Talk:Gush Etzion

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


untitled[edit]

I don't think it's really a stub anymore. It's somewhat detailed. The logo was weird, so I removed it. A map might be a good addition. -- Slowking Man

what's included?[edit]

it's not accurate to include karmay tzur, har giloh, and bietar. maybe neve daniel. the original core region would include k etion, a shvut and rosh tzurim. bat ayin could be included due to its proximity to kfar etion. similaraly elazar, ephrat and migdal oz. n daniel is "sretching it". anything else should be mentioned under the " Gush Etzion Regional Council". Shilonite 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a POV disgrace[edit]

I know these settlements were/had been legal settlements, but the only two legal ways forward for them was to live under Arab sovereignty (/at peace with their neighbours) or evacuate. They chose to stand and fight - to oppose the sovereignty that Zionists (over and over) insist they'd accepted. It's nonsense to treat the settlements as anything other than heavily armed and most unwanted intruders.

And the article even fails to admit (attempts to conceal) what other Zionist supporting material boast of, this was an armed camp eg Kfar Etzion Remembered: A history of Gush Etzion and the Massacre of Kfar Etzion - 'The total fighting force in Gush Etzion consisted, by the spring of 1948, of 535 men and women, including 215 men and 100 women of the kibbutzim and 220 fighters sent by the Haganah'.

PalestineRemembered 10:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to contribute, not only criticize. --Shuki 21:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PalestineRemembered, You say that living under Arab sovereignty was an option. It was not. If they had remained they would have been killed. They had no option but to protect themselves. Are you really trying to say that all the Arab armies that attacked Israel were for the sole purpose of helping enforce UN sanctions? They were there to rid the land of the Jews now that the British had left. Leppi 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just saying that Gush Etzion was a Palmach stronghold. That, for some reason, is inexplicably down played in the article that has had removed from it much of the militaristic nature of the stronghold...a married women gets called a "girl" in the article, she was a female soldier who volunteered to aid attacks on Palestinian Arab convoys..what you expect the Palestinians to do nothing about a fortified stronghold that was conducting raids in area...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first line of this article. Gus Etzion was comprised of 3 agricultural settlements. It was no more a "Palmach stronghold" than Deir Yassin was an Arab army stronghold. The nature of the 1947-1948 war was such that civilian settlements were targeted, and defended themselves - on both sides . NoCal100 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haganah attacks[edit]

From B. Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, page 135: "During the months before 15 May, Arab civilian and British and Legion military traffic was periodically fired upon along the Hebron-Jerusalem road. The fire came from Haganah militiamen stationed in the Etzion Bloc kibbutzim"--Doron 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of communities[edit]

Are the communities in any specific order? It seems to me that they are randomly placed. Leppi 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"literally bloc of Etzion"[edit]

Surely, more accurately, it's "literally Etzion bloc"? --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Brought here from WP:RD/L#Hebrew grammar/translation help please) Surely it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. In Hebrew, when you have two nouns next to each other like "X Y", the first is in the construct state and the phrase is translated "X of Y" (e.g. "Beth El" = "house of God"). But in English, we like to make compound nouns like "garage door" (which I assume is literally "door(CONSTRUCT) garage" in Hebrew). So whether we translate this "bloc of Etzion" or "Etzion bloc" is a question of what sounds better in English, not a question of what it is "literally" in Hebrew. —Angr 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's maybe falling between two stools then. It's either "literally Etzion bloc" or "bloc of Etzion" without the "literally", as it's missing a possessive. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, literally it's not Etzion bloc either; it's "bloc Etzion" but that's bad grammar in English. Anyway, the possessive meaning is intrinsic in the construct state. —Angr 12:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good enough for me, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal[edit]

In addition to the previous section, I believe that the article should be moved to Etzion Bloc per WP:ENGLISH. Both terms are used, and I believe that the English term is known enough and more descriptive for an English-speaking audience. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etzion Settlement Block appears to be more well known than Etzion Block. nableezy - 23:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: Settlement is illegal[edit]

I have restored the terms "illegal" and occupied" in the article which have been repeatedly removed by User:Hmbr and previously by User:Philip Trueman. These two editors are using Israeli government's narrative and are removing the terms like "illegal" and "occupied" which are the terms used by UN and International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body in the world. If the highest judicial body says it's occupied territory and settlements are illegal, those terms are not "controversial" as claimed by User:Hmbr. If these terms are to be removed, there should be a tag on the page that says that this is an Israeli POV article. "Recalling that the Security Council described Israel's policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law." Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 16:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is already mentioned that they are Israeli settlements and that "they are considered illegal under international law by the international community". Your edits are disruptive and contain severe POV. --Hmbr (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views. It is not a universally accepted view that the settlements are illegal. The community consensus and common practice practice in articles about Israeli settlements is discuss the different POVs about the legality, rather than take a specific side. Marokwitz (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmbr, you are removing the terms that are NPOV terms. Provide a reference to any international institution that says that the settlements are legal or that it's not an occupied territory.
Markowitz, I have given the references to UN Security Council resolutions and ICJ opinion, can you point to any international institution that says that these settlements are not illegal?
User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not listening. the claim that they are considered illegal under international law is already in the article. your statements are un-neutral and disruptive. You made more that 3 reverts in the past 24 hours, and if you continue edit warring, you will be blocked. --Hmbr (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..and so will other editors involved in the edit war. This article is covered by the discretionary sanctions so editing wars are a bad idea. This issue is common to all Israeli settlement articles. Editors are trying to find a common solution. You can participate here at IPCOLL. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why must the reference to ICJ opinion be removed from the page? Why is the location of the settlement removed (Occupied West Bank)? Why is the tone of the article changed to Israeli government's narrative rather than neutral tone? There is no international institution that says that the settlement is legal and there is no international institution that says that West Bank is not an Occupied Territory. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 17:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Markowitz claimed above that "It is not a universally accepted view that the settlements are illegal." This claim is not true, they are considered illegal by UN and ICJ and third-parties like US, EU and UK.
Hmbr first removed the references by claiming that the details were "not critical" and then claiming that they were "controversial." I ask for a reference that proves that the terms "illegal" and "occupation" are considered to be controversial by any international body.User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The central discussion is trying to resolve these issues by finding suitable wording and sources for all articles about Israeli settlements in the oPt and the Golan Heights. This article is just one of many. There is nothing controversial about stating that settlements in occupied territories are regarded as illegal by the international community and this article already says that but many don't. Edit wars are commonplace on this issue and several editors have been blocked as a result. A centrally agreed wording is possible so if you can help please do. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word occupied. Waqas, now it states that its a settlement, that its in the occupied west bank, and that it's considered illegal under international law (although Israel disputes that). --Hmbr (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many people feel that the area has been Israel for 3000 years and Israel was attacked in a war in 1967 and took back land that was theirs. Others would disagree. There is no universal consensus.

Also, the country of Israel in not building in the Gush Eztion, Palestinians are. Almost 100% of the Jewish houses, synagogues, stores, schools, etc in the Gush are built by Palestinians.Palestinian contractors, Palestinian stone, Palestinian trucks delivering, Palestinian labor. The Palestinians are expanding the Jewish presence in the Gush by building it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78akka (talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmbr, I'm glad that you admit that only "Israel disputes that," the international community's consensus and international legal bodies pretty clearly hold the position that it's illegal and occupied. I have added the word "Occupied" to the opening sentence as well because that's what it is called by the international community (UN, ICJ, US, UK, EU), only Israel disputes that. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 18:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not admit anything. Unlike you, I am trying to find a neutral point of view for this article, not to insert my political agenda. I removed your word, because the sentence talks about the 1920s, time of the British occupation, which historically came after the Ottoman occupation, before the Jordanian occupation and a long time before the Israeli occupation. Hmbr (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one acting on behalf of Israeli government, I don't have any agenda except that neutral and internationally recognized terms be used on wikipedia instead of Israeli narrative. The neutral point of view is that this is an illegal settlement, you are just being a spokesman of Israeli government if you claim that it's "controversial" and not occupied, not illegal.User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 19:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78akka, there is consensus that the Jewish settlers came to this land in the last century from Europe, Russia and elsewhere (not talking about the minority of Jews who maintained their presence in historical Palestine throughout the centuries leading up to 19th and 20th century), if their ancestors were massacred and expelled from Palestine by Christian invaders in 1099 or Romans or others before that, that's a different debate (Muslims allowed Jews in to Palestine in 637 and then again in 1187, plenty of Israeli historians have documented that). As far as "Palestinians are building it" is concerned, if you have a military occupation and you don't allow the natives the same rights as the foreign settlers, you cannot blame the natives for trying to earn their living. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 18:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waqas.usman, They have rights. They shop in the same Rami Levy supermarket as me at the Gush Junction, they take their cars to get repaired at the same repair place as me where Jews and Arabs work side by side. There are new BMW's and Mercedes with Palestinian license plates. There are Palestinian mansions and really nice big Palestinian houses in the area. Yes, there are also Palestinian shepherds and Palestinians on donkeys also. Palestinians have the right to blast prayers from loudspeakers at 4am, the sound reaches for miles. What I would say, come visit and see for yourself. I will take you to the supermarket. See an Jew shopping in the same isle as an Arab.

to 78akka I am neither Jew nor Palestinian nor Arab I am very glad to learn that all people who live there have the same rights, they go in the same supermarket Ramy Levy, they use the same cars, so why some of them have Palestinian license plates and other Israelian license plates? Why haven't they an uniform plate (given by a unique state) can a Jewish girl (or boy) marry a Palestinian boy (or girl)? Is there a unique municipality where the vote of a Jew and of a Palestinian is equal? Have the Palestians and the Jews the same identity card with no distinctive mention of Jew or Palestinian? If not they have not the same rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.85.18 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If it is illegal, should Palestinians by prosecuted for expanding the Jewish presence in the Gush by building it?[edit]

Non-content related discussion

The country of Israel is not building in Gush Eztion, Palestinians are. Almost 100% of the Jewish houses, synagogues, stores, schools, etc in the Gush are built by Palestinians. Palestinian contractors, Palestinian stone, Palestinian trucks delivering, Palestinian labor. The Palestinians are expanding the Jewish presence in the Gush by building it. By your reasoning, they are involved with a large scale illegal enterprise for 100's of millions of dollars for decades. Should they not be prosecuted?

Do you mean that the people who are being occupied should be prosecuted before the occupying power, the controlling power is prosecuted? I am talking from a neutral point of view as agreed by International community (ICJ, UN and thirdparties like US, UK, EU), so should you. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think anyone should be prosecuted. I don't think it is illegal. I am just posing the question.

For all the people who think it is illegal, do you want to prosecute both sides; the person paying for the building and the person taking money for doing the building? Or do you want to say, hire a builder - get in trouble, but take the money, do the building - no problem. Typically if there is some type of illegal activity, both parties can get in trouble. Why are people only going after one side and ignoring the other?

--78akka (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)78akka[reply]

Opening sentence should reflect current status[edit]

What is the official wikipedia policy? Should the opening sentence about a town or a state or a country explain what the status of that entity was 100 or 200 years ago or should it describe the current status? For the majority of Wikipedia articles, the opening sentence is what it is today, not what it was 90 years ago, why should Gush Etzion be an exception to describe it from a specific POV and not from the NPOV as recognized by the whole world (except one country)? For example, an article about Hawaii does not start with a sentence that says that Hawaii was an independent kingdom in 1778, or that it was independent until 1893, it starts with a sentence that says that it's a US state. Should we change Gush Etzion's opening sentence to describe current status or should we modify Hawaii (and other articles about places)? User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judea/West Bank[edit]

Reminding editors of WP:WESTBANK and the specific prohibition on using Judea or Samaria as a name of a current place (number 6: The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice; for example, it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria"). Debresser, kindly familiarize yourself with that guideline so that you dont make edits like this again. Also, your edit, like the original IP's vandalism, changed the name of references in the article making titles that actually say "West Bank settlers shrug ..." read as "Judea settlers shrug". Please be more careful in the future. Thanks, nableezy - 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am familiar with WP:WESTBANK. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the geography of the area. Since the article mentions "Judaean Mountains", the rest is just politics, as far as I am concerned. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gush Etzion. 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) 22:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2017[edit]

Below is a list found in the respective article about different population amounts of each town. They are updated to 2008, and not 2015, the most recent census, and their are considerable changes between them. The new census can be found here-http://www.cbs.gov.il/ishuvim/reshimalefishem.pdf I strongly wish some one would change and update this info, because since it is out of date, it is incorrect and factually wrong.

Here is the old list Name Founded Population (EOY 2008)[30] Type Alon Shvut 1970 3,400 Community settlement Bat Ayin 1989 900 Community settlement Beitar Illit 1985 38,800 Independent municipality[31] Efrat 1983 8,300 Independent municipality[31] Elazar 1975 1,706 Community settlement Karmei Tzur 1984 700 Community settlement Kedar 1984 960 Community settlement Kfar Eldad 1994 120 Community settlement Kfar Etzion 1967 820 Kibbutz Gevaot 1984 75 Community settlement Har Gilo 1968 570 Community settlement Ibei HaNahal 1999 50 Outpost Ma'ale Amos 1982 270 Community settlement Ma'ale Rehav'am 2001 40 Outpost Metzad 1984 380 Community settlement Migdal Oz 1977 440 Kibbutz Neve Daniel 1982 1,883 Community settlement Nokdim 1982 1,300 Community settlement Pnei Kedem 2000 100 Outpost Rosh Tzurim 1969 560 Kibbutz Sde Boaz 2002 90 Outpost Tekoa 1975 1,600 Community settlement Jaketheforestdude (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I couldn't find all the localities in the current list we have with a simple Ctrl+F on the link you gave me. Are you sure we can use this as a reliable source to update the current list? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd02022092 Huh. It seems to me that the editor brought a source. No less than the Israeli Bureau of Statistics. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gush Etzion. 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) 09:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request: Make table sortable[edit]

Could you make the table sortable by adding the sortable class to it, please? Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli psyche[edit]

I restored the longstanding version as the cited source ([1]) uses Israeli independence war and the sentence itself is about the Israeli psyche and symbolism which uses this term. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We arent obliged to follow the cited sources POV. We have no reason to include a POV title when we have already a consensus on Wikipedia on what the common name for the title of the target article is. Unless we are quoting the source we do not need to use its language when we have already settled on what ours is. Reverting. nableezy - 15:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, apparently 11Fox11 agrees with me elsewhere. nableezy - 17:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the claim is the opinion of the authors (Katz and Lehr) and like all such opinions should be attributed to them. Zerotalk 03:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed at User_talk:11Fox11#Your_reintroduction_of_an_redirection there is ample room in guidelines and logic to use a POV term in specific contexts. In addition, the term 1947–1949 Palestine war is virtually non-existent in academic literature, and was apparently made up only to suite the POV of certain editors. In any case, Nableezy, do not insist on a non-consensus version without a new consensus, however much you believe to be correct. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, if I recall correctly you have previously objected to using terms like "ultra-Orthodox Judaism" when that redirects to Haredi Judaism on the basis that the agreed upon term on Wikipedia is the title of the article. How exactly is this any different? You are, as usual, mistaken on the academic literature, 1948 Palestine War is used widely among sources across a range of POVs, from Efraim Karsh to Illan Pappe. Please dont mistake your idiosyncratic views for what the sources support. nableezy - 02:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, the term 1947–1949 Palestine war is virtually non-existent in academic literature. This is completely incorrect. Per Google NGrams, 1948 Arab–Israeli War is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME in English. --Aquillion (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using "Israeli War of Independence" in the article voice is obviously extremely inappropriate (comparable to referring to the War of Northern Aggression or the like.) WP:NPOV requires that we use neutral terms when available, and WP:COMMONNAME requires that we use the most common name; both of these support the more neutral term. --Aquillion (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. When I opposed to "ultra-Orthodox" that was not because the term is partial, but because it is considered a pejorative. Such is actually a rather common point of view, which can be found in sources. Therefore a number of editors, me included, hold that the term is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I see no connection with the present issue, which is POV.
  2. You contradict yourself, and actually make my point for me: there is no term "1947–1949 Palestine war". There is a term "1948 Arab–Israeli War".
  3. My point remains, despite your argument by assertion ("is obviously extremely inappropriate", which I diametrically oppose), that in certain contexts a POV term is clearer and more appropriate than a NPOV term, and that this is one of those cases. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.ijs.org.au/war-of-1947-1949/ .... Gettit now?Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You very much seem to be not paying attention. Our article uses "1947–1949" instead of 1948 to be more precisely accurate, but 1948 Palestine War is widely used in sources. I gave you two above. Regardless, the numbers seem to be very much on one side of this discussion. By my count, either through edits or here on this talk page, there is myself, Zero, Huldra, Number57, Selfstudier all agreeing that using a POV title in Wikipedia's voice when we have a perfectly acceptable neutral and common name that just happens to be the title of the article is inappropriate. If you'd like to argue you both are in the minority and have consensus then by all mans feel free. I however disagree and see this as settled. nableezy - 20:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, I'd kindly ask you to refrain from personal remarks. Whether or not I am paying attention is really not for you to comment on. In any case, you make my point for me: we should not use a non-existing term like 1947–1949 Palestine war. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is very much not a "non-existing term" if that phrase is supposed to mean something in English. I very much did not make any personal attacks, though the hilarity in you asking others not do so is giggle worthy. And there is wide support for the change at this point. Your disliking that isnt all that important to me as your assent is not needed for us to have consensus on what title to use. That consensus appears to be 1947-1949 Palestine war. If you would like to argue for changing the title o the article 1947-1949 Palestine war to Israeli War of Independence by all means, feel free. But as it stands, both at that article and here, there is consensus for calling the 1947-1949 Palestine war the 1947-1949 Palestine war. nableezy - 12:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 12:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this "non-existing term" business. It is called that by many scholars in the field and is arguably better motivated if not more common than anything only referring to 1948 unless the intention is ONLY to refer to the 1948 aspect and ignore 1947, which is when things actually kicked off.Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

@Zero0000: have you seen any maps showing where the 1943-48 settlements were in relation to each other? The only map I could find was from 1943, just before the re-founding of Kfar Etzion. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good map at John Lehr & Yossi Katz (2003) Heritage Interpretation and Politics in Kfar Etzion, Israel, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 9:3, 215-228, DOI: 10.1080/13527250304771
But it is a modern copyrighted reproduction rather than an original. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I have a Hebrew map of land holdings from October 1943 that shows the position of the planned settlements agreeing with Lehr+Katz. I can see Kfar Etzion, Massuot Yitzhak, Ein Zurim and Mesla (clearly a tentative name for Revadim). I just emailed it to you. I'm not sure how useful it would be for the article since it is hard to read. Maybe it could be redrawn? Zerotalk 04:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, thank you. I have created a map and added it in. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is old Revivim site resettled?[edit]

Is there any post-67 settlement at the site of old Revivim? Arminden (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the western part of Rosh Tzurim. See Katz, Yossi, and John C. Lehr. “Symbolism and Landscape: The Etzion Bloc in the Judean Mountains.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 31, no. 4, 1995, pp. 730–743. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4283758 for the exact locations. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gush_Etzion&oldid=1207018391"