Talk:Palestinian freedom of movement

NPOV
This article is in very poor shape. I don't have the time to make all of the adjustments necessary to bring it up to Wikipedia standard. As it stands, it's basically a soapbox preaching one side of the story, not an objective encyclopedic article. One line in the entire article is dedicated to explaining Israel's good reasons for wasting money and manpower for implementing these restrictions, and even the one sentence is trivialized with the weasel word "argues". I am placing a POV tag on the article so that people can address the many issues. Breein1007 (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Kudos for not taking the article to AFD. I must say I'm surprised.


 * Anyway, I welcome additions explaining and defending the Israeli government's position. Reliably sourced and appropriately voiced, of course. The opinion section at the end is where editorials can go. Factomancer (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with the sentiments expressed by User:Breein1007. A mere glance at the References listed in the article is indicative of the article's POV direction. Besides for one source, everything is referenced to a left-wing advocacy organization, B'Tselem. Oh, and the one reference not from B'Tselem? That's Arab News, a Saudi government-controlled enterprise that fancies itself a news source. So what we have here is an advocacy article with a touch of propaganda dressed up as a neutral Wikipedia article.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, Brewcrewer, maybe you missed the references from the United Nations, the World Bank, Haaretz, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency? Time for new reading glasses? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shabazz, "Time for new reading glasses?" is PA.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it was a friendly suggestion. Evidently Brewcrewer can't see all the small type in the References section of the article, so he ought to get a new prescription for his reading glasses. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Malik, as an admin, I would expect you to demand quality to WP articles instead of defending poor editing and POV and belittling other editors. You are held up to higher standards, so pointing out the existence of three distinct separate other sources besides the Btzelem POV is not constructive at all. And instead of merely chatting, why don't you pitch in and help? --Shuki (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What? And deprive you of the opportunity to bitch and moan? No thanks.
 * And let's take this slowly: (1) United Nations. (2) World Bank. (3) Haaretz. (4) Jewish Telegraphic Agency. You're right, three sources beside B'Tselem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Next time just say "My bad" or something along those lines. It came across like a dig so you should acknowledge it.
 * People who work for the UN are not always objective just because they have credentials by the way. There are sources on this though so hopefully the ratio between reports from or citing observers and more neutral (or even biased in the other direction) parties can be included.
 * Like many articles in the topic area, more mention of why is needed. The lead does it just fine currently but filling out claimed justification in the body would be a huge step. SYNTH and COATRACK are mentioned at the AfD. Even with sources, the structure of paragraphs and sections can still create those problems. Instead of listing why it is a problem and how often it is donem there should be more discussing the overall political situation and more on what Israel thinks about it.Cptnono (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For Tiamut mainly, since he has missed this section. The tags are legitimate since the entire article is based on Bstelem's own claims and there are only three secondary sources. The article is POV since it is written mainly from one side of the conflict and not really any 'counter' information to explain why the restrictions exist. There is a dire need to update the information since the number of roadblocks now is certainly not what it was even two or four years ago. The information is outdated and frankly, there are now more restrictions of Jewish movement in the West Bank than Palestinian and many more roads off limits to Jews. Until the article can be properly and NPOV, the tags should stay. --Shuki (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The overuse of B'Tslem is a problem for two of the tags removed. Template:Primary sources is appropriate because the ratio of sources from reliable third-party publications is insufficient. B'Tslem is biased and this comes across in their writing and effects the tone of this article. That tone issue is also part of why their was a POV tag. Other aspects that need improvement neutrality wise:
 * The lead summarizes that it is sad with detailed info and quotes but fails to summarize why. That is a tone and weight issue. What are the settlers being protected from specifically?
 * "...however, inhabitants of the West Bank were not permitted to be in Israel or East Jerusalem between 1.00 and 5.00 a.m" Is Israel just really mean? Why such a curfew like thing? Again, sounds like Israel BAD Palestinians VICTIMS.
 * "...however, according to Amal Jamal,..." Misuse of "however" according to WP:AVOID. This is a neutrallity issue. Is Israel's assertion false? However often implies that.
 * Legality of restrictions section
 * Without a counter claim this appears to be an attack page. Has this come up in Israeli courts or has there been important legislation?
 * Does not seem like the most appropriate use for the see also template. Israel and the apartheid analogy should be linked somewhere in the article but why a see also template in the legality section? Giving it prominence when it can just be wikilinked in the line specifically discussing apartheid.
 * "However in practice, according to B'Tselem, by August 2009 there were still checkpoints restricting entry into the valley and requiring special permits." May be a misuse of "however". This one is close. Maybe to offset the assertion that Israel lied a line should be added discussing what restrictions were actually eased instead of just focusing on the negative.
 * "Many checkpoints only allow the passage of Palestinians who meet certain gender and age-based criteria." Could be taken as Israel being discriminatory. Is it for safety reasons or do they just hate people of certain ages? More attacking Israel without discussing claimed justification.
 * "however, Palestinians are required to have a permit to cross." This isn't blatantly a violation of WP:AVOID but it is annoying seeing so many "however"s. Anything that could show a glimmer of humanity on Israel's part gets the "however". Tone. How about just "Palestinians are required to have a permit to cross."
 * " Misbehaviour of personnel manning checkpoints" subsection heading. Who are we to say misbehavior is going on. Especially when it is mainly just reported "complaints" in the section. "Reports of misconduct" might be better.
 * "He said that the number of complaints required an examination to see whether the misbehaviour was being caused by an excessive workload of the IDF solders manning the checkpoints." Well that was nice of them. So what was the result? Can we say anything not bad about Israel or is it only attacks?
 * "The Israeli Justice Ministry claims that the roadblocks" missuse of "claim". Claim asserts that it is not true and should be avoided. That whole reasoning also needs expansion.
 * "Such closures of the West Bank are common during Jewish religious holidays" Without reasoning it just sounds like Israel is being mean. Has there been an increase of attacks on holidays? It should be mentioned if so.
 * Praise and Criticism sections are a red flag. Especially when Praise is blank. Have the restrictions had any positive effects on Israel?
 * So to summarize:
 * Multiple lines not worded in accordance to WP:AVOID (again)
 * Narrow focus on negative impacts without enough commentary on positive effects in Israel.
 * Israel's reasoning deserves more space.
 * Effects (in general): Economic, medical, and other negative results the Palestinians feel is well documented. Why isn't there a section discussing benefits to Israel? Why is it only negative? Reads like a POV pushing soapbox without such information
 * It is fantastic that improvement is welcomed but until it is done the tag should be acceptable. If it never gets done than the tag never goes away but I hope that won't happen.Cptnono (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Treatment of pregnant women
I added new info to show that sometimes Palestinian women are taken in Israel to give birth. IMO the info is well sourced and relevant, especially the image. The woman got into labor on the crossing that is discussed in the article, and was offered the help.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article already does mention that Palestinian woman can get permission to give birth in Israel. The image is nice though. Unomi (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not to add the image and the story?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does not contain individual examples, and it is probably best that it refrains from doing so. I don't really have a strong opinion on the inclusion of the picture itself either way. Unomi (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You mentioned that "The article already does mention that Palestinian woman can get permission to give birth in Israel." Could you please tell me to what section of the article you refer to. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_freedom_of_movement#Treatment_of_pregnant_women Unomi (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is about permits to enter Israel to give birth. I believe that piece talking about the permits either to pass from one area to another inside West Bank or Gaza or maybe to pass through Israel between West Bank and Gaza. That piece does not even have the word "Israel" in it.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I vastly underestimated the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians. If you truly want to have a short blurb about a woman having to wait 24 hours just to get a permit to have 2 dead fetuses removed then I would support that. By the way, the article needs to be more clear that these are restrictions on movements within the occupied territories. Unomi (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstood the material I added. Is my English to blame? Have you bothered to read the article I refereed to at all? The babies died in Gaza because of complication in the woman pregnancy that had nothing to do with Israel. Their mother Beit Lahiya was told by Palestinians doctors in Gaza that two embryos out of the the four she carried died in her womb, and if she wants to save two other babies, she had to go to Israel. Israeli official granted her entrance in 24 hours after it was requested. It was just a gesture of good will. About clearing the article. It is not my call--Mbz1 (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I have not misunderstood it, I am saying the same thing that you are. The difference is that you are seeing admitting her for emergency treatment as goodwill, while I am seeing it as the only humane thing one can do after you bomb their hospitals and withhold medical supplies. Perhaps if targeting civilian infrastructure was not such a high priority then such goodwill would be unnecessary. Unomi (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I could only repeat what I have told Malik already just down below. If there was no hamas, that is firing rockets from schools and mocks, to Israeli hospitals and kindergartens there would not have been Israeli response. I would like to remind you, please, that Israel has left Gaza few years ago, and what they got in return? Rockets, and more rockets, and with that I withdraw myself from the discussion. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For the period you are describing, ~February 2008: http://www.phrmg.org/pressrelease/2008/Summary%20Report%20for%20Febrary%202008.htm
 * (78)     Palestinians were killed by Israeli Security Forces. 41 of the ( 78) deaths were assassinations carried out by the Israeli Security Forces,10   of  the ( 78) were children.
 * (1)       Israeli soldiers killed by Palestinians.
 * (2)       Israeli civilian killed by Palestinians.

''The crisis emerged last week, when the amounts of fuels provided to the department were decreased to less than 10 percent of weekly needs. '' Wed., February 6th, 2008: Israel reduced the supply of electricity sold to Gaza, as part of broader punitive measures taken against Gaza's civilian population with the approval of Israel's Supreme Court. The cuts to electricity were permitted after Israel's Supreme Court rejected a petition by ten Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations challenging Israel's planned reductions on the amount of electricity and fuel it allowed Gaza residents to purchase. The groups claimed that the cuts violate international law because they deliberately harm civilians, depriving them of the energy they need to run vital services in Gaza. Israel controls Gaza's borders and does not permit supplies to enter Gaza except via Israeli controlled crossings. Resorting to the common refrain of Rockets and more rockets is morally vacant and I am close to considering it a personal attack that you would think it holds any persuasive value. Unomi (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Section is problematic. It would seem to any reader, that all Arab pregnant women are affected by this. Totally untrue. --Shuki (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't mention the word Arab once. Unomi (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1's recent addition
Mbz1 added a paragraph (and a second paragraph masquerading as a caption to a photo) about two Palestinian women giving birth in Israeli hospitals. It's WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK because it's a blatant attempt to include information about Hamas rockets in an unrelated article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Malik, if there was no hamas, there would not have been any problems in entering Israel and moving around. Okay I will change the section a bit, and write only about one woman, without talking about rocket fire. What about the image that text only: [[File:Palestinian woman from the Gaza Strip is giving birth to to quadruplets in a caesarean surgery in Israel Hospital.JPG|250px|thumb]]"Haula Fadlallah, a 32-year-old Palestinian woman from the Gaza Strip, is undergoing Caesarean section in Israel Hospital at the Barzilai medical center in the Israeli city of Ashkelon. She gave birth to quadruplets. A month before, Fadlallah, while waiting at the Erez crossing point between the Gaza Strip and Israel, got labor pains and was rushed to the Barzilai hospital." IMO it is directly relates to the section of the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First, you're wrong. Israel restricted Palestinians' freedom of movement long before there was a Hamas.
 * Second, you have yet to explain what the picture or your little anecdote have to do with Palestinian freedom of movement in general. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When there was no hamas, there was PLO, Islamic jihad, and who knows what else. "My little anecdote"? It is not mine. It is from the sources, and of course it has something to do with the article because it is to show that sometimes pregnant women are taken to Israeli hospitals versus giving birth at check points. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary article
Virtually of this information here is in the West Bank, West Bank security barrier, Gaza Strip, Gaza War, Human rights in Israel, etc. I'm not disputing the facts of the article (I haven't studied the article enough), but rather the necessity of it. If all this information is already available other articles, why do we need another Palestinian article? Also, what is "Palestinian freedom of movement?" It reads like a sloganism. Is this a real phenomenon? And does this extend to Lebanon or Jordan, where Palestinians are literally denied access into countries they were born in or citizens of? I'm too lazy to put up an AFD but maybe it would be good to put one up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I would argue that if this topic has been mentioned throughout Wikipedia it is a strong indication that this article is necessary and appropriate. But go ahead and AFD it if you think the article does not belong on Wikipedia; all you need to write is a reason for nominating it, not too much hard work. I am sure there will be a lot of delete votes. Factomancer (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of reliability of B'Tselem as a source
There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard as to the reliability of B'Tselem as a source.

So far the consensus seems to be that B'Tselem is a reliable source however inline attribution is necessary (I am not quite sure what that entails). Factomancer (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Image licensing
I have used 3 images from B'Tselem to illustrate the facts in the article.

B'Tselem explicitly allows the reproduction of its photos:"Photos in the archive that are taken by B'Tselem are available for reproduction. Please email seran@btselem.org in order to obtain the full size version of the photo file. B'Tselem should be credited as the source of the photograph. Permission must be obtained directly from the photographer or agency for pictures from other sources."

If that is not enough, I will contact B'Tselem about using their photos in Wikipedia. What exact statement do I need from B'Tselem to allow their photos to be used in Wikipedia? Factomancer (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that there would be a strong case for fair use but you really need to take it up at WP:IMAGEHELP. Unomi (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, will do. Factomancer (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Legality / medical care
There's some overlap between these sections -- they should probably get dropped into a blender and sorted out properly. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, sure the legality touches on a number of arguments and some of them involve access to medical care, but thats not the totality of the legality issue. What would you consider changing? Unomi (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The last line of the legality section is "B'Tselem also argues that the restrictions on ill, wounded and pregnant Palestinians seeking acute medical care is in contravention of international law that states that medical professionals and the sick must be granted open passage." It seems to me that would fit better in the medical section: alternately, more of the medical section should go under legality.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree, that line seems to be about legality of certain aspects of the restriction while the medical section deals with those aspects. Legality deserves its own section and so does the issue of medical care. Considering that it is 1 line in Legality that mentions medical aspects I don't see that much can be shaved off there. Unomi (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

structure
I removed some of the POV, dramatization, and attributed dubious claims to their dubious source. The article is still a mess and needs proper structure. Too many sections. --Shuki (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You created a false equivalence by writing that these restrictions on movement also apply to Israelis when the sources cited do not acutally say that. Can you point to which specific passages in which specific sources you based this rewrite of the introduction on? Becuse I can't find mention of what you added. And can you explain why the introduction should make this false equivalence when the body of the article does not discuss it (thereby going against WP:LEAD)? :You also removed some detailed information on checkpoints located within occupied Palestinian territory that was adequately sourced.  Can you explain why?  T i a m u t talk 09:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've restored the source information removed with no explanation (some of which directly contradicted the unsourced text added by Shuki). I also removed the unsourced text added. Please find sources to support the additions you seek to make and please do not remove sourced material without explaning here first why you are doing so.  T i a m u t talk 21:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Expansion - sources and info

 * Benny Morris discusses a bit about the early Israeli leadership's stance against freedom of movement so as to prevent the return of Palestinian refugees. The article should discuss the period between 1948 and 1967, especially as regards the restrictions of freedom of movement of Palestinians who were citizens of Israel at this time (under the regime of martial law ).  T i a m u t talk 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Sources I have added Talk:Palestinian_freedom_of_movement/RS. Unomi (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

New photographs
An OTRS email has been received, asking to include the following photographs on this page:


 * Al-Fahs.JPG
 * Environmental pollution Barakan industrial area.JPG
 * Separation Barrier near Jayyus.JPG

Seeing as there are already photographs on this page, and I know next to nothing about this subject, I was hoping that other people could review the images and decide whether they should be included in this article. Thanks in advance PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Unomi (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes to title
Please make a formal move request and open a discussion before unilaterally changing the article title name. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 07:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest edit controversy
I see there appear to be edits that seek to debate the scope of the article. First, material should be included - and retained - if it is neutral and reflects the sources. Second, material should be about the article subject. If a case can be made to alter the article to being about Freedom of movement in the Israeli-occupied territories, it should be made here. At present the only coverage of any restriction of Israeli movement is the final line in the article: "Israeli citizens are restricted from travelling through regions controlled by the Palestinian Authority. These regions amount to 18% of the West Bank". I have checked and it is indeed properly sourced. This however does not appear sufficient to warrant inclusion in the lead, nor wholesale moving of the article. There would need to be more significant reliable source coverage of restriction on Israeli movement to warrant renaming of - and adding that material to - the article. I suggest that if editors have located such material, they bring it here to the talk page, where we can see both the sources and the content. Then, if it al looks sound and a consensus can be achieved we can then move the article and include the material. I will certainly support moving and inclusion if that material can be brought to attention of editors here at talk. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The move was legitimate, yet bold enough to ruffle feathers. I think the discussion should first be about the scope of the article before getting into guidelines about editing this article. If the issue is the scope of the article, then I see merits in both, but now leaning toward the larger 'Freedom of movement in the WB' which would include restrictions on Palestinians and Jews. A separate article on Freedom of movement in Gaza could be split off since there are no Israeli or Egyptian restrictions within Gaza, and only regular border restrictions while passing the Israeli and Egyptian crossings out. The alternative is creating a separate Israeli freedom of movement article. --Shuki (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. While the circumstances in WB and Gaza are in certain respects different, it seems to me there is more of a case for including Gaza (in terms of reliable source coverage of freedom of movement issues) than there is for including Israeli freedom of movement (for which we at present only have a single passing reference). So I would still prefer to include both areas in the one article. I am also concerned that a proliferation of articles in all things relating to the conflict isn't helping WP, and tends to produce POV forks (even if they aren't always intended that way). For the latter reason in particular I would oppose creation of Israeli freedom of movement. If there is reliable source coverage of Israeli freedom of movement, then I would move the current article to a new title. But there just doesn't seem to be such coverage... hamiltonstone (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because there is only one source now, does not mean it is not an issue. Currently, Israelis are restricted from driving on more roads then Palestinians are. Area A is off limits to Jews, Area B is supposed to be accessible, but the army does not give out any approvals. The larger issue of 'Palestinian freedom of movement' is outdated. The heavy restrictions were put in place at the height of the suicide bombings and roadside killings, but gradually lifted. The amount of roadblocks has dropped drastically after periods of calm. The restrictions on Jews are still in place though. Anyway, I hope more people will comment. I still do not have a strong opinion about the scope. --Shuki (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. If people could bring some reliable sources to this talk page demonstrating these things, then we could hopefully make a case for both renaming the article, and includnig that content, to which people could agree. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The topic of Palestinian freedom of movement is treated as its own in hundreds of scholarly sources. That Israeli settlers are restricted from going outside of their illegal colonies and the territory that the occupying army has illegally allotted them is not treated as part of that topic and efforts to combine them reflect only a somewhat absurd belief that illegal squatters in occupied territory are entitled to the same rights as the indigenous population.  nableezy  - 23:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a POV comment if ever I saw one. I'll let my original suggestion stand. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part is "POV" and how?  nableezy  - 00:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Listen. We both have POVs but soapboxing here is not productive. Fact remains, that you accept, that Israelis have restricted freedom of movement. The context for that would be handled in the article. --Shuki (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that isnt true. Israelis dont have any expectation of "freedom of movement" in territory outside of Israel. If this were to include "restricted freedom of movement" for Israelis then by the same logic you would also need to include the fact that Palestinians in the occupied territories, or refugees in other states, are not allowed to travel into Israel. Israelis in the West Bank are not in Israel. They dont have a right to freedom of movement in the occupied territories. Could you provide any scholarly sources that discuss a supposed "freedom of movement" for Israeli settlers?  nableezy  - 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the nableezy .  The scope of the article seems to be "Restriction on movement of Palestinians within what is considered Palestine (i.e. Gaza and the WB)", not "Restriction on movement of Israelis within Palestine".  Adding the latter scope to this article essentially distorts the topic (which is likely Shuki's intention). NickCT (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with expectations? And, uh, the article already includes restrictions for travelling over the green line. Have you bothered to read the article?
 * Fact: Tens of thousands of Palestinians cross the Green Line daily, but need to have permits whether permanent or temporary.
 * Fact: Israelis are forbidden by the army from entering Area A.
 * Fact: Israeli enter Area A at their own risk, some get lynched, others are escorted out by Palestinian forces.
 * Fact: There still are a few static checkpoints and flying checkpoints are set up.
 * Fact: Israelis are limited to main routes and bypass roads and do not have access to all roads.
 * Fact: Nick, frankly, Palestine means the whole territory from the Med to the Jordan River. Abbas was photographed this week with maps which do not mention Israel. Misleading term to use here.


 * The article is not about the 'right to freedom of movement' but a documentation of the freedom of movement. --Shuki (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have in fact. Nothing in it discusses the denial of the right of return to refugees. The bits about the green line dont come close to what I was talking about. That is discussing the checkpoints that are within the West Bank and permits being suspended.  nableezy  - 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are moving all over the place now. I do not think that this article is about immigration policies and 'right of return' but rather individual mobility. Can Palestinians in Lebanon get citzenship? Do they have 100% freedom of movement? --Shuki (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am discussing the movement of people across international borders. You seem to want to include what happens when Israelis leave Israel and enter into the Palestinian territories. Why would you not also include what happens with Palestinians if they try to enter Israel?  nableezy  - 23:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit summary of the move was on the right track: "Freedom of movement applies to individuals, not to ethnopolitical groups, and rights are discussed according to recognized territories." Assuming that Palestinians are a people (as opposed to people who live in Palestine), shouldn't the article be geographically specific? Would Palestinians living in Canada be within the scope of this article?Cptnono (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about you try reading some sources about the topic and come back with an informed comment? Scholarly sources are clear on this point.  nableezy  - 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about you don't assume I haven't. Are Palestinians living in Canada withing the scope of this article or not?Cptnono (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. If you had read sources discussing the topic you would know that.  nableezy  - 23:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So since it is not about Palestinian freedom of movement as a whole but instead their freedom of movement in x location then the title needs to change. I now support a name change as suggested by another editor.Cptnono (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You do not determine what "Palestinian freedom of movement" means, the sources do, and the article is about "Palestinian freedom of movement", meaning what B'tselem calls The restrictions on movement that Israel has imposed on the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories. The term is discussing the freedom of movement of Palestinians in the Palestinian territories. If you would like to change the title to Palestinian freedom of movement in the Palestinian territories that might be an option, a silly one, but still an option. But this proposed title is just an attempt to include things that are not treated by the sources as part of this topic or even at all relevant to it. Could you or anybody else provide high quality of sources discussing a supposed freedom of movement for Israeli settlers? I would very much like to read those sources. This is its own topic, treated as its own topic by a number of sources.  nableezy  - 00:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've re-added the POV tag because the page seems to rely overly on B'Tsem (or however that's spelled) as a source. AWildAppeared (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of sources, including the United Nations, the World Bank, Encyclopaedia Britanica, books from publishers including Indiana University Press and Verso Books, respected newspapers such as the The Guardian, Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, and even statements from the Israeli Army itself. Unless you can point to specific issues, re-adding this tag with such a false premise is disruptive and vexatious. I have removed the tag. RolandR (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The only organisation that is name-checked over and over in the article is the one I mentioned. It is given undue weight. You cannot remove a tag just because you don't want it there. I am putting it back. AWildAppeared (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. As pointed out below, freedom of movement is a specific term of art in international law. While the restriction or denial of this basic human right is always unfortunate, it is not the role of an encyclopedia to alter standard legal terminology to fit any specific point of view. In the discussion below, consensus exists that the proper method of addressing restrictions of this basic human right is through the addition of reliably-sourced in-article content. Xoloz (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian freedom of movement → Palestinian restriction of movement – Current title reflects the opposite of the subject of the article. Wickey-nl (talk) Relisted. bd2412 T 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 16:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Accurate title. PatGallacher (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Surely the appropriate title would be Restriction of Palestinian movement, rather than Palestinian restriction of movement. The proposed title implies that it is the Palestinians who are imposing the restriction, rather than those whose movement is being restricted. RolandR (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, better. My proposal is not wrong, but ambiguous. In fact, it is about Restriction of the Palestinian freedom of movement or even Restriction of the Palestinian right on "freedom of movement", but that is definitely too long. So, I go for Restriction of Palestinian movement. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would support this as a sweet POV push myself, but alas we have this weird and unfortunate rule about reliable sources. I noticed none of you brought this up, which I of course is a coincidence. compare & . -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 04:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems you didn't, or don't want to, get the point. Did you read my response above? --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You made a bunch of points, but I don't see one that spoke to the point I made regarding the common use in independent third party sources. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, what do you make of this comparison?  RolandR (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's way cool. Are you making a proposal based on these "findings"?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Google is not part of the criteria, the more so as the search results are also based on WP itself. Existing WP titles also influence the results. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Adapted proposal Rethinking as nominator the possibilities, I think the most accurate title is "Restriction of Palestinian freedom of movement" with a shorter redirect to it: "Restriction of Palestinian movement". --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that there is not a single word to replace the phrase "freedom of movement", which I propose to keep in italic. Some oppose the title change because they don't want an article on the subject at all. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess to elaborate on what I mentioned above, this article is based on the concept entitled Freedom of movement. A sub-article is entitled Freedom of movement under United States law. Assuming there is more "restriction" than "freedom" this fact is irrelevant, as the article must match the name of the common used subject. Actually, to match it perfectly and to cover all issues, the correct article name should be Freedom of Movement in the Palestinian Territories. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Freedom of Movement as a minor issue perfectly fits under the proposed title. Your argument can also be inversed. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Freedom of movement is the name of a human right concept which is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Marokwitz (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The restriction of their freedom of movement is what the article is about, "Restriction of Palestinian freedom of movement" would be the best title. I don't see any argument against this title. Sepsis II (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't "see"? Do you mean you don't "agree"?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I of course mean that no arguement has been made in opposition to the move, just a lot of empty !votes from the usual crew. Sepsis II (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "usual crew"? "empty !votes"? How ironic.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with Sepsis II and others. The article is about the restriction so that should be in the title. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Marokwitz. I can see the merits to either title, so I was looking for one consistent with those of other titles. It's completely normal and neutral to discuss a political freedom in terms of to what extent that freedom is present. Freedom of speech in the United States discusses restrictions on that political freedom, but there could be no serious proposal to rename it as Restrictions on speech in the United States. Reframing the issue thus is POV. I would support the proposed alternative of Freedom of movement in the Palestinian territories, however. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The comparison is not so consistent, as Freedom of speech in the United States is the main article about Freedom of speech, while this article merely focusses on the absence of Freedom. Moreover, a separate article named Restrictions on speech in the United States is imaginable. In contrast, a main article about Palestinian freedom of movement in positive sense, which would have the current title, is rather unlikely to be written. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - suggested new title would be POVish Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is about the restriction of Palestinian's movement, how the hell could an appropriate title be POVish? I have a hard time assuming good faith from a number of these unexplained, nonsensical, oppose votes. Sepsis II (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is what we do with the broader concept of human rights: Category:Human rights by country contains an article on Human rights in Foo for most countries, and a Category:Human rights in Foo for most countries. We use that consistent title without making a value judgement of the state of human rights in each country, which just as well, or we would have a series of renaming debates about articles called Pretty good human rights in Foo, Poor human rights in Bar, No human rights in Fubar, etc. Please don't go down that path. The content of this heavily-edited article does a fine job of explaining the restrictions on freedom of movement for Palestinians; we don't need to customise the headline. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Freedom of movement is a human right codified in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in other such documents. As the internationally used term for the concept, that is the neutral title to use. The degree to which that right is upheld in that country is a matter for the article's contents.
 * Very convincing to warn for discussions on renaming non-existing articles. Compare general articles with specific ones? --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Comparing with other articles about human rights in countries, and noting that the title remains consistent regardless of whether human rights are well upheld or routinely violated. As BDD noted above, it's completely normal and neutral to discuss a political freedom in terms of to what extent that freedom is present. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Freedom of movement of Israeli citizens
From what I remember from brief visits to the Palestinian territories is that there would be long queues of for residents of the Palestinian territories and others who chose to join them and there would be short queues for Israelis either from non occupied territories or from settlements which foreign nationals could join as well. The result was that people eligible to join the Israeli queues got through checkpoints in a small fraction of the time taken by locals. If there are sources on this I think this is a topic that warrants inclusion. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  12:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true. The larger checkpoints have separate lines for Israeli/settler cars too.  I don't have a perfect source in mind at the moment. Zerotalk 12:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Palestinian freedom of movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120930182344/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184855877&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184855877&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft that may have mergeable content
Please review User:Drafthorse/drafts/Palestinian Freedom of Movement. There may be content in that draft that could be merged here. Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

- Hello! I've never edited Wikipedia before, and I know this is a protected page so I might not be able to edit it directly (hence why I'm editing the Talk page). But I wanted to point something out:

Under the "Gaza-West Bank Safe Storage" section, it says this:

"In 2013, an advanced container scanner was built at the Kerem Shalom crossing with the main purpose to enable the resumption of exports from Gaza to the West Bank, as well as to Europe and the rest of the world, while addressing Israel's security concerns. Israel, however, refuses to use the scanner for export to the West Bank because ″for security reasons, Israel wants to isolate the West Bank from the Gaza Strip, and allowing goods from the Strip into the West Bank would contradict this policy.″[44][45] The scanner has costed multi-million Euro and was donated to the PA by the Dutch government.[46]"

The 3 sources cited (44,45,46) are from 2013. But I googled it and found 2 articles from 2015, saying the situation has now changed, and Israel has started using this Dutch-made scanner for goods containers:

"New scanner at Gaza crossing to speed rebuilding efforts" -- Times of Israel. 16 July 2015. https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-scanner-at-gaza-crossing-to-speed-rebuilding-efforts/

And

"Dutch scanner comes to Gaza border crossings" -- YNet News. 17th July 2015. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4681046,00.html

My suggested edit would be just to add something like "In 2015, Israel started using this Dutch-made scanner to check containers of goods coming from the West Bank into the Gaza Strip".

Thank you! JonChat

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonChat (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

add tag
The following text


 * Israeli citizens are not allowed to enter area A

Does not say who does not allow them to enter. This article is protected so I can't edit --CONFIQ (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

B’Tselem
This page is almost completely sourced with B’Tselem. Which, from an academic standpoint, is ridiculous. There’s many different studies, facts and figures, resources, and studies. If you look through this page, you only see this one entity. Which has a very clear bias. Having it sourced for some things, not a problem. All viewpoints should be shown. But looking through this page, this is literally the only source. That’s ridiculous. And a failure on Wikipedia‘s end. 2A00:A040:19F:A639:99E0:8729:6E47:3972 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is simply untrue. The article has 55 footnotes; as far as I can see, 15 are from B'Tselem. It is far from "literally the only source". RolandR (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

If you look over all the sources, and individually go through them, about 85% of them are leaning a certain direction. Whether that be B’Tselem (15 out of 55 is way too much of one source to even begin with, and reflects a lack of impartiality) to publications like Haaretz. Quoting only the sources, does not present a fair outlook on the situation, but enters into borderline propaganda. Barely any Israeli sources were cited. Barely any Jewish sources were cited. This type of article would not be excepted as impartial on a community college level. Horrendously cited.

Accepted* NetanelWorthy (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Both B'Tselem and Haaretz are Jewish and Israeli. Zerotalk 02:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Tidy up please
It is possible to travel from the West Bank to Gaza only if the person pledges to permanently relocating to Gaza. As Israel so easily allows passage when it comes to a West Bank resident wishing to relocate permanently to Gaza, HaMoked and B'Tselem wonder whether Israels declared considerations mask illegitimate demographic concerns.

"relocating" should be "relocate"

"Israels" should be "Israel's"

And regarding word order, perhaps "so easily allows passage" should be changed to "allows passage so easily". Dabmonger (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong information under "Movement between Gaza and Israel"
It says "Gazan residents are only admitted to Israel in exceptional humanitarian cases", however until Oct 7 2023 many Gazans were allowed to enter Israel for work purposes. Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays-1500-more-entry-permits-for-gaza-workers-bringing-total-to-17000/ Avnerh11 (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)