Template talk:Israel-InfoBox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Golan Heights and East Jerusalem

Shamir1, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are not generally recognized as sovereign Israeli territory. Even from the Israeli point of view it is not clear, as Israel has never formally annexed these territories. You know this very well, as this issue has been brought up many times in Wikipedia, so don't make these controversial changes without consensus please.--Doron 06:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit confused on Israeli policy. Israel has never formally annexed or claimed the West Bank. Israel has however applied its "laws and jurisdiction,..." etc. to the Golan Heights and east jerusalem, which are regularly under civilian rule as any part of Israel and considered to be a form of annexation. Israel claims both the Heights and all of Jerusalem. They are both a de facto part of Israel, no, not a de jure part of Israel as per the UN, but nonetheless a de facto part of Israel. The residents are eligible for citizenship and it is nonetheless a part of Israel, whether or not a political body recognizes that it should or not be. For example, if you look at Georgia (country), there is a footnote that says the territorial size excludes Abkhazia, since Abkhazia has split off, is not controlled by Georgia, and is a de facto independent republic. With both the footnote and further information already on the article, there should not be controversy. --Shamir1 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
First, misquoting data in your arguments weakens your position -- the Georgia article has no such footnote regarding the area of Georgia, indeed it includes Abkhazia, as do all maps in the article. There is, however, a footnote regarding population, similar to the one in Israel's infobox. Second, you do admit that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are not a de jure part of Israel, and you admit they are not recognized internationally as part of Israel. Therefore, the infobox data should not include their area. The infobox is no place for controversial data, it should include widely accepted definitions. You can state the area including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the article body if you wish. By the way, all West Bank settlements are also under Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction.--Doron 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk about misquotation, not to mention mininformation. The Golan Heights and East jerusalem are de jure part of Israel under Israeli law. This is disputed by the United Nations, but the dispute does not change the fact that the Heights are administered in the same fashion that Tel Aviv or or Eilat is, it is formally claimed by Israel, and citizenship is available to all residents. Recognition does not make it any less a de facto part of Israel, nor is it controversial. As for the West Bank (which I already explained) a) it is under the jurisdiction of the military, not regular civilian rule like the Golan Heights, and b) Israel does not formally claim it, unlike the Golan Heights. --Shamir1 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You wrote that the territory of Abkhazia is not included in the area figure of Georgia, which was false, so you misquoted that article. I did not misquote a single sentence, everything I said is perfectly correct. You wrote "[t]hey are both a de facto part of Israel, no, not a de jure part of Israel as per the UN, but nonetheless a de facto part of Israel". I didn't deny they were administrated as part of Israel. What I'm saying is this -- regarding them as sovereign Israeli territory is not a fact, but rather a controversial claim, which is not supported by any international recognition, and even Israel's own position is vague at best. I'll say it again -- I am not talking about administration, I'm talking about sovereignty. If you want to elaborate on this subject, the article proper is the place for that. There's no room in the infobox for discussions about controversial data.--Doron 08:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes you did misquote, or at least mislead. And Israel's position is very clear ("vague at best"?, please). The Golan Heights (whether recognized by 1 country, 2, 3, or 100) is a place a) formally claimed by Israel, b) controlled by Israel, c) civilian administered by Israel, d) where all residents can obtain Israeli citizenship. Because of that (whether or not someone else recognizes it, Israel recognizes it), it is territory that should be considered. I am not saying to remove the footnote, and I never elaborated anything in the box (if I were to, yes it would be the article proper). You are absolutely right when you say it is not a fact, but rather a controversial claim. Nonetheless, we cannot simply shy away their claim. It is claimed by Israel as their sovereign territory and it is used as such. --Shamir1 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The Golan Heights Law purposely avoids mentioning "sovereignty" or "annexation", and thus Israel's position is not perfectly clear. If Israel had wanted to make it clearer, she could have used either word and then her claim was obvious. What is perfectly clear, is that no other national or international body recognizes the Golan Heights as part of Israel. Wikipedia shouldn't prefer what you presume to be Israel's position over the rest of the world. Control is completely irrelevant, otherwise you'd include Iraq's and Afghanistan's (and arguably the whole planet's...) territory as part of the United States! Civil administration is also irrelevant, civil administration is not the same as sovereignty.--Doron 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the language of the Golan Heights Law. Israel formally claims the Heights and excercises sovereignty over it--that cannot just be left out. I will repeat (once again), that the United States does not claim Afghanistan or Iraq, American citizenship is not available residents of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Adghanistan and Iraq are in no way a de facto part of the U.S. This is unlike the Golan Heights. The idea that the Golan Heights (whose status is much different than the West Bank) should simply be ignored from it is wrong. It is not about recognition, that goes under the article proper of the Golan Heights, not Israel. Israel excercises sovereignty over it, its residents are eligible for Israeli citizenship, and it is formally claimed by Israel. Nothing (including foreign recognition) changes that. The rest of this can be discussed in Golan Heights. --Shamir1 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You cannot provide an official declaration that Israel exercises sovereignty over the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem. Even if you did, the rest of the world does not and would not recognize it. The status of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is not different from the West Bank settlements -- they are all under Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction, and they are all not officially claimed as sovereign Israeli territory, and they are all not recognized internationally as Israeli sovereign territory.--Doron 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is not about "the rest of the world", it is about Israel. I have addressed this boloney numerous times, for some reason you pretend not to listen. Israel does not--I repeat, NOT, I repeat (again) NOT--formally claim the West Bank. Jerusalem (all of it) and the Golan Heights are 100% formally claimed and treated no differently than any other part of Israel. It is not "ambiguous" as you suggest. As per Israel, the Golan Heights are de jure and de facto a part of Israel. "Early on 14 December Mr. Begin surprised his own ministers when he summoned them to his sick-bed in Jerusalem and informed them that he intended to pass a law annexing the Golan Heights that very same day. Having secured cabinet approval, the law was adopted by the Knesset later that evening by a majority of 63 against 21."[1] All residents of these areas are eligible for Israeli citizenship. Its status is different and it cannot just be ignored. Nothing changes that. --Shamir1 05:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know what kind of quote you think this is, looks like a press release attached to the law. Territories are not annexed by press releases, they are annexed by the word of the law or something equivalent, and the Golan Heights Law (as well as the relevant law regarding East Jerusalem) intentionally avoids the words "annex" and "sovereignty". You have to provide an official declaration that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are sovereign Israeli territory, a press release means absolutely nothing.
  • Even if you miraculously manage to provide a declaration of annexation (which does not exist), it is still not acceptable by the rest of the world. Israel is indeed the subject of the article, it does not mean the article should contain only the Israeli perspective. Without international recognition, there wouldn't even be a "State of Israel", only a de facto state like Abkhazia, Somaliland and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
  • Just to make this absolutely clear: West Bank settlements are under Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction in the same way that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are, and thus have the same status.--Doron 08:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know where you are getting these purely strange ideas. Press release? Funny. That is from the Israeli government's website. (Also, don't make up Wikipedia rules.) Although the word "annex" is not there (which is not excluded to make it "ambiguous" or for any of the reasons you are suggesting), that does not change the fact it was annexed (100% no doubt about it). The wording of the official Golan Heights Law is very clear.
You admit the word "annex" is not there. Indeed the wording of the official Golan Heights Law is very clear, and it does not include the word "annex" or sovereignty. This was done intentionally, as indicated by Begin's words.--Doron 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Golan Heights Law is everything there is to a declaration of annexation. This is purely nonsense. The terminology is synonomous with annex anyway, as noted by the Israeli government source. Also see [2][3][4][5]--all regarding it as formal annexation. I have edited Wikipedia for a long time, and no one has ever come up with the strange idea of the Golan Heights not being annexed. Several disputes and I have never heard such a thing. Also, it is under your edit that a perspective is pushed. Under the original (like that for a long time), it has a footnote noting that it includes the Golan Heights, so it is not only the "Israeli perspective."
I suppose you haven't edited the Golan Heights article. This issue is discussed there thoroughly and leaves no room for mistakes -- Israel avoided officially annexing the Golan Heights. See, for instance, [6]. The UN also does not use the word "annexation" when regarding Israeli policies with respect to the Golan Heights, instead referring to them as "annexationist policies". The CIA World Factbook states Israel's area as 20,770 km2, i.e., excluding the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem [7].--Doron 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not bother me with concepts I have already explained. Many of these arguments are poorly researched and baseless. The West Bank is not formally annexed. Under Israeli law, the Golan Heights is part of the North District (Israel). The West Bank (and until 2005, the Gaza Strip as well), on the contrary, is not regarded as a district but as territory that is subject to military administration. In strong contrast to the Golan Heights (where military rule was revoked in 1981), all residents (unlike the West Bank) are eligible for citizenship and other national benefits. It is formally claimed as permanent territory (whether or not negotiations are left open), while the West Bank is not. It is not for you to say they have the same status, which is highly problematic and very, very untrue anyway. It cannot simply be ignored, please stop. --Shamir1 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not talking about the West Bank, I am talking about the West Bank settlements (which consist of about 40% of the West Bank territory, including cities, local councils and regional councils). I am happy to enlighten you that they are regarded as the district of Judea and Samaria, and are subject to civil administration. Residents of the district live in Israeli municipalities, just like residents of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, and are subject to civil law, not military law.--Doron 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, the most important point is that whether Israel did or did not annex the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, one thing is clear -- it is not recognized by the rest of the world. Iraq annexed Kuwait in 1990, but that doesn't mean Kuwait became part of Iraq, just because Saddam Hussein said so. Under international law, unilateral annexation is not accepted.--Doron 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can see, Doron is correct on every point of contention here. The Golan Heights may or may not be annexed according to Israeli law. This ambiguity arose deliberately, and in fact Israel told the UN that it was not annexing the Golan but just "normalizing the situation" by applying civil law. An example of an expert opinion that there has been no annexation was given by Leon Sheleff (Professor, Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law) in the Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol 20, 1994, p333-353. His conclusion at the end of those 21 pages of analysis was "there is no escaping the conclusion that the Golan Heights was not annexed to Israel". Other experts disagree on this. But anyway, as Doron says, there is no reason why Israel's unilateral decisions should be cemented into the infobox. I propose the following compromise: where it says area give the area without Golan and EJ, but attach to it a footnote saying "would be XXX sq km if the GH and EJ were included". --Zerotalk 12:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that. Or perhaps something like "XXX km2 including the Israeli-administrated Golan Heights and East Jerusalem".--Doron 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Israeli law does not look at the Golan Heights any differently from Tel Aviv or Haifa. Your insistence that it is "ambiguous" is baseless. This is not about "expert"'s opinions, this is about law and official policy. I included a source from the official website of the government of Israel. I also included other primary sources that not only easily not knock out expert's opinions, but are not even needed to prove this fact. Also, if it were 'cemented', it would not have a footnote. It is not simply a decision but also what it is as the Golan Heights is civilian administered. The Golan Heights is an area where residents are eligible for Israeli citizenship. This is unlike the West Bank. (A vital point only I have been making but of course Zero says "Doron is correct on every point") The West Bank is not annexed or formally claimed. --Shamir1 02:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You keep repeating the same arguments without answering my points. Israeli law does not look at Ariel or Kiryat Arba any differently from Tel Aviv or Haifa either. But nobody is arguing about that -- there is no dispute that the Golan Heights are under Israeli jurisdiction. The dispute is whether they are under Israeli sovereignty. Do you know the difference? The Israeli website is no authority on the subject, when it is not supported explicitly by the word of the law, which does not refer to annexation or soverignty. An explicit reference or a wide agreement among experts that the law amounts to an official annexation would be a different story. Now I will state my arguments again, hoping you are able to address them seriously and to the point.
There is no dispute about Israel's policies with regards to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, namely, that they are under civil administration, jurisdiction and law, which may amount to a de facto annexation. However:
  • Considering the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as Israeli territory is rejected by the rest of the world, and thus including their territory represents, at best, an Israeli point of view, and not strictly factual information.
  • There is no official Israeli declaration or law that explicitly annexes or claims sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and there are experts that dispute claims that Israeli has officially annexed them.--Doron 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Israeli law does look at Ariel and Kiryat Arba differently from Tel Aviv and Haifa.
In what way, pray tell?--Doron 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • East Jerusalem is considered subject to further Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, not necessarily not Israeli territory. Under Israeli law, there is no East Jerusalem. It is not a matter of point of view. Who claims it? Israel. Who rules over it? Israel. Militarily or civilian? Civilian (which infers permanence). Are its residents Israeli citizens or is citizenship readily available to them? Yes.
Civilian administration infers permanence?! Brilliant. You are yet to provide proof that Israel claims it, in the form of an official declaration. Everything else is absolutely irrelevant to the question of sovereignty. And I'm not interested in another timeline or presentation. If an annexation has taken place, there must be an explicit declaration on behalf of the State of Israel. Please refer us to such a declaration.--Doron 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many "experts" who say a lot of boloney, this is not about an essay you read by Professor So-and-So who says it is not annexed. That is ridiculous. I gave much better sources above, which are not even needed as I have never heard such an odd and baseless claim. More can easily be found that it is unilateral annexation. Also see USA Today's Mideast conflict presentation (sourced by guardian.co.uk, Facts on File, AP). Click the right arrow until you get to 1981. The Golan Heights remains on the Syrian side of border, but is nonetheless filled in with blue as Israeli territory. [8]
Really convincing, a USA Today presentation outweighs a scholarly work in a reputable journal?--Doron 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is also not about terminology. The Golan Heights Law had the Golan Heights unilaterally annexed to Israel. Period. --Shamir1 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Please quote from the law the part that talks about annexation.--Doron 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You are yet to counter the issue of POV.--Doron 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The part that says they "apply their laws, jurisdiction, administration..." officially to all of the Golan Heights amounts to annexation. The website of the Israeli government says so, aside from that, it is obvious.
No, it does not amount to annexation. It is the website's POV that it amounts to annexation, neither the website nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is authorized to make such assertions. Zero has presented a scholar opinion that it does not amount to annexation.--Doron 09:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comments about USA Today is completely laughable. Yes, the USA Today source outweighs a journal that published someone's opinion. BBC has long been accused of an anti-Israel bias, and even had to hire an independent panel to investigate the allegation. The panel compiled a 20,000 page report--a report that BBC paid 200,000 pounds to keep hidden. In other words, there should be no argument against BBC. See here: "Israel unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981." --Shamir1 03:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but a sloppy phrasing in a journalist presentation does not outweigh an elaborate analysis by a legal expert published in a respectable academic journal.--Doron 09:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Let me summarize what we have so far:

  • There is no explicit reference to "annexation" or "sovereignty" in any declaration on behalf of the State of Israel with regards to the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem. When the bill was brought to the Knesset, Prime Minister Begin emphasized the absence of such reference [9].
  • Israel's policies are referred to as "annexation" in several sources, including a governmental website
  • Other sources either use the wording of the law [10] or refer to these policies as "effective annexation" or "annexationist policies" [11].
  • Yet other sources, including Israeli scholars, argue explicitly that Israel's policies do not amount to official de jure annexation [12][13].
  • In the case of East Jerusalem, Israel has officially denied that her policies amount to annexation, and the Supreme Court in one case rejected the claim that they amount to annexation [14].
  • No country or international body recognizes the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem as sovereign Israeli territory.
  • In other Wikipedia articles about countries which control disputed territories such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Morocco and Somalia, the stated area is the internationally-recognized area, not the area of de facto administration.

Do you agree with all of these facts?

Given all of the above, I conclude that to claim that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are part of Israel is POV (and not necessarily and Israeli POV).--Doron 09:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It is true that he did not want to use that term, but it is not for the reasons that you are suggesting. Besides that, the interpretation on the official website of the Israeli government makes it very clear.
The fact is that Begin avoided the word.--Doron 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Israeli scholars can and will argue anything. There is always a dispute over something. However, the mainstream view (which is supported by the BBC and USA Today sources among others) is that it is de facto annexed to Israel.
For the last time nobody is denying that it is a de facto annexation! I am talking about an official de jure annexation. The fact is that it is disputed, which you cannot deny.--Doron 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That is not a good source. As per Israel, there is no East Jerusalem and they will almost never use that word. Please see the Jerusalem Law, which stresses that it is whole and united Jerusalem. Please see the Israeli government view. [15]
Let me get it straight, are you denying that Minister of Foreign Affairs Abba Eban wrote in 1967 to U.N. Secretary General that The term "annexation," is out of place. The measures adopted related to the integration of Jerusalem in the administrative and municipal spheres and furnish a legal basis for the protection of the Holy Places.?--Doron 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • They consider East Jerusalem subject to further negotitations. There has been informal recognition of the Golan Heights by some leaders, but true, it has never amounted to formal recognition. Because of that, I include the footnote that it includes the Golan Heights, considering it is not in the same category as the West Bank.
I don't know of any "informal" recognition and I don't care about it. You admit there is no formal recognition. Lack of formal recognition means that the world does not view the Golan Heights as part of Israel.--Doron 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That is true, but it is in a different situation. Cyprus claims Northern Cyprus and it is internationally recognized, but does not control it. Israel claims the Golan Heights and controls it, but it is not internationally recongnized. I dont see another country that is truely on the same boat. The Golan Heights status in the box should be in some way differentiated from the West Bank. That is why it is written as such. The Golan Heights are part of Israel for all intents and purposes, despite anyone else recognizing it is such in the political arena. That is why I support the separate footnote. --Shamir1 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Morocco annexed Western Sahara, a move that has no international recognition. The Morocco article states Morocco's territorial area excluding Western Sahara. The fact is that for every country whose internationally-recognized territory does not overlap with her de facto territory, the corresponding article still states the area of the internationally-recognized territory. Why should Israel be an exception?--Doron 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That's false. China's annexation of Tibet is not internationally recognized, but the PRC article most certainly does not exclude Tibet. It specifically includes it. Isarig 23:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Tibet has been de jure part of China for more than seven hundred years, has been recognized as such explicitly by Russia and Great Britain, and has been acknowledged as such by the United States. No country in the world disputes Tibet being part of China and no country in the world recognizes any other sovereignty over Tibet.--Doron 23:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is, in a word, nonsense. Tibet is not "de jure" part of China, other than through the unilateral imposition of Chinese law, in defiance of UN resolutions passed in 1959. The PRC's presence in Tibet is a result of a military invasion, no different than the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey - save for one factor - the PRC is a veto-wielding nuclear superpower, so no effective international measures - either UNSC resolutions, economic sanctions or military force - can be brought to bear against it. That doesn't change the facts that China invaded Tibet in 1950, and imposed its rule there over the objections of the (now exiled) Tibetan government. Isarig 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Nothing of what you're saying is correct. The 1959 resolution [16] is about human rights, there's not a single word there that even implies that Tibet is not part of China. I'm not going to get into an argument about Tibet with you as I don't know enough about the subject (and neither do you, obviously), I'll just state that American official publications such as CIA World Factbook regard Tibet as part of China [17] despite the two countries' animosity and regards the Golan Heights as occupied [18] despite the two countries' rather close relations!--Doron 07:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You admit you dont know enough about this, yet have the gall to declare "Nothing of what you're saying is correct". Look, it's one thing to advocate for a pro-Palestinian POV, quite another to downplay the equally valid grievances of other people who live under military occupation in order to do so. Have a read at these , and stop making ignorant claims: [19] - "Tibet demonstrated from 1913 to 1950 the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law. In 1950 there was a people and a territory, and a government which functioned in that territory, conducting its own domestic affairs free from any outside authority. From 1913-1950 foreign relations of Tibet were conducted exclusively by the Government of Tibet and countries with whom Tibet had foreign relations are shown by official documents to have treated Tibet in practice as an independent State."

[20] - "since the Chinese revolution on 1911, and by the latest since the 20's, Tibet fulfilled all international law requirements for an independent state. The Jurist Commission spoke of a period of de facto complete independence from China. In 1911, the Tibetans ejected the Chinese Army which was installed in 1910, and at the beginning of the year 1912, the 13th Dalai Lama declared his country's independence. According to the Jurist Commission, there were no legal impediments for the formal recognition of Tibet, even if it did not follow. The existence of a state does not depend on its formal recognition. According to current legal principles, formal recognition only has a declaratory effect. In any event, a factual recognition did occur. Great Britain, at that time a dominant power in the region, treated Tibet since 1912 as an independent state. In the year 1943, Tibet became more active in foreign politics, and created its own foreign affairs office. Tibetan passports were recognized as effective travel documents. In order to clarify that china had no rights over Tibet, the Tibetan government, on the occasion of the defeat of the Kuomintang government, on the occasion of the defeat of the Kuomintang Government, required all Chinese representatives to leave the country in July 1949. With this action, Tibet terminated all limitations to its independence through contractual commitments, if such contractual commitments still existed at that time. Tibet was entitles to do so according to the riles of "clausula sic stantibus". Isarig 14:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Now was there an internationally-recognized Tibetan sovereignty?--Doron 21:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes - as it says in the quoted refernce- "In any event, a factual recognition did occur. Great Britain, at that time a dominant power in the region, treated Tibet since 1912 as an independent state." Isarig 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I see, it treated Tibet as an independent state. But I was asking about recognition, not treatment, or, in other words, de jure sovereignty and not de facto sovereignty. Anyway, whatever happened in 1912 is of little interest, because the 1914 Simla Convention saw British recognition of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet [21]. This whole argument is futile and irrelevant to the question of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.--Doron 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This argument is not futile, and clearly relevant. You made an incorrect statement, namely, that every country which occupies a territory over which its sovereignty is disputed is listed on WP w/o that territory. I have shown you that is false, at least as far as China. You responded with a false and nonsensical claim that Tibet has been de jure a part of China for 700 years - a claim that not even the propaganda organs of the PRC make. Isarig 00:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have proven to you that Great Britain regards Tibet as part of China since 1914. You are yet to prove that Tibet is equivalent to the Golan Heights in this respect -- you are yet to show that Tibet is regarded by the international community as occupied territory.--Doron 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link update

Please update the template:

so far:
|area_magnitude           = 1 E10
should become:
|area_magnitude           = 1 E+10

to avoid a redirect. Note: the template simply shows/links parameter area_magnitude, there are no calculations with it. — SomeHuman 26 Mar 2007 22:50 (UTC)

Done and thank you for pointing that out. MahangaTalk to me 14:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute, take 2

Since Isarig has diverted the discussion to the question of Tibetan independence, I'll try to get the relevant discussion back on track. As I stated above (with appropriate references), claiming that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are part of Israel is POV, and therefore it should not be in the infobox. It is POV -

  • Because it is not recognized by any country or any international body.
  • Because the relevant Israeli law does not explicitly state anything about annexation or sovereignty, and this was done intentionally. In the case of East Jerusalem, Israel has explicitly denied an annexation has taken place.
  • Because some scholars have argued that Israel has not officially annexed these territories (as opposed to de facto annexation).

None of these points have been refuted so far. Please try to address them without diverting the discussion to irrelevant issues.--Doron 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The diversion, if there was one - was one that you introduced, and I resent your implication that I am somehow at fault here. It was you, not I, that sought to bolster his claim with the patently false assertion that 'The fact is that for every country whose internationally-recognized territory does not overlap with her de facto territory, the corresponding article still states the area of the internationally-recognized territory.'. Now that you have seen that this is a counter-productive argument from your perspective, you wish to backtrack from it, which is fine, but have the intellectual honesty to admit this is what you are doing, w/o accusing others of "divert[ing] the discussion". I will address the points you are still sticking to shortly. Isarig 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: 'it is not recognized by any country or any international body' - this is a strawman argument. As pointed out to you in the context of the Tibet situation, the international law position on this is "The existence of a state does not depend on its formal recognition. According to current legal principles, formal recognition only has a declaratory effect." Isarig 00:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a highliy disputed claim. From the State article: "[b]y modern practice and the law of international relations, a state's sovereignty is conditional upon the diplomatic recognition of the state's claim to statehood". Anyway, nobody is claiming that East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights are independent states, so this is completely irrelevant. --Doron 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not highly disputed, and the WP article (which of course, cannot be used as reference, as WP can't be a reference for itself) which makes that claim does not source it to any any legal authority. What that article does source, the Montevideo convention, makes no reference to international recognition, but merely to "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.". Contrast this unsourced dubious claim with the legal authority I have quoted to you - "OPINION REGARDING THE LEGAL STATUS OF TIBET BY THE GERMAN PARLIAMENT'S SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SERVICE FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW". The other strawman is "nobody is claiming that East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights are independent states, so this is completely irrelevant" - what is important here is not if EJ or the GH are independent states (a claim which no one has made), but the legal principle involved, with regard to the argument calling for "international recognition". And the legal pricnciple is clear - such recognition is mere formality, and not needed, and that holds true whether the issue is a state's independence, or a state's claim over a territory over which it annexed and over which it exercises control. Isarig 01:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not a strawman argument. Your opinion is that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are part of Israel according to international law. The infobox should not reflect your opinion, or even some experts' opinions, but rather things that are factual. The fact that no world government recognizes these territories as part of Israel and the fact that legal experts do not regard them as such is enough to determine that this is POV at the very least. Wikipedia should not present POV claims as facts. The article proper can discuss these issues at length, but the infobox should only present things that are widely accepted. And this is not the case here.--Doron 08:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You are conflating "widely accepted" with "factual". The two are not the same. As an illuminating example, take a look at the Israel article, and the issue of Israel's capital. Factually, meaning by the definition of "Capital", Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Most countries do not recognize this, but it is factual, nonetheless, and this is reflected in the Infobox. Ditto for the EJ and the GH- Israel has annexed them (whether or not this annexation is recognized by other countries), and they are now a part of Israel, and the Infobx should reflect that. If you want to add a footnote that the territory includes the GH and EJ, similar to the footnote for the status of the Capital, that's fine. This status may change in the future - the GH may become a part of Syria, EJ may be split up between Israel and a Palestinian state, and if and when that happens, the respective infoboxes will change. But in this point in time, they are a part if Israel. Isarig`
Annexation of territory, especially territory that has been obtained through military action, is a matter of international relations, not an internal affair. It is a fact that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are internationally recognized as occupied territory, not as part of Israel. Representing them as part of Israel is POV, as simple as that.--Doron 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
None of this is responsive to what I wrote.It may be a fact that the territories are not internationally recognized as being part of Israel, but that does not change the fact that they ARE a part of Israel today. I again refer you to the "Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel" issue - international recognition does not change facts, and the fact is that these territories have been annexed by Israel, Israel considers them a part of its territory, Israel controls these lands, the law in effect there is Israeli civilian law, the people there are Israeli citizens - thus by all definitions, they are a part of Israel now, whether or not outisde recognition of these facts is avialable. As the legal authorities I've quoted to you show, such recognition is mere formality - a "nice to have", but has no bearing on reality. Isarig 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing for me to respond to, every argument you have made is based on you own extrapolations. I have shown evidence that the GH and EJ being part of Israel is disputed by the international community and by experts, and you have shown me nothing to contradict this. I have argued that other countries' infoboxes represent what is widely accepted, and you presented no argument that contradicts this. In the case of China, you have shown me no evidence that Tibet is widely accepted as anything but as part of China. Whatever you infer from the Montevideo convention is your own extrapolation. Whatever you said about Jerusalem is another matter, which we can discuss if you wish, but it has no bearings to this discussion because assigning a capital is an internal issue and annexing a territory that was previously part of another country is an international issue (not that I've seen from you any evidence that the international community widely disputes Jerusalem being Israel's capital).--Doron 09:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If you think there's nothing for you to respond to - fine, we're done, and the template stays as it is. You've argued that the GH and EJ being part of Israel is not recognized by the international community - I have responded by showing you the legal opinion of experts on international law that say international recognition is not a requirement. You claimed every infobox on WP excludes disputed territories, I've shown you it's false with regards to China (it's also false with regards to other disputed territories - e.g: The Falklands, which are shown as a British crown territory, though this is disputed by many South American countries. You claimed, based on an unsourced claim made in a WP article that recognition is required, I've shown you that the very article you refer to, when it actually provides sources, uses sources which make no mention of international recognition. In short, you entire argument is that we shouldn't include EJ and the GH in the infobox becuase they lack international recogniiton - but such recognition is irrelevant to reality as well as law. Isarig 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As yet another example of infoboxs and their contents - take a look at USSR - the infobox includes the territory of the annexed Baltic States, though this annexation was never recognized and even though they continued to exists de jure while annexed to the USSR. Your argument is entirely without merit. Isarig 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No, you showed me no legal expert opinion that the GH and EJ are part of Israel, while I did show you a legal expert's opinion that the GH and EJ are not part of Israel. You didn't even show me a legal expert's opinion that Tibet is independent (which it obviously isn't) or that Chinese territory is not what is recognized by the whole world. Your legal experts' opinion is that in general, international recognition is not necessary (for what?), an opinion that is surely disputed by foreign relations officials in the whole world. As far as I know, the Falklands' status is disputed by only one country, which is hardly comparable to the dispute in question. The existance of Israel is disputed too, but again, only by a handful of states, while the inclusion of GH and EJ is disputed by all countries (except Israel). The Lithuanian SSR article says "The United States, United Kingdom, and other western powers considered the occupation of Lithuania by the USSR illegal, citing the Stimson Doctrine, in 1940, but recognized all borders of the USSR at post-World War II conferences", so it is not clear that there was such a world-wide rejection of USSR borders including the Baltic states.
Let's try to make this discussion more simple -- aparently you don't understand my arguments and I don't understand yours. Basically my points are:
  • All countries (but Israel), as well as (some) legal experts, view the GH and EJ as occupied territory, not as part of Israel.
  • Wikipedia articles' infoboxes reflect widely-accepted borders, not highly-disputed borders (including Morocco, Somalia, Cyprus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and -- yes -- China).
Please address these points. Please tell me whether you agree they are correct or otherwise give references that refute them. Do you have a reference that says that the GH and EJ widely accepted as part of Israel? Do you have a reference that says that Tibet is highly disputed as part of China?--Doron 16:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your arguments, and have responded to them.
  • what other countries recognize is entirely irrelvant - All western countries considered the Baltic states to be under illegal occuaption, but they were still a part of the USSR.
  • Wikipedia articles reflect facts, not "widley accepted" borders- see the USSR as a clear cut example. Isarig 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No, you did not respond to my arguments, whether you understand them or not. International recognition may be irrelevant to you, but not to the rest of the world. Can you refute this claim by providing a reference that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are widely regarded as part of Israel? Let's see some references.--Doron 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I did respond. You are making 2 different (though related) arguments. The first is that what comprises a country's territory has to have internatioanl recognition, and that because the territories in question are considered by most international organizations to be occupied, they are not part of Israel. I am not disputing that the territories in question are considered by most international organizations to be occupied, but I am saying that (1) this does not contradict the fact that they are part of Israel and recognized as such, and I have shown you as an exzaple the case of the Baltic states, who were universally recognized as being occupied, yet at the same time the USSR's territory was inclusive of them; and (2) international recognition is not a requirement for territories to be considered part of a certain state, as the legal opinions regarding Tibet status as an independent state from 1911-1950 show. Your second argument is that on WP, the standard way of treating such issues in infoboxes is to exclude occupied or otherwise disputed territories. I have shown you numerous examples that this is false, the most clear cut being, again, the USSR and the Baltic states. Isarig 22:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Almost, but no, I am arguing that the lack of international recognition and consensus among scholars makes the claim that these territories are part of Israel a POV claim. This is the point I would like you to respond to, hopefully with proper references.
Let's clarify this point first before revisiting Tibet and the Baltic states, just to keep this discussion from diverging for the moment, shall we?--Doron 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I dispute this, and have given you the Jerusalem-as-a-capital example as to why this is not POV. I have also shown you the USSR infobox (which presumably meets WP:NPOV as an example why this is not POV. What references do you expect me to produce, that relate to the Wikipedia concept of POV? Isarig 23:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure what we do agree on:
1.Do you agree that the view that these territories are part of Israel is rejected by almost all countries and international bodies?
2.Do you agree that the view that these territories are part of Israel is rejected by some legal experts?

--Doron 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, what we agree on is that the view that these territories are occupied by Israel is the view of most countries and international bodies. Isarig 23:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for asking again, I have to make sure we don't go around in circles again: so you do not agree to the two points above?--Doron 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with 2 (Im sure for just about any view, on any topic, there can be found "some legal experts" who reject it). I don't agree with 1, and I don't see how any of this is relevant to our discussion. Isarig 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
1 is established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 and [22], which are clear on this subject -- the territories in question are regarded as Syrian and Palestinian, and Israel's annexationist policies are considered illegal, null and void. The CIA World Factbook, an official American publication, views the territory of Israel excluding the GH and EJ. I am curious how do you interpret these documents as agreeing with the view that these territories are part of Israel.--Doron 00:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The same US position on the Baltic states was that they were under illegal military occupation by the USSR. That did not stop them from being part of the USSR, and does not stop WP from listing them as being a part of the former USSR. UN GA resolutions are declaratory and have NO standing in international law whatsoever. The same UNGA also declared that Zionism is racism, but that declaration did not make that a fact. What determines whether or not a certain territory is part of a certain state are (1) Who adminsters them (2) under what system of law and (3) who are the citizens of that terrtory. By all 3 measures, these territories, once annexed, are part of Israel. The citizens there are Israeli citizens, the system of law is Israeli civil law. They are part of Israel. The UN may have a hissy fit over that, the UNGA might issue a resolution saying this is all null and void, but that will have as much effect on reality as the views on the legality of Soviet occupation had on the status of the Baltic statets - they were a part of the USSR until its dissolution. Isarig 00:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
References, you provide no references. Let's see a source that gives this analysis of the status of the GH and EJ, let's see some evidence that this analysis of Israel is widely accepted. By the way, as you should know, most residents of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are not Israeli citizens.--Doron 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You are again conflating "widely accepted" with "factual". We have already gone through this. The residents of the Golan are Israeli citizens. Isarig 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You are yet to provide proof of what you regard as a fact and the rest of the world regards as an Israeli POV. And speaking of facts, you better get your basic facts right. Most of the residents of the Golan Heights are Syrian Arabs, and only a handful of them applied for Israeli citizenship (The Hebrew Wikipedia רמת הגולן claims that only 677 Druze have Israeli citizenship, I'm looking for the source for a more complete picture; the situation in East Jerusalem is similar, most of the residents are Palestinians, the vast majority of which did not apply for citizenship).--Doron 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not what I regard as fact, it is fact that these areas have been annexed, it is fact that they are ruled under Israeli civialin law. Thus, they are part of Israel. your POV OTOH, is that internatioanl recognition is required for them to be listed in the infobox, despite plenty of evidence that this is not the practice on WP - again see the Baltic states. Isarig 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as citizenship figures - all the Golanies are Israeli citizens, whether they apply for an Israeli ID card. But even if we artificailly limit it to those who have actively requested teh citizenhip, there are about 20,000 citizens (Jews+ alawites) vs. 18,000 Druze. Isarig 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
First, a correction -- apparently the Hebrew Wikipedia figure is misleading, it is the number of eligible voters, not citizens. However, this figure still indicates that the vast majority of Golani Druze do not have citizenship. I'll try to find more definite figures. Just to make this absolutely clear -- the vast majority of Golani Druze do not have Israeli citizenship (and by the way, there are 19,300 Druze, 17,500 "Jews and others" and 2,100 Muslims, so it's close to a tie and impossible to determine definitely without accurate figures).
The Hebrew Wikipedia רמת הגולן article you've referenced (and obviously read) says 18.5 thousand Druze (at least ~700 of which are , even according to your minimalist claims, are Israeli citizens), 2700 Alawite (who are residents of Ghajar and are Israeli citizens) , and 17.5 Thousand Jews. What you hope to accomplish with this clumsy attempt at misrepresentation is beyond me. Isarig 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Misrepresentation -- LOL! Your entire discussion here is one epic clumsy misrepresentation. Surely you could find a better source for figures, such as the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics [23] (whose figures, incidently, are quoted in Golan Heights!). I don't wish to accomplish anything by this, it was you who claimed (yet again, without a source) that "all the Golanies are Israeli citizens", which is far from true (and totally irrelevant IMO).--Doron 01:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Now, for the main issue -- whether Israel annexed the GH and EJ or not is disputed, though there is no dispute that they are ruled under Israeli civilian law (and jurisdiction and administration). More importantly, your conclusion that this means that these territories are part of Israel is POV, not a fact. The "thus" is what I'm concerned about, your own conclusion, which without proper citation constitutes original research per WP:SYN. Even with proper citation, it is still only a POV, not a fact, since there are other views that you cannot dismiss.--Doron 22:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Your POV is that to be "a part of" requires international recognition. I've shown you expert opinion on international law that says this is not the case. My POV is that to be a "part of" you have to meet practical requirements, which the GH and EJ meet. This POV is also the accepted practice on WP - see the example of the Baltic States. I think we're done here. Isarig 00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Almost done, you only need to bring a reference that says that your POV applies to the GH and EJ as you represent it (otherwise it is entirely your synthesis), and to convince us that this POV is widely accepted to the point that other POV's may be discarded. When we're done with this, we can compare our case to the Baltic states and other articles.--Doron 01:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, are we going to see any sources?--Doron 15:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/r/Template_talk%7EIsrael-InfoBox_2bd4.html"