Talk:Israeli outpost

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


definitely merge with israeli settlement[edit]

I don't know how to do this, but someone should do that. Basically a section in that article and doesn't warrant an entire article of its own. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it definitely deserves its own article. The phenomenon of an outpost, which is built against Israeli law, is much different than a settlement, which was built with the approval of the Israeli government. ShamWow (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is a distinction. Plus Israeli settlement is huge. There should be a short summary there that links here and this one should be expanded, possibly taking material out from there, if it is better included here. Like much of the material in the section on Israeli settlement#Illegal outpost. Tiamuttalk 20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting distinction that outposts are not also generalized into the regular settlement term. Shamwow, the vast majority of outposts are built with government permission, even the articles on WP bring that forth. Read the Sasson report in which that left-winger (at the time working in the state prosecutor) was given the platform to table a report serving her political views. In her report (she even uses first person most of the time) she describes in disgust how many government offices aided the establishment and continued maintenance of the outposts. That is why most of the outposts are 'unauthorized' and not illegal. Basically, unauthorized means that it does not have final approval to become a real municipal entity, while illegal means building something that violates the law. The unauthorized outposts are not violating the law, the law created them. --Shuki (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli vs international law[edit]

The clause is necessary to distinguish between outposts, which are illegal under Israeli and international law, and settlements which are legal under Israeli law though illegal under international law. That is not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point (and can people please read the content of the links that they post?) nableezy - 17:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, given the abuse of WP:POINT I often observe, just do the right thing, and ask for a source, particularly when you oppose the inclusion of a truism everyone knows about that you personally imagine might be 'pointy'. Relevant facts simply are not pointy. Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the following is a useful high quality source (...probably should mention that the author won the Israel Prize).
  • Elisha Efrat (2006). "2. The West Bank: A Jewish-Arab struggle for sovereignty". The West Bank and Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation. Routledge. pp. 40–49. ISBN 978-0415385442. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need consensus to stick this in. I think it is not relevant as article links to the big settlement article. Crystalfile (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By your admission its WP:POINTy -- a "truism" that must be stuck in every related article, regardless of NPOV and whether it makes any sense to actually include. Should be excluded. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:POINT? nableezy - 18:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We can read this in main article. You need consensus for this and there isnt! Toodles Crystalfile (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that there isn't consensus to put it in when this discussion has been going on for barely a day? So far very few editors have contributed, and of those, even fewer have made policy based arguments for the exclusion of the sourced material. It seems relevant to me simply because outside readers may not understand the distinction between legal-under-Israeli-law-but-illegal-under-international-law and illegal-under-both-laws. The discussion should focus on that rather than on acronyms that may or may not apply.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also reverted your disruptive removal of sourced and pertinent information (at the same time as alf). Readers need to be informed about the criteria that distinguish the various kinds of settlements and those criteria need to come from reliable sources, not us. Forget the politics. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source specifically says all forms of settlement in the occupied territories are considered prohibited under international law, Israel considers only settlement “outposts” illegal. In what way is this not relevant? nableezy - 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

too long of a sentence for the lead[edit]

While we're discussing the weighty issues above, I wonder if anyone has an opinion on the length of the first sentence. It currently reads:

An Israeli outpost (Hebrew: מאחז‎, Ma'ahaz lit. "a handhold") refers to an Israeli settlement within the West Bank, (excluding Jerusalem), constructed after 1991 without due authorization from the Israeli government, as opposed to those settlements authorized by the Israeli government in the occupied Palestinian territories which are legal under Israeli law, though all settlements, including outposts, are also considered illegal under international law.[1]

May I propose that we break this into two sentences thus:

An Israeli outpost (Hebrew: מאחז‎, Ma'ahaz lit. "a handhold") refers to an Israeli settlement within the West Bank, (excluding Jerusalem), constructed after 1991 without due authorization from the Israeli government. This is as opposed to those settlements authorized by the Israeli government in the occupied Palestinian territories which are legal under Israeli law, though all settlements, including outposts, are also considered illegal under international law.[1]

Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made an effort of fixing that, though I may have failed. nableezy - 18:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Alf. I haven't checked Nableezy's fix, but in any case, breaking up the sentence is fine, and I think you don't need to clear it with anyone, if the substance of the text is maintained. It's just stylistic housekeeping, so go ahead until you think it's more readable.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nableezy's fix is good. I know I don't have to check, but these are perilous times.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a bash at it. Let me know what you think. If more cites from RS apropos the legal state are required for any specific wording, let me know.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author can't be used as reliable source in wiki voice to such statement first because he is not international law expert second the legal/illegal status of settlements is disputed.Also per WP:BRD this edit was reverted so instead edit warring this should be discussed in talk page so until consensus is reached I am removing it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove it. The point made is a cliché in international law, and you have been round long enough to know that. If you require a technical source I or someone else will provide it. It is inappropriate to try and make out that every single page must repeat the conclusions of several consensual determinations on these issues every time round. Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(a)All settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. The settler outposts are also illegal under Israeli law and the government agreed to remove them, BBC News 26 June, 2012.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? What is disputed? When did Indiana University Press become something other than a high quality academic publisher? And this shouldnt even need a source, it is an obviously true statement that a collection of users are challenging on utterly bogus grounds. I can give you more sources if that is the argument you want to make, but first Ill take this one to RS/N. nableezy - 19:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS/N#statement on Israeli outposts nableezy - 19:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is RS, it is not DUE for this article because illegality is talking about settlements in general so y talk about it here? Crystalfile (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are talking about? Are you even paying attention? all forms of settlement in the occupied territories are considered prohibited under international law, Israel considers only settlement “outposts” illegal. How is that not talking about outposts? Or is writing blatantly untrue things they way things are done now? nableezy - 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be solid support for this source at RS/N. Any other "argument" that needs to be answered? Because this undeniably relevant, undeniably accurate, and undeniably well-sourced. nableezy - 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title[edit]

This article is about the outposts questioned in the Sasson Report. It regards unauthorized outposts. Thus, this article has a wrong title.--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Israeli outposts. The Sasson report is not the only source that discusses the topic even if it is the main source used in the current article. See e.g Eyal Benvenisti (cite note 2) refers to them as "illegal outposts". I don't think the article name should rely on a single source, the common name is clearly "Israeli outpost" (18,100 google results) Vs "Israeli unauthorized outpost" (4 google results).
We should definitely explain the terminology used in the Sasson report as it is important to the topic, but the topic name should not be based on one source and the scope of the article should not be based on one source either. We already have an article on the report itself, this article should be a broader coverage of the "Israeli outpost" issue using a variety of sources and perspectives. Also the article discusses two types of outpost "unauthorized" and "illegal". If the article discusses both types the title should be broad enough to include both. Dlv999 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, the article, which is not written by me, is in accordance with Sasson, but not restricted to it. Second, illegal outposts are unauthorized outposts. Third, afaik all outposts are also unauthorized outposts, otherwise they are authorized settlements.--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But in that case why not use the WP:COMMONAME, which is "Israeli outpost" (producing 18,000 results in google search), compared to only 4 returned for "Israeli unauthorized outpost"? Dlv999 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not a criterium for title selection. As for your ref: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. An important argument I did not mention. Outpost is a wrong ambiguous term, as it has different general meanings. Also the term "Israeli outpost" will remain as redirect in any case.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All outposts are "unauthorized", the word is redundant. And Israeli outpost is much more commonly used among reliable sources. Trying to say that outpost itself is ambiguous misses a fairly important point. We are using the noun-phrase Israeli outpost. Not simply the noun outpost modified by the adjective Israeli. The noun-phrase Israeli outpost is well-defined and is the most common term used to describe these places in reliable sources. nableezy - 15:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, redundant is a good argument, if you ignore Israeli military outposts.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is rusty, but from what I can remember, there is a significant difference between "unauthorized outposts" and "illegal outposts". They are two different types of outposts. Despite the terminology, all outposts are by definition unauthorized and illegal under Israeli law. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is only made by the Israeli authorities. Illegal is when it is blatantly illegally set up on privatly owned Palestinian land, if I'm not mistaken. Took me I while to remember. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start this topic because I have problems with Israeli outposts, but because of the semantic friction. In normal language, outposts are not by definition unauthorized. Replacing unauthorized by the adjective Israeli (@ nableezy) is secret code, not obvious! Indeed, Zionist language confuses unauthorized with illegal.

The (summary of the) Sasson Report says: Unauthorized is illegal. Also (in section Unauthorized Outposts): Missing an authorization of the kinds mentioned above [by the Government, only on State land, only according to a lawful designed building scheme, within the bounds of jurisdiction] makes it illegal. So Sasson calls "unauthorized outposts" illegal. It also says It is absolutely prohibited to establish outposts on private Palestinian property, but it does not say that it is illegal to build outposts (provided they are authorized, though that would be effectively settlements).

I will do a small fix in the lead.--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that is the best way to go about it, Wickey-nl. Imo the first paragraph of the lead is sort of beating about the bush, giving the impression that outposts are a strictly Israeli legal problem, when in fact, outpost are doubly illegal. The more substantial part of what an Israeli outpost actually is only comes in the second paragraph, or am I mistaken? Putting it simply: a so called Israeli outpost is an Israeli settlement that is not only illegal according to international humanitarian law, but also illegal according to local, i.e. Israeli law, because it was set up without the authorization of the local authorities, wich makes them illegal by local law, as opposed to all the other (illegal) Israeli settlements, which are legal by local law. I think the distinction/opposition of international and local legality/illegality has to be in the definition in the first sentence. Ajnem (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not quite content. The problem is, that originally the article was written from the view of Sasson, who did not make the distinction and specifically spoke of unauthorized outposts. Sasson also defined the 1990s as startpoint.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal outposts[edit]

The dictinction between unauthorized and illegal outposts is incorrect. The terms are used interchangeable. The confusion in the JP may come from the fact that the Government wants to "legalize" all illegal outposts built on "state land", while dismantling all illegal outposts built on privately-owned Palestinian land. Read http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-vows-to-raze-all-illegal-outposts-built-on-private-palestinian-land-1.346329. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I have removed "Outposts have the object to capture more land and resources for Jewish settlements. They are intended to develope into larger neighbourhoods and to prevent developement of Palestinian villages" from the lead, as I don't see the proper sources. Ajnem (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearrenged the lead. Further more, I dont think it is a good idea to have all the refs and quotations in the lead. Who is going to read them? Ajnem (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Oups, did I violate 1RR? I hope not, if so, I apologize, I'm not on UTC.[reply]
Removed the refs concerning Israeli settlements, not outposts. Ajnem (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Israeli outpost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Permanent Extended Protection[edit]

It’s obvious this article is subject to 30/500 restriction, yet right now, it’s open even to IP editors. Please submit this post to WP:ARBPIA arbitration. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.110.215 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done, thanks. nableezy - 22:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed[edit]

The title should be something like Illegal settler outposts in the West Bank. Saying they are Israeli gives them a veneer of legitimacy they do not have, they are illegal even under Israeli law. And Israeli "legalization" of any of them still leaves them as illegal under international law regardless.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/illegal-even-under-israeli-law-us-urges-israel-not-to-legalize-settler-outpost/ Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its a common name widely used across the political spectrum. nableezy - 15:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First one, FT, "The outpost is illegal not only under international law — like all settlements — but Israeli law, too, because it sits on private Palestinian land." IMEMC "Migron is an illegal Israeli outpost" Haaretz "The new illegal Israeli outpost in the Jordan Valley, February 24, 2018" JP "The Evyatar outpost was illegally built without any authorization." AJ is a 404 but I can bet it said "illegal" somewhere. So I'd settle for Israeli illegal outpost based on those sources. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im not disputing they are illegal under Israeli law. Im saying "Israeli outpost" is the common name. The first sentence of the article says they are illegal under Israeli law. nableezy - 16:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli outpost is not common name in the same way as Israeli settlement is, the latter is justified because many sources will shy away from saying they are illegal because only under international law, That's not the case with outposts, even Israeli sources say they are illegal. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_outpost&oldid=1207752962"