Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/Archive 8

Education data are impossible. Less than 1 in 4 Israelis continue school after age 14?
The statements comparing education levels of West Bank Palestinians and Israelis, quoting sources from 40 years ago, appear false on their face. The article says that 45 percent of Palestinian children in the West Bank but only half as many Israelis are enrolled in school at ages 15 to 17, despite slightly higher Israeli enrollment at earlier ages. This makes absolutely no sense considering the university attendance rates, per capita incomes, literacy and economic development levels of the two populations.

Education in Israel page says Israel has compulsory education through 12th grade, 85% attain a secondary schooling diploma and 49% a post secondary diploma.

The sources for the strangely low percentages of Israeli school attendance are not online and if there is no way to verify what is really said there and extract the correct data, the claims should be removed. The Palestinian data could be correct, but if the sources do make the ridiculous claims about the Israeli numbers, they are unreliable anyway. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but you should repass tenses in the English verb system. The data and context refer to the 1960s. The book states that compared to both Israel and Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza had more students going on to study in the 15-17 year old group. Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The comparison is highly suspect for any time period, as it goes in the opposite direction to all available indicators of human capital and socioeconomics. Israel in the 1960s had a nuclear program and universities at the level of Western Europe, which does not happen in places where less than 1 in 4 people attending high school (sans giant population from which to skim the cream, something Israel did not have; in any case no advancements of this kind existed in the West Bank or Jordan).  Something is off in the data or the interpretation.  Since you apparently have access to one of the sources cited, a longer direct quotation or an upload to Wikisource would be useful for clarifying what it actually says. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A search for the insertion of those numbers in the article, shows that... you wrote the entire article, including the paragraph in question, and have made 44.6 percent of the edits (413 yours), which coincidentally is the same percentage of West Bank residents said to attend school. Maybe cough up some more details on what the sources say?  Probably this article is just a POVFORK of other material, in which case DELEEET!!! may be in order, but in case not, it's worth fixing instances of clear nonsense.  It's hard to believe the source (or its sources) define schooling in the same way in Israel and WB to arrive at the stated figures.  If it's really comparing apples to apples as the article purports, extremely unlikely to be correct.
 * Just going from what is now in that section, Israel economy was 10 times the size of the West Bank's with only 4 times the population (2.8 M in 1967). So presumably about twice as wealthy in some quantifiable sense. The Israel population was predominantly Jewish immigrants, who in virtually every country of origin (including Europe and particularly the Arab countries) had higher levels of education than the rest of the population, and most from places with more advanced education systems than the West Bank or Jordan.  But the article would have us believe that despite these facts, secondary education of Israelis was at half the rate of the West Bank.  Citation (contents) needed! Sesquivalent (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are asking me to confirm a citation of data already questioned by editors in the past, who were surprised by the data, but accepted that the source was way above the RS quality high bar. I think I even quoted a paragraph. Here it is again:-
 * "In comparison with both Israel and Jordan, the West bank and Gaza seem to have a favourable educational basis. The age group 6-11 shows a higher participation rate in Israel (84,4) than in the West Bank (80,5) but, in the group 15-17 years of age, the percentage in the West Bank is considerably higher than in Israel, 44,6 compared to 22.8 in Israel.' p.48"
 * The source is impeccable - economists using Israeli, UN, and Jordanian official data. Your questioning of the eminently strong source is based on a set of hunches, clichés, personal opinions and generalizations out of nowhere, so I don't need to answer. By the way 'deleeet' orthographically should be 'deleeete'. Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The source is partisan, the claim is extremely dubious, and does not gain in plausibility when you are vague about what else the book says and the location of those prior Talk discussions where the matter was supposedly settled. What is this mysterious "participation rate" they speak of and how is it measured?
 * Here's some genuine Israeli official data. For Jewish 14 to 17 year olds: 62% in school (primary or postprimary) in 1966/7 academic year, 60% for 1961/2, plus an estimated 5 to 7.5% in religious or other schools not inspected by the government.  Let's say 67% overall for "the 1960's".  The non Jewish part of the population was not large enough or different enough in its education rates to lower the percentage for all of Israel below the upper 50's.  Any plausible true number is at least twice the absurd 23% percent claimed in the source and higher than the "participation rate" they give for the West Bank.  At ages 14, 15 and 16 a majority of people are in school and at age 17 it drops to 37% (plus some unknown number in the uninspected schools).
 * Source is Table 6, p. 198 of Society, Schools and Progress in Israel (1969, Pergamon Press) by Aaron F. Kleinberger, education professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The data are cited to: (Israel's) Central Bureau of Statistics,Bulletin of Educational Statistics(in Hebrew), No. 10 (1965), 245-46; Statistical Abstract of Israel 15 (1964), p. 512; ibid., 18 (1967),532 . The estimated number in non inspected schools appears on p.196 and 197. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Sesquivalent that something is wrong here. 22.8% participation for Israeli kids is impossibly low. Unfortunately I can't read that page of the source, but I'll make a guess: the figure is for Arab students in Israel, not all students. To correct the problem, let's start by finding recent sources. The source in the article is more than 40 years old and Sesquivalent's sources are even older. Much has changed in 40 years. There is recent data for Israel here but it is hard to interpret and I don't see anything about the West Bank. Probably the West Bank is covered by UN sources pretty well. Zerotalk 01:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Kleinberger book (p.197) says "school attendance rates per every 1000 Arab adolescents aged 14-17 in 1966/7 were as low as 228 (including 76 in primary education)-- as compared with 620 per every 1000 Jews of corresponding age", which does equal 22.8%.
 * I too do not see the use of highlighting West Bank education rates pre 1967. And   comparing them to Israel seems irrelevant to the article.  Sesquivalent (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course what Kleinberger didn't know, is that the Shin Bet director from 1953-1963 advised the government that an educated Israeli Arab was a dangerous thing, and low education was a net positive for Israel's internal security. Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that comparison of Arab to Jewish students is at most marginally relevant, but a comparison of Arab students inside and outside the Green Line is highly relevant. Figures for around the time of the occupation and modern figures would both be good. Zerotalk 12:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's drop silly branding language like 'partisan'. Elias Tuma comes from an Israeli Christian Arab background, and is emeritus professor of Economic History at Davis. Haim Darin-Drabkin, now deceased (1979) was a Jewish Israeli and Director of the Institute for Land Resource Planning in Tel Aviv. The source is excellent, the credentials impeccable. But, as we know, even experts nod at times, and when they do appear to do so, we search for very good sources that deal with the same crux, and yield different results. Until we have ascertained a superior source, we retain the original text.
 * We can't incidentally query Darin-Drabkin, but we can certainly try to drop a brief line to the much younger Elias Tuma (his email is available here. I myself can't use it since I don't have outlook. Zero?
 * The details of the educational level in the West Bank will, whatever the result of our research, remain a valid piece for the article. If the Israeli comparison proves to be inaccurate, that can be adjusted by other sources. We use comparison throughout for the simple reason that the article deals with an occupying power, and an occupied people. Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem behind those statistics may reflect the fact that there were major differences in the two educational systems. The Jordanian system in the West Bank imposed a compulsory 12 years of education for the young, and it was free. In Israel in the 1960s, free government education was provided at primary school level, after which things got chaotic. Secondary education was financed by tuition fees, private organizations, and, under various criteria, from special government grants, and the schools were highly differentiated in function and curricula. (a) Academic schools had a 4 year curriculum, basically though 2/3 year courses were occasionally provided for secondary school vocational students. (b) Vocational and agricultural schools had 3/4 year curricula, where the teaching focused on trades, dressmaking, carpentering and the like. These were highly geared to getting young adolescents into the emerging industrial workforce. Israel again had a differential approach to the educational platforms catering to Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.
 * There were in 1965-1966 660,938 Jewish students vs 72,096 Arab students
 * Of these Jewish students 85,541 were in kindergarten,395,901 in primary school; 11,316 were in special schools for handicapped kids, and 4,374 were for working youth.


 * In the secondary school system there were
 * 49,628 students enrolled in 167 schools (out of 4,627 overall);
 * 21 schools with a secondary evening system for, 2,456 students
 * 129 schools providing continuation classes for 6,554 students
 * 187 vocational schools with 31,239 students
 * 28 agricultural schools catering for 10,951
 * 56 teacher training colleges for 10,542 students
 * There were 57 other secondary schools fo1,422 students
 * There were 22,335 students attending higher education course in schools for which data was unavailable
 * And 28,669 registered at other institutions (i.e.yeshiva,heder etc.) for which no data was available.


 * There were for Arab Israelis 353 schools catering to 72,096 students
 * I51 provided kindergarten care for 7,845 kids
 * 181 were primary schools for 49,349 students
 * 1 school existed for 7 handicapped kid
 * 5 schools catered to 213 working youths
 * 8 secondary schools provided education for 1,558 students
 * 4 gave vocational training to 217 students
 * 1 provided agricultural training for 93 students
 * There was 1 teacher's training college with 143 students enrolled.
 * 1 other type of school for secondary education existed for some 33 students
 * And 12,638 Arab students received some secondary formation in other institutions for which no data was known.
 * Source. Morris Pollak, Labor Law and Practice in Israel, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 1967 p.20
 * I suspect that this official Israeli data breakdown is the basis for the statistics we find in Tumas and Darin-Drabkin. Someone better at math than I can check those statistics against the above. The word 'number' for me usually refers to my state of mind after I've had several drinks.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All I can get from this, if I have transcribed the figures corrected is
 * 1964-1966
 * Israeli Arabs in school . Total = 72,096
 * Israeli Arabs in secondary schools
 * 12638+ 1558+217+ 93 + 143+ 33=14,682
 * 14682 as a percentage of 72096 =20.36%


 * Israeli Jews in school. Total = 660,541
 * Israeli Jews in secondary schools
 * 49628+ 2456+ 6554+31239+10951+10542+1422+22335+28669=163796
 * 163796 as a percentage of 660541 =24.8%
 * No doubt this only proves I can't count, or transcribe a table that was difficult to read in the linked source. But the figures I get from Pollak, if I have transcribed them correctly, are =24.8 for Israeli secondary schoolers, two points higher than the the figure given by the Tumas-Drabkin source. Even with my liability to error, the calculations happen to arrive at a similar figure. The divergence, if correct, can be explained as a transcription error of dittography, very frequent, writing 22 for 24.The .8% indicates that we are dealing with the same source figure base.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have any opinion on the broader discussion, but I think you might have made a few errors here; you need to omit the secondary students from the denominator in order to avoid double counting, and you need to adjust for the number of years students spend in secondary compared to pre-secondary education (4:9, per your source) - applying these modifications to your figures gives a result of 74.8% for Jewish Israeli's and 57.5% for Arab Israeli's.
 * However, these figures also cannot be relied on, as I think there are a few misclassified institutions. "Other institutions" include both primary and secondary for both Jewish Israeli's and Arab Israeli's, and so cannot be applied to either. Schools for "Working youth" are applied to secondary education for Arab Israeli's, and primary for Jewish Israeli's - it seems likely they should both be applied to secondary. Schools for "Handicapped kids" are applied to primary education, but are likely to cover both primary and secondary education. "Higher education" is applied to secondary education, but higher education typically means post-secondary, and the term is not clarified here; "Teacher's training colleges" are likely to also mean post-secondary education, not secondary.
 * I also believe that adults are included outside of the post-secondary institutions; vocational education is stated to include some 1000 adults at ASC alone, mostly in the evening - this would also suggest that "secondary evening" consists entirely of adults.
 * To pull a single number out of all of this would require more assumptions than I am comfortable making, but perhaps someone better versed in education in the country and the relevant period would be able to do so? In any case, I hope this will prove helpful. BilledMammal (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To get a percentage the denominator has to include everything, including what is in the numerator. That is not double-counting. Otherwise the percentages will add up to more than 100%. Zerotalk 10:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If we were trying to get the percentage of students in secondary education out of all students, then you would be correct, but we are not; we are trying to get the percentage of students who proceed from pre-secondary to secondary education as a proxy for the number of 15 to 17 year olds in secondary education out of all 15 to 17 year olds.
 * Imagine a school system that is balanced in the number of secondary and pre-secondary years; if all students proceed from pre-secondary to secondary, we would expect to receive a figure of 100%, but using the method above we would only receive 50%. BilledMammal (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Zerotalk 11:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The idea that because one is unable to find a source online that makes it so that the material is questionable is directly contradicted by our policies. If you cant find the source online, go to a library. Nobody needs to make that effort for you however.  nableezy  - 19:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The actual idea is that when a hard to verify source makes an extraordinary, seemingly ridiculous claim, we don't take it at face value, and apply WP:ECREE. I did "go to a library", the online kind, to find other material which appears to conclusively refute what is now stated in the article.  The only remaining issue is whether the bogus material was in the disputed source at all, i.e., does the book (written by two Israelis, who would know well the true facts) really assert that 23 percent of all Israelis go beyond primary school in the 1960s?  It does look like we pinpointed the source of their number and that it's about Israeli Arabs but it seems just as inconceivable that the authors didn't make this distinction as that they claimed Israel has half the secondary education rate of the West Bank (pre 67). Sesquivalent (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not hard to verify. I have a copy. An enormous quantity of RS are not online. Of course if you think I am a liar, deliberately distorting the book's content, I can't answer that. I've provided the precise data in English for Israeli education in the year 1965-6, with a further source. I have linked it for independent verification; I have even transcribe bed Table 6 on p.20, All the relevant data is there, and if the two Israeli scholars have made an incorrect inference, or if their presentation of that data is flawed, or the statistical methodology that yields them that figure can be challenged, the mathematician here will tell us. The material again is not 'bogus' you contest the figure of 22% for Israel, nothing else. If 22% refers to Arabs in Israel, the error would have been to use Israel for ( 'Israeli Arabs' then we add Israeli Arabs in Israel compared to Arabs in the West Bank. Let us wait for someone with better abilities than I in math to look at this.Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion thus far is about your source and not you. As far as the second is concerned, yes, it looks like you are trying to keep this source specifically in the article for its wording about a "favourable educational basis" (compared even to Israeli Jews!) and as support for your larger SYNTHed narrative, about the supposed value of education to Palestinian Arabs and their heroic upholding of such in the face of ZOG.  But if the source makes blatantly false, patently ridiculous claims that do not pass the smell test for anyone loosely familiar with the matter, as several editors have now tried to inform you is the case, then it can be discounted.
 * So the point now is to understand if the source really makes the ridiculous claim, and that is a question you should be able to easily answer by reading the sections of the book immediately before and after the quoted part. If it does, it is a garbage source for any educational statistic about Israel and probably any place else.  If, as is probable, the book does say or imply that the numbers pertain to Israeli Arabs, then source is OK, but the language about all of Israel and all Israelis must be changed.
 * No special competence is needed except for you to look at the book and tell us, or quote, the answer to this simple question. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The source is on its face reliable, and if youd like to challenge it then do that elsewhere. Youve now had multiple editors confirm the source says what the article says it says. You being unable to find the source on the internet is a personal problem, one that does not require anybody here to do anything to help you solve. There had, up until this rant, been no mention of a ZOG, or a heroic upholding, and if you want to carry on with such histrionics then kindly do it on a blog or somewhere more suited to such behavior. If you cant find a book then maybe go to an actual library. You may even need to, gasp, ask a librarian to help with a resource exchange. Nobody needs to coddle you here, and that you think something is ridiculous is cool but, as with most personal opinions, not something anybody else has to care about. Thanks in advance for not abusing this talk page further.  nableezy  - 14:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I quoted, at your request the relevant section, and you are still repeating you cannot verify it, ergo?
 * Let's stick to Morris Pollak's figures. I have linked the source for you, you can independently verify there on p.20 if I have transcribed the table for schooling in Israel 1965-6 correctly. Then you can independently add up the figures and find out if my calculation above from Morris Pollak, which appears to be close (24.8%) to the figure Tumas-Drabkin stated (22.8%) is correct or not. Do that. If you come up with similar results, then Pollak is reliable for the figure, and Tumas-Drabkin for the comparison. 22.8 or 24.8 compared to 44.6 would still be a relevant contrast. (The 2% difference may even reflect a methodological exclusion of some secondary schooling in Israel as not relevant to an integrated school curriculum of the Jordanisn type, which appears not to have had the extremely varied forms characteristic of Israel's secondary school system. I dunno). A further point is that Tumas-Drabkin isolate a specific age group  15-17, whereas Pollak's figures refer not to age, but to school type, so they probably had access to another source using age as a criterion. Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is a mess and lots of the arguments made here are comparing avocados to cucumbers. To start with, the source that none of us are able to see concerns the fraction of kids of the right age group who are attending school. That is quite different from the fraction of school kids who are in secondary school. Neither can be inferred from the other. One thing to know is that "secondary school" in Israel (at least in the 1960s) means years 10–12 which is only 1/4 of years 1–12. So the fraction of school students who are in secondary school at any moment cannot ever be larger than 25% in a steady-state situation. So a number like 44.6% is impossible with that interpretation. The only interpretation which is plausible is the fraction of 15–17 year olds who are in school. That cannot be calculated just from school population. Zerotalk 06:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Here are 1967 statistics collected by Israel. Note that it refers to what education adults had, not what kids were in school. Zerotalk 06:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll simplify the thread.
 * The text has a source by two Israeli economists who made an age group comparison of school attendance for 15-17 year olds in Israel and the West Bank.
 * The source of their information was The Statistical Abstracts of the State of Israel (Tuma and Drabkin p.123)
 * One datum was attacked as per se outrageous (22.8%), at first, without any contra-evidential basis, then on the basis of inferences from Kleinberger.
 * I responded by transcribing the source which is written by competent economists, and reliably published. I have a copy of the said work, published by Croom Helm.
 * I provided a secondary source, Pollak, who worked for the US Bureau of Labour, with full transcription of his table, which is based upon the Statistical Abstract of Israel 1966, Central Bureau of Statistics (Israel) Jerusalem 1966  pp.585-587.
 * An analysis of Pollak showed that he gave the figure of 24.8% for Israeli Jewish secondary schoolers. This source is linked. It is reliably published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Anyone should be able to read it.
 * I am aware statistics can be questioned, though here three experts who differ by a margin of 2 percentage points (which does not alter the contrast in profile of 22.8/24.8% for the latter compared to 44.6 for WB 15.17 year old schoolers).
 * I noted one possible problem, now Zero highlights, that:-
 * "A further point is that Tumas-Drabkin isolate a specific age group 15-17, whereas Pollak's figures refer not to age, but to school type, so they probably had access to another source using age as a criterion"
 * But we are challenging two standard RS sources by 3 competent analysts.
 * I asked for Pollak's figures to be reviewed, because they yield a statistically marginal difference to those provided by Tumas.Drabkin. No one has replied so far.Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the interpretation of Pollack's figures above and found a few issues with the calculations, but I am hesitant to produce my own answer as the number of assumptions required would make it very inaccurate. If it helps, I have found this from the World Bank. It's not perfect; it starts in '73, and it is gross, not net, so it will include adult students studying at a secondary level, but it might be useful to indicate whether Tuma and Darin-Drabkin made a mistake or not.
 * On the topic of that source, I have been able to access it, and can confirm it is as Nishidani transcribed, and further that there is no other relevant context that could adjust the meaning. Incidentally, I would like to express my disappointment here; once they confirmed that they interpreted the source correctly, that should have been the end of that line of discussion; if there were further doubts, the right place to go would be WP:RX to ask a third party to have a look at the document. BilledMammal (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * once they confirmed that they interpreted the source correctly *ding ding ding, we have a winner*.  nableezy  - 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nish, I think that you missed a datum in Pollak that is directly comparable. At the start of page 20: "During the period 1963–64, 27 percent of the secondary age group (14 to 18) attended schools at this level. However, 33 percent of this age group were in the primary grades of the schools for 'working youth'." Presumably the first number was on the way up; the second I can't guess. Now Google has suddenly decided to show me those pages of Tuma and Darin-Drabkin. I see a problem with a related claim on that page: "According to the 1967 census figures, ...among the adult population, fifteen years of age and above, 70.8 per cent received one to eight years of schooling, while 29 per cent had more than nine years of schooling." The census data is here and it is possible to see where those numbers come from. Unfortunately, they come from a misreading of the table. First the adults who had attended school at all (in the WB, 63.2% of men and 25.7% of women) are each rescaled to 100% and then that 100% is split according to the amount of schooling. T&D-D, or their source if they didn't access the Arabic original themselves, apparently didn't notice the rescaling. I get 31% and 13% respectively. I'll try to find the census data for students in the younger age group. Zerotalk 11:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all irrelevant to the dispute about the source in the article. Calculations from other tabulations in other secondary sources cannot possibly refute Kleinberger's numbers because their data are drawn from the same place as his.  Nobody has enumerated the exact national school enrollments except the Israeli government, which published it in only one or two places, so if Kleinberger has copied those figures into his book, that is authoritative  (barring typos), and no calculations on other pieces of the same data set are going to reach dramatically different conclusions.
 * The issue, once again, is whether Tuma and Drabkin in their book state or imply that the 22.8% number, and thus their "favourable basis" comparison, pertains to Israeli Arabs and not Israelis in general. We know that it must be so from Kleinberger's data, but cannot use his book to "cure" the Tuma/Drabkin source so as to SYNTH a correct claim using their language (which would be disinformation and no longer RS if two Israelis in a position to know better really made the crazy assertion that West Bank rates of high school attendance were twice Israel's).Sesquivalent (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I must not have been clear enough above; I have access to Tuma and Darin-Drabkin, and can confirm that it is as Nishidani says, though of course I can't confirm whether T&D are correct. Zero also has access to the relevant sections, though they have focused on other paragraphs of that page, and if you need a third opinion I'm sure they can also confirm this.
 * While here, I will note that I think Kleinberger has been misinterpreted; their figures for the education rates of secondary-age Arab-Israeli's include both those in secondary education, and those in primary education; the figure for secondary would appear to be 228 less 76, or 152 out of 1000. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nishidani didn't say whether the book specifies Arabs or Israelis (or is ambiguous) and the textual accuracy of his quotation was not in doubt. If you are saying there is no way to tell if they are talking about Arabs or all Israelis (or worse, that they specify the latter) that would be utterly astonishing; any resident of Israel would know that 23 percent is a whopping underestimate, and the absurdity of a figure half the West Bank's. Zero's sudden access to the text revealed further botched statistics in the same section of the book, and the authors also changed the age ranges compared to Kleinberger and presumably the government abstract.  Whether that is sloppiness to the point of unreliability with any statistics, terrible editing, words lost in translation, or some bizarre deliberate falsification, this appears not to be a reliable source. I have only read one review of the book, but that one described it as a work of optimism oddly detached from basic realities on the ground.
 * "High school" is not a misinterpretation (or any interpretation at all) of Kleinberger, it is a shorthand for the shared context of a discussion of "14 (or 15) to 17 years old rates of ...". Whatever comparisons hold or fail to hold concerning large differences in any of these indicators will be the same for the others even if the precise numbers are different.    Sesquivalent (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To be (hopefully) clear: Above, Nishidani quotes a paragraph from the book. That quote is accurate, and the surrounding paragraphs provide no additional information or context on the topic of Israeli education rates.
 * In regards to the Kleinberger figures I was mistaken; I thought we were discussing 15-17 year olds in secondary school, but we were discussing 15-17 year olds in school (both primary and secondary). BilledMammal (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Data from Kleinberger book
(p.316) Rates of post-primary school attendance per every 1000 persons aged 14-17 in the various origin groups (1965/6):
 * 71.4% Jews born in Israel of European parentage
 * 51.9% Jews born in Europe and America
 * 41.2% Jews born in Israel of Oriental parentage
 * 28.9% Jews born in Asia and Africa
 * 13.9% non-Jews

(p.319) "The various measures taken by the authorities, together with the progressive economic and social modernization of the rural Arab population, are gradually improving the educational opportunities and attainments of the non-Jewish minority. Rates of primary school attendance per 1000 children aged 6-13 rose from 804 (900 for boys, 699 for girls) in 1961/2 to 844 (921 for boys, 760 for girls) in 1966/7."

That matches the 84.4% figure taken from Tuma and Drabkin, removing any further possibility of doubt that their numbers are for Arabs. Source is Statistical Abstract of Israel 18 (1967), 536.

(p.196) "even today, when post-primary education is neither free nor compulsory, about 92 per cent of the Jewish 14-year-olds are at school (including 27 per cent who are still in primary education), and that approximately 82 per cent are in full-time attendance, while the remaining 10 per cent are enrolled in part-time schools (schools for working youth, secondary evening schools, apprenticeship schools, etc.)."

(p.197) "School attendance rates per every 1000 Arab adolescents aged 14-17 in 1966/7 were as low as 228 (including 76 in primary education)— as compared with 620 per every 1000 Jews of corresponding age."

As noted earlier, this is the other figure, 22.8%, that the article erroneously assigns to "Israelis" rather than Israeli Arabs. The source is the same page of the same edition of the Israel government statistical abstract, as the 84.4% given for primary school.

Tuma and Drabkin of course also drew their numbers from the Statistical Abstracts of Israel. Nishidani said this source is listed p.123 of their book; the only remaining question (to ask it is to answer it) is whether it is page 536 of the 18th edition published 1967. Sesquivalent (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Tuma and Drabkin drew their information from the Statistical Abstract you mention (and from which Pollak cites - I note you waive aside my invitation to analyse Pollak's material, which appears to confirm roughly the T-D percentage) and from other sources- 50 books, numerous periodicals, specialist bulletins, UN reports since that 1966 SA source doesn't supply the evidence for (a)the West Bank and Jordan.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I will go where the evidence goes. This thread is becoming garbled because of extensive argufying The one editor here who has, from past experience here, advanced computing abilities (that is a fair assumption, correct me if I am wrong), is Zero. He is also known for correcting any error no matter from whatever POV angle it might be coming from. Whatever he decides is fine by me. In the end we are talking about just the following bolded words :-
 * "with 44.6% of West Bank teenagers in the 15–17 year bracket frequenting school compared to Israel's 22.8%."
 * In another source, that 22.8% comes out as 24.8.
 * Zero, on the basis of ongoing further source-analysis, thinks, unless I am mistaken, that Tuma, Darion-Drabkin and Pollak, all competent statisticians/economists, have erred re Israel, and he adds that the Jordanian statistic requires qualification (?).
 * This requires patience and delicacy per WP:OR because we have to show they screwed up, and we on Wikipedia know better than two strong sources.
 * The result, whatever way it goes, would affect 4 words. So let's wait, and not persist in un focused WP:TLDR opinionizing. If any other editor knows of a Wikipedian with competence in advanced statistics ready to carefully assess the evidence and sort it out, notify them. But external input of this kind will not be effective if they have to trawl through an immense distracting and messy screed of talking. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Nishidani; re: Pollak; Zero and I have had a little conversation above (I've hopefully added an anchor) that you might want to read. BilledMammal (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I must apologize. Your comments above show notable skill. I should have included your name in my prior post. Since I have included all the data from Pollak above, minutely calibrated according to categories, I would be curious to know what you make of his figures in terms of the percentage of the Israeli Jewish and Israel Arab population in secondary schools (regardless of 15-17)? Perhaps I missed it.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm not comfortable producing any specific percentages; so many assumptions would be required that I feel anything I produce would be little better than a guess. However, Pollak does also contain this paragraph; perhaps it will help on that broader question?: "During this period 1963-64, 26 percent of the secondary age group (14 to 18) attended schools at [the secondary] level. However, 33 percent of this age group were in the primary grades of the schools for "working youth."" BilledMammal (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know it's confusing. But Pollak does reproduce the yearbook, and a simple calculation of student populations in secondary schools just on that is, I think, possible (excluding the 15-17 issue) The larger questions, like what is the proportion of the school populatios to the overall youth population etc., are another issue. I think there's a problem with the fact that Israel's school structure was very complex, with tuition fees, private schools, yeshivas, whereas the WB figures refer to a state run general school system with a uniform curriculum, over 12 years. Still, let's wait and see.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The 1967 census of the WB has many tables related to years of study. (Search for "study".) I didn't find T&DD's figure of 44.6% for 15–17 exactly but I found enough to tell me that the figure is plausible. For example, this table has 43.0% for ages 15+. Note that T&DD's number is not presented by them as being in secondary school, but only as "participation in education". This is borne out by the census figures; the percentage for more than primary school is much lower. If older students in primary school are included for the WB, they should be included for Israel too and Pollak tells us 28+33=60% for 14–18. So I still think that T&DD's unsourced figure of 22.8% for Israel cannot be for all students. Since they aren't specific about it, I still think that it is most likely a figure for Israeli Arabs and that that clarifies rather than contradicts. More confirmation of this hunch comes from the Library of Congress area study of Israel for 1988. On page 342 there are tables for various types of schools for 1948-9, 1969-70 and 1986-7. The school types are classified as primary, intermediate, secondary, post-secondary. I'll focus on 1969-70 and the totals for primary and secondary. For Hebrew education, 394354 primary, 129436 secondary (ratio 0.328). For Arab education, 85449 primary, 8050 secondary (ratio 0.094). This shows a very strong drop-off in Arab education between primary and secondary that was not present in Hebrew education. By 1986-7, the Arab sector was still behind but catching up: 0.398 and 0.254, respectively. Zerotalk 01:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is a more detailed table for WB in 1967. Zerotalk 03:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We are making an inference, perhaps legitimate perhaps not,* that T-D's figures for Israel are an error, referring to Israeli Arabs rather than Israeli Jews. Possible. But if we entertain that inference as probable we would still to explain why, according to the Israeli Statistics Bureau figures for 1965-1966 reproduced in Pollak, it would appear that  20.36% of Israeli Arab students went on to secondary schooling, and 24.8% of Israeli Jewish students attended forms of secondary schooling. The latter figure is also close to T-D's figure. Nishidani (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I for example, while awaiting more competent input, wondered whether or not T-D's 22.8 average for Israel was their averaging out the twin statistics for 20.36% (Arab Israeli) + 24.8% (Jewish Israeli)  to arrive at a general figure for secondary education in Israel regardless of ethnicity. But them, I'm as reliable on math as Pat Robertson is for Biblical exegesis. We need to remember that we are challenging three competent economists and statisticians by recourse to independent research on primary texts (which they were familiar with), a very tricky thing in terms of Wiki practise. Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You made a mistake by including 12,638 for "other institutions" in Arab secondary schools. The footnote says "in the Arab education system, 'other institutions' include nongovernmental private schools, with one or two exceptions, nearly all at the primary level" (my emphasis). If you put that 12,638 in the primary column instead, a completely different picture emerges. More importantly, you are still trying to calculate the fraction of all students who are in secondary school, which is an entirely different statistic from what T&DD present. Zerotalk 09:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * BilledMammal also correctly pointed out that you are not calculating the Jewish figure properly. I'll take your numbers as correct: total in school = 660,541, total in secondary school = 163,796. Then you divided 163796/660541. But why? That is not the fraction of students who go on to secondary school. The numbers alone are not sufficient to calculate a precise figure, but we can get a fairly good estimate. The primary total 660541-163796=496745 covers 8 years of school, all compulsory, so the number in the last year of primary school is about 496745/8=62093. The secondary total 163796 covers 4 years of school, so the number in the first year of secondary school is about 163796/4=40949. Now we have a starting estimate of the fraction of students who go on to secondary school: 40949/62093=66%. The main sources of error: (1) Secondary school was not compulsory so the first year of secondary school would have held considerably more than 1/4 of all secondary students. (2) The population was steadily increasing, not constant. Both errors make the estimate lower than the actual number. Zerotalk 11:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed Z. I know this must be trying for you, a bit like Dr Johnson trying to teach orthography to a dyslexic kiddie in bubs.


 * (A general point. When I first read T-D years ago, I too paused in surprise. But on reflection, thinking in sociological terms, where I am more comfortable, the Israeli general system is very differentiated and complex for that period, catering to a rapid influx of massive immigrant populations from several areas (b) geared to the exigencies of a rapidly expanding and planned economic structure that required building from ground up all the interlinked workshops in a production chain, with low-cost labour (hence quick induction into apprenticeships) for the primary industrializing base. Top-heavy technical competence was readily available: what was lacking was a craft- and service-competent workforce, which doesn't require an advanced general, modern curriculum for all. On the other side, the WB had almost no industry, labour immigration for better jobs in Jordan was important. The families stayed. Outside of agriculture (its main export), the only thing for a mass of children was to avail themselves of a 12 year free educational system (no tuition fees), which was compulsory. This reported differential has been taken above as, in bare terms, a mockery of Israel and the great Jewish tradition prizing intensive learning. That was not my subtext. I had no subtext. I only had figures from two competent economists which, on checking, don't seem to vary much from what Pollak provides in reproducing the official Israeli statistics for 1965-66, the situation in Israel on the eve of 1967).


 * If you can therefore bear with me. My procedure was this. I put aside the bare figures in T-D and examined the actual Israeli Statistics faithfully reproduced in another source, Pollak p.20. I am perplexed that high caliber economists can prove as stupid as I am in a discipline where they are competent and I utterly nescient. I obtained from Pollak the following. I want to ascertain why T-D got their percentage of 22.8 wrong. My assumption is that T-D, in specifying 15-17 are obviously using additional sources, other than the Israeli Stats Pollak gives.


 * 660,938 +72,096 = 733034 total enrolment in Israeli schools (Arab Jewish) 1965-1966 per the Israeli Bureau of Statistics table in Pollak p.20


 * 14,682 (Arab)+163,796 (Jewish) = 178,478 total enrolment in what were defined as secondary schools
 * 178,478 as a percentage of 733,034 = 24.347%


 * But you tell me the figure 14,682 for Israeli Arabs in secondary education is flawed, and one one must subtract 12638 more or less (most) from that total. Accepting this premise one gets
 * Total enrolment in Israeli secondary schools (ignoring ethnicity) would have been
 * 163,796 (Israeli Jewish)+2044 (Israeli Arab) =165,840
 * 165,840 as a percentage of 733,034 =22.623%.
 * That 22.62% from Pollak's reproduced ISBureau table is very close to T-D's 22.8%.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

If I claim there are 228 pomegranates and you calculate there are 226 durians, does that mean you confirmed my claim?
 * 1) T&D-D are not presenting fractions of all students like you are. Proof: their percentages add up to more than 100%. For Israel they say 84.4% for 6-11 years and 22.8% for 15-17 years. That's already more than 100% even without 12-14 years. For WB it is even more stark: 80.5% for 6-11 years and 44.6% for 15-17 years, total 125.1%. But in your case, fraction in primary school + fraction in secondary school cannot exceed 100%. So it isn't a matter of having extra information; it is a matter of you and T&D-D calculating incomparable things.
 * 2) Given that T&D-D's percentages add to more than 100%, what do they mean? I think that's clear, though I didn't think so on the first reading. The percentages are for "participation in education", which I take to mean "going to school". So, what T&D-D say about 15-17 year olds is: in WB 44.6% of them go to school, in Israel 22.8% of them go to school. T&D-D give a percentage of all youths in that age group, you give a percentage of all school students at all levels. Pomegranates and durians.
 * 3) In conclusion, that fact that you can find a calculation which produces a number similar to 22.8% is an accident. It is not confirmation of T&D-D. On the contrary, a value of 22.8% for all Israeli students is incompatible with Pollak and impossible. The exact value of 22.8% for Israeli Arabs in 1966/7 cited by Sesquivalent above from the book of Kleinberger (who cites it to the Statistical Abstract of Israel for 1967) is a much better explanation for where T&D-D got the figure from. It's not even a contradiction, since T&D-D don't say it is for all Israelis; we just have to assume some lack of clarity on their part. (The same source gives 62% for Jews.) Zerotalk 13:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost there. I used T-D-D. When questioned I ignored T-D-D and used Pollak. I didn't intend using the pomegranates of the 1 to be equal to the durians of the other. I inferred from Pollak's reproduction of the percentrages for Arab and Jewish Israelis what the ISB's table states. That the figures are similar is perhaps wholly coincidental. I dunno. I take your word for it.
 * You state then that of 15-17 year olds T.D-D's statement means:
 * "in WB 44.6% of them (Palestinians) go to some form of secondary school, in Israel 22.8% of them (Israeli Arabs) go to some form of secondary school"
 * If that is the meaning, the adjustment is obvious. T.D-D are referring to two Arab populations, and to Jordan, stating that WB Arab youth in the 15-17 age bracket had much  higher rates of secondary schooling than did their Arab youths of that age group in both Israel and Jordan. IF that is  the case, then I can tweak the text. If the 15-17 Israeli Jewish age bracket participation has been figured out, I can  add that in a footnote?Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The only objection to your restatement is "some form of secondary school", which is not in the source. It only says "participation" which per the previous paragraph is "participation in education". Kids in this age group can be still attending primary school and in Israel at least we know this was common. Zerotalk 02:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ":: in the WB 44.6% of Palestinians participated in some form of secondary education, higher than Jordan (Footnote? for Israeli Arabs, the corresponding figure has been claimed to be 22.8%?. Linked ref to Pollak and Kleinberg with a précis"
 * I'm thinking of something along those lines.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But it is SYNTH and guesswork (albeit plausible guesswork) to use Kleinberger to "fix" the errors in the current T&DD source. While it seems very likely that their 22.8 and 84.4 figures are from the Arab data on the same page of the statistical abstract, if that's the case then T and D also give the wrong age ranges for Israel, apparently because they use the ranges from the West Bank data in a sentence that refers to both WB and Israel figures.  This on top of their other nearby sloppiness that you found and the CIR level incompetence issue of not clarifying they (we SYNTHily assume on their behalf) meant Israeli Arabs, resulting in a statement that is nonsensical in its plain meaning.  They also speak of "West Bank and Gaza having the high educational basis, but Gaza has always had lower education rates, partly due to a higher Muslim population. So do they mean WB+G data (as in the UNESCO figures) or really WB data as the second sentence claims?  It is all totally sloppy and not reliable, as if they wrote it hastily for a deadline.
 * This is all rescuing a dodgy source when better ones exist just because of their pro Palestinian statement on "favourable educational basis", which is also part of a constructed narrative. If we just want to give figures objectively comparing WB or WB+G to Jordan or Israeli Arabs we can do it without their language. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * We have an explanation for figures from two highly respectable economists. It may, or may not, be correct.- At the outset you railed against the source without indicating anything other than your skepticism as a reason. The work is now being done to established the relevant statistics, via several sources. The point is not to 'fix' the figures by WP:OR using Kleionberger, Pollak etc. The point is to illustrate that for those two scholars, Palestinian youth had access to a free secondary schooling system, compulsory for 12 years. You have used a wide variety of epithets to dismiss their work as 'sloppy', 'dodgy' etc. Perhaps their phrasing lacked a clarity of specification as to what the Israeli data they cite referred to. But to contest the source for for words, in order to invalidate what it says of the Jordean/WB comparison at all, is pointy. As often on Wikipedia, where you have solid RS that are not quite clear, one clarifies the issue in a footnote. And there, citing both T-D-D and then Kleinberg and Pollak's data, briefly, is not WP:OR. It simply directs the reader to the issue's complexities. I'm still reading Kleinberger whose picture is very complex. Much more so that you original glowing expostulations of achievement for Israeli youth generally (as opposed to the chronically underfunded Arab Israeli educational sector). Rather than talk of an Israeli average, even there, one has numerous differentials between Ashkenazi and Mizrachi, as when he writes:'In consequence of their slight chance of receiving an academic secondary education, young people from the outlying development areas in the north and south of Israel are virtually debarred from higher education.'  Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

terminology bias section
I kind of think it should be removed entirely here, I dont think it is specifically related to the occupation so much as the conflict as a whole. Yes, the settlements vs towns vs colonies or occupied vs disputed parts are related, but I dont think this is a core topic that needs to be covered here at all.  nableezy  - 15:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is some related in the lead, the second para.Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and concur with Selfstudier. It is alluded to in the lead, and terminological obfuscation per Orwell is fundamental to the occupation, a core issue,West Bank or otherwise. It alerts the reader to the problem in the sources themselves, and the wariness to be exercised in reading the page's description of what takes place there. Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Its something that matters to people that we arent actually covering. Whether it is called a colony, a settlement, a town, or a village makes zero difference to the people whose land and water are being stolen. That is it doesnt make a whit of difference in the occupation itself. We have this before we talk about the occupation itself. Before we talk about actual war crimes. Before we talk about land seizures. We devote more space to that than we do those land seizures, to the permit regime, to torture, to freedom of movement. We devote more space to how white people in American and Europe argue about the occupation than we do to crucial parts of the occupation itself. I dont think that is the right balance.  nableezy  - 19:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is related material in the lead. I likewise think how college students in the US and Europe feel is of 0 importance to this article, which is why I ditched that bit. At the very least, this should be drawn down considerably imo.  nableezy  - 19:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd go along with a bit of tightening up, I do hope there are some college students left that take an interest in these things:)Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wider Implications Section
At times this page reads more like a partisan essay meant to maximize Israeli wrong than an encyclopedic article. Sources are often misrepresented to create false context followed by viewpoint pushing of pro-Palestinian activists whose background is left out, to back up these individuals rhetoric as though fact, they are often cited as sources though by no stretch of the imagination would qualify to wiki standards. Further, half of this has no business regardless being on this specific page. Whether an editor agrees with me or not regarding anything else, no one save an editor seeking to push anti-Israeli sentiment to the fullest would draw wiki standard nexus between much of this content and specifically the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. While in other instances content is scholarly but belongs in other areas or pages altogether.

A prime example of this is the “Wider Implications” section. The opening, does not touch on the West Bank Occupation and is used to give an impression of Israel being an illogically militarized state. The quote, from the early 1980s, while accurately cited-the source outright states that Israel's disposition is not only understandable but completely justified, providing empirical facts showing the threat Israel faces from its Arab neighbors. The source does not mention Israel’s occupation of the West Bank even once even, indirectly. This source is then miscited to give a distorted background of Israel’s MIC, followed by shady assertions tying atrocities in Central American to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Israeli contractors and advisors did play a significant role in facilitating multiple brutal dictatorships in the listed countries but the nexus to the West Bank occupation isn’t actually specified-likely bc it doesn’t really exist. After extolling that the occupation credentialed Israelis with the best know how in oppressing populations of people living in the rain forests and jungles of half a dozen central american countries, a claim is then made that Israelis were perfect leads on urban warfare for "many powers"-once again no examples are given and as repeatedly referred to elsewhere on this page-it is nonsense to label the IDF’s oppressive West Bank police state forces as experienced in urban warfare.

I’ll admit to speculating as to the motivation behind these edits, I can’t say I know any editors motivation and apologize if I am wrong. Several of the errors in this section are clearly just sloppy editing (IE the US executive orders mentioned began in ‘76 not ‘77 or confusing Central with Latin America, though such mistakes tend to run with editing not meant to be encyclopedic but instead to POV push.

The section then, once again refers to “many”-who are actually just activists, claiming Bush Era US war on terror legal policy was based off/inspired by/used as "precedent" Israel’s, an example is then given of a controversial US policy from the Obama administration that specifically is completely irreconcilable with Israeli policy on such matters. Moreover this particular topic has nothing whatsoever to do with Israel’s law of or occupation of the West Bank. If anything such a discussion would belong on a page regarding or covering Israeli foreign policy, US-Israel relations, Israel's war or terror etc.....

If other editors agree on retaining the content regarding the profitable R&D-commercial export industry Israel has developed largely via occupying the West Bank for generations, then I ask why isn’t it in the "Costs" section? The section includes a subsection discussing the indirect losses incurred by Israel from the occupation; the aforementioned military industrial commercial industry should be in the costs section arguably as "indirect gains".

A rambling blog post from an anti-occupation activist is then used to back up claims of US cops being trained to treat Americans like Israel treats Palestinians. The insinuation and claims here concern me less bc they’re so outright false they’d never survive ANI but should be noted as their continued presence, especially in current form is problematic. OgamD218 (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * At times this page reads more like a partisan essay Actually this section reads like that. WP is not a forum for personal opinion. If you want to amend the article you are entitled to do so but you need to have valid reasons or consensus for substantial revisions to a sensitive article. I suggest we go one by one with your proposed revisions and see where that gets us, of course you are free meanwhile to take any disputed source to RSP (not ANI).Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The page documents an occupation, according to impeccable sources by scholars who analyse those historical realities. Any occupation, enduring relentless for 74 years, that appears to consist in an incremental landgrab by force of arms, will not be a rosy picture. This goes for the Chinese occupation of Tibet or of the Uyghurs etc. To gloss over the realities in deference to some extreme sensitivity to Israel's image is beside the point.
 * 'misrepresented to create false context'. What is the context?
 * 'viewpoint pushing of pro-Palestinian activists' Yeah, sure. Several hundred tenured scholars, half of them working in Israeli higher institutions of learning, are dismissed as 'pro-Palestinian activists'. Yawn.
 * 'individuals rhetoric as though fact'. The page is short of viewpoints. Facts are given. Rarely, some flaw may emerge (as in the preceding section, and when that is verified, the text is duly emended.
 * 'sources . .by no stretch of the imagination would qualify to wiki standards'. Oh really? So of the 325+ sources what percentage qualify as abuses of  our best RS quality standards?
 * 'half of this has no business regardless being on this specific page.' We cut the text down by half to meet Icewhiz's obsessions with WP:MOS. Even that permabanned editor couldn't find grounds to challenge the documentation, so he used a principle to ask that 'half' of the detail disappear. His view was accommodated. Now, with 3,500 edits and 1 and a half years' tenure, you are vigorously calling for a removal van to remove another 50%.
 * 'an editor seeking to push anti-Israeli sentiment.' There we go again. First the sourcdes are written by 'anti-Israeli activists' and then the composing editors are branded as pushers of 'anti-Israeli sentiment'. The usual hasbara anti-Semitic insinuation when one hasn't an argument.
 * 'The opening, does not touch on the West Bank Occupation and is used to give an impression of Israel being an illogically militarized state.' The first paragraph defines the context, and connects it, per sources, to the military exigencies of close technological control of the Palestinian territories. Sources connect the two as inextricably intertwined. What you are saying is identical to asserting that, for example, things like the Alon Plan should be discussed without mentioning Syria and the perceived or claimed necessity for a cunctatory buffer zone between Israel proper and the Arab threat to the East. No source does that. The geopolitrical reasoning, regarding foreign powers, was intrinsic to the rationale of occupation. So too, per sources, the development of technologies of occupational efficiency were a significant element in the growth of Israel's economy, and its foreign military sales. This is universally attested.
 * 'other instances content is scholarly but belongs in other areas or pages altogether.' This is a recycling of the Icewhiz argument, as outlined above. There's no argument that the sourcing is impeccable, just for Chrissake shovel the stuff onto other pages. We don't won't to read the details here. Nope. This is an overview, with numerous sub-page links. That's already been done.
 * 'to give an impression of Israel being an illogically militarized state.'Israel's median military expenditure as a percentage of GNP over the last decade has varied from 5.9 to 5.6% See List of countries by military expenditures. Compare the superpowers, U.S.A. (3.7%), China (1.7%), Russian Federation (4.3%). The world average is 2.4%. Israel comes 2nd in the world after the banana monarchy Saudi Arabia (8.4%). These are the facts.
 * 'Israel's disposition is not only understandable but completely justified, providing empirical facts showing the threat Israel faces from its Arab neighbors.' Yeah, sure. Take a look at the military spending of Lebanon (3%), Jordan (5%), Syria (4%) and Egypt (1.22%), all nations in chaos, with totally inefficient military systems, and two of them are bound by peace treaties with Israel.
 * 'Israeli contractors and advisors did play a significant role in facilitating multiple brutal dictatorships in the listed countries but the nexus to the West Bank occupation isn’t actually specified-likely bc t doesn’t really exist.' No. Several sources link the two, not least Jan Nederveen Pieterse, whom a prior,abusive editor desperately tried to get erased from the page.
 * 'it is nonsense to label the IDF’s oppressive West Bank police state forces as experienced in urban warfare.' Of course, you are an expert, and your opinion therefore overrides what the sources state.
 * IF '76 should be '77' depending on sources, is an error, a simple edit, once the assertion is verified, can fix it.
 * Latin America/Central America. That too is an easy fix.
 * 'The section then, once again refers to “many”-who are actually just activists'. No. They are scholars, five of them. When 5 (any many more could be added) sources state something, 'many' is normal summary.
 * 'If other editors agree on retaining the content regarding the profitable R&D-commercial export industry Israel has developed largely via occupying the West Bank for generations, then I ask why isn’t it in the "Costs" section?.' Because a thriving and profitable export industry isn't strictly speaking a 'cost', except to Israel's democracy.
 * 'A rambling blog post from an anti-occupation activist is then used to back up claims of US cops being trained to treat Americans like Israel treats Palestinians.' Nope. Jeff Halper at Mondoweiss is not writing a blog, and he isn't a blogger. The piece has numerous citations from the press attesting to that nexus. One could add a dozen sources arguing the same viewpoint (this by RAIA and JVP) etc. That thousands of American police have undergone training with Israeli police who spend much of their time on occupational enforcement is not disputed.
 * In short, all I for one have learned by the rambling tirade above is that 1976 should be 1977, and a distinction should be observed in the text between Central and Latin America.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What specific source do you claim is used out of context. The rest of that screed is personal opinion and does not concern me. But what, specifically, do you claim is not supported? Because the Pietrese source does indeed discuss the occupation of the West Bank, directly, and the claim that The source does not mention Israel’s occupation of the West Bank even once even, indirectly is a complete fabrication. It repeatedly discusses the occupation of the West Bank and ties in these methods of control to the tactics Israel has exported to any number of human rights abusing countries. As far as "A rambling blog post from an anti-occupation activist is then used to back up claims of US cops being trained to treat Americans like Israel treats Palestinians", that isnt exactly in dispute. See,.  nableezy  - 14:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Halper printed on Mondoweiss couldn't be considered a reliable source to this topic and his views are clearly WP:UNDUE anyhow WP:ONUS on those who want to include --Shrike (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Shrike strikes again. I.e. reverts to back another editor, without looking at what they are doing. You made a false edit summary, saying Mondoweiss and Jeff Halper are a problem, and then, in your revert, mass removing a dozen other sources together with Halpe.That is called a blind revert. Undo it. (Halper is being cited, not Mondoweiss, and Halper is authoritative in this area. And if you dislike him, I can replace the same statement with a dozen impeccable sources. All you need do is ask.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have self reverted go ahead and bring better source then mondoweiss there are also Kattenburg that sourced to this blog. Shrike (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed considerably more than Halper, and ONUS does not allow for an editor to remove material that very much has consensus given it has stood for years and then claim their assent is required to restore. Stop doing that. And Jeff Halper is perfectly acceptable for an attributed view.  nableezy  - 15:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What Nishidani said, this is not a good look at all.Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

(a) the default POV-pusher reverting on sight or (b) you see a queried text, google and do some background work. If one does the latter, then it becomes almost immediately obvious that solid secondary sources state, numerously, what Halper remarked on, with his own angle, based on intimacy with the conflict. So if if one objected to him, the objection cannot be that what he is stating is controversial. I.e.
 * Amy Kaplan, Our American Israel: The Story of an Entangled Alliance,  Harvard University Press 2018   ISBN 978-0-674-98992-4
 * 'With Whom are Many U.S. Police Departments Training With a Chronic Human Rights Violator? – Israel,'  Amnesty International 25 August  2016
 * 'Deadly Exchange: The Dangerous Consequences of American Law Enforcement Trainings in Israel,' RAIA/Jewish Voice for Peace September 2018 etc.etc.etc.
 * So, Shrike, make a positive choice for once. Tagteam revert without looking at what you are doing, or, work according to wiki principles, rolling up your sleeves to familiarize yourself with the topic. Your record as an automatic supporter of anyone with the correct national POV is impeccable, but is beginning to be tiresome. A blanket revert with a false edit summary is sanctionable. Particularly. as you appear to do so often, to 'back' a newbie's dubious reverts.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Struck out above comment since, edit conflict, Shrike had already reverted on Selfstudier's advice. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * To think I briefly considered that maybe I was totally unfair characterizing a bias in many of this page's frequent editors.....But I'll concede Selfstudier's point, maybe I should've been more diplomatic.

I'll try and go bullet by bullet Nishidani, we can skip almost all of 1-7, pretty much just a tirade broadly defending the entire article (but thank you for immediately conforming to the description in my opening). But (1) Any occupation, enduring relentless for 74 years-so as I mentioned, a substantial portion of this section's content, valid or not, does not belong in this article. Seeing as Israel has occupied the West Bank for only ~54 years but was founded ~74 yrs ago, I'm gonna say you've pretty much confessed to using this page to air any/all grievances against Israel for their mistreatment of the Palestinians, ever. Those certainly should be documented on WP, but on a page specifically for the WB occ, they should be limited to that topic. This applies regardless of whatever it is in Bullet 8 you're rambling about. B7, you're seriously gonna claim many sources aren't activist regardless of their credentials? The usual hasbara anti-Semitic insinuation when one hasn't an argument, I've said a lot, idt I've given the impression I'm holding back and never at any point did I make a single accusations of anti-semitism. But it is very interesting that you made one up, almost like you needed to pretend there was a straw man argument against you in order to hide not from the real ones. You use a similar strategy in the B9, some nonsense comparing what I've said vs addressing it directly; things like the Alon Plan should be discussed without mentioning Syria and the perceived or claimed necessity for a cunctatory buffer zone between Israel proper and the Arab threat to the East. Idk what to do with that but you continue on with the tirade (jc bro calm down). Obviously the Mintz article, where the opening quote is from, is a valid source. However Minz does not endorse but in fact expressly refutes the POV you proceed to push using that quote. Mintz never mentions the WB Occupation but states Israel's defense posture is entirely justifiable, providing stats showing the military threat posed by certain Arab neighbors-Palestine not being 1 of them. The weapons Israel domestically manufactured are detailed and described as for providing defense reserve in case of invasion and aleve Israel's vulnerability to imported munitions, not facilitate an occupation. I am summarizing the source, if you disagree, ok that makes 2 of us, let's proceed and remove it, bc Minz makes zero mention of the WB occ or weapons to enable it, he gives an empirical defense of Israel's MIC as meant to protect from foreign invaders. Please stop trying to keep this content here just bc you want to completely mischaracterize a quote from it. B9 is OR-but since the source for that quote expressly disagreed with you POV it would be better to use that vs Minz. OgamD218 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "you've pretty much confessed to using this page to air any/all grievances against Israel for their mistreatment of the Palestinians, ever"
 * Sure. But I gave up going to confession60 years ago and haven't carried on the habit into my pagan maturity. Nice to see that you admit the Palestinians are 'mistreated' by Israel. Nice to hear that, in your opinion Israel only felt threatened 40 years ago. I'd suggest you read the Israeli press, as I have done, closely, for the last 15 years. I read widely over a decade and a half the scholarly literature on the occupation, and, when asked to write a summation of a topic not comprehensively dealt with on Wikipedia, I responded by writing this. Of several hundred sources, over the last years, less than one handful have been challenged out of 480 notes, and this has been subject to intense adversarial scrutiny. It's a summation of what scholarship states, rather uncontrovertibly.  That is not a matter of grievance, mine or Palestinian. It's called history. If you read the introduction you will note it is the most intensely studied conflict in modern times, so. . . The objectors here write screeds about being unfair to Israel. If I did this for Tibet and the Uyghurs, they'd say I have it in for China (唉). You show no familiarity with the literature, and I have dealt with your objections. If you have something that is concrete, I'll read it and examine it to improve the page. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, what specific sources are you claiming are misused and exactly how? I for one am not very interested in personal views and I see zero in that entire response that actually discusses the sources or the article. What specifically are you challenging. Your edit summary only made vague waves to supposed unreliable sources and the one in particular you referenced, Halper in Mondoweiss, is used with as an attributed view from a notable commentator.  nableezy  - 21:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Other than your 1st sentence, it’s getting hard to take you seriously given the constant refusal to stay on topic and just give a direct answer. For someone who can’t stop bragging about how well versed they’re in this topic why don’t you go find a source that doesn’t directly contradict you and stop using that Minz article as it just makes it so painfully obvious all you just needed a means to push your POV. I read the Israeli press, Israel certainly had cause to feel threatened in the early 80s but neutral observers can insinuate to what degree they brought it upon themselves-irregardless, external threats to Israel-be they justified, real, imagined or provoked, have declined exponentially since. I always maintained Israel is oppressing the Palestinians, you missed it constantly in your flustered reactions to a dissenting/correcting opinion. You on multiple occasions actually addressed specific lines where I say as much but go off on a tirade at zero point addressing anything tangible. For all your decade and a half editing, research and thousands of supposedly great scholars on this topic, why is the article still only rated C……?! OgamD218 (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to continue your pissing match with Nishidani kindly do it elsewhere. Assuming you mean "Mintz", as that is who is cited, what exactly are you challenging? What would like to add from that source, exactly? Remove? Why?  nableezy  - 22:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * all other activity aside I'd like to think I did expressly state my objection to the use of that Minz article given the fact that it can't rationally be tied to the West Bank Occupation and is used (more like distorted) as OR for the rest. I've been clear in my stance that this is more or less a sham section that, especially at this point I don't think can be rehabilitated. But, to mitigate it I will attempt to suggest some suggestions, other than a total re-write that source simply can't remain unless further context is given. To be brutally honest I've even said multiple times that it wouldn't be so glaringly inappropriate if the editor would just replace it with some other source. It can't be that hard to find a source that actually agrees with the opinion that Israel is overly obsessed with national defense; especially considering that the editor has made clear they don't hold their sources to any real standards. OgamD218 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop with the personal comments. But I'm fine removing Mintz.  nableezy  - 23:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I am glad we found some common ground. I have said enough on this issue, made my stance clear-how do you suggest resolving/removing the of the Mintz citation? OgamD218 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If other editors agree on retaining the content regarding the profitable R&D-commercial export industry Israel has developed largely via occupying the West Bank for generations, then I ask why isn’t it in the "Costs" section?.' Because a thriving and profitable export industry isn't strictly speaking a 'cost', except to Israel's democracy.

Well seeing as the section I propose moving this content too is titled "Economic and social benefits and costs of the occupation", it would seem a perfect place for it. The state financial subsidies Israeli settlers receive are cataloged as are Israel's economic loses altogether, both direct and indirect. While a thriving and profitable export industry isn't strictly speaking a 'cost' is perhaps true, but it certainly would be an economic benefit especially in the sections context which is based largely around data; I suggested it be it own subsection as it is proximate to the topic and would make the content more complete and not only on the *costs/loses. Further maybe some of the other "wider implications" content, like the much more negative stuff I know you'll want to include, could/should go in the "cultural impact" section. But maybe not, what I am saying is that the content regarding Israel's thriving export market should be moved and made a subsection of "Economic and social benefits and costs of the occupation". OgamD218 (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The American claim that new methods developed for the war on terror were necessary since the situation was unprecedented and therefore was a legal no man's land had a precedent in Israeli claims the war on terror in the West Bank was a legal terra nulla, - ok so it was "unprecedented" but had precedent in Israeli claims? How does that make sense? Also according to the factually inapplicable Note that follows, the US had only legally ended assassinations in 1977-29yrs prior, far from distant precedent. Without getting into the fact the 2012 example is as an analogy facially false, let's avoid that altogether and can I ask how this area specifically is proximate to Israel's occupation of the West Bank? Whatever I might think, this seems to clearly fall into the realm of foreign policy. I see an argument for how the US War on Terror has certainly been influenced by Israeli foreign policy but I really dont see a direct nexus with their occupation of the West Bank specifically. OgamD218 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The policies and methods and legal underpinnings of insurgency suppression that the US advanced were, according to sources, ones developed by Israel in its occupation of the Palestinian territories. For example Israel targeting what it claims are terrorists while not actively on the field of battle (meaning a combatant) is echoed in such things as the US policies on targeted killings (eg al-Awlaki). The sentence only says that the American claim was that this unprecedented situation called for a whole new understanding of what is legal echoed the Israeli claim that the "war on terror" in the WB likewise created a need for a new legal arena.  nableezy  - 19:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Costs' vs 'Wider Implications'. Costs deal with Israel/Palestine, wider implications deal with the extension of the Israeli occupational model, its technologies etc., abroad. Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 'as an analogy facially false.'?
 * You are arguing against the text as we have it, built on RS, by generic claims which look like personal opinions. I won't be replying to challenges based on opinions, but only queries which adduce in counter-evidence equally reliable sources on the context not yet examined or used. Only counter-arguments based on sources, linked or cited, get my undivided attention.
 * I am reading 11 new sources relevant to the above dispute. My usual practice. I work slowly.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think its fair to request the sourcing for that tie it to the occupation explicitly, otherwise we have a synth issue. The rest of the removals remain inexplicable.  nableezy  - 14:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "As an analogy facially false"-the US ban on clandestine assassinations remains in place (the opposite impression is given in the note), Israel has never had a law against clandestine assassinations. Awlaki was killed in Yemen-which was not under US occupation. The US drone program began in response to target in areas US forces could not enter, such as Pakistan's tribal region on the Afghan border, again not by looking to Israeli justification for their occupation policies. In killing Awlaki and several other US citizens-America did something irreconcilable with Israel's long standing policy against killing its own people "Jews don't kill Jews", regardless of the circumstances, even treason. As a general point, the US has never recognized Israeli legal opinions as precedent for their own. The official position of the DOJ under Obama (which ordered the Awlaki strike) was that the program was fully compatible with long-standing domestic law. Whatever similarities exist, a 'wider implication' of the West Bank occupation is not the US drone program. Its clear America was going to do whatever it wanted and did not depend on legal precedents from Israel that had already been rejected by essentially the whole world regardless. OgamD218 (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Still missing what the analogy is. The analogy is to the claim that the extreme nature of the threat faced requires new legal justifications to be accepted. Awlaki is an edge case as an American citizen, there are plenty of other targeted killings by the US (eg Suleimani) that do indeed echo Israeli assassinations of non-combatants and the justifications offered for them. But thats besides the point, the point there is about claimed novel and extreme threat -> novel and extreme legal justifications on both ends.  nableezy  - 20:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * the point seemed to be a strong enough nexus between Israel's novel legal position, referred to as "precedent" for the America's drone killing program post 9/11. While the Israeli supreme court has in fact ruled that the situation is nuanced, requiring an extreme re-examination and re-interpretation of the law, the official stance of the US govt was and is that the law remains unchanged. The fact of the matter is the US did not base or derive, need or look to for legitimization Israeli policy/legal precedent. Even if you disagree with much of this what I can't see is how it belongs on this page. I can admit that similarities exist but a direct tie in or "implication" of the West Bank Occupation seems to be such a stretch.
 * While I agree Awlaki is an edge case, it was still the chosen example, and as an example it actually serves to emphasize the dissimilarities of the US vs Israeli policies. As a further example, I will use your example-the killing of Suleimani. First I'll ask if you really think Trump ordering that strike was a "wider implication", in the stated context of the West Bank Occupation and secondly I would like to point out that Suleimani was not a noncombatant, he was a general in the Iranian Army, wearing his uniform, on official business, specifically coordinating with Iraqi shiite militias at the time of the Drone Strike. The assassination of Suleimani is probably the least legally questionable drone assassination, with US officials citing FDR's order to assassinate Yamamoto as precedent, not anything to do with Israel.  OgamD218 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are apparently missing my point despite my best efforts to explain it. The sentence does not say that Israeli decisions form any precedent for US actions, rather that the US claim that extraordinary circumstances in the War on Terror justify extraordinary legal claims has precedent in Israeli claims that extraordinary circumstances in the occupation of the West Bank and the "wave of terror" justifies extraordinary legal claims. It is not saying any specific US action has precedent in Israeli actions. It is saying that the construction of this legal arena on the basis of some extraordinary threat has precedence in Israel doing the same. As far as whether Suleimani was a combatant or not, he wasnt actually on a field of battle but its not a point that really matters. Again, it is not that any specific action has precedence in Israeli actions. It is that an entire legal regime was constructed on the basis of some extraordinary threat. As in Israel.  nableezy  - 23:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I am at least trying too understand, I apologize if we keep missing each other I’ve tried to soften my tone here. Israel’s idea of “extraordinary circumstances” is their occupation lasted longer than anyone anticipated, leaving them as the worlds last true colonial state, there’s nothing extraordinary about the threat Israel faces just the means. Policy makers have not backed up the US drone program by claiming the extraordinary, but that it’s the best means to check threats from territories that are NOT under US occupation. If all we’re missing on is that both nations cited an extraordinary threat as justification for their “war on terrorism” I’ll remain lost now that’s a close enough nexus to be on this page but if you insist on it remaining then why not include every other nation citing “extraordinary circumstances” as a justification for their actions. Even if you limit it to terrorism the same claims are made by China defending their ongoing genocide, Putin in Chechnya etc. Both Thatcher and Canada already beat Israel to such claims that terrorism necessitated a dynamic shift in the law. It’s simply not a wider implication of the occupation. (Also, uniformed soldiers can generally be targeted on or off the battlefield, including the setting of Sulemani assassination)  OgamD218 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason we include this and not every other nation is that because the source compares them. It would be WP:OR to attempt to link every other nation citing "extraordinary circumstances" absent a source linking them. What the source here says is:"The purpose of the president’s determination was threefold: to avoid the legal penalties and risks of prosecution for IHL violations (i.e., no crime without law), to “maximize” options for the conduct of war and the treatment of captured enemies (which presaged a subsequent claim that international law prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is unenforceable outside the United States), and to assert that this war was “unprecedented” and thus constituted a legal terra nulla. This last claim has an Israeli precedent: the Israeli military at the start of the second intifada had already characterized its war on terror in the West Bank and Gaza as a legal terra nulla"It's the legal terra nulla that has echoes in Israeli arguments about the way it has created the legal regime underpinning the occupation.  nableezy  - 16:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting new article on the legality of the occupation
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Gross violation of POV
I also need to address how you grossly misrepresent sources, massively select oriented sources, and that, systematically without providing contradictory sources. Very often selecting specific quotes, that are then oriented and added in a text filled with critical stances. For neutrality I need dialecticism, or at least coherence in that mash-up. That was not part of my edit, which was essentially about intellectual honesty when you quote or present sources.--Vanlister (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * In all cases when you address comments to another editor, you should identify who you are talking to and you should provide diffs or text snippets that identify which edits or parts of articles you are referring to. What you wrote here is meaningless otherwise. I might wish to comment, but I'm not prepared to search the article history in order to guess what you are talking about. Zerotalk 03:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also see that you posted the same thing to three(!) user talk pages. Don't do that. Learn how to ping other editors and use that to notify them of text you want them to see. Zerotalk 03:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

, can you read the previous message? Thank you so much --Vanlister (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The previous message is incomprehensible as it relates to our article and our policies. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

read one more time--Vanlister (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't get the passivity toward abuse. Here for exemple this random quote: " In the period of the Al-Aqsa uprising, the ratios of those killed indicate that roughly 20- 25% were children on both sides, with the difference that Israeli fatalities were from incidents of body-bombing in which they were not the primary targets, whereas a substantial proportion of Palestinian children were killed by Israeli sniper gun-fire directed individually, according to Frank Afflitto.[291]" Why do people let them pick and choose quotations like this one, that they then add up to partial sources, with no balanced point of view.

You can see in Yariv Feniger et Ephraim Yuchtman-Yaar. Risk Groups in Exposure to Terror: The Case of Israel’s Citizens Article in Social Forces. Many of the children killed were on the way to school, while older people were killed more frequently in restaurants or while shopping. If you kill people in a bus when children usually use it to go back home, how the hell this quote is relevant ("not the primary targets"). There is a need to be critical of their work.

other typical issues : 1. Massively selecting oriented sources 2. Underrepresentation of contrary points of view, especially here the Israeli one. 3. issue with the structure of the arguments.--Vanlister (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)