Jump to content

Talk:Husan

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


An article with three references, an infobox and a photo is not a stub.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A stub is not only measured by the amount of referencing it has or whether or not it includes an infobox (all articles on Palestinian localities have infoboxes and two to three references). Size is not the only factor either, but it certainly is a principle one. The small amount of info in the article is quite basic. This problem could easily be solved if the article gains some slight expansion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest section

[edit]
User:Davidbena Firstly, I find it disappointing that you equal the death of a Palestinian child with stone throwing (even if some injuries were reported)
Secondly, 'Bakitzur' is, AFAIK, not WP:RS
Thirdly, (and most importantly)..you now need consensus to add something to the article. You added this in February, this year. Therefor you cannot re-add it, if challenged, without consensus. (Which you haven't got)......please self revert, or you might get reported, Huldra (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that before any changes take place in the original (before you edited it and changed the original edit), it will require a consensus to change it. Since I live in the area, perhaps you have not heard that NINE Israelis were injured while driving in their cars near Husan and by having glass shattered in their car windshield. You must realize that throwing stones can bring about death. The one who should be reported is you, Huldra, for disruptive editing to make Israel alone look like the villain.Davidbena (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Davidbena: The new ARBPIA rules agree with Huldra here and it is clear that you are in violation. If you are reported your chance of being blocked is quite high. However, I'm in the process of petitioning against the current wording of the new rules, so it won't be me that reports you. Also, living in the area doesn't give you greater editing rights; it gives you a potential conflict of interest. Zerotalk 02:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, we are all editors who should seek consensus in this case. I simply restored an earlier edit which Huldra had deleted. The source is a valid, local source, and the incidents were also well-known. Yes, I agree with you that my living in the region doesn't make me an expert, but I said this only to allay any doubts about the accuracy of the events.Davidbena (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000:, can you please tell me what the new ARBPIA rules state? I would like to know exactly what I may have done wrong. Are you saying that all new edits made since February (or whenever this rule took effect) that we can delete these new edits, and challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, and they cannot restore their edits? If so, Huldra is using the rule in an abusive way, to make Israel alone appear to be the villain in a conflict that has being going on for ages.Davidbena (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: See here (the section "Motion: ARBPIA" near the bottom of the page). The key part is the sentence underlined in black. If you find it confusing, you are not alone. Zerotalk 06:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In accordance with that motion which was apparently approved by 7 supporters, I am self-reverting my last edit, but I am also removing what is contentious in that section and what can be construed as one-sided reporting.Davidbena (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davidbena, well, the part about the killed boy was inserted long before Dec. 2016. From my understanding: a single person cannot remove it. Please self-revert, Huldra (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, before I revert, I would like to receive a reply from an administrator whether or not the new guidelines in ARBPIA (ibid.) apply only to reverts made in articles after 26 December 2016 (even in places where a consensus had already been reached), or whether they also apply to reverts made in articles and which reverted edit had actually been there before the new edict of 26 December 2016 took effect. If it does apply to both before and after 26 December 2016, obviously you have abused the new guidelines to advance a one-sided agenda by retaining Israeli offenses and omitting Palestinian Arab offenses, insofar that you deleted the edit that mentions the Arab stone-throwers at passing Israeli motorists.Davidbena (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davidbena, Indeed I would have, if it applied to edits made before 26 December 2016. But then retroactive laws is not something civilised countries adhere to, and therefor not something I think WP adhere to. And you still haven't answered my complaint about your source not being WP:RS. Huldra (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a reliable source, published locally here, in Israel. As for the rule applying retroactively, this is Wikipedia and such rules usually apply retroactively. The point is, you were abusing the new guidelines to advance your own agenda.Davidbena (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidbena I have started an enquiry on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about Bakitzur. Thank you for removing the Bakitzur source (for the time being), but you have now removed the edit about the death of the 10 year old boy, which has been in the article for years. I cannot see that you have any right to do this. Please self revert. As for the new guide lines; yes, generally they favour the "status quo". And following the rules is not the same as abusing them. And I have never heard of any Wikipedia rules being applied retroactively, ever. Huldra (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I solicit the good advice and help of our friend, User:Zero0000, in this current dispute between us, since he knows best the subject matter involved. Whatever he suggests, I shall be willing to comply, and I will allow him to make the necessary changes in this article, based on his sound judgment of the situation. As for finding reliable sources, what I posted in the first case was sufficient. But you have other sources, as well. You may wish to check this one out. See article here: Stoning Attacks Growing More Serious. Then, you have this article: IDF Protects Israeli Drivers in West Bank. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the The Jewish Press is definitely more RS, IMO. However, that "only" leaves WP:UNDUE. I simply do not find broken glass as important as the death of a child, (Besides the fact the the people who suffered from the broken glass were travelling between illegal settlements, what right do they have to demand security for their travels?) Huldra (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bakitzur published a follow-up the next week, indicating that nine Israelis had so far been hurt from broken glass. Of course, we all know the dangers involved in driving when stones are hurled at passing vehicles. As I said, all sources are reliable and some more explicit than others. I'll let our friend User:Zero0000 decide how he wishes to proceed with this edit.Davidbena (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but Im going to reintroduce the dead boy, though. It has been in the article for a long time, but if Zero0000 wants to take it out, I will bow to that Huldra (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The case is also mentioned in this book, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From reading around, not always in citable sources, it seems that stone-throwing incidents were responded to by closing roads inside the village, confiscating Palestinian vehicles, preventing village residents from going to work, etc.. In other words, by collective punishments. It seems to me that the stone-throwing story is worthy of mention, but both sides have to be presented. Where are good sources? Zerotalk 02:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davidbena, well, I am rather disapointed with you, that you did not do as you said, but went ahead and reintroduced the material before Zero0000 had said anything. Also, where are the sources for collective punishment? Huldra (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Zero0000 was speaking about when he said "collective punishment" was actually his way of saying that the IDF prevented vehicles owned by local residents of Husan from entering their village from the back entrance, but to drive down the main highway (route 375) just as the Israelis do, and enter their village through the main entrance opposite Betar Ilit, so that the stone throwers at night could not distinguish between Jewish owned vehicles and Arab owned vehicles. This scheme helped reduce the number of incidents. All of this was brought out in the Bakitzur weekly. The other thing that was done by the Israeli government was to temporarily prevent workers from working in nearby Israeli towns until the problem had been resolved, by way of pressure brought to bear by the parents on their children who were - in most cases - those who hurled stones at passing vehicles, which action, of course, quickly brought back order, allowing workers once again to go out and work in the nearby towns.Davidbena (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Husan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Edit in Section: "Post-1967"

[edit]

Since an editor has unilaterally decided to delete from the "Post-1967" section of the article the status of Husan after the signing of the Oslo Accords, and which accords had given a certain amount of civil authority to the Palestinian Authority over Husan, and which information I personally feel should not have been deleted, can we as involved editors (such as editor: User:Zero0000, and others) agree on restoring a modified edit to the section that would mention the current status vis-à-vis Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as well as outline in brief the relegated responsibilities of each toward the residents of Husan? The second suggestion I would like to make is somewhat more out-of-the-ordinary, and that is, instead of wording the lead paragraph in the section to read: "Since the Six-Day War in 1967, Husan has been under Israeli occupation" - which edit takes a certain political position with respect to Israel, can we agree by consensus to change this edit to reflect a more neutral point of view, such as: "Since the Six-Day War in 1967, Husan has been under de facto annexation by Israel." "De facto" means "in fact", as opposed to "de jure", which means "in law". Simply put, a "de facto" annexation means that a piece of land has in fact been annexed to a different country, even though that country may not have made it official. For example, the "occupied territories" that Israel administers after taking them away from Jordan and the Lebanon have been "de facto" annexed to Israel, even though they've not *officially* said "They're now part of Israel." This will, in my humble opinion, lend some balance to the current edit, since, after all, the matter of Israel's presence in its own land is still disputed.Davidbena (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added reference to the Seam Zone. I don't think that the Seam Zone has been de facto annexed? "Physically annexed", perhaps, but annexation requires application of citizenship and civil laws to the population. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This report contains a description of communities in the Seam Zone. Some pretty appalling human rights abuses in there. This is clearly not annexation in the usual sense of the term. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile Some pretty annoying stone throwing as well. May be connected to those claims of human rights abuse. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • I would oppose "de facto annexation", because it is not true. There is a large sign at the entrance road to the village, warning Israelis that the area is considered area A, and that as such entry is forbidden and could be dangerous to life and limb. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Debresser and User:Onceinawhile. I think that there may be some misunderstanding as to what is required to happen once a country makes another country its territory by way of "de facto annexation." Normally, citizenship and equal rights are accorded to all in the "annexed territory." This fits, mostly, with western ideology, but is not necessarily true to all countries. It is still possible to "annex de facto" a part of a territory, and yet still relegate special laws to its citizens, such as what we find today with Hong Kong and mainland China; two separate sets of laws for one nation. I think that this is what is happening here, with the Palestinian Arab population in these territories, although Israelis living in, let's say Betar Ilit or Efrat - areas taken by Israel after 1967, are accorded all rights as enjoyed by other Israeli citizens (e.g. voting rights, etc.) and are bound by the same laws, such that would apply to Israeli citizens living in Jerusalem. The Arabs living in the same territory have been assigned a semi-autonomous civil authority/governance under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority, in conjunction with Israel. Because of Israel's special security needs, and the animosity that exists between the two sides, Israeli law prohibits Israelis from venturing inside Husan, although Arabs from Husan frequently work in Israeli settlements - including Betar-Ilit. Anyway, can we agree to mention in the "Post-1967" section that Husan is in Area A?Davidbena (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of that unsourced speculation, which is completely factually wrong, has no bearing on any of the topics that we concern ourselves with here. nableezy - 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that any edit that I suggest in the main article will be backed-up by reliable sources and facts. Here, on this Talk-Page, we are discussing general issues that are well-known to all (i.e. voting rights, etc.), the knowledge about which precludes any special mention of its documentation.Davidbena (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.....now, now, now, don't be such a tease.....if you have any WP:RS backing you up, then why not share them with us? Huldra (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying it is Israeli occupied is not taking "a certain political position", that is a straightforward statement of fact that can be sourced to a huge number of impeccable sources. This game of calling the word occupied "political" has to stop. And none of the West Bank, excepting East Jerusalem, has been "de fact annexed", and that euphemism wouldn't belong anyway. The term is "occupied", any editor's personal problems with that fact are immaterial to the wording we use in our articles. nableezy - 18:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. There are plenty of sources to show that Israelis are disputed over the status of the territories. Most feel that the territories are Israel's ancestral homeland, and are NOT to be considered as "occupied," but rather "liberated." My view is to take the middle route. Calling it a "de facto annexation" is still true and is recognized as such by many - albeit, with two independent sets of laws.Davidbena (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a "False equivalence".
"Liberated ancestral homeland" is nationalist nonsense (technically a national myth). "Occupied" is political science - a factual and technical term. If "Liberated ancestral homeland" is one end of the spectrum, then you need the opposing national myth on the other side - e.g. "stolen by Europeans with no ethnic connection to the land". "Occupied" is the middle ground terminology. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Israelis are disputed over is not really relevant. Would you please internalize the following? Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources and the "neutral point of view" requirement is that views be given weight that is in accordance to their weight in reliable sources. Reliable sources invariably say that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is "occupied territory". They do not say that it is "liberated territory". Your personal views are completely and utterly immaterial here. Your personal view that "de fact annexation" is "true" is likewise unimportant. The only thing that matters on this website is what do reliable sources say, and you User:Davidbena are not a reliable source. There is no serious dispute in reliable sources that the West Bank, including the subject of this article, is held under belligerent occupation by Israel. I can provide a hundred, literally, top notch sources from peer reviewed journals or books published by academic presses by authors who are experts in the field of international law to verify that. You however can provide some completely unsourced personal feeling about it being "liberated territory". Sources decide things here, not your personal preference to wipe away anything that does not show Israel in the very best of lights. And, oh by the way, your middle ground kind of only includes Israelis. This is not a production of the Israeli foreign ministry, there are other views that matter besides Israelis. Palestinians might be inclined to call Tel Aviv stolen land plundered by invading Europeans. Should we take the middle ground and say Tel Aviv is in disputed territory? nableezy - 19:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Onceinawhile, if you read carefully my comments, I never suggested once that we should write "Liberated territories." This is the extreme of saying it is "occupied territory." Rather, I suggested a middle ground.Davidbena (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion: "Since the Six-Day War in 1967, Husan has been under de facto annexation by Israel" has, AFAIK, exactly zero WP:RS supporting it. Why? Because it simply isn't true, Huldra (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ill take these suggestions seriously when a. there are sources for them, and b. you recognize that calling Husan "disputed territory" or "de facto annexed territory" is in the same realm as calling Tel Aviv "disputed territory" or "stolen land". nableezy - 23:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say that it is not "de facto annexation," but what you really mean to say is that it is not "de jure annexation." Contrary to public belief and sentiment, "de facto annexation" requires no official announcements. So what is "annexation?" The Oxford dictionary defines "annexation" as "the action of annexing something, especially territory; add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation." Today, there is no country on earth who can stake a claim in these territories, and take it (or build upon it, or plant the fields thereof, etc.), without the State of Israel objecting to it, since the territories are claimed by Israel, and governed by Israel. Granted, some may call it "belligerent [military] occupation," but not all, and even those who call it "belligerent [military] occupation" still recognize Israel's right over lands legally purchased from Arab tenants, such as Betar Ilit.Davidbena (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sources in any part of your comment. As such I see nothing that needs a response. nableezy - 21:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nableezy, if you have access to JSTOR, here is an article for you to read about Israel's de facto annexation of the West Bank. See: Israel and the West Bank after Elon Moreh: The Mechanics of De Facto Annexation, p. 567. Enjoy!Davidbena (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to quote what from that supports the idea that Husan is in the "de facto Israeli annexed" West Bank? nableezy - 01:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This particular source speaks about the entire so-called "West Bank" territories captured by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967, without mentioning explicitly the names of the domiciles.Davidbena (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes please. nableezy - 21:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The writer of the article simply speaks about the Israeli government's de facto annexation policies (especially under Prime-Minister Arik Sharon's government). I will try to find a better reference that you will be able to access.Davidbena (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lustick's article does not support you, David. The author refers to an ongoing process of "de facto annexation" but not to a state of being "de facto annexed" (whatever that would mean). In particular, the author does not refer to any Palestinian population center as having been annexed, de facto or otherwise, so it is hard to see how it can be applied to Husan. Zerotalk 13:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, I wouldn't know what the difference is between saying, "ongoing process of de facto annexation," and saying, "a state of being de facto annexed." The latter expression conjures up, in my mind at least, a confused semantic, one that mixes-up the terms "de facto" and "de jure" with the words "ongoing process" and "state of being."Davidbena (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@L3X1: the question is not de facto over de jure, it is whether or not to replace occupied, which is well sourced, with de facto annexed, which is not. nableezy - 18:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the source is not provided, I wil change. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at the following sources:
  • Salim Yaqub, [ https://doi.org/10.1093/maghis/20.3.13 The United States and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947 to the Present], pub. in: OAH Magazine of History (1 May 2006). Excerpt: "... the territory of the West Bank, however, it also served as a mechanism for the de facto annexation of Palestinian land."
  • Nir Gazit and Robert Latham, Spatial Alternatives and Counter-Sovereignties in Israel/Palestine, pub. in: International Political Sociology (21 March 2014) where it also speaks about "the de facto territorial annexation" of lands conquered by Israel after the Six-Day War.
  • Andreas Zimmermann, Palestine and the International Criminal Court Quo Vadis: Reach and Limits of Declarations under Article 12(3), pub. in: Journal of International Criminal Justice (8 May 2013), who expresses her view that constructing a separation wall in territories captured by Israel in the Six-Day War is "tantamount to de facto annexation."
  • Aeyal M. Gross, Human Proportions: Are Human Rights the Emperor's New Clothes of the International Law of Occupation?, pub. in: European Journal of International Law (1 February 2007), who says that, in his view, Israel's presence in territories captured from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War "appears more like a de facto annexation than occupation as anticipated in international law."
  • Michelle Burgis-Kasthala, (In)dependent lives? International lawyers and the politics of state-building within the Palestinian advocacy field, pub. in: London Review of International Law (13 January 2017), who writes about the legalisation and legitimation of Israel’s occupation of historic Palestine, saying that the practical effect of international humanitarian law "has been to constrain, and yet enable, Israeli de facto rule over Palestine."---Davidbena (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are trying to argue that the West Bank is not "Israeli occupied" and is instead "effectively annexed Israeli territory" then you need to do that at Talk:West Bank and Talk:Israeli-occupied territories. But your sources, at least from the quotes, do not support your position. Yaqub is talking about the areas where the wall was built within the West Bank, saying that by building the wall there the Israelis have used the wall to effectively annex occupied territory. But note that it never says that this action makes it so that the territory is no longer occupied. What Gross writes is

This occupation appears more like a de facto annexation than occupation as anticipated in international law, and includes a structured inequality between settlers and the occupied population, which some argue resembles apartheid or a colonial regime.

That says that the occupation, which it calls an occupation you may note, does not follow international law. It does not say that the territory is not occupied. It says that Israel's colonial practices do not abide by international law. Not that the territory is no longer occupied. Just dropping the results of a google search for West Bank de facto annexed is not exactly proof of your position. But, more importantly, if you are trying to redefine what the status of the West Bank is this little watched article is not the place for it. And even if it were, your sources do not back the position that the West Bank is not occupied by Israel, which remains a supermajority view in reliable sources, including the sources you brought. nableezy - 21:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by your reply, it is plain that you have not understood the import of this entire section. Here, we're talking about "de facto annexation," as opposed to "de jure annexation." You, on the other hand, have been referring to "de jure annexation," which I have not been referring to at all. To help you understand this term, let us look at the Random House Webster's Dictionary, at the word entry "de facto." There, it says: de fac•to (dē fak′tō, dā), adv. 1. in fact; in reality. –adj. 2. actually existing, esp. without lawful authority (distinguished from de jure): de facto segregation. [1595–1605; < L: lit., from the fact]>
You see,the term has been misunderstood by you.Davidbena (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now, let's look at the definition of the word "annex" - as in "annexation." In the same dictionary, definitions no. 1 and no. 2 are as follows: 1. to attach, append, or add, esp. to something larger or more important. 2. to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a city, country, or state: Germany annexed part of Czechoslovakia. ---Davidbena (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, Husan has not been incorporated into the domain of the State of Israel in any sense at all, including the de facto sense as your dictionary defines. This is the main problem you are facing. A military occupation is not the same as de facto annexation. Zerotalk 00:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, nearly all of the sources that I've cited above have spoken about Israel's military occupation as a de facto annexation. Look again at the sources, for they speak for themselves.Davidbena (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are you differentiating occupied and de facto annexed? Occupied is legal status, what exactly does de facto annexed mean? And how does it contradict occupied? And why, when even your sources call it occupied, should we not say occupied? You are arguing to replace a term that actually means something and even your sources support with another for one reason, as your opening statement makes clear, that "occupied" takes a certain political position with respect to Israel, can we agree by consensus to change this edit to reflect a more neutral point of view .... Im sorry to break it to you, but no, occupied does not take a certain political position with respect to Israel, it states a legal relationship between Israel and Husan that your sources themselves support. This is done with exactly one motivation, to delete anything that for whatever misinformed reason you take it to have a negative reflection on Israel. That is not what NPOV means, and the attempt to delete a well-sourced factual description of this place is as blatant a violation of NPOV as any as you think exists with the word "occupied". nableezy - 07:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many here in Israel, including those in the Israeli government, will contend that the use of the word "occupation" with respect to Israel's hold of the "West Bank" is a disputed status. "De facto" asserts that, as far as its legal status is concerned, it has not yet gained legal status. So, are we on agreement in this issue? If so, let us add in the article this one very important distinction that, since 1967, Husan and its geographical region has been under de facto annexation by Israel. The sources that I've cited support this view, and adding this one distinction cannot be construed with an infringement on WP:NPOV.Davidbena (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We dont write our articles based off the unsourced speculation of a Wikipedia editor on the feelings of the citizens of one country, we base them off of reliable sources, and your sources support that Husan and the rest of the West Bank is under Israeli occupation, and your sources do not support the phrasing you support. Not once does it say that Husan is "de facto Israeli annexed". They say that Israel's occupation resembles more an annexation than an occupation under international law, and that's a war crime, not a legal status. So no, we are not in agreement, the legal status, as supported by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, including the ones you brought, support the current wording. nableezy - 20:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have it your way, for now. Wording the text to say "de facto annexation," or omitting such words from a text, does not change the reality on the ground, does it? By the way, all the texts are reliable sources, but the problem is rather in your refusal to admit the meaning of the word "de facto." Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidbena, you re-added "although Israeli governments have preferred to describe the areas of the West Bank, including Husan, as "disputed territories", sourced to Mfa.gov.il. Alas, that source does not mention Husan. Please self-revert. Huldra (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like, I will delete only the word "Husan," since the word "occupation" already self-implies all villages in the West Bank, those captured by Israel after the Six-day war.Davidbena (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, here you argued that "where Husan is not specifically mentioned, we ought not to infer status", and with that justification you removed the fact that Husan is occupied by Israel. Ok, so then I brought a source which specifically mention that Husan is occupied.....then you remove that (from the first sentence), and then add a Mfa.gov.il source which does not mention Husan at all!! There is no excuse for such editing, and I will revert. Please DO NOT insert sources into the article which does not mention Husan, (I thought we had settled that over at Talk:Bayt Nattif; do we need to take the whole discussion one more time?) Huldra (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is Husan specifically mentioned with respect to "Israeli occupation"? Where? And even if you should find a specific source that says that it is "occupied" it is within Wikipedia's policy of WP:UNDUE to also mention the lesser views with respect to "occupation."---Davidbena (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was specifically mentioned in the ARIJ source that I brought, that Husan was occupied.
Also, your latest addition is horrendous: a letter which might, or might not, have been a pre-Purim joke? A stabbing attack, which even the Shin Bet blames on "underlying psychological disorders and personal problems"?? Seriously?? This will have to go, Huldra (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:TrickyH, considering that you are not a "trickster" (my pun), perhaps we can both agree on softening the tone, in compliance with WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NPOV, e.g. "occupation in the view of the United Nations." While Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention[vi] explicitly prohibits an “Occupying Power” (Israel) from transferring any part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, former Israeli Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." See article: From `Occupied Territories` to `Disputed Territories`, by Dore Gold, of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Israeli Security, Regional Diplomacy, and International Law). Israeli diplomat, Dore Gold, has stated that the language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967 (ibid.). Therefore, there is a place for a more refined edit. IMHO.---Davidbena (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Davidbena, what you seem to not comprehend, is that your `Disputed Territories` label is a minute minority view in the world, where exactly 0 international bodies support it. Yeah, the are people who believe in a flat earth, too, we just don't give them much room to spread their word on Wikipedia. As for Dore Gold, he is in the same class as Alan Dershowitz, if needed to, they would both probably claim that the Israeli soldiers have cream for faeces. Huldra (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David, this is what WP:NPOV says:

representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Proportionally. Among reliable sources, the overwhelming majority consider the West Bank to be "occupied" by Israel. That's why our articles treat that as the supermajority position, because it is among the reliable sources. Yes, Dore Gold and other individuals disagree with that, but they remain an extreme minority among all sources, and among ones qualified in international law it is nearly no serious source that disputes that the West Bank is occupied territory. Ok, one Israeli Supreme Court justice said the Geneva Conventions do not apply de jure, well I'll raise you the unanimous opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Wall case that Fourth Geneva Convention does indeed apply de jure to the West Bank. And again, the place to seek a change to how we describe the West Bank is at Talk:West Bank, not this little trafficked page on a small Palestinian village. nableezy - 21:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still, while WP:Undue does, indeed, require of us to mention "occupation," as viewed by the international community's consensus (i.e. the United Nations), whether or not we agree that the sense here is to "de facto" annexation, the Government of Israel still holds the view that the entire issue of any "wrongful occupation" is a matter disputed between itself and the United Nations, and which fact alone requires of us to give the proportional weight of both sides, while remembering that we, as editors, are to uphold the policy outlined in WP:IMPARTIAL, without taking sides in this issue and mitigating the tone in these contentious articles. The majority, as history has showed us, is not necessarily always in the "right", just as it has been articulated so very well by Meir Shamgar and Dore Gold.Davidbena (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David, it is much more than the United Nations. It is a nearly unchallenged position among academic sources. There is nothing in saying what a super-majority of reliable sources report as plain fact, that the West Bank is held under Israeli occupation, that violated WP:IMPARTIAL. In articles that delve in to this topic, eg West Bank or Israeli-occupied territories or Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967, the Israeli government position is laid out in full, however this is not such a place. Here we briefly give the current status as reported by reliable sources, and that status is, according to a super-majority of sources, occupied by Israel. nableezy - 22:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no place to go into details here. But as I understand WP:IMPARTIAL, perhaps whenever our intent is to show that the more mitigated tone has its justification, a footnote can show the conflicting opinions about the specific edit in question (even if it doesn't specifically mention, in this case, Husan). You see, the word "occupation" of a country is being used here in its broad and generic sense, and clearly shows a political inclination representative of one side of the conflict/dispute (i.e. the United Nations/some academics), but does not necessarily portray the majority view here, in the Israeli government, or in Israel's society.Davidbena (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David, Im sorry, but no, what you said is just plainly wrong. Occupied is not a political inclination representative of one side of the dispute, and the UN and (not some) widespread agreement in academia is not a party to the dispute. Occupied is a legal status, one that reliable sources routinely say applies to the West Bank. We are not using the language of either "side" here. We are not calling this "illegally occupied land stolen by foreign invaders" and we are not calling it "liberated land". That would be using the language of one side of the dispute. Which ironically, you would have us doing because of one side of a dispute. We are using the language of reliable sources removed from the dispute. And I again ask that you see the converse argument of the one you are making here. Your suggestion is equivalent to calling Tel Aviv "disputed" or even "stolen" territory. That is the obverse position of the one you are taking here. Try to not look at this from an "Israeli society" viewpoint. That is not relevant here, just as it isnt relevant how it looks in "Palestinian society". nableezy - 03:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I will remind you of what Wikipedia policy states with respect to disputed issues, and yes, the word "occupation" is still disputed between the international community at large and the State of Israel:

FYI: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." (END QUOTE)Davidbena (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David, you dont seem to have read anything that I wrote, because I see no response to any part of it in your comment. Describing occupied territory as occupied territory is not engaging in any dispute. Full stop. nableezy - 17:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary. The matter of whether or not the country currently claimed and held by Israel is "occupied territory" is a matter that is disputed. Was the country occupied under the Jordanians, British, Ottomans, Mamluks, etc., etc. for the past 1,500 years? Perhaps. But since Jews have ALWAYS lived in Palestine, including in areas of the so-called "West Bank," how can you say that, now, "Jews have come and occupied our land?!" Was it never Jewish land also, to make their hold of it an "illegal occupation"? Of course not! Golda Meir had a Palestinian passport! Rather, what I see here is resistance to accept authority. See my comment above, where I quoted from Israel's Chief Justice, Meir Shamgar, and the Israeli diplomat, Dore Gold. The use of this term "occupation" as used here, in this article, would still warrant a response from an active administrator if we should "soften the tone," in accordance with WP:IMPARTIAL.---Davidbena (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to World population, there are 7,500 million people on this planet, including 8,7 million in Israel. Now, that you want the voices of 2 people, Meir Shamgar and Dore Gold, count as much as the representatives of the 7,492 000 000+++ other people is understandable. But it wont happen. As for the West Bank not being occupied: you are of course entitled to hold that opinion. Alas, as Nableezy has tried to point out to you: that does not change the fact that the international community looks upon it as an occupation. The only way to "soften the tone" would be to end the occupation, and not some word wizardry, Huldra (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, my dear disputant, it is not so much as me being entitled to my opinion, but rather about us upholding Wikipedia policy. The matter is still disputed, just as it is stated in the second lead paragraph of West Bank. Why deny the obvious? By writing, "Since the Six-Day War in 1967, Husan has been under Israeli occupation, according to the international community," it does not take away from what you said, but brings a different tone to the edit, in accordance with WP:IMPARTIAL. Davidbena (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the current edit involves Wikipedia policy, can we please get some feedback from an administrator (who might even make the correct edit himself), such as User:DGG or User:EdJohnston or User:Doug Weller?Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena, alas, not only does the international community consider it an occupation, so does a sizeable number of Israelis, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the matter is still disputed, with the majority of Israeli citizens holding that the country known as the "State of Israel" includes all of the "West Bank" territory. It's a circular argument, therefore, how we should proceed in this one edit requires an administrator's input.Davidbena (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Davidbena, Israel has not annexed the West Bank: that is a fact which AFAIK nobody disputes. That you, in spite of this, want the West Bank to be acknowledged as a part of the "State of Israel" is, to me, rather bizarre. You can of course argue about historical Israel, etc, but that is not the same as present day "State of Israel", Huldra (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Little do you know, Huldra, that when Israelis view their country as undivided, the State of Israel, per se, and when they construct new towns and cities all across this beautiful country (including in the so-called "West Bank"), and either give or deny building permits unto Palestinian Arabs, it is one and the same as saying that the military administration of the "West Bank" is recognized by them as being de facto annexation, as opposed to de jure annexation, terminologies that have already been defined by Oxford and Webster's dictionaries. Of course, this is a regression, as I am concerned now only about the use of the term "occupation" as it stands in the current edit, and which wording ought to be mitigated based on WP:IMPARTIAL.Davidbena (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is: we do not edit Wikipedia according to how some people feel. We edit according to facts. And the fact is that the West Bank, including Husan is occupied by Israel. If you think that sound too harsh, then end the occupation. Huldra (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who's taking about feelings here? We're talking here about Wikipedia policy, laid out so clearly in WP:IMPARTIAL, whenever there are disputes such as these.Davidbena (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMPARTIAL is about disputes. There is no dispute here: all the facts show that the West Bank is occupied. You somehow want that fact, shall we say mitigated, on Wikipedia, (or, as you put it: "soften the tone"), with no other backing than by two paid professional Israel backers (Meir Shamgar and Dore Gold). We don't have to take every fringe view into account. There are editors, typically IPs, who change the location of Nazareth, or Ramla, or Lod, from being located in Israel to being located in Palestine. (And I routinely change it back). You know, there are Palestinians too, who view their country as undivided.....What would you have said if I had argued for "softening the tone" of Nazareth being in Israel, by adding that it was also in Palestine? Would you have taken that seriously? Huldra (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, Huldra, Huldra. This is a circular argument. Let an administrator decide how we are to proceed with this edit, and if WP:IMPARTIAL applies in this case. As for your question, for me, Palestine and Israel are one and the same country. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David, it is no less impartial to say Husan is in the Israeli-occupied West Bank than it is to say Tel Aviv is in Israel. Unless you are also proposing that Tel Aviv only say that it is in "disputed territory" between the Palestinians and Israel then your proposal shows a blatant disregard for WP:NPOV. And you have so far studiously avoided that point, for obvious reasons. Israel's position does not determine Wikipedia's language. nableezy - 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's a big difference. We know when to use "West Bank" vs. "Israel," based on the guidelines set by Wikipedia's Naming Conventions in WP:NCWB, but the word "occupied" is in direct violation of WP:IMPARTIAL, unless the word can be used by showing some neutral tone.Davidbena (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No David, that is not what WP:WESTBANK is about. That guideline exists because there were a number of editors insisting that the language of a minority (Judea and/or Samaria) be used in place of the super-majority terminology of "West Bank". That guideline stipulates that we must use the language of the super-majority in our narrative voice, much like occupied applies here. Your answer makes clear the POV push inherent in your position. We must not say Tel Aviv is not in Israel even though Palestinians dispute that, but we also must not say that Husan is in occupied territory because the Israelis dispute that. You make clear that only Israeli voices matter here, and that thankfully is not Wikipedia policy. The West Bank is occupied territory because a super-majority of reliable sources say it is, and your attempt to push this encyclopedia article to adopt a hard right Israeli POV over that of reliable sources is in direct violation of core Wikipedia policies. I wont say anything about the inherent racism in the comments displayed here, that only Israeli views matter and Palestinians ones dont, but regardless of motives the policies of this website are clear. Occupied is a well-sourced factual description of this place. Full stop. nableezy - 19:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For me, personally, Palestine and Israel are one and the same country. The Government of Palestine is where the Prime-Minister's office lies in Jerusalem. And, yes, reliable sources can be brought down to show or not to show that this same country is "occupied territory" or that East Jerusalem is an "occupied city," just as you can see here: "Occupying Power". All that I'm saying is that we should not take sides in this issue, but remain neutral in accordance with Wikipedia's policy.Davidbena (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is no more in dispute that the West Bank is occupied territory than it is in dispute that Tel Aviv is in Israel. Both of those are super-majority positions. Your insistence on ignoring that super-majority for the sake of only Israel is unsurprising, and unrelenting, but of no consequence. Your position clearly does not have consensus for a change, so feel free to get the last word in on how this is injustice. Thankfully this is not an Israeli operated enterprise and Israel's position is not the only thing that matters. nableezy - 04:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

One of the stronger arguments for maintaining a neutral posture in Wikipedia articles is this argument: Some of the land in Palestine/Israel was expropriated for military needs (security), some of the land was legally purchased, and some of the land was abandoned by its tenants after war and conflict; land acquisitions being a very complex subject. We might even go back to the time before Israeli rule, during the British Mandate and Ottoman Turk period, and you may find that not all land tenants were legal land tenants. Take, for example, Silwan (Shiloah), where Yemenite Jews actually bought houses there in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, yet fled their homes during the Arab-Israeli War. Will you call their usurping occupants legal tenants? Of course not! They're thieves! You see, the matter is very complex. Nevertheless, what we're talking about here is current political rule over the country and its inhabitants. We say it is legal, but others say it is not. That makes it a dispute, and that makes Wikipedia treading between a hard and soft place.Davidbena (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you call the inhabitants of the Israeli settlement on these villages land for thieves? If so, then there are a hech of a lot of thieves in Israel, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see these villagers as being very unfortunate, but let's remember what caused their situation (i.e. general unrest). Moreover, considering that Jews were evicted from their land by the Romans (during incessant wars) and the land was exposed to sale by Vespasian (just as we learn in The Jewish War, VII.6.6 [VII, 216]), it is no wonder then that so many vagrant farmers, or people looking for work, came and settled the country. There's a place for them too. I'm not arguing against that. Still, the history of the people of Israel in its own land cannot be denied.
BTW: By no means wanting to belittle their plight and the displacement of these people, anyone familiar with the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict can tell you that had these Arab villagers been at peace with Israel, had they not resisted Jewish immigration, had they welcomed Jews in their midst who had possessed Palestinian citizenship and not fought against them, often under the incitement and war-like rhetoric of Sheikh Amin al-Husseini, then all of these villagers would have remained in their place. These are the unfortunate results of hostility between the two ethnic-groups living in Palestine.Davidbena (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there is no way to be diplomatic about this: what you write here is rubbish. There are countless examples of Palestinian Arabs being friendly, didn't fight the Yishuv......and were thrown out into exile as a "thank you." Huldra (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I do not know the specific details about every Arab village, but I was referring to the "general" feeling of hostility which prompted these evacuations, just as there were hostilities directed by the Arabs against unoffending Jewish communities in Palestine, and which led to their evacuation too, such as in: Jerusalem, Silwan, Hebron, the old Kfar Etzion, Ein Zeitim, Safed, Beit Shean, Kfar Uria, Hartuv, among other places. Were all these Jews offending when they felt their lives were threatened? Of course not. You see, User:Huldra, there was mutual distrust and animosity among the very people who both called themselves Palestinians.Davidbena (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra Many decided to leave of their own accord, while nobody threw them out. Please do not twist history. You can read up about this subject, which apparently you are not sufficiently familiar with, at Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, some left on their own account, due to the fighting. Just like many Israelis in Northern Israel left their homes for the south during the last major clashes with Hizbollah, in 2006. A., that they left their homes due to fingthing; is that any justification for not letting them return? B., my objection was to Davidbenas description that "had they welcomed Jews in their midst who had possessed Palestinian citizenship and not fought against them, often under the incitement and war-like rhetoric of Sheikh Amin al-Husseini, then all of these villagers would have remained in their place." (My bolding.) This is complete rubbish, and I think you both know it. Did the, say people of Iqrit fight against the Yishuv? Nope, the village Mukhtar even invited the Israeli soldiers for lunch, but Israel still kicked the villagers out of their homes. Did the villagers of Ayn Hawd fight against the Yishuv? Nope, but they were still kicked out of their beautiful stone houses, many built by the villagers themselves (lots of stone masons there) ...and their beautiful houses were given to Israeli "artists"...while their original owners (those who were not kicked out of the country) lived in hovels, for years, and years, in a socalled unrecognised village of Ein Hawd. And so on, and so on. I have been editing the 1948 villages for 12 years now, the absolutely most depressing thing is to read about how "great" relationship the villagers had with their Yishuv neighbours, then come 1948, and the very same Yishuv neighbours were the first to kick the villagers out, often not even hiding it that they wanted the land, (see e.g. Al-Hamma). Huldra (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss personal feelings on the topics at hand. Please stop doing so. nableezy - 22:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, leaving aside who is to be blamed for hostilities during and preceding the Arab-Israeli War, and overlooking who may have been wronged by the war, or who may not have been wronged by the war (since I'm sure we can find people on both sides of the spectrum who have been wronged), my chief concern here is maintaining a neutral point of view, as much as possible, when reporting on towns and cities in the area of conflict. The word "Israeli occupation" gives the article a certain "political leaning," besides the fact that it is contested by the government of Israel itself. Saying that a town or city is being held under Israeli occupation, "according to the international community," makes the article more neutral in sound.
One of the stronger arguments for maintaining a neutral posture in Wikipedia articles is this argument: Some of the land in Palestine/Israel was expropriated for military needs (security), some of the land was legally purchased, and some of the land was abandoned by its tenants after war and conflict; land acquisitions being a very complex subject. We might even go back to the time before Israeli rule, during the British Mandate and Ottoman Turk period, and you may find that not all land tenants were legal land tenants. Take, for example, Silwan (Shiloah), where Yemenite Jews actually bought houses there in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, yet fled their homes during the Arab-Israeli War. Will you call their usurping occupants legal tenants? Of course not! You see, the matter is very complex. Nevertheless, what we're talking about here is current political rule over the country and its inhabitants. We say it is legal, but others say it is not. That makes it a dispute, and that makes Wikipedia treading between a hard and soft place.Davidbena (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation has nothing to do with land ownership. It is about sovereignty. Zerotalk 21:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, but I would think that it has to do with both: ownership and sovereignty. The arguments presented by Meir Shamgar and Dore Gold point to sovereignty, but the mere fact of who previously "owned" the land is often brought up by the respective parties to argue the case of "occupation," since that word implies an "illegal presence" in the country. A country "occupied by Israel" implies that its peaceful settlements or outposts have no legal place there. Sometimes the word is used to describe its majority ethnical population that has been supplanted by another. To be fair about it, both Jews and Arabs owned the land, and both were called Palestinians. The 1844 Ottoman Census shows a Jewish majority living in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Gaza City. While, today, the vast majority of Arabs still own land in the country (and others have been displaced), the real contention between the two sides has been over who is to rule over the inhabitants of the country, the Arabs often using the term "occupation" to show that they are displeased with Israeli-rule over the country.Davidbena (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, "occupied by Israel" means that Israel asserts military authority there without having sovereignty. It is an objective fact. The fact that people like to play games with words like "occupation" doesn't mean that we should. About Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Gaza, your information is incorrect in all four cases, especially for Gaza which had few Jews or none at all then. Zerotalk 10:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The stats I picked-up from another writer; did not check them myself. Anyway, this is for your information: A population list from about 1887 showed that Safed had about 24,615 inhabitants; 5,690 Muslims, 5,675 Catholic Christians, and 13,250 Jews. See: Schumacher, 1888, p. 188 Quarterly Statement. I do know that many of the Gaza residents are actually new residents, who had come there from Lebanon, Egypt, and even places in Israel proper. I have actually visited Gaza on several occasions. As for the "occupied" vs. "sovereign" and "military administration," you find it strange that a country can have two systems, but that is how it is here; similar to China and "one nation; two systems," policy. Military administration still works in concert with Israel's civil authority, such as “Custodian of Absentee Property & Israel Land Authority of Judea and Samaria,” an office attached to the Israeli Ministry of Defense/Civil Administration, and which bases its jurisdiction on the "Absentee Property – Judea and Samaria Act- 59/1967. Conditions in Israel are rife for insurrection, and that, my friend, is why this is in place. If I were to compare it to something, it's like America declaring "martial law" in a certain area of the United-States because of violence and instability. Would "martial law" make it any less the United-States? Of course not! It is the same here.Davidbena (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Safed and Jerusalem both had a Jewish majority in the 1880s. You still don't understand what occupation is. If the USA declares martial law in California, that is not occupation. Occupation would be if the USA invades Quebec and sits there in control of it. Zerotalk 18:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, the word "occupation" is not understood properly by most here, on Wikipedia, that is, in its Israeli context. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar, wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." See: Dore Gold, "Gold on Disputed Territories".---Davidbena (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gold is a life-long propagandist and I don't care what he wrote. The concept of military occupation comes from the Hague Conventions not from the Geneva Conventions. The GCs only added further guidance and rules. The State of Israel does not argue that the Hague Conventions don't apply when it makes a case before the High Court. Its whole system of military government would collapse in a legal heap if it did. Furthermore, Shamgar's opinion on the GCs is fringe. According to Wikipedia's treatment of fringe opinions, it should be mentioned as a notable minority opinion in articles on the subject, but it doesn't belong all over the place. Zerotalk 21:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So take, if you will, the principle had in the "Fourth Geneva Convention" and apply it to the "Hague Convention." Does the Hague Convention speak about subjugating a sovereign people? Or does it address one country with several ethnicities, and one ethnicity taking the helm of the government at the great displeasure and chagrin of the other ethnicity (while that "other" ethnicity, mind you, being a group that has never exercised independent rule over itself)? So, my good friend, you don't hold to Shamgar's view, but believe rather in the views of his disputants. That's your prerogative. The truth, however, does not change with respect to justice being with Israel, even though some people might disagree (in some cases, where their views might even reflect the views of the majority). The West has tried to force its system of "justice" upon Israel, adopting as it were a two-State solution, as proposed first by British colonialists. Hmmm. The world is diverse, and there is a place for pluralistic views in our troubled world. But Israel doesn't have to accept their innovative ideas. Here, it simply will not work. Look at what happened when Israel gave semi-autonomy to Gaza. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There seems to be some dispute whether or not this article should contain a reference to security incidents involving Husan residents. It has been suggested that the following edit be made in a sub-section following the section: "Post-1967":

Security incidents involving Husan residents

[edit]
  • In 2014, 23 year-old Muhammed Zaul, suicide bomber, blew himself up at a bus-stop in Jerusalem, killing 8 and wounding 59.[1]
  • In 2015, 22 year-old Halva Aliyan attempted to stab a security guard at the entrance to Beitar Ilit and was shot.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Jerusalem Bus Bombing Kills 8, Wounds 59 (washingtonpost.com)". Retrieved 14 December 2014.
  2. ^ The Jerusalem Post (8 November 2015)
Davidbena (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OPINIONS ("For" / "Against"):

We might as well close this RfC since the consensus is against its addition. I concede to the view of the majority, as I was also at first reluctant to mention these things. Our friend, Debresser, lives right "next-door" to Husan. If he feels that it's unnecessary, with all its "security situation," I'll take my hat off to him. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Indeed, I wish to withdraw this RfC, since it is no longer relevant.Davidbena (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena:  Done
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Husan&oldid=1215158453"