Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

By whom?

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Shrike. This edit is ridiculous for someone who should be familiar with the facts. The Pallywood meme has emerged consistently every time a Palestinian is filmed, either being shot or otherwise, and the film/video, not flattering to Israel, is then played to the world. This happened with Mohammad Durrah, the Beitunia killings, numerous Gaza 2014 incidents and Ahed Tamimi. The academic source cited obviously makes a generalization according to the Palestinian sources that refers to the widespread practice of yelling ‘fake news’, Palestinians are 'conspiring' to skew the facts, when videos of apparent mistreatment of Palestinians emerge. You object to my not adding ‘according to the Palestinian sources?’ I dropped that because, while in the source, the dismissal of the idea of Pallywood as conspiratorial is not, pace the source, a Palestinian idea. To the contrary, I could have egged up the sourcing to show that numerous reputable commentators, Jewish, Israeli, or neither assert that the way pro-Israeli sources spin this is tantamount to a conspiracy theory. I.e. I could put in Charles Enderlin’s account, which attributes the idea that Palestinians conspired to fake evidence to numerous Israeli sources, indeed, the government itself. I don’t, again, for reasons of space. That it widely viewed as a conspiracy theory, not simply by Palestinian sources, is obvious.

Charles Enderlin ‘Making an Icon: the Al-Dura conspiracy,’ in Caspi Dan, Rubinstein Daniel eds. Reporting The Middle East: Challenges And Chances, World Scientific, 2017 978-9-813-22538-1 pp.163-178

Involved political leaders as reliable sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

One of the most basic principles of RS and NPOV is that first-party involved persons with conflicts of interest are not reliable as sources of fact. Why does this even need to be said? But here we see Benyamin Netanhayu cited for fact with a straight face. To put it far more mildly than it deserves, this cannot be accepted. Zero^talk 06:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources for the same prose: The memorandum itself; Journal of Palestine Studies; David Schoenbaum 1993, cited in Moshe Ma'oz 1995. ^Leviv_ich? ! 06:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Netanyahu gives a quantity of four fifths and many pages about it and the whole text of JSCM-373-67. It seems to have had a large effect on his thinking. Some sources do not say how large the area really was. Even though JSCM-373-67 gives a map.

If you want we can cite other sources and say according to Netanyahu four fifths. He also cites later support in 1988 from 100 generals and admirals for the 1967 paper.Jonney2000 (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The memorandum existed. That's not the point. The first point is that you have to provide a reliable source for it. The second point is that you have to source and attribute arguments made on the basis of it, and you also have to find a source that the memorandum played any role in events or even in US thinking. Otherwise it fails WEIGHT. It was never US policy that Israel retain a large amount of territory. Of course retaining territory would be to Israel's military advantage, who could doubt that and why is it interesting? It would be to Syria's military advantage to possess the Galilee; if we found a memorandum stating that, would it automatically be notable? Zero^talk 09:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. Joint Chiefs are, of course, notable. Do you have an policy based objection to David Schoenbaum? Making up a ridiculous standard that 95% of Wikipedia, basically any opinion or hypothetical, would fail is not helpful.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Just as a general note: the articles under ARBPIA sanctions (such as this one), have stronger sourcing standard than, if not 95%, then the great majority of Wikipedia articles. It is very simple: The more controversial the subject → the better sources are needed. And the articles under ARBPIA sanctions are among the most controversial on Wikipedia → better sources than for the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are needed, Huldra (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As it was showed secondary WP:RS discuss it make it WP:DUE --Shrike (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you please rephrase that? It is not comprehensible English. Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Israeli security concerns

Latest comment: 5 years ago86 comments8 people in discussion

Following this revert of well sourced information (though needing expansion - Jordanian artillery fire, Palestinian cross-border raids pre-1967, concerns of rocket fire at Israel, and additional security concerns) I've placed a POV tag. Israeli security concerns are part of any serious analysis of the Israeli occupation from a geopolitical perspective, including most analysis of possible solutions that would end the occupation. Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) see below. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: added the below paragraph. The placement at the top of the article seemed very odd, and it is missing important context.

During the 1967 Six-Day War, Jordanian artillery shelled the suburbs of Jerusalem and coastal cities. In parallel to the Israeli offensive in Jersualem, Israeli forces moved into the northern West Bank where long-range Jordanian artillery was bombarding Israel. Following the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza which increased Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, preventing the West Bank from becoming a platform for rocket attacks against Israel is one of Israel's main security concerns. Since the West Bank is very close to all major Israeli population centers, such attacks would place nearly all Israeli community under threat. Furthermore, the ability to operate Ben Gurion Airport, Israel's main international airport, would come into question.

Examples of missing context:

The shelling / artillery bombardment in 1967 was Egyptian-led - the Jordanian army was headed and directed by Egyptians. The attacks were in retaliation for Israel's destruction of the Egyptian air force.
Stating that the "Israeli disengagement from Gaza increased Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel" is propaganda. The reality was much more complex. The Israeli political need to play tough in front of its voters poisoned any hope of positive relations between Gaza and Israel, which manifested itself in a variety of actions that increased tension. The Sharon-Olmert governments' meddling in intra-Palestinian politics likely had more to do with the rocket attacks that any other factor. The withdrawal was just one of many factors.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

As Jordanian artillery fire and cross-border raiding by Palestinians preceded the occupation, and the on-going security concerns are one of the major reasons for the occupation - placement at the beginning makes sense. The cited source clearly ties the occupation to Jordanian artillery fire (that the Egyptians directed (or not - this is debated) it is immaterial to the Israeli security concern - the possibility of foreign influence only increases the concern). Your assertion that concerns of rocket fire are propaganda are interesting - but RSes seem to analyze this concern (as well as the concern of shoulder-slung SAMs being employed in the hills around Ben-Gurion airport). Israeli security concerns are quite obviously a rather major component of the occupation itself as well as any agreed solution that would end the occupation - being a major item in on-going negotiations for the past few decades. Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Right. I agree that Israeli security concerns are a component of the occupation. Security concerns were also a component of Josef Fritzl's 20-year-plus confinement of his family to the basement.

I have no objection to security concerns being in this article, but they must be in their proper context.

As to your points, there is no debate at all about who made the decision to launch artillery fire in 1967. I will bring RS quotes if you like. Why the artillery fire was launched is not at all immaterial - Jordan never threatened Israel, and was only ever signed up to attack in retaliation. There is no debate about this - Jordan was never considered a proactive threat.

My point on Gaza is the same. If you want to raise it as a parallel to the West Bank, then you have to include all the context. Making Israel look like an innocent victim, when both sides were to blame for the poor subsequent relations between Israel and Gaza, is classic propaganda and not befitting of our encyclopedia.

As to your placement point, you are clearly trying to imply that if Israel disengaged from the West Bank there would be security concerns, but you have done so without sources. It is classic WP:SYNTH.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Meantime all the article is without the proper context removing it.Its clear WP:POV violation --Shrike (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I hadn’t noticed that - could you please point to specific examples in the article text? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Jewish connection to the history of the region is missing.Israeli security concerns are missing.The fact the Palestinians time after time refused their own state and so one.WP:UNDUE space to various organisation critical of Israel while the opposing views are missing that what I found from cursory reading of this article as good example of one-sided WP:TE --Shrike (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Your first two sentences are covered in other articles in great detail.

Your third sentence which claims ”...opposing views are missing...” is very important. Can you point to specific examples?

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Israeli concerns on Palestinian rockets are long-standing (harking back to PLO rocket fire from Lebanon) - e.g. Duncan, Andrew. "The military threat to Israel." Survival 24.3 (1982): 98-107. - Whilst it may be possible to ensure that conventional forces are excluded from the West Bank after Israeli withdrawal, it would be impossible to guarantee that no form of terrorist activity would ever be mounted against Israel from the area. No doubt the border security fence, so carefully obliterated in 1967, could be reconstructed so as to severely limit the possibility of infiltration and the smuggling of explosives into Israel, but the problem of longer range indirect weapons would remain. Presumably the PLO-held BM-21 multi-barrelled rocket launchers, used for the first time in the largescale rocket attacks in the northern towns and settlements in June 1981, could be kept out. But the man-pack variety of Katyusha rockets, however inaccurate, could not fail to hit Jerusalem or the Tel Aviv area. Every plane landing or taking of! at Ben Gurion airport would be in range of hand-held SAMS located in the West Bank. Israeli security concerns, after the experience of so many years of terrorism, must be taken into account, and, especially in the initial years, territorial compromise and other confidence-building measures will be essential.. Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I suggest a section called “Considerations regarding Israeli withdrawal” or similar. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Extensively written on - e.g. This Oxford University Press book has quite a bit on the rocket threat on the Jordan Valley's importance to Israeli security. As for your suggestion - this was (and is) the raison d'etre of the occupation - not just any possible future withdrawal. Clearly the occupier is a significant portion of the occupation, and we should devote extensive coverage to the occupier's concerns. Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the raison d’etre of the occupation is a highly contentious and debated issue. Different members of the Israeli establishment had different views on the topic back in 67. But your underlying point is right - there should be a section on the reasons that Israel decided to occupy the area - that will fit chronologically into the “Conquest” section (perhaps you want to create a subsection under that heading?)

Then a withdrawal considerations section could be added towards the end of the article, perhaps as a subsection under “Economic and social benefits and costs of the occupation”?

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Indeed, although the history of attacks may be more fitting for a new Background section (see section two up for more discussion on this). I guess withdrawal considerations would fit in that section, although in its current state it's more "Economic and social costs of the occupation". ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I have access to that book, if required. SOLO ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The establishment, continuation, and possible withdrawal (or some other arrangement -- all being rather crystal bally) are all inter-coupled - they can not be separated (are we going to discuss the Jordan Valley and mountain pass choke points in triplicate?) The Israeli security considerations are clearly an important point for the Israelis who have decided to establish and continue this occupation - said considerations should be presented (as well as varying opinions within the Israeli establishment, and outside it, regarding various considerations). Bellezzasolo - if you have a suggestion for points we should present here, this would be swell.Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this is a question of optimal flow. I think we have dealt with the POV question. There are no objections to the additions we have discussed, so long as you ensure balance and context. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The article already deals with the problem of security threats and calculations in several points (the Alon Plan, Molad's analysis and other sources stating the costs to Israel of occupation, the settlement project creating security issues where none existed beforehand). Read the article. Material as above about rocket threats and the like is meaningless for the West Bank, which is not Gaza. There are any number of sources that will tell you retaining the West Bank as a security buffer with the technological revolution (iron dome, satellite surveillance, improved missile technology allowing wars to be waged over thousands of miles regardless of the terrain, rendering borders irrelevant to strategy etc.) is no argument for enhanced security, To the contrary. The article re Lebanon is of no use, since historical analysis has revealed Israel struck Lebanon precisely when an 8 month truce on rocket exchanges had held. This is another can of worms for anyone who thinks documenting political assertions is tantamount to setting the factual record straight. What are the security concerns behind land expropriation, torture, shooting children, polluting the West Bank, exploiting its raw materials and water reserves,etc.etc.etc. It will be very difficult to show that all is governed by defense worries.

Whatever, any such addition has to be represented as a political claim because there is a substantial record that Israeli intelligence specialists and IDF veterens regard the occupation as a threat to Israel.

“We’re on a steep slope toward an increasingly polarized society and moral decline, due to the need to keep millions of people under occupation on claims that are presented as security-related," J. J. Goldberg 106 Retired Israeli Generals, Spy Chiefs Urge Netanyahu to Push for Peace Haaretz 3 November 2014

to cite just the first that popped into mind, and that will be, along with dozens of other sources, be elicited by the proposed expansion. It will need full page treatment to be done in the round.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, material about rocket threats is not meaningless for the West Bank. The whole point is that Israeli presence in the area prevents attacks such as those launched from Gaza. But rather than a relatively remote strip, the West Bank overlooks Jerusalem and the Israeli coastal plain (population heartland). While it's obviously speculation, that's the nature of a security concern - that on withdrawal, Hamas at some point take control of the West Bank (Hamas being more popular in the West Bank than Gaza), and follow the course set out in their charter. The source quoted by Icewhiz is older, so poses the same threat in the context of the PLO, but it's certainly a notable position. The article should reflect that. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a source that relates "rocket threats" to the ongoing Israeli occupation of the West Bank? Not what some random Wikipedia editors suppose, but actual reliable sources? [R]aison d'etre of the occupation. Wow, thats a new one. But again, sources, not speculation from random people on the internet. Reliable sources that specifically relate some topic to the occupation are required to include that topic in this article. Full stop. nableezy - 01:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Might be some here. ^Leviv_ich? ! 04:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There are quite a few sources - harking back in the early 80s (at least - dragged a few of them up and posted in the thread above) - and continuing through 2019. There are also several sources on the strategic importance of the Jordan Valley. We can argue until we are blue in the face whether such concerns are justified or not - however that would be pointless. Israel has chosen to occupy the West Bank, and clearly Israeli considerations are of material significance for the choice made in the Israeli occupation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If you believe Israel owns the West Bank, then the Jordan Valley becomes a strategic asset, and any attempt by the evicted or to be displaced Palestinians there is a 'security threat' irrespective of any considerations of international law, that Israel has no right to that land. It can be thoroughly documented that many official sources on each occasion of conflict, raises security threats. Israel backed the emergence of Hamas because the presence of Fatah in the Gaza Strip was a 'security threat', only to live to regret the situation; Israel broke the bones of 30,000 youths in the First Intifada, because their throwing stones in protest against the occupation was a 'security threat'; Israel governed its 20% Palestinian minority by applying to them 'military law' for 17 years (1949-1966) because they were a 'security threat'; Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 because of 'security threats'(breaking the ionternationally guaranteed ceasefire that was in place); that it pressed on to hold the Sinai (and make settlements there) because of security threats; that it occupied the Golan Heights and started settlements there because of 'security threats'; that it is bombing deep into Syria now because of 'security threats'; that it bombed Iraq because of security threats; that it kills a lot of engineers in Tehran because of 'security threats'; that it has assassinated people from Norway and Tunis, Rome and Paris because of 'security threats' (several were harmless and unconnected with any known threat, as emerged later). Once you invade a foreign country (and especially if you flood it with settlers), be it China with the UIghurs, or the Tibetans, Russia in Chechnya , France in Algeria, Italy in Libya, South Africa in Namibia, the US in Vietnam, you will get 'think tank' (where thinking tanks) talking heads in all the occupying nations talking over the conflict as one posing a security threat to the civilized world, and the imperial nation in question. It's easy to write up 'security threat' passages on all of those pages. It's even easy to give details of how fatuous the claim is. If Zionism proclaims a god-given right to all of the land Palestinians live in, any opposition is, ipso facto a 'security threat', the security being the right of nice people from Moscow, Semien,Trujillo, Brooklyn etc. to live in comfortable chalets in, as Ehud Barak called it, the Palestinian jungle, undisturbed by muezzin prayer buzzes at dawn, or people speaking Arabic in Jerusalem.

The proposed para will of course have to deal with all sorts of things, like settler demands for a separate bus system in the West Bank because the presence of Arabs engenders a feeling of insecurity: we'll have to add that barring Palestinians from the Jewish road system there is on 'security grounds'; that Palestinian land can be expropriated to strengthen the security of settlements; that Palestinians can't import a large range of chemicals, metals, etc because of 'security concerns', that torture hass been justified by the High Court if there is a security threat; that children and youths are shot dead because the occupying soldiers have rules allowing them to do so if their security is endangered. Come to think about it, a large part of the article already deals with the security threat rationale. People objecting to it simply have not read it closely enough.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of the article deals with the implications of Israel's perceived security threats and the actions Israel took to redress said perceived threats. However, we do not present the perceived security threats from the Israeli perspective, leaving our rather poor readers wondering about the underlying purpose and motivation of the occupier (we do make a few snide asides and allusions that perhaps imply a picture, but we do not cover the Israeli motivations at any depth). Suppose we take your premise of Israeli criminality at face value - even in articles such as Heaven's Gate (religious group) and Slender Man stabbing we present the motives of the perpetrators at great length - despite the motives being criminally insane (i.e. Slender Man). There's copious sourcing on Israeli security concerns and the continuing occupation Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

'Israel's perceived security threats' vary according to which Israeli figure you are referring to, and what specific context they refer to. Someone I think added more bits about West Bank security problems with Jordan, ignoring to add that under the 1994 treaty, that is no longer a 'threat' in so far as its de jure legal regime obliges both countries to collaborate on security threats in that area. There are settlers who think any Arabs in their proximity are a security threat, settlers who welcome cohabitation with local Palestinians in their area; politicians who raise the spectre of a demographic threat as a security issue (beginning with Allon), others who accept a binational state; ex Shin Bet heads, and 106 generals state Netanyahu should make a peace and give back significant portions of the West Bank; some politicians say this would spell doom for Israel's security. So you can't just write up something about 'Israel's security' without specifying who or which group in Israel proposed this or that as a security issue. Indeed, as editing recently shows, some wikipedians are plunking in 'stuff' on security unaware that it is mentioned throughout the article, at least 31 times.

(1) Generally, international jurists affirm that the longer the occupation, the greater must be the weight of the occupied people's humanitarian needs in any assessment of the occupying power's security measures
(2)In the former, it is essentially dissociated from the 50 year long practice of occupying Palestinian lands and used to refer only to an intermittent recourse to military methods to contain episodic upsurges of hostile Palestinian resistance, a means employed when the security of an otherwise peaceful state is said to be at stake.
(3)the Wall becomes a "fence" or "security barrier".
(4)General Chaim Herzog announced on 7 June 1967, that all previously existing laws would remain in force, save in cases where they conflicted with the rights of Israel as Occupying Power to ensure security for both its forces and public order
(5)The military even closely supervised elections in local clubs, cooperatives or charitable organizations:West Bank lawyers were banned on security grounds from organizing professionally a bar association
(6)Molad's conclusion is that defending settlements has a negative impact on Israel's security
(7)With Military Order No. 393 (14 June 1970), the local commander was given the power and authority to block any construction if, in his evaluation, the building might pose a danger to Israel's security.
(8)This ruling actually enhanced the settlement project since anywhere Israelis settled automatically became a security zone requiring the military to guarantee their safety
(10)Ariel was initially built on 462 hectares originally seized for security reasons. On the three successive occasions when security fences have been raised, they have incorporated hundreds of dunams of private Palestinian agricultural property
(11)The IDF declared the antennae would pose a security issue, and then expropriated the site from its owners
(12)If security calculations influenced the relatively small-scale settlements advanced by the Israeli Labour Party, the reconfirmation of Likud in 1981 led to a rapid escalation of settlement as a religious-national programme
(13)According to Neve Gordon, Israel uses lawfare "to encode the field of human rights and in this way (has) help(ed) frame human rights work in Israel as a security threat
(14)The principle is unambiguous – "an occupier cannot expel a single person, however much that person constitutes a security risk".[
(15)In the first two decades of occupation Palestinians were required to apply to the military authorities for permits and licenses for an enormous number of things such as a driver's license, a telephone, trademark and birth registration, and a good conduct certificate which was indispensable to obtain entry into many branches of professions and to work places, with putative security considerations determining the decision, which was delivered by an oral communication. The overwhelming source of information on security risks came from the Shin Bet
(16)Even when some powers were delegated to the Palestinian Authority, the appropriate Palestinian offices were reduced to acting as "mailmen", passing on requests for permits to the Israeli Civil Administration, 80-80% of which are then rejected on unexplained "security grounds
(17)The Fourth Geneva Convention permits detentions, and on these precedents the IDF promulgated its Article 87 of the Order Concerning Security Instructions, and applied it to cases where the rules of evidence of Israeli courts would not allow the suspect to be convicted
(18) the evidence from multiple outside observers over a decade suggests Palestinian children under Israel military detention suffer cruel and degrading treatment. In law, the prohibition against such practices is "absolute and unconditional," and even security considerations or threats of war cannot override the rule
(19)However, under security provisions, local laws can be suspended by the occupying power and replaced with military orders enforced by military courts[461] In 1988, Israel amended its Security Code in such a way that international law could no longer be invoked before the military judges in their tribunals
(20)In practice, Israel evaluates proposed family reunifications in terms of a perceived demographic or security threat.
(21)The 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision), or CEIL, subsequently renewed in 2016 imposed a ban on family unification between Israeli citizens or "permanent residents" and their spouses who are originally of the West Bank or Gaza. Such a provision does not apply, however, to Israeli settlers in the West Bank or (until 2005) Gaza. In such instances, the prohibition is explained in terms of "security concerns".
(22)The court's decision had no effect on the military's censorship body in the West Bank and Gaza, and plays can be closed if it is thought their content threatens Israel's security
(23)Following an Ottoman practice of uprooting olive trees to punish tax evasion, Israel began destroying groves, but with the expressed purpose of increasing security for settlements,
(24)This complex can be broken down into eight societal values informing a unilateral outlook: (a) The justice of Israel's cause; (b) Security (including national survival
(25)Recent research suggests that four of these – the persistence of a sense of historic trauma and an ethos of conflict (delegitimization of the opponent, security, own victimization and justness of one's own goals) – consistently influence decision-making on the conflict in the Israeli Supreme Court
(26)A concern for security in Israel has been said to "vastly exceed the norm for other Western countries".
(27)The Palestinian view is that Israel's insistence on negotiating a solution to its security concerns, extending to its settlements, is always formulated at the expense of Palestinian rights
(28)Corruption, social decay and dishonesty are pursued with commendable determination by newspapers, TV and radio... When it comes to "security" there is no such freedom. It's "us" and "them", the IDF and the "enemy"; military discourse, which is the only discourse allowed, trumps any other possible narrative.
(29) Israel's top defense experts agree that while the settlements may have helped national security in the past, this is no longer the case. Having Israeli civilians living throughout the West Bank does not help defend the country; instead, it encumbers the security forces, is a drain on the national defense budget, and complicates the military's work by lengthening the lines of defense. Instead of concentrating on fighting terrorism against Israel, security forces have to divert considerable resources to protecting citizens who have chosen to live in the heart of Palestinian territory
(30)This expansion was backed by a tight check over the development of Palestinian villages and towns, where hundreds of houses on private lands were demolished every year on the grounds that they were illegal or, more recently, a threat to the security of Jewish settlers.
(31) The centrality of security, the extensive human capital and social capital invested in the military, and the country's institutional interests created in Israel a social structure different from that of democracies living in peace
(32) In one section I left out because of the complaints about length, I documented from impeccable sources that Israel has often denied Catholic priests entry to the West Bank on 'security grounds'. That obviously would go in to any proposed 'security section', though I think it more intelligent from an 'Israeli' perspective to just do as I have done, mention without quotation brackets, throughout the text that, with regard to this, or that, Israel has cited security reasons for what it did. What editors do not appear to understand is that amalgamating all this quietly dispersed stuff into one specific section will not achieve what perhaps they wish to get over. To the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Going back through files and downloaded papers, I see that the material on expressed security concerns is indeed massive, and I'm quite happy to thicken this out, if editors want it, but it will cover far more bases than just some paragraph about some generic ontological, unchanging 'Israeli' security concern. One could on the other hand, since a few editors complain of length, simply collate the 31 passages already here on 'security' above into the proposed section. Any number of options exist. Just dumping in political quotes about attitudes (several already exist re 'security' being a national obsession) doesn't help. This article strives to be factual: it is not an exploration of POVs, and, it strives to avoid the usual I/P crap sheets that are written by one editor plunking in his preferred perspective or angle, and then another with the other POV retaliating with a counter example of his or her preferred spin, citing invariably journalists or politicians.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read all of this discussion but yes to collating the passages already in the article re: security into one section re: security. I refer to my first comment here from two months ago, about 200k above us, TLDR summary: the article should start with a background section establishing the basic facts of who (parties), where (geography), when (timeline/chronology of major events), and then be followed by thematic sections (Israeli security concerns, and essentially all of the existing sections in the article). If a reader wants to know about one aspect of the occupation, they shouldn't have to read the entire article; e.g., they should be able to just go to an "Israeli security concerns" section to read about that aspect, rather than plowing through 160k of text. Because doing what I propose will substantially increase the length of an already-too-long article, the thematic sections should be spun off into child article. For example, "Israeli security concerns" could be its own article, discussing West Bank but also Gaza and Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc.; a summary relative to the West Bank could exist here as its own section, with a pointer to the larger related article about security concerns. The same could be done with, e.g., Israeli human rights abuses of Palestinians, which could be a separate article, the West Bank portion of which is summarized here with a {further} hatnote. ^Leviv_ich? ! 18:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well if you wanted to cut this down, the last way to do that was to add geography and timelines which are all over I/P articles, in an article that adds a large amount of information in none of the other articles. Why are you insisting the text be radically reduced, while, on the other hand, claiming it needs a major expansion? You say, gut the article by forking off at least half the content while filling it out with an eye-catching overture prioritizing Israel's security. That is an immense displacement of facts in favour of POV platforming, and can hardly be taken seriously.

Secondly, an Israeli-security perspective elicits a corresponding Palestine security perspective, for as the text note#27 above implied, Israeli measures designed to ensure security for Israelis, are almost invariably measures that reduce Palestinians' sense of security. Pertinent here is Emile Badarin's Palestinian Political Discourse: Between Exile and Occupation, Routledge, 2016 978-1-317-32600-7 'In this framework, “security” operated in one direction: Israeli security and Palestinian insecurity.' p.191

Per NPOV therefore, the paragraph you support, apart from requiring several paras to cover the extensive literature, ought to include the corresponding equation: Israeli security concerns have consistently worked out to render Palestinians less secure. Really, you need at least another article to do justice to the topic. How do we cope, for example, in this para, with the literature on the meta-analysis of the language of Israeli claims to be under threat, and insecure? There are whole books on this, which identify it as a trend that became hegemonic only after 2000, 33 years into the occupation of the West Bank, in which regional conflicts swamped the issue of peace in exchange for territory, as the neo-revisionist form of Zionism, with its assertion of territorial maximalism, became, in one view, the consensus of Israeli politics?Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Israeli security is the motivation of the occupying force which chose to occupy and to continue to occupy the West Bank. Palestinian security, or lack thereof, is perhaps a consequence of occcupation - but has no significant effect on the Israeli choice to maintain its occupation. As this is an article on an Israeli occupation, the Israeli motive is key. If and when the Palestinians set up their own occupation, then perhaps we could discuss their motives.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the sources here say the contrary to what your personal opinion states. Israel, according to numerous sources (Gorenberg says it was an afterthought, 'accidental', for one), did not occupy the West Bank on security grounds, and in its peace treaty with Jordan in 1988 protocols were agreed on establishing joint cooperation to suppress any threats from there, to Israel or Jordan, an exact replica of the modus vivendi pre-existing 1967 (read the article). The position you outline is not a fact, but a 'social fact' identified by Raffaela Del Sarto as part of the recent surge to dominance of Zionist neo-revisionism, which had no say in the establishment of the occupation, but which draws on the principle in Likud's platform calling for the absorption of all of Palestine.

The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

That was written in May 1977, 10 years after the occupation began, before the rise of the First Intifada, the Second Intifada, the radical alteration in the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, and Islamic terrorism. I.e. decades before 'security' became the omnium gatherum raison d'État to explain everything 'Israel' does or, counterfactually, did in the past, as in the kind of anachronistic rewriting of political history being suggested here.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Route forward

Reading the article cold, it strikes me that the structural logic could be improved, and that it could be restructured in a manner that would also address Icewhiz’s primary concern.

A straw man improved structure is below for comment / improvement - just three main sections, rather than the current 19 (the rest to become subsections):

"Initiation" => What is the occupation (a quick reference to its beginnings in 1967, a simple overview of what an occupation is)
"Duration" => Why is the occupation still going (i.e. the point re this being the world’s longest, Israeli security explanations [and critique thereof], failure of international pressure, Israeli demographic concerns [i.e. why no annexation, and the influence of the Arnon Sofer thesis], Israeli irredentism/nationalism/“liberation” rhetoric)
"Implications" => Implications of the occupation (with many subsections)

Please could editors comment on this proposal at a high level? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

"Initiation" - a background of 1948-67 probably should be there (e.g. possibly roots of the conflict, 1948 war (and 1949 armistice in regards to West Bank), cross-border raids in the 60s, etc.) as well. Possibly two sections (e.g. background and initiation).
"Duration" - I think the title is bad. I think this should contain Israeli motivations (complex, of course) and diplomatic initiatives. I don't think we should address ESSAYish stuff (e.g. why is this the longish) - but merely document the viewpoints behind these motivations.
"Implications" - yes, possibly different title (not sure what).

Overall - yes - this would be a better outline.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above and think this high-level convo will be useful to have. FYI some time ago I started putting together a rearranged TOC. In case it helps, I've pasted it into my sandbox here. The numbers refer to section numbers in the existing article. I'm sharing it now because it kind of fits the above rubric and maybe it'll save some typing. Everyone, please feel free to use it in any way that might help, including copying it to somewhere else, editing it in my sandbox (anyone is welcome to do so), or ignoring it and this post and me completely. :-) Hope this helps. ^Leviv_ich? ! 08:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Looking at your TOC - what's missing is "Israeli security considerations" (or motives), "peace process/diplomatic initiatives", and a "Palestinian National Authority" (whatever one's views of the PNA, it is quite obvious it is relevant to the regime of occupation in the WB for the past 25 years or so). Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, yes there's a lot missing. Actually, there's almost nothing new; after rearranging the existing sections, I abandoned the effort before I gave any thought to adding new sections or consolidating the current ones. Standing invitation to copy or edit the TOC (add the missing sections, rearrange, etc.) if it's useful now or any point in the future of this conversation. ^Leviv_ich? ! 08:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Levivich - diff in your sandbox. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Icewhiz: OK, we can call that section "Israeli motivations". Subsections can be: Israeli “liberation” rhetoric, Israeli security explanations and critique, Israeli demographic concerns / lack of annexation, failed diplomatic initiatives. The first section can include the "longest in history" point. And perhaps the last section could be called "Status" or something similarly bland.

Having reflected further, I think the Israeli motivations section should be at the end. Logically we should first explain that the situation is inhumane, and then explain the complex reasons why Israeli society have allowed this situation to fester for 50+ years. So the logic would be

Initiation and Duration
Status
Israeli motivations

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not our place to judge as to whether a situation is humane or not. Furthermore, not all diplomatic initiatives failed completely - e.g. the much maligned 1993 Oslo accords resulted in significant changes on the ground as did the 2005 Israeli disengagement plan (all be it in a small corner of the northern West Bank - but creating a greater demographic continuum between Wadi Ara and Jenin-Tulkarm). In terms of organization - generally causes (Israeli motivations) come before effects (impact). Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

All of these points are addressed throughout the article.

Initiation" - a background of 1948-67 probably should be there (e.g. possibly roots of the conflict, 1948 war (and 1949 armistice in regards to West Bank), cross-border raids in the 60s, etc.) as well. Possibly two sections (e.g. background and initiation).

Before the Six-Day War, there had been an unwritten agreement between Israel and the Jordanian government to uphold the neutrality of the border between the two countries along the Green Line. According to King Hussein, after Israel retaliated against Syrian-backed guerrilla infiltrations and sabotage[122] by conducting on 13 November 1966 an assault on Samu in the West Bank, an area administered by Jordan, that tacit accord was broken.[ak] After Israel attacked Egypt at 8 a.m. on 5 June 1967, Jordan responded by shelling Israeli targets in West Jerusalem, and settlements along the border and then, after ignoring an Israeli warning, by attacking Israeli airfields in Ramat David and Kfar Syrkin, but also Netanya.[124] In response, the Israeli army in a swift campaign took possession of East Jerusalem and, after news that King Hussein had ordered his forces to withdraw across the Jordan, took the entire West Bank by noon on 8 June.[125][al]

2."Duration" - I think the title is bad. I think this should contain Israeli motivations (complex, of course) and diplomatic initiatives. I don't think we should address ESSAYish stuff (e.g. why is this the longish) - but merely document the viewpoints behind these motivations.

The length of Israel's prolonged occupation was already regarded as "exceptional" after two decades[30][i] and is now deemed to be the longest in modern history

3."Implications" - yes, possibly different title (not sure what).

17 Economic and social benefits and costs of the occupation
17.1 Communications
17.2 Overall economic costs
17.3 Indirect costs to Israel
17.4 Cultural impact
18 Wider implications

The article title explains what the factual focus of this page is: the Israeli occupation and its impact on Palestinians. It is about, legitimately, the mechanics of occupation, which are known in huge detail but even fully given here, and not about the numerous motivations that have been given or speculated about, as to the concept of Israel's occupation. It's one thing to write the details of the design, mechanics and production of an airplane or motor vehicle: another to write a sociological account of the various engineers, CEOs, market forces that determined this choice of vehicle.

All objections here boil down to one thing: We need to focus on Israel's security concerns, its dilemmas as an occupying power; we need far more about the diplomatic history of negotiations between Israeli and Palestine. All this implies dealing with a topic area this article by definition ignores, i.e. the Gaza Strip. All Israel's diplomatic and security concerns regard, massively, the Gaza Strip as well, and that is so complex that there is no way such a topic could be addressed adequately without exploding the page by lengthy aggregations of material that have nothing to do with the facts on the ground, and everything to do with Israel's motivations. What is remarkable here is the intensity of suggestions, and zero work (well, I have slowly been expanding existing articles so material here can be shifted there) actually on sub pages that editors on the one hand are calling for (in proposing reductions and removals of facts there) and showing no sign of being interested in developing. The material I, for one, have on the interpretations of Israeli security concerns and general motivations and is substantial: it demands a full article exposition, and cannot be boiled down to a para or two, as far as I can see. So those proposing it are, operationally, suggesting that an article on the way an occupation works (which till now we lacked) be rewritten to outline, why Israel cannot or refuses to, extricate itself from the morass (a) Palestinians are a threat (b) Israel has no partner for peace because of Palestinian, Arab intransigence (ayn-partner le shalom / ayn-‘im mi ledaber) vs the large body of commentary on Israel's refusal to reply to the Arab Peace Initiative, which offered everything to Israel in exchange for a withdrawal from the territories; (c) The Oslo process (touched on already here) and its successes and disappointments; (d) Camp David and the disputes over who was in bad faith, etc.etc.etc. gentlemen, you want another article. All this is impossible to cover in less than a 200,000byte page, including Palestinian complaints Israel's security concerns mean invariably their insecurity is enhanced (a point I raised which received a deafening silence).Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That is essentially asking for a different topic, History of Attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the West Bank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

The Gaza strip is a separate issue - conjoined diplomatically only for two decades (roughly phasing in/out from 1978 Camp David to the disengagement) - and even then disjoint in many regards. In general I would counter that, beyond the copious literature on Israeli motivations and concerns in regards to the occupation, that our articles on other topics - e.g. Indian removal, Indian reservation, focus quite a bit on the motivations of initiating and perpetuating the actions. Certainly some of the present article should be trimmed, as this is an article on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (Israeli actions and motivations being a large of the Israeli occupation) and not an article on Impact of Israeli occupation of the West Bank on Palestinian residents of the West Bank. Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Palestinians are only 'residents' in Israel's bureaucratic terminology. It's like calling Powhatan reflexively 'residents of Virginia' every time they are named. In that article, fairly, 'residents' is used exclusively of white people immigrating into their territory.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip has been rigorously avoided here. Israel/Palestinian negotiations, Israeli/Palestinian security/insecurity concerns deal massively with the Gaza Strip, and in wanting that stuff here, you are pressing for a change of focus from the West Bank to the Palestinian territories, something that destabilizes the careful distinction in focus this page makes. Unlike the Indian removal (it is true that Zionism is not new, just an ethnic reworking of a hand-me-down version of the American Conquest/Light on the HIll/American exceptionalism narrative) which can draw on no 'native' archival literature to balance out the historical reconstruction from an Indian perspective, a colonial conflict like this has extensive archival material on the other side in the story, and therefore has a totally different methodology by necessity.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Security considerations of Gaza and the West Bank are separate - Gaza actually has comparatively few security ramifications for Israel. The Jordan Valley in the West Bank has been seen by many in the Israeli establishment as a line of defense against a possible ground attack from the East (traditionally - up until 2003 - by an Iraqi expeditionary force moving through Jordan). The missile/rocket/mortar threat from the West Bank is separate from Gaza (and has been discussed (sources in thread above) at least from the early 80s following the PLO's use of BM-21 Grads from Lebanon against Israel. The suicide bombing (and other types of terror) is also disjoint - Gaza was easy to seal off in the Second Intifada - most the terror attacks going into Israel came from the West Bank whose border is much more porous and undefined. But yes - this article should focus on the West Bank only. Icewhiz (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

2¢: Taking this article from Impact of Israeli occupation of the West Bank on Palestinian residents of the West Bank to Israeli occupation of the West Bank pretty much sums it up for me, and "History of attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the West Bank" would be a good section for this article, and could have a {further} tag to Israeli–Palestinian peace process. ^Leviv_ich? ! 15:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "history of attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the West Bank". "Palestinian residents of the West Bank"? You mean the people specifically covered by the law of occupation as the civilian inhabitants of the territory? Yes this article largely deals with the impact on Palestinians. That is because the source literature that discusses the occupation discusses its impact on the Palestinians, and obviously so. The entire purpose of the law of occupation is to safeguard the rights of the native population, of course the impact on them is going to be the topic that sources discuss when discussing the occupation. The above arrangement takes this from an article on the occupation, its history, its impact into one that is written as though this were a topic purely about Israel and Israel's concerns. nableezy - 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

All the points you make lack, systematically, recognition of an alternative point of view, even within the Israeli establishment, thus, the Jordan Valley is for some a security necessity, for others (Reuven Pedatzur, Can Give Up the Jordan Valley Haaretz 22 December 2013) not. If you want the security angle there, one just tweaks the Alon Plan/Moshe Dayan mention of the JV with 'for security reasons', and the problem is solved. This goes for most of the objections: tweak the text. The ground attack from the east refers to outdated military doctrine, no longer subscribed to by the IDF's strategy experts, for the obvious reason that moving large armies and vehicles over a desert in depth given contemporary missile and bombing technology is no longer feasible.Your other points are just chat. We should be focusing on how to resolve issues concretely, and most issues here are, in my view, tweaking matters. Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: putting Icewhiz’s arguments aside, are you against a change to the structure per se? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I am mostly against the change suggested. There is room for some tweaks, but the idea that an article on an occupation shouldnt focus on the occupation and its impact to the civilians in the occupied territory to me seems foolish at best. nableezy - 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: understood. What do you think is the appropriate way to address the question of why the occupation exists / has existed for so long? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Why it exists? I dont even know why thats a question, it exists because Israel seized the territory in June 1967 and has not relinquished it since. Why has it existed for so long? Again, because Israel has not relinquished the territory. There already exists in the legal status a portion on Israels argument that the West Bank isnt even occupied. There can be a section on Israeli considerations for withdrawal, but I dont even know what thought would contain. I dont know that Israel has ever even actually outlined what they would want to withdraw from the territory. The above has all been focused on why Israel feels a security need to retain the West Bank. Thats nice I suppose, but I dont see what that has to do with the occupation itself except in perpetuating it. Those are arguments for Israel to possess the West Bank, not to occupy it. Occupation being a temporary thing. Those arguments all being the opposite of temporary. nableezy - 16:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You make a very good point. Security concerns are an argument for possession (annexation), not the limbo of occupation.

So you saying that you consider the scope of this article is not about the conquest of the WB, but rather it’s specifically about it's legally unusual arrangement.

That’s fair enough, particularly given the conquest topic is well covered in other articles, but:

(1) this nuance around the scope should be made clear in the lead paragraph and in a hatnote (the latter pointing to other articles re conquest)

(2) we need to add a well sourced section explaining why Israel has never annexed or withdrawn, the only two ways of getting out of a military occupation

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Milton Friedman. That an occupation is supposed to be temporary (in this case, the occupying government contests, officially, that this is an occupation (while agreeing to apply the law of occupation)) does not mean this occupation is temporary nor others (e.g. Western Sahara conflict shows no signs of being temporary). The motivations of an occupier are key in describing an occupation. Effects on civilians - Jewish and Palestinians - in the occupied West Bank should of course be described as well - but the degree of influence said civilians have on the occupation is rather negligible. Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Your quotation of the great economist was cringeworthy. Government inefficiency and Israeli demographic-racist fear of annexation bear no connection. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

nableezy, the Taba Summit is probably a good starting point for withdrawal considerations. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Once. Sorry for the late reply, I've been away al day and still at 9 pm haven't had time to rustle up some tucker. No, of course I am not opposed to structural changes. There's always time for imnprovment. The problem is simply that this was very carefully composed with a lot of attention to structure, and the first criterion of composition was (a) contextualize what follows in terms of a prefatory exposition of the highly contentious environmnent of claims and language, so the reader is alerted not to take what follows at face value, but reads with an eye to POV, even that of the main editors. (b) Then follow that by a background specific to the West Bank, and the transition that took place in 1967 (c) followed by a sequence outlining the essential mechanisms, thematically arranged, regarding how the occupation works, the mechanisms used, with particular attention to the legal principles or first instances of each theme. Ideally, I thought, every section should have first occasion of practice, military order justifying the practices, development through to the intifadas, and a coda with updates. I had to cut this back considerably in draft because of the immense amount of material available, considering the limits of articles.

I'm not finding the feedback helpful because it is driven by a paradox: cut this down by half (details re the factual structure of occupational policies for Palestinians) and bulk it out substantially by expansions on (a) the Jewish historic right to all of that land (b) the problem of securing safety for Israel and Israelis, as motivational elements. As I noted, security issues are touched on, if en passant at least 31 times, therefore it is not something I neglected.

Obviously, one can make a synthesis of Israel and Palestinian security issues per NPOV, as I offered above, and one can add to what is already stated re Israeli ideological, historical and religious reasons for the idea that they are entitled to every piece of Palestine. But they should come down the page, just as I put the Israeli criticisms at the bottom. I think these things should be worked out on the talk page, because individual drafts have been subpar citationally, historically and POV pushing. And now dinner.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I try to follow a timeline in the articles I edit, ie, if something happened in 1925, it is mentioned before things which happened in 1926, which in turn is mentioned before 1927 events, etc.

Which is why I start thinking: while the cause of the occupation is of course important and should be discussed (whether it was Israel security concerns, or desire for West Bank land, or anything in-between), why does it belong in this article? Clearly most of that belongs in the Six-Day War, which came before the occupation, (which is what this article is about)?

However, a change is causality could belong in this article (or a separate one): remember: in 1967 it was all about the Arab neighbours were "just about" to invade Israel; Israels starting the war was a "preemptive strike", so we have been told a zillion times. (Remember 1982 Lebanon War; Israel claimed for ages that the invasion came after the attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov. Israel magically managed to collect 10 thousands of men and thousands of armoured vehicles at the border in 6 hours.....before mobile phones.. ROTFL!) Huldra (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Questions that can be answered by an article about an occupation:

When did the occupation take place?
Where is the occupation?
Who lives there? Who is doing the occupying? Who else is involved?
What methods, actions, or behaviors are used to enforce the occupation? To resist the occupation?
Why are the occupiers occupying? What do they want? What do the people being occupied want? (What does "left alone" mean, specifically?)
How has the occupation changed over time?
How has the occupation affected the people involved and the rest of the world? What do people think or say about the occupation?

Are these the right questions? ^Leviv_ich? ! 20:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Questions that can be answered by an article about an occupation:

When did the occupation take place?

That is already in the artcle

Where is the occupation?

That is in the title and everything that follows

Who lives there? Who is doing the occupying? Who else is involved?

That is already in the article, except for 'who else is involved' (the great powers etc.=

What methods, actions, or behaviors are used to enforce the occupation? To resist the occupation?

That is already in the article.

Why are the occupiers occupying? What do they want? What do the people being occupied want? (What does "left alone" mean, specifically?)

That is already in the article in good part. Israel hasn't yet decided what it ultimately wants, that varies from government to government, but in practice it wants the best land, control of the Central aquifers, as much room as possible for new settlements to enlarge the envisioned needs of future aliya waves; it wants the Palestinians to emigrate, to stop reproducing so vigorously as to upset the demographic majority, to sign an agreement renouncing all of their prior claims re repatriation, or payment for properties lost, or reclaiming land and resources. The Palestinians, it seems, have one simple base line request: fuck off back to 1967 Israel, and let us get on with having some semblance of dignity in an honorable unharassed poverty.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

How has the occupation changed over time?

Already in the article-

How has the occupation affected the people involved and the rest of the world? What do people think or say about the occupation?

Why should the impact on the rest of the world be of interest? Why should some reports of Joe Blows polled in Akron, Shanghai or Birmingham be a useful addition to an article on the mechanics of a situation they have only accessed, vaguely and with no mention of the details, through random scraps of TV and newspaper reportage, mainly about terrorism, in between gorging their eyes on Netflix and munching Big Macs?Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Are these the right questions?

The timeline we have, with apologies to the drafter, is useless because any of a dozen different versions of it could be filled out. As to 'why the occupation exists', the bare facts regarding the immediate occasion for the occupation are already there. If you go into the past, all sorts of factors never mentioned by Wikipedia arise, not least of which was that the Palestinian armed attempt to wrest autonomy had its back broken by the British army in 1936-1939, leaving its leadership, infrastructure, military capacity etc., permanently disabled, its willingness to resist smashed, while during the immediate aftermath,WW2, Jewish paramilitary forces strengthened the training in military planning, logistics, battle order priorities and fighting, already honed by British recruitment under Orde Wingate during the Arab revolt and further honed in a global theatre of war. The Holocaust was the deciding fact which tipped the scale: after the genocide, knocking back a claim by the community which suffered most to sanctuary in Palestine was awkward, while accepting it was convenient, since neither Western Europe, the United States or Great Britain wanted to redeemed the guilt by sharing the burden and opening their doors to Jewish immigration there, a policy maintained from prewar years, doubly convenient because by making a distant Arab entity pay retribution for a Western war crime, hands could be cleaned in the limpid waters of philosemitism in the old Christian tradition of Pontius Pilate. The long term ideological reason is that Zionism wanted 'all of the land virtually from its outset and this secular colonial ambition was then overtaken with religious visions of divine entitlement, forming a constituency, which together with Likud's platform policy, and the rising force of a Mizrahi/Sephardic voting block, has had veto powers over secular Zionism's readiness to compromise. Add that geostrategically, Western powers have an interest in updating the earlier idea of Israel, now the major power regional power, as a proxy/outpost/continental aircraft carrier able to throw its unchallengeable military resources in the balance to secure occidental control over a key energy centre, oil, with respect to which the rights of Palestinians are just an embarrassing historical byline; because the key third party dominating negotiations has, since Reagan's time, an electoral constituency where taking a neutral position imperils one's candidacy for office etc.etc.etc. Things like that explain in part, why the 'occupation persists'. It should be self-evident that going into the details of this very historically complex set of realities cannot be synthesized in a paragraph or three. By accepting the idea of taking on this huge ballast of extra material, we would have no option but to make space by discharging the original cargo, or otherwise sink the fleet.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, thank you for your reply but I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I wasn't asking those seven questions, nor implying that the answers weren't already in the article. My only question was: Are these the right questions? Would be interested in your thoughts on that. ^Leviv_ich? ! 22:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the general drift of some comments here is that we need another article, i.e. your questions are around 'is this what we want'. Since as indicated all those points are mentioned or addressed already, you are asking for a discussion on whether the existing article is what is wanted. In the thread, we have several suggestions that we need major additions on Jewish identity with Palestine, on the connection with the land, on the diplomatic history of negotiations between Palestinians, on the obstacles to the peace process, on Israeli security concerns, each one of which (a)enters into arguments that respectively would require three to five paragraphs of extremely compressed prose, and at least a dozen if not twenty sources and (b) would effectively taken together make another article or two (c) and, concomitantly, if worked for inclusion here along the criteria of high bar sourcing and synthetic comprehensiveness, would add 100 kb to an article already protested by those who make these proposals, as being far too long. That can only be worked by changing this article from its express design and purpose, to outline the mechanics of a specific form of occupation of one of the two Palestinian territories, into and article that has just a bit about the mechanics and an equal bit about why historically Israel has many points of view and concerns about the Palestinians and the land the latter has abusively occupied, without any world criticism, for at least 1,300 years if not 3 millennia. Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is indeed too long - and it indeed needs more content on other topics it does not cover, since as it stands it is really Effects of occupation on Palestinian residents of the West Bank. So yes - quite a bit of content should be trimmed and summarized, and other content - for instances causes and Israeli motivation for the occupation should be expanded. If you want an effects article - fine - but it needs to be moved.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I.e. The article is too long (cut it down)

In the cut down process add long bits about Israeli topics.

So you are asking that the article length be maintained.

Therefore, you cannot protest that the article is too long. You are arguing that this depth and comprehensiveness of the Israeli occupation's impact on Palestinians is too long. Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I was in the "too long camp" (maybe I was? I have goldfish memory at times, sorry) - but the article certainly is too long - weighing in at 378k bytes (26,563 words, 174,143 characters). It is also unbalanced. So yes - the article should undergo a deep trim - perhaps removing/summarizing-down 50%-80% of the present article. In addition, content on the causes of occupation as well as diplomatic initiatives (e.g. - per User:Levivich/sandbox1's organization)) should be added - perhaps 10%-20% of the present article length (should comprise some 15%-45% of the article following trim). If you intend this article to be Effects of occupation on Palestinian residents of the West Bank - the trim perhaps shouldn't be as deep (as there's less that needs to be added for a balance presentation of cause and effect, solutions, ramifications, history etc.). Fundamentally the choice forward here is between Israeli occupation of the West Bank (which yes - this being an Israeli occupation - will contain quite a bit on Israeli motivations) or Effects of occupation on Palestinian residents of the West Bank (which is what this article is now, mostly). A trim is needed either way - but more content needs to be trimmed for the former (as more needs to be added). Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

As for policy - while we aren't at the technical software limit (2,048K) - at 378K we are in the WP:CHOKING zone (at present ranked in Special:LongPages at #165 out of all Wikipedia articles - which is very high given that most of the other stuff is list articles / timeline articles - congrats)). Per WP:SIZERULE the current readable prose size is well above the "Almost certainly should be divided" threshold.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Almost certainly should allows exceptions, of which there are over 1,000 on wikipedia. Secondly, you can't logically plead for a radical downsizing of the article per W P:SIZE while in the same breath calling for a major expansion that, at a rough calculation, would bring it back to the same, for some of you, problematical length. That contradiction is glaringly obvious, and has never been explained.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, this article so far precisely corresponds to the title. If you wish another title, write an article consonant with that new title. I don't care to listen to editors who keep referring abusively in highly charged Israeli occupational jargon, to Palestinians as 'residents', which means 'living somewhere for some time'. If you have residency in numerous modern countries, you have a provisory permit to dwell there, as opposed to the primary right to live there accorded to citizens. It implies the indigenous population of the West Bank is there at Israel's discretion, barring 'security' issues which can cancel that concession to be allowed to stay for a while in Israel(-held) territory. So kindly drop the vulgar POV premise please, if you wish to have you concerns addressed seriously. Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Residents is technically correct - it has nothing to do with Israeli jargon (or discretion or lack thereof), but rather the murky and complex citizenship/statehood status. Regardless - this article is not policy complaint in terms of size (and doesn't fall into any reasonable exception - the other long articles being long tedious comprehensive lists/timelines) - it isn't close to being complaint to the Wikipedia:Article size guideline. As for content - omitting the Israeli motivations and concerns, effects/discrimination on/of Jewish residents, and diplomatic initiatives - is a serious WP:NPOV issue at the present article scope. If you want an Effects of occupation on Palestinian residents of the West Bank article - rename it (you'll still need to trim per Wikipedia:Article size - but not as much). Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is B'Tselem using residents - Oct 2018 - "Imposing restrictions on the movement of Palestinian West Bank residents" (and this is all over their communiques). The reason one uses the term resident, is that many of these do not actually have citizenship (EJ residents of course, Jordanian citizenship of many, and murky status of PNA citizenship (which again - not all have)). Citizen is fraught with issues. You can use civilian in some cases - but that excludes militants, PA police, and possibly others. B'Tselem does not engage in "charged Israeli occupational jargon" - do kindly strike your Wikipedia:No personal attacks that I am using language "abusively". Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

See B'tselem here which uses the term in inverted commas, as does Eyal Weizsman, Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation 2007 p.291 n.50 ('Palestinian resident' ), the function being the identify this as the language of Israeli documentation of who is a Palestinian (as opposed to who is a Palestinian but a 'foreigner'). This exchange only reminds me how some reorganization is required, and how several sections are lacking. I mentioned

(1) Religious freedom to which might be added

(2) Exit and Entry system

(3) The ID system

the latter two of which are barely hinted at. I haven't done this because of length considerations, leaving the comprehensiveness of the page unachieved. But since my attempts to accommodate objections, by précis and trimming, have automatically been responded to by proposals of massive expansion with new sections unrelated to the mechanisms of occupation (the theme of the article), I'm tempted to think that the size limit argument is a warrant for doing what has been left undone.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, what if "residents" were removed, and the article was moved to Effects of occupation on Palestinians of the West Bank or Impact of Israeli occupation upon Palestinians of the West Bank or something like that? ^Leviv_ich? ! 19:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, because a change of title in that direction immediately would be seen as invalidating several sections and numerous passages, and mandate their automatic removal, with a substantial loss of material directly bearing on the effects of the occupation, for example, on Israelis and the Israeli economy, on the language and media (no impact on Palestinians); also the West Bank in 1967 (before the occupation, and therefore outside the orbit of the occupation after that year; details on the earlier Jordanian tax system, used to make a comparison with the system introduced by Israel /the Jordanian system had no impact on Palestinians under the later occupation); idem the prior Jordanian schooling system; idem the whole background section (predates the occupation), etc.etc.etc. What is gained by that? Nothing, except a huge evisceration of the documentary record as set forth in specialist books and articles on the occupation. The title 'Israeli occupation of the West Bank' implicitly bears the idea of impact, but at a descriptive level, covers the whole field, even blow-back effects on Israel and Israelis, a very important element in what Baruch Kimmerling once called (again not included in order to keep this down to the basics) 'The Social Construction of Israel's National Security,' Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason those who are pedantic (and B'Tselem would be a good example in this regard) use "Palestinians residents of the West Bank" as opposed to "Palestinians of the West Bank" is the existence of a very large "Palestinian of the West Bank" emigree community - that is (depending on how you measure) possibly larger than the resident community. For the most part, emigrees are not affected by the occupation. Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

For émigré community read 'refugees'/deportees/ or people whose residency rights have been cancelled because they did not live in East Jerusalem 'continuously' (whereas any Jew from Lapland to Lesotho, or Marble Bar to Managua) can get automatic rights to citizenship and occupy a patch of the West Bank after a continuous hypothetical absence of his forebears for 2 millennia) If you absorb the language and media section you would appreciate that NPOV requires us not to be pedantic, but to note that the very language widely used is POV-ridden. Settlers emigrating to the West Bank have Israeli citizenship IDs. Palestinians under Israeli occupation have mainly Israeli IDs or PA IDs only released after Israeli military approval which accord them 'residency' which can be revoked any time by bureaucratic fiat. The practical implication of the different can be grasped at a glance if you compare the number of West Bankers who have had their residency permits revoked (14,000) to the number of Israeli Arabs who, in the same period, had their citizenship cancelled (2).Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Palestinians in the West Bank"? ^Leviv_ich? ! 20:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: how about Effects of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (i.e. simply adding the words "Effects of the" to the beginning of the current title)? No need for it to be Palestinian-specific.

Separately, I am still reflecting on Nableezy's point that the article is not trying to explain "The Israeli conquest of..." or "The Israeli control of...", which most lay readers might expect, but rather the unique nature of this system caused by the misalignment of occupation-without-representation. I think this must be made much clearer in the introductory paragraph.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any improvement in adding 'effects', to the contrary. This is not about impacts or effects: it is overwhelmingly about the mechanisms, 'legal', 'institutional', 'military', and otherwise, used in the occupation. These mechanisms are then illustrated by material regarding the 'effects'. One, for example, outlines the mechanism for controlling Palestinians through an ID system and exclusive ownership of the population registry, and this is then illustrated by the anecdote of the fellow who couldn't get his child's birth registered in Bethlehem. I, at least, was taught that this is the best way to write narrative: expound the factual structure of events, and gloss it with some vivid instance that shows how it affected people. Just in that case, large amounts of relevant detail were kept out: the September 1967 flash census (by the way did you know that roughly a third of Palestinians asked to register their names in the 1949 Israeli census had not even heard that there was a census by the time the snap survey had concluded?) ignored the 250,000 people who had been displaced during the war, meaning they lost residency rights). The point of my anecdote about the stateless youth from Brazil hinted at this. etc.etc.etc. One could of course retitle it to Israeli occupation of the West Bank: mechanisms and effects, but that again, would be supererogatory, surely? If readers take on this article, one should not presume they are dumb.

Wikipedia I/P articles are mostly patchwork POV trash dumps, and you get no real challenges, except by further adding or excising POV blobs: put one up with all the normal criteria for accuracy, comprehensiveness of coverage, quality sourcing and the like, without the usual sandstorm of incoherent or outdated data, and many editors get upset. Clarity and con sistency of focus is not prized here while the opposite, productive of innumerable excruciatingly disinformative, imprecise material, is allowed a huge tolerance. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

How about two articles: Mechanisms of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Effects of Israeli occupation of the West Bank? ^Leviv_ich? ! 17:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I see, roughly, four editors here with a consistent record of being capable of writing a complex article from top to bottom. Do those who object and raise numerous suggestions about what to cut out, resynthesize, displace, merge, dismerge etc., know what this involves from personal editing experience? Have they some proven competence is doing what they ask be done? I mean that in the sense that, if my car or computer needs an overhaul, I'm ready to listen to advice as I tinker to fix it, but tend to take seriously what experts in fixing computers tell me. They're been there. This proposal would mean a month at least of solid combing through the article to winnow with precision anything dealing with effects, from anything dealing with mechanisms (while tossing out large sections as having nothing to do with either). The inconclusiveness of the discussion persists because suggestions are all immensely generic, there's nothing concrete in just suggesting a split (and how is that done?) That is why you are getting huge threads.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

So that’s a yes? You’re ok with spinning out those two child articles? ^Leviv_ich? ! 18:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No. It's true I wrote the article in three weeks, i.e. I work fast. It's also true that what little personal time I have for Wikipedia is best given to either writing articles or fixing the huge backload of IP trash plunked everywhere. If there were a serious problem I would assume that responsibility of course, if given the time. I can't see the point of the split you propose. I have already undertaken to snap off from rags of time I have for this joint to downsize it, which means fixing, slowly, several other articles to make the reception of the material here contextually appropriate in those. The problem here is impatience. urgency, panic. I think Zero has worked for several years on the al-Buraq mosque in a sandbox, jusdt as this is a precipitate of a decade's reading, for example. A decade of close work vs a few seconds to revert, editwar and excise. That is the order of difference between editors around here.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, so the reasons you're opposed to spinning out a Methods of... and Effects of... child articles is because you, personally, don't have the time to do it? What if someone else did the work. Would you be opposed then, and if so, why? ^Leviv_ich? ! 18:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, it's very disingenuous to suggest that the other editors here have spent a few seconds of consideration when they revert or excise. They've also quite likely spent years reading about this topic. Furthermore, you don't seem to like it when, in trying to make this article more balanced and rounded, I was adding material rather than excising it (both out of consideration for the amount of time spent on what exists and with a view to having all the requisite material for a really good copy edit). Articles don't have to be written from top to bottom by one editor. The more editors, the more balanced articles generally are.^[1] ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You started by affirming as a fact a meme deconstructed decades ago, about 'Israel's offer to give back the West Bank' and continued by trying to introduce Arutz Sheva as a source on a par from say, something off the presses of Yale, or Harvard by tenured scholars etc. You added several sources that never mention the West Bank. Some people, like Thomas Hardy's alter ego, note things. As to methods, there is no guarantee that what one hand does is better than what a dozen do, or vice versa. It's a tossup or toss-off (excuse the Australianism) between 'many hands make light work' vs 'two many kuken spoil the brothel', to make a bad Swedish pun. If a task is difficult, then one would expect that some primary demonstrated competence in tackling difficulties successively be evinced.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As clearly evident in my contrib history - it took me one hour and 42 minutes to perform a rough first pass cut down edit (and the second pass - required as it still was too large after cutting half - would take even longer). More time spent arguing on the talk page on this rather obvious and required cut... So no, not seconds - far from it. If this article is to be treated as a WP:OWNed highly POV WP:NOTESSAY - it should be moved to user space or off wiki.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Shi, Feng; Teplitskiy, Misha; Duede, Eamon; Evans, James (2017-11-29). "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds". arXiv:1712.06414 [cs.SI].

[1] Shi, Feng; Teplitskiy, Misha; Duede, Eamon; Evans, James (2017-11-29). "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds". arXiv:1712.06414 [cs.SI].

[1]