: the statement violates NPOV because it is not clear, and each person could understand it differently; it gives conclusions on a question which has no simple answer. For example, the sentence implies that every single country in the world believes that settlements are illegal, which is probably not true. Statements by individual countries about what they think on this issue might have a place in the article, but nowhere close to the lead.
 * I think you are missing one important thing here: when you use a source, no matter how reliable, you must understand what it says. For example, I won't use a source in the Amharic language because I do not understand that language—no matter how much I believe (with the help of Google Translate or similar) that it supports my point of view. In the same way, you obviously can't explain what the statement you are using actually means. Therefore, please don't use it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your continued assertion that the sentence is non-neutral has no backing in policy. What exactly in WP:NPOV does this sentence violate and, more importantly, how does it do so. Of course you do not want what countries say about the legality of the settlements in the lead, because nearly every single one of them says they are illegal. As for your last paragraph, I do know what the source says, and I have already explained what the source says, so your accusation that I do knot is simply a falsehood. Kindly do not intentionally make false statements in the future. Thank you. The fact remains that no sources dispute what several eminently reliable sources say is a fact. The sentence is clear. But nobody has said how they would like to include the fact that the UN (SC, GA, ICJ, and other bodies), the ICRC, the high contracting parties of the Geneva Conventions, and nearly every single state on the planet considers settlements illegal under international law in the lead. Nobody has suggested how we should include that fact. My guess is that nobody has done so because they wish to confuse the reader into believing that there is a real controversy over the illegality of Israel's colonies, that this is an unsettled question with two arguments that each have equal standing. That the world, nearly without exception, doesnt actually agree that the settlements are illegal. So Yn, tell me, how would you include the fact that nearly every single competent party in the world considers settlements illegal in the lead? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that all you've got left Nableezy? Accusing me of being Jayjg? HahaHAAAAAA! Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you of being one another. And that is clearly not all that I have, as you have both once again refused to answer the questions posed to you. Once again: I have asked several of you several questions, never receiving a response. I have asked Jay, several times, if he is able to find any sources that contradict the sentence. He has yet to respond. I have asked you, multiple times, how the sentence is not written in an impartial tone. You have yet to respond. As for Jay's question, I am not required to prove anything here. Wikipedia does not require that the facts that reliable sources report be proven by editors, it in fact discourages that. The proof is that there are several verifiable reliable sources that give this as a fact. On Wikipedia that makes it a fact. But since you are asking a mathematics question, the answer "all of the international community" is within the set of answers of "what is most of the international community". Either way, the fact remains that you have been unable to locate any sources that dispute that the international community considers settlements illegal under international law. You have instead attempted to perform a convoluted analysis of the content of the reliable sources in a misguided attempt at proving that they are wrong. Even if that were the case, and it is not, Wikipedia remains concerned with verifiability, not truth, and this remains a verifiable (in fact verified) sentence supported by several reliable sources with none disputing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayg, the BBC editorial policy on this issue is in fact highly relevant to this discussion since the BBC is a reliable source for the statement. As to the "Neur" analogy, of course, the statement would be that "The Neur is considered a great film by the cinematographical community" and as long as the statement is sourced, no-one need boggle ones mind over whether there might be someone who considers himself a member of that community who disagrees. Similarly, "Congress" may pass legislation despite lack of unanimity and "legal experts" may be of the opinion that a certain tax maneuver is illegal. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Money Laundering allegations
IE money raised to fund illegal settlements illegal under US laws. Couple WP:RS on that topic: UN related; the Forward; USA Today. FYI. CarolMooreDC 10:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing original research
I'm removing the opinion of Françoise Bouchet-Saulnier in The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law since he doesn't "reject" the argument that Article 49 applies to Israeli settlements.VR talk  06:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Moving opposite claims
Mass Expulsion in Modern International Law and Practice actually says that even voluntary settlements are illegal under 49(6).

David Kretzmer, in "The Advisory Opinion: The Light Treatment of International Humanitarian Law", agrees that settlement are illegal whether voluntarily populated or not, and concludes "Be this as it may, the Court was on firm ground in deciding that by establishing settlements on the West Bank, the State of Israel had violated Article 49(6)."

These statements should belong in the Endorsement section.VR talk  06:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

ICRC statement of 4 Nov. 2012 and Levy Report
Hi. I think adding a short paragraph about the Levy Report might be in order, even though it is not Israeli government approved (yet), as it engendered an unusually straight forward statement by the ICRC (see ). Any objections? Ajnem (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

GA resolutions citations
We need a citation for GA voting that the settlements are illegal. Presumably there are press sources with summaries, but alternatively everything can be found by at http://un.org. For example: Basically one such resolution per year back to the mid 1990s at least. Zerotalk 12:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A/RES/67/120 (18 Dec 2012) Yes: 169, No: 6, Abstentions: 5, Non-Voting: 13, Total voting membership: 193
 * A/RES/66/78 (9 Dec 2011) Yes: 162, No: 7, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 20, Total voting membership: 193
 * A/RES/65/104 (10 Dec 2010) Yes: 169, No: 6, Abstentions: 3, Non-Voting: 14, Total voting membership: 192

Sentence properly marked "dubious"
This needs fixing before replacement: "Jordan's territorial claims of East Jerusalem territory were not recognized by any country, with possible exception of the United Kingdom acknowledging. " There is an obvious imbalance between the mention of Jordan and the non-mention of Israel, when the same statement applies just as much to Israel. This is unacceptable. The source is also insufficient as it applies only to the UK; but even that much is misrepresented since the source takes exactly the same position (de facto but not de jure recognition) to both East and West Jerusalem. Zerotalk 12:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Arguments based on property rights and private ownership" needs attention
"On January 30, 2009, the Associated Press reported that Israeli political group Yesh Din plans to use a classified Israeli Government database to prove that many West Bank Israeli settlements were built on land privately owned by Palestinian citizens without compensation.[116]"

It is unclear to me how this article from 2009 purporting the plans of an organization to use information to do such and such is still relevant. 5 years down the line the organisation should have taken the purported actions and this paragraph should be updated with the new, more relevant information on what the organisation did, what its claims are and based on what evidence. If no such action has been undertaken by the organisation, or the claims are unsubstantiated or invalid then this paragraph should be removed entirely. ~ Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.109.67 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

UN SC Res 242
I am not sure of how to do edits (and welcome any advice or a referral to any instructions page).

The article includes this unreferenced text:

Contrary to this view other legal scholars have argued that under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the only common sense interpretation of UNSC 242 is that Israel must withdraw from all of the territory captured in 1967, as any interpretation permitting the extension of sovereignty by conquest would violate the relevant governing principle of international law as emphasized in the preambular statement, i.e., "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" as established through the abolition of the right of conquest by the League of Nations following World War I.

It includes: "the only common sense interpretation of UNSC 242 is that Israel must withdraw from all of the territory captured in 1967..."

However, not only is there an alternative common sense interpretation, every single AUTHOR of UN SC Res 242 has stated clearly multiple times that it absolutely does NOT mean that Israel must withdraw from "all" the territories but that the extent of withdrawal must be negotiated.

I am thinking about leaving it since it says ""other legal scholars" have said this, but adding a section in which the alternative view is included. What do you think? affinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the alternative view is presented immediately above the snippet you cite above, i.e. the cited snippet is "contrary to" the view you mention. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on International law and Israeli settlements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120930060148/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212451798&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212451798&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120930060244/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418626339&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418626339&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 04:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal arguments
Giving the opposing views equal weighting in this instance is in violation of NPOV given that there is a consensus position which Israel and several legal scholars dispute. 10:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There is also an egregious example of OR and tendentious misrepresentation of the source that Soosim has asked me to restore to the article under the 1rr regulations. If no-one else does it first I will delete it again tomorrow. Dlv999 (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Those are some of the worst misrepresentations I've ever seen in ARBPIA. Thanks for spotting them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that under international law these settlements are illegal. They are probably unlawful under Israeli law as well. Of course Israel will never accept that. However to suggest that there is any dispute over legality is incorrect.  That is even more POV than saying that there an argument over whether the Holocaust ever occurred, and giving equal weight to arguments for and against.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "There is no doubt that under international law these settlements are illegal" - ignorant garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International law and Israeli settlements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.fmep.org/reports/special-reports/israels-uncertain-victory-in-jerusalem/europe-affirms-support-for-a-corpus-separatum-for-greater-jerusalem
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309150217/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/89C006EAF4E7FCF585256DEA007480FE to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/89C006EAF4E7FCF585256DEA007480FE
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/61DocT4xh?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ohchr.org%2Fenglish%2Flaw%2Fcerd.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/secret-memo-shows-israel-knew-six-day-war-was-illegal-450410.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on International law and Israeli settlements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204104301/http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal2.shtml to http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal2.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614203022/http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_data/docs/2004/12/22/%7B3FA161D9-6DA6-408F-85CE-20D0EC68DDFF%7D.pdf to http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_data/docs/2004/12/22/%7B3FA161D9-6DA6-408F-85CE-20D0EC68DDFF%7D.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221203359/http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf to http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221203359/http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf to http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915102140/http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml to http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on International law and Israeli settlements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517152912/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/f3b95e613518a0ac85256eeb00683444?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/f3b95e613518a0ac85256eeb00683444?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2018
In the section describing Israel's view regarding the illegality of the settlements, there is a word in bold:

Under this reasoning the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits forced population transfers, something that Israel is not engaged in since Jewish settlers move to the disputed territories on an individual, voluntary basis.

This emphasis should be removed. BeŻet (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  13:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Camera blob
"According to the argument, the last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which stipulated the right of the Jewish people to settle in the whole of the Mandated territory. According to Article 6 of the Mandate, 'close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use' was to be encouraged. Article 25 allowed the League Council to temporarily postpone the Jewish right to settle in what is now Jordan, if conditions were not amenable. Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying, 'nothing in the [United Nations] Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.'" Camera can't be used. Find an updated scholarly work that makes this argument, and something like this passage may be restored.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Department of Justice
Note that this article doesn't include the position of the U.S. during the second Bush administration. Consider the following memo from Jack Goldsmith here. He summarizes his opinion as follows: "Based on these considerations, we advised that article 49 did not prohibit the proposed voluntary relocation." Perhaps he doesn't believe that Article 49 applies to Israeli settlements. What this means for this Wikipedia article is another matter. What does the memo mean for Dept. of Justice's opinion? What does a DOJ position mean for general US policy- (DOJ vs. State Dept)? Also note that the context of the memo was Iraq. Perhaps any inference of the memo to Israel policy would be "original research" and not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Netziv (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not necessary per WP:Undue weight, aside from, as you remark, WP:OR. Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case, it is perhaps not what they say but what they do that counts? https://cmep.org/issues/settlements/statements-us-govt-officials/ In practice, whatever was said, was never enforced so in that sense, Trump is no different than the rest, just that he has allowed more than the rest (even before the recent statement).Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2019
Please change: This opinion, "has neither been revoked or revised",[61] remains the policy of the United States,[62] and has been stated by Secretary of State John Kerry,[63] The Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter,[64] and Obama administrations all publicly characterized the settlements as illegal. to: Most of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the United States and Israeli governments dispute this.

because of this official U.S. policy change: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50468025 Blueflashmakom (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Correcting, thank you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes
you have crossed 1RR, and you appear to be adding information without adding sources to back it up. Please self-revert, and explain your edits here, both those to the lede and to the United States section. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you please indicate what your objection is. An opening sentence “The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, violating Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949” indicates, to me, a prejudgment of the issue and reflects a bias. A thousand people saying that the settlements are illegal does not make it so. Here there is a difference of opinion, even if the opposing view is by one entity, in this case Israel and perhaps the US. This should be reflected in the opening statement.


 * As for the changing US position, the initial changes I have made reflect what the sources really say, which is that the settlements are an “obstacle to peace”, and not illegal. The rest has been to update the US position under Trump.Enthusiast01 (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have breached 1RR, you need to self revert and then discuss, not the other way around.Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A thousand reliable sources saying the international community considers the settlements illegal does in fact make it so on Wikipedia, and a user's personal view on the importance or lack thereof of the US position does not invalidate that. This article is not on the US position. And even if it were, sources that cover the US change still say the settlements are widely considered illegal, eg BBC, or USA Today (The international community overwhelmingly considers the settlements illegal.) This article is not about the United States or its position, and overwhelming the lead of the article with such trivia violates WP:DUE. The sources continue to support that the international community considers settlements illegal under international law. Updating the section on the US is great, and I've moved some of these changes down there. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Exceptional claim
The claim that every government considered the settlements to be illegal is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and therefore requires several very high quality sources. Current source only supports that BBC reported British government having said that. It's quite a tall order to prove that every single UN member (and non UN-member, for that matter) held this official position. Without very good sources supporting such an extraordinary claim, you can't make it in WP voice. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Change it back to BBC, no-one cares anyway. Merry Xmas.Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine too. I'm sure we could find multiple sources saying this, but I'd rather spend my time elsewhere at this point. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Happy Hanukkah. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2020
In 2013 The High Court of Appeals in Versailles ruled that Israel was the legal occupier of The West Bank. In doing so, the court sided with many of the arguments long made against the blanket application of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions to Israeli settlements. This is the only legal judgement regarding the issue that was conducted with due process. Jplevene (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ First, a French municipal court has no standing in international law. Second, a blog post by someone who admits to having limited French is definitely not a reliable source. Third, your summary is mostly your opinion (for example, the source does not mention due process) and your opinion is not eligible for adding to the article. Fourth (though this is not one of the reasons for rejecting this proposal), the settlement enterprise is not the sum total of private movements of people, but is centrally organized and richly funded by the Israeli government. Zerotalk 07:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I have looked into this before, the ruling (which is in French) was (and apparently still is) being misused and misinterpreted to serve Israeli propaganda purposes.(Kontorovich = be warned).Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Does Israel accept the Geneva Conventions?
In section 4, "Legal arguments", in the first para, I think the article seems to contradict itself. Is it correct that Israel does not regard the Geneva Conventions as part of customary international law (as stated in the first sentence)? OR Does it yes regard the Geneva Conventions as part of customary International Law, but not agree that they apply to the particular circumstances of the West Bank (as implied in the second sentence)? It seems to me that the first sentence (though cited) is inaccurate, and that the second sentence is correct. This should be fixed. I'm happy to do so but not permitted by WikipediaNatspigs (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll fix it up in a little while. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking a little longer than thought, the difficulty is that since Israel did not incorporate the treaty provisions in its domestic law, the Israeli courts essentially ignore it and only enforce the parallel (customary) Hague regulations. Result that Israel is bound to comply with a treaty that it ratified but Israeli courts do not enforce it so the sourced statement could be taken as correct (I don't myself know if there are any other countries in this position but we need to respect the source unless there is a good reason not to.) So it seems that it is not a case of either/or but both.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The most succinct answer is:'Since 1951 Israel has been a party to the Geneva conventions of 1949, which are therefore binding on the country. However, Israel is not party to the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention of 1977'. It is also true, as pointed out, that the Israeli Court's interpretations of national law systematically ignore what the 1949 convention's clear intent was.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I vaguely recall it being explained that Israel does not accept the GC as legally binding but is applying them as a form of "courtesy" to the Palestinians. In practice meaning that Israel applies the provisions of the GC it finds convenient but ignores the others. Im The IP  (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Geneva Conventions are part and parcel of International Law, and whether a nation subscribes to them nor not, they remain legally binding at that level. In practice, since Zionism cannot function in terms of international law, a labyrinthine political and, at the national level, legal set of complications in terms of Supreme Court rulings that tacitly step around what they know to be international law, confuses things, esp. by national(ist) tweakings that establish interpretative readings of those laws which in turn feed back into the legal discussions, so that to contest Israeli practices at that level would require that the plaintiff challenge the legitimacy of Israeli Supreme Court interpretations successfully in such a way that the latter would be brought to heel as the result of a clarifying set of amendments to the provisions of the 1949 law Israel formally subscribes to. Since this hasn't happened, everything runs smoothly forward. You can see this, in exemplary fashion, in any number of points, such as the use of torture.  Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It may be true, I haven't checked, that IsGov/IDF/whoever are in practice implementing some provisions but that means nothing to the courts who want legislative backing for their pronouncements and would only appeal elsewhere in extremis. In any case, they are doing nothing about the most flagrant breaches and certainly nothing about the settlements, which is the subject of this article. So victims of the breaches have no recourse within the Israeli system except to the extent that Hague or something else grants it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is precisely what I was arguing, so perhaps I did not make myself clear. Only third parties, Palestinian or otherwise, by seeking an clarifying amendment in law, as did occur in the ICJ ruling of 2004, which swept away all ambiguity. This did not change things, of course. Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, I was just responding to ImtheIP comment, not disagreeing with you.(I notice you indented me as if I was replying to you but I was replying to ImtheIP, so I put it back, am I not doing it right, lol?)Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. My error stems either from old timer's disease or the attention deficit syndrome accompanying some forms of senility.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)