Talk:Mitzpe Shalem

location
There is no country called "West Bank." Who administers the territory in question? Is it on land that Israel won in a defensive war against Jordan and which Jordan ceded control? Wouldn't it be "Israel" until it becomes something else? Doesn't the description of the location make it clear it is in the West Bank? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The West Bank, a part of Palesintian Occupied Territories. 86.186.60.250 (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Status under international law
Including the following summary of international law is excessive in an article describing the characteristics of a single settlement among Israel's 100 settlements. Including this long diatribe rather than simply linking to the wiki article on the subject is an abuse of wiki's NPOV policy. Jdkag (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Mitzpe Shalem is considered illegal under international law, though Israeli disputes this. The international community considers Israeli settlements to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on the transfer of an occupying power's civilian population into occupied territory. Israeli government counters this by contending that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state. This view has been rejected on the basis of an interpretation of rulings by the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross, on Israel's West Bank barrier, though the rulings do not actually comment on any settlements themselves.


 * See WP:Legality of Israeli settlements.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The existence of each and every settlement is a violation of the 4th Geneva convention per the overwhelming majority of mainstream opinion and RS. In fact if you look at UN votes, the Israeli opinion on this is an extreme minority and in my view it is verging on undue to even represent the Israeli position it has such little support internationally. Trying to present these settlements as ordinary communities is POV pushing because this is not how they are viewed by the vast majority of opinion and RS who see the illegality of the settlements as the most important aspect about them. Dlv999 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Mitzpe Shalem residents have been carrying on with the peaceful existence of their community for more than 40 years, far from any occupied Arab community that could feel oppressed or impinged by their activities mentioned in this article. Unfortunately, the anti-Israeli view is that if anti-Israeli propaganda is not over the top, in-your-face, then the article is pro-Israeli. I thought I had suggested a reasonable compromise. The lack of willingness to compromise, that is, to co-exist with others on this page, reflects the Palestinian inability to achieve peaceful co-existence with Israel. It is the reason that Mitzpe Shalem will remain a peaceful illegal settlement for another 40 years or more, as a two state settlement could be achieved only if the Palestinians were capable, culturally and religiously, of compromising with Jews.Jdkag (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC) By the way, I thought that my compromise was following the WP to the letter, whereas the current text does not follow the WP.Jdkag (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Legality of Israeli settlements has been agreed centrally after a long and difficult discussion that included sampling a large number of reliable sources. It is intended to be a project-wide standard and compliance is enforced under the discretionary sanctions that cover the topic area. The presence of the standard legality statement in the lead section is mandatory but there is flexibility when it comes to the exact nature of the expanded section in the body of the article because those details aren't specified in WP:Legality of Israeli settlements. You are claiming a lack of willingness of others to compromise and co-exist with you here, but an objective description is that your edit simply did not comply with a project-wide standard and it was reverted on that basis.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)