Talk:Israeli settlement

Haaretz article: "Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie."

Haaretz - Yotam Berger - Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie, 28 July 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZScarpia (talk • contribs)

Security isn't a "pretext"

Under 4.2 Settlement Policy, the article reads "The government abrogated the prohibition from purchasing occupied land by Israelis; the "Drobles Plan", a plan for large-scale settlement in the West Bank meant to prevent a Palestinian state under the pretext of security became the framework for its policy."

The dictionary definition of pretext is something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse.

The provided citation doesn't support the copy in the wiki article. The document doesn't say that security was a pretext. The document says security is one of several reasons to develop the settlements. The cited article reads, "The following are the principles which guided the plan: 1. Settlement throughout the entire Land of Israel is for security and by right, A strip of settlements at strategic sites enhances both internal and external security alike, as well as making concrete and realizing our right to Eretz Israel..."

So the article isn't even denying that it assumes that the Israelis have some sort of biblical or historical right to Israel, BUT it also argues that the settlements would improve security.

There is also the matter that the same section of this article implies that these cited documents were written by representatives of the Israeli government; they were not, they were written by departments of the World Zionist Organization which is an NGO and not directed by the Israeli government. It was essentially written by a think tank advocating a certain perspective but the article casts it as from the central government planning office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.105.157 (talk)

Israeli Colonies

Calling Israeli settlements a colony is completely ridiculous. One source says that, and the idea that is some universally agreed thing is crazy. If you put that, at least say its debated.

Change:

"Israeli settlements are civilian communities inhabited by Israeli citizens, built on lands occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli settlements currently exist in the Palestinian-claimed territory of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian-claimed territory of the Golan Heights."

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israels-rights-in-the-west-bank-under-international-law Their is debate to whether it defies international law.

There isn't any debate, they are declared illegal by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, 14-0, US abstaining. Colony is a synonym and they have no official name so not ridiculous, the French even use colonie for settlement.Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

According to the Colony article, the term is used is English "to refer mainly to the many different overseas territories of particularly European states between the 15th and 20th centuries CE." The French is irrelevant here. In regard to Israeli settlements, the term "colony" is used mostly by Pro-Palestinian writers looking to draw comparisons between Israeli policies and colonialism. By using this term here, it is implied that Wikipedia subscribes to that point of view, which is of course a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Tombah (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the source of your claim that the word is used mostly by pro-Palestinian writers.

Even if that were the case, being pro-Palestinian is a mainstream position, as is being pro-Israeli. Only a tiny minority of people are anti-Palestinian or anti-Israeli.

Under international law, these places are colonies in exactly the sense you quote above, are they not? If you are trying to point out a difference vs the 18th and 19th century colonies of Britain and France, please could you explain further? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The article colony matches the Israeli situation quite well. From the historical point of view, "colony" was the usual word used by Zionists to refer to Jewish settlements in pre-mandate Palestine. But anyway it is sources that matter here. Zero^talk 01:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If we are playing games with wikilinks (WP is not a source) then Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that seeks to replace the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers. Seems to apply on the face of it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a ton of sources attesting to colony being a commonly used name. A Wikipedia editor's personal dislike is of course not relevant. And the very basic misstatement as to what NPOV requires above shows the issue. It is claimed it is a NPOV violation to include views of "Pro-Palestinian writers", but NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant viewpoints. The view that these places are colonies is indeed significant and well sourced. And efforts to suppress that well sourced material are tendentious and violate the discretionary sanctions in place on this article. nableezy - 02:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile, this is not the place to discuss Israeli policies and historical comparisons. The international community use the term settlements, rather than colonies. Tombah (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zero, it is correct that the name colony was used by Jews in Mandatory Palestine, but it is no longer the case since 1948. Using anachronistic names might confuse our readers. Tombah (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy The sources used for the term "Colonies" are all written by Arabs. We are not discriminating anyone in here, but in an article dedicated for one of the major issues of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, with the Arabs being a belligerent, its usage makes it strictly one-sided. One of the sources cited even explicitly states that this is a Palestinian term. I still haven't seen one single sources written by either Israelis or the international community in which the term "colonies" is used. I agree that as with every other Wikipedia article, this one should include all significant viewpoints - but not as part of the lead. For more information regarding how to do that, please read Wikipedia:Describing points of view. Until this issue is solved, I'm adding an unbalanced template to this article. Tombah (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You have repeatedly included terms used by partisans within partisan camps, eg here. We include all significant views, and even if this were only used by Arabs (it is not, see end of this comment for examples), it would still merit inclusion as an alternate name. As far as the claim the sources are all written by Arabs, as though we ethnically mark our sources or dismiss sources saying things like "they are all written by Jews", that is both risible in its implication and just flat out wrong:

• Pappé, Ilan (2015). "What Is Left of the Israeli Left? (1948–2015)". The Brown Journal of World Affairs. 22 (1). Brown Journal of World Affairs: 351–367. ISSN 1080-0786. JSTOR 24591021. Retrieved 2022-03-14. These facts are clearly irreversible. Israeli colonies have turned into urban sprawls, and the autonomous Palestinian enclaves have shrunk into inviable and unsustainable municipalities.
• Robinson, Glenn E. (2007). "The Fragmentation of Palestine". Current History. 106 (704). University of California Press: 421–426. ISSN 0011-3530. JSTOR 45318480. Retrieved 2022-03-14. Israeli colonies in the West Bank are central to the fragmentation of Palestinian lands.
• Dumper, Mick (2019). "The U.S. Embassy Move to Jerusalem: Mixed Messages and Mixed Blessings for Israel?". Review of Middle East Studies. 53 (1). Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA): 34–45. ISSN 2151-3481. JSTOR 26731399. Retrieved 2022-03-14. In the same vein, the U.S. move has deferred the prospect of an agreement on Jerusalem indefinitely since it appears to preempt any recognition of Palestinian counter-claims to the city, in addition to postponing negotiations over other important issues, including the evacuation of Israeli colonies or settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPts), security cooperation, and Israeli recognition of the state of Palestine. Without progress on the Jerusalem question, there can be no agreement on these other issues.

A dozen non-Arab written sources can be added on request. nableezy - 16:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Tombah the usage of colonies though sometime used is not prevalent and certainly shouldn't be appear as alternative name per WP:UNDUE also the removal of the tag was unwarranted. There are clearly WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issue --Shrike (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Supporting the above consensus against removal of a properly sourced altname. Also Unbalanced tag is inapplicable, if you think some other tag is applicable feel free to add one. Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The term "Israeli colonies" is indeed mostly used by Palestinians, as mentioned directly by one of the sources. It should be removed for the lead as it is an obvious WP:UNDUE. Eladkarmel (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The term "Israeli colonies" is mostly limited to certain circles, and neither used by Israel nor the international community. I agree with Tombah, Shrike and Eladkarmel; this is a WP:NPOV issue that must be resolved. Benbaruch (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest a search of the archives since this has been discussed previously as far back as 2012 (Shrike saying exactly the same thing as they are saying now) so it seems there is no real justification for overturning a long standing consensus. There are also plenty of sources that are not Palestinian. Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just claiming something is a NPOV violation does not make it so. It is properly sourced that "Israeli colonies" is used as another term for Israeli settlements. The claim that it is restricted to Palestinians is made without any sourcing and as such is specious. And even if it were true, it would still merit inclusion. Significant alternate names is the criteria. nableezy - 13:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Although not germane due to the ready availability of other sources, a claim was made in another place that the UN did not use the word colonies. UNCTAD's 199th plenary meeting of 2 July 1983, 146 (VI) "Gravely concerned at the ever-increasing number of Israeli colonies in the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza strip," or 1998 https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-179562/ (Habitat) ("1. Decides to use the term 'Israeli colonies in occupied territories' instead of 'Israeli settlements' in all United Nations documentation;") are a straightforward refutation of this claim.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The UN Commission on Human Settlements in 1988 decided that a resolution be put to UNGA requiring that "Israeli colonies" be used in place of "Israeli settlements" in all UN documents. Such a resolution would have passed by a wide margin but was never presented to the UNGA for reasons I didn't determine. UN documents thus usually still use "Israeli settlements". Scattered exceptions can be found, and it is fairly common to find "colonies" in speeches (and not only by Arabs). Zero^talk 07:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

See [1] Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that's the Habitat/Human Settlements one just above.Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

'Treated equally under Israeli law'

This is not challenged...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylahackman (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The place I see that is where it says settlers are treated the same as Israelis in Israel proper. That is mostly correct, though they do qualify for benefits and subsidies not available to Israelis within Israel (iirc). nableezy - 22:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

colonies as a common name

"Israeli colonies" is used in countless sources to describe the, well, colonies Israel has established outside its sovereign territory. And it is simply untrue that it is only used by Palestinian sources (eg here), and when exactly did we disregard sources by ethnicity? Are Jewish Israeli sources banned here or did I miss a memo? nableezy - 20:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The only question about the use of colonies as a descriptor is the frequency, is it frequently, widely, often, sometimes, rarely used? My instinct is sometimes (perhaps more so academically due to it being a synonym), let's see if we can firm that up. Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Abu-Laban, Yasmine; Bakan, Abigail B. (2019). Israel, Palestine and the Politics of Race: Exploring Identity and Power in a Global Context. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83860-879-8. The ongoing occupation has been heavily shaped by the issues of land confiscation and the building of Israeli Jewish settlements (or what Palestinians often refer to less euphemistically as "colonies").

  That it is often referred to as colonies by one of the involved parties is sufficient for inclusion as a significant alternative title. nableezy - 22:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

See our French Wikipedia article Colonies israéliennes. That is the common name in French. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure if that matters a lot but Polish main stream media uses term “colonies" ( kolonie, kolonii etc. in Polish) while referring to Israeli settlements. -->[2], [3] including liberal dayly Gazeta Wyborcza --> [4] quote --> Najbardziej jednak palestyńskie oczy kłują położone nieopodal izraelskie kolonie = However, it is the Israeli colonies located nearby that prick the Palestinian eyes the most. GizzyCatBella🍁 20:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

All names in other Wikipedia is pretty much irrelevant we english wikipedia. The term colony in English language is rarely used toward Israeli settlements as we don't use Israeli POV like "communities in Judea and Samaria" the usage of such term is clear violation of NPOV --Shrike (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

When you say 'in English language' (meaning, I guess, 'in English sources) you probably meant to state 'in English-language newspapers'. In English-language academic sources, many written by Israeli scholars, the term 'colony' as in 'colonial-settler' (state) is quite common, in keeping with the fact that historically Zionism conceived of itself as a colonial project (Jewish Colonisation Association etc.etc.etc). The word 'settlement' is an Israeli/US euphemism born of the necessity to camouflage or underplay the fact that the old ideology is still kicking (out Palestinians) for lebensraum. Other languages are not subject to the same pressures as are English mainstream sources, esp.in countries which are still mindful of their own colonial past. Euphemization is not 'neutral'.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)