Talk:Israeli land and property laws

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority Palestine Top‑importance Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A major effort needs to be made to find more universally acceptable reference sources for this article, as a scan of the current references reveals a number of heavily partisan sources with little or no balance.

I completely agree. The sources are nearly ALL from extremely slanted sources

Surely the issue is whether the information presented from the various sources is true as far as can be ascertained? The very nature of the topic lends itself to extremely partisan sources. A corrollary of this is that less partisan sources think twice. In the article, there is a reference to Robert Fisk consulting the Custodian of Absentee property about how much land in Israel was owned by Arabs who had "left" the country. Here is a fuller description of the episode The Keys to Palestine. In particular, the reaction to the London Times printing an article based on that interview speaks volumes as to why less obviously partisan sources would hesitate to discuss the true ownership of the land in Israel. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is noticeable that no sources that substantially disagree with the land ownership data given in the article have been produced. Given the clear motive of supporters of Israel to challenge the existing data, conclusions can reasonably be drawn about the accuracy of the existing land ownership data in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.52.117 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to this idea. The introduction of the article notes land ownership by "Arabs" and "Jews." This itself is misleading and a non-neutral pov because the land ownership groups together "Palestinian Arabs" with "Foreign Arabs" and compares them as a group to "Palestinian Jews." I say this because records show that Palestinian arabs owned about 5% of the land in Palestine; Palestinian Jews owned about 7% of the land in Palestine and Foreigners, mostly Arabs owned the balance of the Private property, with the Govt owning MOST land in Palestine.

If you like, I can come back with neutral references when I have some time ~ affinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.139.121 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This entry's title should be changed, since it does not correctly reflect the contents of the article. This entry does not comprehensively deal with land law in Israel, rather with those aspects of land law relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For instance, the important Land Act 1969, which finally abrogated the Ottoman Land Code of 1848, is not discussed.

My impression is that the article is politically motivated, but that is beside the point. What is however pertinent is that the article title correctly reflect the contents of this entry. A possible suggestion: Israeli land law relating to the conflict in Palestine. Tkeu (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the capitalization? This doesn't seem like a proper noun to me. Jafeluv (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to rename the article per this apparently unopposed name-change request, but is the proposed title really the appropriate one? I'm inclined to relist to get more input. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be included that land in the occupied territories does not legally belong to Israel.93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I inserted a link to Adalah's Interactive Map of Land Expropriation. Stuck in SD with Yaming reverted it, which is not surprising based on his history here, because he thinks the link is "not relevant". The link is about this topic so I don't see how it is not relevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant to Israel's laws - it does not even disucss them in a singel sentence. It is a link to a pro-palestinain advocacy site. Stuck in SD with Yaming (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? This is about the laws on expropriation so it's mentioned. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. It is about "Israeli land and property laws". It is already heavily slanted by pro-Palestinian propagandists to ficus nerlay exclsuively on the use of those laws for expropriation , but at least that is done using sources that actually discuss the laws. You source does not, and as such it is a pure POV-push, somethign you've been doing over numerous articles. Get consensus for its inclusion and stop edit warring. Stuck in SD with Yaming (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said that it's not relevant to Israel's law and I said it is because it is about expropriation and that is mentioned both here and there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant to Israel's laws - it does not even disucss them in a single sentence. The onus for getting consensus is on editors wishing to ADD controversial material. You have no such consensus. Stuck in SD with Yaming (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to Wikipedia. Just like I said one year ago, the link is indeed relevant because it talks about the expropriation and confiscation of Palestinian land. One other editor has added some to that link and you got reverted by another user. There are multiple mentions of laws concerning expropriation in this article. So how can't it be relevant? --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it now (with a working link). The claim that the link is not relevant is astounishing. This article deals mostly with confiscation of Palestinian land, which the link to Adalah tells more about and also shows a map. So how can it be irrelevant? It gives info about the topic (in three languages too). --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli land and property laws. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927210835/http://www.mmi.gov.il/Envelope/indexeng.asp?page=%2Fstatic%2Feng%2Ff_general.html to http://www.mmi.gov.il/envelope/indexeng.asp?page=%2Fstatic%2Feng%2Ff_general.html

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.

• 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) 23:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! From the article: “Robert Fisk interviewed the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property, who estimates this could amount to up to 70% of the territory of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip”.

I doubt that this is what Robert Fisk claims in the quote given below. I do not know what “land of the state of Israel” shall mean, but I am quite sure that it is not the total territory including occupied territories, since this would be a bizarre claim, those 70% would necessarily include a large amount of uncultivated land in Negev desert … --Chricho ∀ (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli land and property laws. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714175245/http://law.vanderbilt.edu/journals/journal/34-01/howlett.html to http://law.vanderbilt.edu/journals/journal/34-01/howlett.html

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.

• 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) 17:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]