Talk:West Bank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Globe icon The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
West Bank is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Archived content:

Contents


[edit] Legal theories (ctd)

Thread continued from Talk:West Bank/Archive 1.

For readability, I switched back to the far left. Jayjg, thanks for your attempt to answer - but you only state that the status is confusing and disputed. But that can only be the case, if there are different possibilities. Why is it so difficult to explicitely state these. Should I try some wild guesses and you answer yes and no. It's becoming silly, not very good for such a topic. Nevertheless.

Possible POVs:

  • The Westbank is a no-mans-land (like Antarctica or the Moon)
  • The Westbank is a part of Israel
  • The Westbank is a part of Lebanon
  • The Westbank is still a part of the Ottoman Empire

Pjacobi 16:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The West Bank is in an unusual legal situation; it was owned by the Ottoman Empire, which no longer exists. It was then controlled under a British and League of Nations mandate, both of which have expired. It was occupied and annexed by Jordan, but Jordan has since repudiated ownership. It is now controlled by Israel, but Israel has not annexed it. I wish things were simpler, and you could fit the West Bank into some other category, but this unique set of circumstances makes the West Bank a disputed territory under International Law. Jayjg 00:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would delete the reference to west bank as 'disputed' territory. If I could find 'some people' that said you were a communist bastard, would you put this up and claim impartiality? thanks

  • The preceding paragraph was anonymously interspersed 24 July 2005 (9 months after the remark it is addressing and the response that follows). -- Jmabel | Talk 04:14, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
So it seems to me, that the West Bank is one (more precisely the last) part of the deceased entitity "Ottoman empire", whose dissolution is not yet completed. No existing country (as per UN definition) claims it to be an integral part of it, but a precursor to a possible future country (the Palestinian Authority) does. Israel does control the territory including its border control and does claim jurisdiction over all inhabitants, but grants citizen rights only to the jewish inhabitants.
IANAL and YMMV, but what about this summary?
Pjacobi 09:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
One existing country does claim at least parts of the West Bank are integral to it; Israel, which claims the area around Jerusalem, and has annexed them. Israel also grants citizenship rights to those Palestinians living in the annexed area. Other Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are citizens of the Palestinian Authority, which is not quite a country, but which is definitely a form of government. Jayjg 19:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Comment by a frequent Wikipedia user

NOTE: This article is horribly biased. One would not know, for instance, that there was an indigenous population in Palestine before, during, and after Ottomon rule; that according to Zionism's founder, Theodor Hertzl, Argentina was seriously considered as a possible homeland for the Jews; that from the late 19th century through to the 1940's, there was massive Jewish immigration to Palestine, and that immigration was opposed by the indigenous population and also by Britain; that as late as 1948, the year in which Israel was created as a state, the ratio of Arab to Jew in Palestine was more than 2 to 1; that some 800,000 Palestinians were kicked out of their homeland in 1948; and so on. The aim of this page should be to tell the truth, not give an obviously one-sided reading (i.e., Zionist reading) to an important issue.

NOTE THE NOTE ABOVE: Even if this article is biased, which I do doubt, the Jews are not some kind of immigrants of an area where the Palestinians are "supposed" to live. If you would be a bit more educated or not "biased", Jews lived in that area for a long long time, but of course you do not know that or just simply do not want to accept the fact. Sincerely, another frequent Wikipedia user

These topics are covered in a number of articles. The Argentina issue, for example, is mentioned in Zionism. "Truth" is often in the eye of the beholder; what you view as the "truth" might not be viewed by others as the "truth"; Wipikedia strives to present a neutral point of view instead.Jayjg 04:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COMMENT: "Truth" is obviously not "in the eye of the beholder": it refers to what is and what has been. As I read your article, I saw absolutely no reference to the most important facts: namely, 1) that 800,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland in 1948; that 2) Israel has been in violation of literally dozens of U.N. Resolutions going back 50 years, and has been condemned by even American allies; that 3) the rest of the world considers the West Bank to be occupied rather than disputed territory. The Israeli and Zionist points of view SHOULD be given, but not at the expense of the rest of the picture. Thank you.

Actually, truth is quite obviously in the eye of the beholder, since people can so rarely agree on what it is, yet all believe they have it. "What is and what has been" are facts, and even these are hotly disputed. The "facts" you refer to are very well referenced in many, many articles on Wikipedia; each article cannot be a recapitulation of the entire history of Zionism and Arab-Israeli conflict; rather, articles like this link to the relevant articles that discuss these issues. Jayjg | Talk 21:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COMMENT: Truth most certainly is not "in the eye of the beholder." Truth is what is so about something. It may be difficult to discern or ascertain, and different people may disagree about what is true about something, but the truth is still the truth. Viewpoints may be divergent and many, but truth is one.

In this article on the West Bank there is no mention at all that Israel is in violation of countless U.N. Resolutions, and no mention of many similar (perhaps unpleasant) facts. It just simply isn't good enough to say that other articles allude to these facts. These facts should be stuck right in this article.

Well, whatever the truth is, it's not something Wikipedia can decide, or even tries to. Instead, Wikipedia attempts to present referenced POVs on an issue from different perspectives. As for the article, it's not about U.N. resolutions, or any of the other complaints you have about Israel that you think are so important to address. The issues you refer to are dealt with at length (not "alluded to") in the relevant articles, and by clicking on the copious links provided throughout this article you will easily find them. Jayjg | Talk 22:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COMMENT: I'll be happy, when I have the time, to click on those other links and see what you mean by "dealt with at length." The line of yours above -- "any of the other complaints you have about Israel that you think are so important to address" -- is both hilarious and galling. It is not I who has "complaints" about Israel: it is the international community. It is the Palestinian people, who have lost their homes, their neighborhoods, their families, their heritage. (What do you think the phrase "right of return" refers to?) The fact is that Israel has violated over 100 U.N. Resolutions since 1955, and the rest of the world considers the West Bank occupied rather than disputed territory. Thanks.

Partisans on both sides have complaints; it is clear which side you fall on. Jayjg | Talk 04:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I see: this issue, like all others apparently, has "two sides," and these "sides" attract "partisans" like honey attracts bees. We never have to inconvenience ourselves with the question whether somebody is actually saying something that is true.
It's hard to imagine you could get people to agree on what is "true". Wikipedia doesn't even try; instead, it has a Wikipedia:NPOV policy which says that all significant views are presented in a neutral and factual manner. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modest Opinion

Please, DO NOT try to justify the Israeli Government in every action that is involve. I consider this rather offending and clearly a violation of the main Purpuse of Wikipedia: a NEUTRAL and IMPARCIAL Enciclopedia. Messhermit 16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Be that as it may, please examine the Wikipedia:NPOV policy before attempting any major edits to this or other articles. Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, may I know why did you revert the article that I modify?. I´m completely trying to make the article a compromise betwen those two factions rather than just stating what I believe. Messhermit
The article is not "my version", and I think your changes and deletions lack NPOV. Please bring your suggested changes here to be discussed first, and please focus on article content, not me. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you read carefully my changes, most of them do not contradict the previous statements, I´m just only making it more impartial. The other part, It may have sound offensive. I accept it and appologise. But I have read almost the entire TALK page and reach to the conclussion that your point of view is not impartial. Please, take just a few moments to read what I have write in the article and we can discuss each one of them in a polite and civilized way, rather than imposing each others articles in the page. the First Change that I made, I made it with the idea of shape the article, not to destroy it. Messhermit
One does not need to be NPOV on Talk: pages, but one does need to be so on article pages. Please do not confuse the two. I reviewed your edits, and felt they were indeed POV. Please bring your changes here first to discuss them, rather than inserting them in the article first. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

Let me explain what did I mean with my modifications, wich are not vandalism (as somebody stated) but just an effort to create a more fair an balance article. Also, I stopped already to modify the page and try to reach a compromise in the TALK article.
The only mayor modifications that I believe that are important is the way of how the article has been writed. As you can see, I diveded the 1st paragraph in smaller sections in order to make it easier to read it.
In the 1st paragraph that appears "Judea and Samaria", I believe that the word "Anexation" is not the apropiated one, since fewer countries would not recognise this. That is the why I try to replaced it with the word "Nationalist", due to its biblical roots and Israeli pride.
Unforunately, the International Community does not recognize that name. And that is something that must be clearly stated in the article. I don´t understand why did you deleted that. Also, rater than Imperialism, I stated once again Nationalistic claims, wich I find less offensive for any Israeli.
In Status, Both sides have a exagerated POV, Israeli and Arab about the maps. That is why I deleted, since it does not contribute with the article at all. Also, at the beginning of the article, I stated "failed negotiations, long-term violence, and in some cases, war." becouse the term applied are to vague.
Instead of terrorism (wich, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflic is extremely controvertial) I stated violence, a more neutral term (since the Arab world claim that Israel is conducting "State Terrorism" and the Israeli claims that Palestinians are the Terrorist) wich is not endorsing or excusing any form of Terrorism but is more neutral.
Also, when Israel declare its independence from the British Mandate, It seized more territory that the UN assign for it, clearly in an attemp to defend itself from the arab armies but also one of the main factors of why the Palestinian State failed to materialize. I believa that that is a historic statement, and not something that I just invent.
As you can see, I have try to explain most of my modifications. I believe that a compromise can be reach in order to make a better article. Messhermit
I've carefully gone through all of your edits again, and I can't see any which actually add to the article. People recognize what the word annexation means, the maps are a fact, so is terrorism, and Israel's land has nothing to do with why an Arab state didn't materialize. I'm sorry, I just don't think the edits help the article at all. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But Terrorism is not a fact in that specific case. Both sides can put examples that they percieve as "terrorist acts". Anyways, I think that Violence should be include (since not all the problems that are part of the West Bank are Terrorism) as a way to Neutralize the impact of Terrorism in the article. By Annexation, As I said, The International Community not even recognize Jerusalem or the Golan Heighs as part of Israel, so I think that is better stated as a "Nationalistic Aim": Israelies have that goal. The real problem is how they are going to achieve it. About the maps, I said it once and i said it again, it is not necesarely part of the main topic. About the Arab State, I believe that is right to stated that a part of the West Bank was seized during the Israel War of Independence, and that also contribute (with the Jordan Army invading what was left of the land) to explain why a government wasn´t created.

Its History, and I guet that information from an American World History book.

By the way, a map of the Partition and how the territory evolved could be a interesting piece of information to the page. Messhermit

[edit] Judea and Samaria

Saying that "The Arab world and especially the Palestinians [emphasis mine] strongly object to the terms Judea and Samaria, the use of which they deem to reflect Israeli expansionist aims," is a bit of an understatement. Is there any international use of these terms other than by active supporters of Israeli expansionist aims? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

These are the standard terms used in Hebrew; one need not support alleged Israeli "expansionist aims" to use the terms. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
True enough, I'm sure, when writing in Hebrew. But in English? or any other language? Again, I asked about international use; outside of Israel, there is not a lot of non-liturgical use of Hebrew. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think religious Jews and Christians often use the terms, whether or not they are supporters of alleged Israeli "expansionist aims". Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria refer to the different tribes who lived there; Judea is where the tribe of Judah settled, Samaria where the Samaritans were (and still are); they have nothing to do with any expansionist or nationalist aims but are historical/biblical terms. (apparently anonymous, 16 May 2005)

If someone objects to any term which is used for these areas in question it is almost comical that the first Objection is not made about the term "The West Bank" since this implies Jordanian ownership of the territory which no one advocates, including the Jordanians. From my horribly bias and unintelligent viewpoint Judea and Samaria implies a more neutral historical perspective. I could see how one would disagree if coming from a secular persepective due to the terms biblical routes, but due to the fact that Muslim theology as well as Jewish Theology mutually accept this history it seems more neutral than any other term advocated in this message board- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverberg (approx 8 Oct 2005) Dicussion moved to 'Merging "Judea and Samaria" here' below.

The media universally refers to Judea and Samaria only as the "West Bank", despite the fact that Judea and Samaria are the correct English-language historical designations for those geographic portions of the Land of Israel, and despite the fact that these English-language historical designations were recognized and utilized by the international community as late as November 1947 (via the delimitation reference thereto in United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. 181, commonly known as the Palestine Partition Plan, in Part II thereof, entitled “Boundaries”, at Section A thereof, entitled “The Arab State”). However, when Transjordan (precursor to Jordan), illegally seized Judea and Samaria (and the eastern portion of Jerusalem) during its 1948 invasion of Israel, the media universally began treating Judea and Samaria as if they were inseparable and permanent parts of Jordan, rather than corpora separata temporarily under Arab military occupation. Only after Israel's reclamation of these lands in 1967 (during its repulsion of an attempt by Syria, Jordan and Egypt to invade and annihilate the Jewish State) did the media suddenly recognize (or remember) their geo-political distinctness -- but only as the "West Bank". -- Mark Rosenblit, December 19, 2005

[edit] For a Better article

Considering talk about West Bank is a tough task, personally i consider a better article can be done. i receintly have saw the changes on the article over throught the history and i think the version of messhermit is impartial. I must say this territory has not nobody seemed to care about until our days.
Some about history,

Arabs got their territory, and so on let the crusaders at least after the third crusade christian pilgrims were allowed to visit the city (Jerusalem), but talking about nowadays after world war two, this has become a main issue considering jews dont have motherland at all, so i think the concern of this article goes beyond of deleting parts. its about trying to get an impartial point of view. Sometimes there are people who actually dont check up their sources like wikipedia manual to write an article say. However i think everyone should keep this in mind the Wikipedia:Editing_policy a good reason to made good article which depicts an accurate description of events surrounding West Bank. Philosophers on ancient greece believed about perfection it is beyond maths or even wise people, people cant be wise at all in our days, but at least we can try to be polite and respect everyone contribution. HappyApple 15:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most of what you are talking about is covered in other articles, like Palestine. The West Bank is a modern designation for a modern territory. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm deleting most of my previous talks in order to state more clear a NPOV and not mix them (or be confused) with personal attacks. In Fact, the improvements that were reverted are considered impartial and that contribute more to the article. I would like to see why they don't.Please. I urge you to reach a compromise in order to make a good article. Messhermit 16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I actually prefer if people don't mess with their Talk: comments, as it makes responses silly. Regardless, you may consider your edits impartial, but I don't. I'm certainly willing to compromise, though, and I'd like this article to be better. Why don't you bring your proposed changes to this Talk: page, say a paragraph at a time, and we'll go through them and NPOV them. Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
However, in the links sections, I believe that the following entries:
  • Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan
  • Israeli West Bank barrier
  • Palestine
Should not be included in that part of the article, since this are part of a completely different topic. At least not in this sections. A reorganization of Links is needed. Why cant we create a especial section dedicated to the "Israeli Government" Links and another towards the different oppinions. Messhermit 16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing Palestine if you want, but what's wrong with the other "See also"s? They're specifically about the West Bank, or things in it? As for the Links, there is only one link from the Israeli government; why would you want to separate it from the other links in its own special section? Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, Palestine is ok to remove it, since until the PLO can regain sovereign of its territory, is not relevant. However, the Israeli West Bank barrier is not an important contribution to the page. It is a totally diferent article that only add controversy over the status of the territory. The Ocupation of the ... article is clearly a POV, just by the fact that inside that article the name of Judea and Samaria is used for the territory. There is no article regarding the occupatio by Israel (and I believe is not appropiate too) of the West Bank, so I see no point in adding another controversial link to the page. Messhermit 19:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since the article discusses occupation by Israel, it should link to previous occupations of the same territory. As for the barrier, I think it is related, and I think most would agree, but if you insist on removing it I won't object. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think is more neutral. the Occupation by Israel of the West Bank is an ongoing event. About the Jordan one, I think that we should remove it in order to analize it separately from this one. About the Barrier, is better leaving of the main topic of discussion. What about the map? it could be arrange on the History of the territory. It is important to know how the territory evolved. Messhermit 17:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see no reason why Jordan's occupation should be "analyzed separately". What other map are you proposing? Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jordan Annexation was widely recognize around the world (even the annexation of the Gaza Strip by Egipt was recognize too) but not the Israeli one. And I don't think that by adding that link we are making a more NPOV article. Jordan Anenexation (or occupation) must be analized separately on the article about Jordan history. About the map, I'm talking about the map of the UN Particion Plan, the one that stated about the status of Jerusalem as a separated international administered territory (sort of like the Free State of Danzing) and the proposed Jewish State and the Proposed Arab State. About that, that remainds me that the explanation about why the so call "Arab Stated" never materialize was becouse of the severe fighting betwen the Israeli military and the Jordan Army on CisJordania. That is something that should be stated in this article. Messhermit 17:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Jordanian annexation was recognized by exactly two countries in the world, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. All other countries considered it illegal. As for the rest, the history of the West Bank is obviously relevant to the West Bank; the first 20 years of it's existence it was occupied and annexed by Jordan, you can't wipe that out of the history of this region. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm with Jayjg on at least one point here: the area has been known as the West Bank since 1948, and the scope of the article should correspond to that. Jordanian occupation is highly relevant, especially because of the continuation of the use of Jordanian law in the West Bank after 1967, and the belated (1988) dropping of Jordan's claim on the territory. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not discussing the name of the Article (It's better to call it "West Bank"), What I'm saying is that if Jordanian Occupation is stated, at least the name "Judea and Samaria" should not be used for that. What is your oppinion about the map that I propose, Jmabel? Messhermit 04:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Assuming the map is accurate (it looks to me like it is) my only problem is with the word "seized", which in a mutual combat is rather POV. If that one word is changed to "incorporated", no problem. There may be other possibile words I'm not thinking of... -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
The word "incorporated" is IMO much more biased, I think the word "conquered" should be used, as that only implies the areas were taken in an armed conflict, which is the case. The word "seized" might by someone be interpreted in direction of stealing, while "incorporated" implies recognized legal annexation and is a word generally not used in this context. I feel conquered is the most neutral term, but Im open for other suggestions. --Cybbe 14:48, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
"Conquered" implies illegal armed seizure, so can hardly be seen as unbiased. The mirror image of "conquered" is "liberated", which I think you would hardly agree as neutral. "Incorporated" implies no legality whatsoever, but merely describes the action, and is obviously an unbiased, neutral term. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To a neutral reader, conquered doesnt imply that this was an illegal seizure. From my dictionary (merriam webster): "1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms  : SUBJUGATE *conquer territory* 2 : to overcome by force of arms  : VANQUISH *conquered the enemy* 3 : to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition *conquered the mountain* 4 : to overcome by mental or moral power  : SURMOUNT *conquered her fear* intransitive verb  : to be victorious ñcon£quer£or \-k*r-*r\ noun " This obviously better describes what happened than "incorporated", and is not biased at all. Check your dictionary. --Cybbe 17:35, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Did the U.S. revolutionary forces "conquer" the United States in 1776? I did check my dictionary, and found that WordNet ® 2.0 dictionary (© 2003 Princeton University) had as a definition for "conquer" take possession of by force, as after an invasion; "the invaders seized the land and property of the inhabitants". To the neutral reader "conquer" has certain implications you appear unwilling to admit. I also looked up "liberate" and found that it means To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control. This obviously matches what happened more closely, since the 6 invading Arab armies were foreign. Of course I looked at the dictionary definition for "incorporate", and found this definition: To unite (one thing) with something else already in existence and To cause to merge or combine together into a united whole, which also seem neutral, but given the foreign invading army aspect I think we should probably go with the more neutral "liberate". Jayjg (talk) 18:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You put more into conquer than what it is, a term which simply means "taken by force". Incorporated implies a peaceful nature to the process, which is outright wrong. And your interpretation of "liberate" assumes a POV. --Cybbe 18:36, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

(Moving left). I put no more into "conquer" than the dictionary does; remember, you asked me to consult it? As for "incorporate", you put more into it than is found in the dictionary; it states nothing about the process being "peaceful". And my interpretation of "liberate" assumes no POV, unless you assume the POV that the Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian, etc. armies were not foreign - is that your position? Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Liberate" would, according to your dictionary, assume that the area was "set free". It certainly was not. - Mustafaa 04:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By contrast, its definition of conquer - "take possession of by force" - is an exact and neutral description; the specific examples it gives are not relevant. - Mustafaa 04:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was indeed "set free" from invading foreign armies. As for conquer, the example is given for a reason, which is the inherently non-neutral implication of the word. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You can't set someone else's land free by taking it for yourself; did the armies of Genghis Khan "liberate" Croatia from its Hungarian overlords? And the examples given prove only that "conquer" is sometimes used nonneutrally, not that it has any necessary implication of it. - Mustafaa
How about "captured"? Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Captured sounds fine to me. - Mustafaa 05:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with "captured", but why aren't the lands taken over by Jordan and Egypt similarly characterized? Didn't the 1947 UN partition plan anticipate a separate Arab state in the portion of Mandate Palestine not allocated to Israel? (I promise that I have no hidden agenda in asking this, and perhaps I have misunderstood the partition plan, I'm not expert.) -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
In this article, at least, they are. The plethora of articles on this topic renders more general comments difficult. - Mustafaa 05:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your understanding of the Partition Plan is correct. Jayjg (talk) 15:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Then the wordings in the post-'48 map (below) should be equivalent for Israel/Jordan/Egypt. I don't care too much what verb, but labeling Israel as "seizing" or "capturing" land, while the land taken by Jordan and Egypt is merely "Arab land" is clearly inappropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:48, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Well-spotted. "Seized" is definitely not neutral. - Mustafaa 23:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the Demography section, it sounds as if Israelis on the West Bank live only in settlements. Would anyone object to noting that there are large populations of Israeli Arabs which dwell within the Palestinian Arab population centers? How about that Israeli Jews dwell within Palestinian Arab areas in both Jerusalem and Hebron (And though I doubt the relevance, it may be of interest that many mixed Palestinian Jewish/Arab families exist within the Palestinian Arab society). Another point which I'd like to raise for discussion is that the statement "[Israeli Settlers]...generally do not interact with the local Palestinian population as they form part of Israeli rather than Palestinian society" is not entirely true. Aside from the interaction which can be inferred from my comments above, neighboring Israeli and Palestinian settlements/towns often have economic relationships (almost all Israeli West Bank construction and services are provided by Palestinians), and mutual attendance at weddings etc. was very common, though I admit that such interaction has (temporarily?) dropped off recently due to the issues surrounding the Intifadeh. Tewfik 17:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can cite a verifiable source, sure. But make sure you are not referring to Jerusalem Palestinians who live in places like Ramallah/Bethlehem, since they are not Israeli citizens and therefore are not "Israeli Arabs". Do you have evidence of significant numbers of Israeli Arabs choosing to live in the West Bank (for reasons other than their non-Israelis spouses not being allowed to live in Israel?) As for mixed Jewish/Arab families, if you have sources, that would be nice too, as it would be informative (I know of some myself but I can't include it as it would be my own original research). As for setter/local interactions, what you say may have been true before the intifadas, but apart from actual manual labor, there is probably very little interaction left. In fact, the route of the barrier is aimed to ensure that. Ramallite (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed map

This is the map that I'm proposing, by the way. It is edited, so it stated a NPOV. Messhermit 05:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Partition-Armistice.PNG
Map of the UN Particion Plan

What does that map have to do with the West Bank? That's a map about the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Jayjg (talk) 06:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It shows how the territory achieve his present state. I believe that is important to show how was the proposed idea of a Plestinian state before the war. The WEst Bank has not change its boundaries since that war.

I don't see what the left panel adds; the right one, however, looks great for a history of the West Bank section. - Mustafaa 04:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's appropriate for the Arab-Israeli conflict article; it's not relevant here, since the "West Bank" did not exist until after the war was over and the armistice lines set. Jayjg (talk) 04:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The history section should, and does, start a couple of years earlier; there's no reason to cover the Ottomans or the early mandate, but every reason to clarify that, as the article says and this map illustrates, "A part of the pre-1948 Mandatory Palestine, the territories now known as West Bank were mostly part of the territory reserved by the 1947 Partition Plan (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) for an Arab state." In any case, the partition plan is of interest here as the first proposed territorial division in which the outlines of something approximating the "West Bank" can be seen. - Mustafaa 05:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand the need to provide the historical backround, and a map would definitley help illustrate this, but I could see how and evil zionist Jew would be angry at the word "seized" which appears in the right half of the proposed Map, I believe a more neutral word is both neccessary and possible to use, perhaps "Held" or even "Occupied" instead. Also a Map, illustrating the Jordanian occupation of the west bank is just as relevent if not more so to the actual article.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

[edit] "Terrorism"

Messhermit has taken me to task for inconsistency for failing to pursue the issue of the use of the word "terrorism" in this article (per Wikipedia:Words to avoid), while objecting to its use at Alberto Fujimori. Quite frankly, I hadn't even noticed the use of the word in this article. Just to make matters clear: I do not think the use of the word "terrorism" in this article, without attribution of who has used the term, is useful. In particular, besides the first vague reference ("The West Bank has been the object of negotiation, terrorism, and war") the other two references refer to Palestinian "terrorism". No acknowledgment is made that some Israeli tactics (for example, bulldozing homes, beating people) might also be characterized that way. Further, it could easily be construed that all Palestinian resistance to Israel constitutes terrorism. The word "intifada" is not even present on this page. Also, there is not a single mention of violence or threat of violence by settlers. Given that, the introduction of the term "terrorism" seems quite out of place. How can one argue that discussion of "Palestinian terrorism" belongs on this page, but discussion of day-to-day violence does not?

Up until now, I literally have not written one word of this article. On the whole, I'd rather keep it that way; if someone else can address this, it would be appreciated. If not, I'm liable to attempt some edits along these lines myself. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I can't find "terrorism" among the "words to avoid" in the Wikipedia:Words to avoid article; in fact, it actually uses the phrase "terrorist group" as a descriptor itself. Am I missing something? Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looks like User:Vacuum (who I don't know) removed it with a totally misleading edit comment. No idea if this was deliberate or accidental -- I'll presume the latter, I don't know this user. Clearly there was no consensus to remove it. I will restore. (I'll also have good look to see if other material was caught in the crossfire.) -- Jmabel | Talk 22:29, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
OK, it probably wasn't a bad faith edit. The article had been duplicated in a bizarre way, basically inserted in the middle of itself. It looks to me like Vacuum simply didn't figure that out properly. Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"During the 1950s, there was significant Palestinian refugee infiltration and terrorism through the Green Line" could perhaps be rephrased to "resistance and terrorism" or "aggression and terrorism" but i do not know the nature of the palestinian activity across the border well enough to tell whether using "resistance" would be an euphemism or not, so others with more knowledge of the activites in the 1950s would have to do that edit. I find it hard to believe that all activity across the border would be called terrorisme from a NPOV, but cant say I really know. I dont find the use in "maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce Palestinian terrorism ..." problematic, as that sentence is attributed to an Israeli POV. As for whether some reference should be made to accusations of terrorism commited by Israel and Israeli settlers, I dont really see how it should be written into this article. I do agree that some of the activities of armed, extremist settlers could amount to terrorism, but this is not necessarily the right article for such a discussion. I have no problem using the word terrorism when its applied correctly, but if it's used wrongfully to promote an agenda, another word should be chosen. --Cybbe 18:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Well, for example, "maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce Palestinian terrorism" could be rephrased as "maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce violent acts that the Israeli government and [whoever else we can cite accurately] characterize as Palestinian terrorism". -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, infiltration is the right words. Between 1952 and 1956, some 100,000 Palestinians moved into the West Bank from Jordan. Some of them were refugees from the previous war, some were people who moved there specifically to attack Israeli cities. (anon, 20 March 2005)

Or, it could be rephrased "maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians", which is less awkward and clearer. Similarly, "there was significant Palestinian refugee infiltration and attacks on Israeli civilians through the Green Line" Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The introduction of "Status" still has the word Terrorism, wich I believe that is not politically apropiate (at least not everything that is happening in the West Bank cannot be classified as Terrorism). Can it be stated in another way? what about Alarming increase of violence? Messhermit 11:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not everything that is happening in the West Bank can be classified as terrorism, but certainly some of it can. Jayjg (talk) 17:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Some mention of terrorism should be given, whether a "milder" term should be used "up front" is nothing I have too strong opinions on, however, the article should do it best at reflecting the situation; while terrorisme is certainly part of it, not all forms of violence are terrorism, children throwing rock at police/military etc. The label terrorism should be used on terror, not on all forms of violance as it has then moved from a precise definition into a political view. --Cybbe 21:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a strawman argument to me; I don't know of anyone who is labelling "children throwing rock at police/military" as terrorism. However, I think shooting a pregnant woman and her four young daughters at close range would count. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And shooting palestinian youngs playing soccer should count too. If Palestinians are exercising Terrorism, then Hard-Line Jewish Settlers should also be accused of terrorism against the Palestinians. If the word Terrorism is inevitable in the article, then it must be stated that in some occasions, both sides use it. Messhermit 21:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article doesn't say which side is using it, so it's hard to see what your objection is. Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The point was, using the term without explicitly stating what is terrorism and what is not, one gives the impression that all resistance and violence is terror, which it isn't. And as Messhermit made clear, there are acts commited on the Israeli side too that could be labeled terrorism. --Cybbe 18:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
"war" should cover that, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ironic to say that the israeli side qualify most of Palestinian actions as "terrorism" then, and not of "War". Both sides have extremist (like the assassination of Rabin by a Jewish Zealot), and both sides are in some way responsable for what is happening. So the word Terrorism, if its used, must be stated that is used by both sides. Messhermit 03:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Messhermit here, but would prefer that we write in a manner where the narrative voice of the article does not accuse anyone of terrorism. It's inherently POV who is and is not a terrorist, so it should always be with a cited source as to who calls whom a "terrorist". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
What language would you prefer? Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jay, I don't have a lot of time right now, definitely not the time to really work out a concrete suggestion on this in the next few days. The word arises three times in the article. At least one raises a related issue that is suggestive:
  1. complete withdrawal from the West Bank in hopes of ending Arab attacks on Israel (sometimes called the "land for peace" position);
  2. maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce Palestinian terrorism by deterrence or by armed intervention, while relinquishing some degree of political control;…
What have we got here? The doves have "hopes of ending Arab attacks". The hawks [implicitly will] "reduce Palestinian terrorism". No "hopes" in the latter, you will notice, and no "reduce terrorism" in the former. The two are presumably trying to achieve the same goal. If there's no need to mention terror in one, then there is no need in the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Mmm... A simple sugestion: why don't we leave this article to talk about the West Bank properly? I mean, concentrating it only on the geography and non-political standars? the creation of a West Bank article under Israeli occupation can dela with the political problem, I believe. Messhermit 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
That would be fine with me, but wherever it is, my issue about asymmetry in how we handle the doves and hawks still stands. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Is there precedent for separating articles this way? Jayjg (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I think there is one: the page talking about the ocupation of the West Bank by Jordan. At least that article deal with the political and international implications that the jordanian annexation caused to this territory. Why not creating one that involves the currently israeli one?. Well, at least in my opinion, by dividing this article in the "West Bank" (geographicaly talking) and its political status (in both cases, Jordanian and Israeli), the page can be clear of any POV or wrongfull statement. Messhermit 17:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Reverts

Some of my edits were reverted. I believe they shouldn't be, because:

  • The international consensus is to call settlements just that: settlements. Even the Israeli government calls them that. "Towns" is a POV that they are not disputed - they are.
    • In what way are they not towns? Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)
      • Isn't it enough that by far the most common term is Israeli (not Jewish, should be changed) settlements? --John Z 3 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)
"Settlements" is the world's (and Wikipedia's) name for them, as Jayjg pointed out elsewhere. Besides, in what way are suicide bombers not human beings? But that's not the controversial part.Ramallite (talk) 3 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
  • Actually, many Israelis believe in the two-state solution because of genuine desire for peace and /or the so called "demographic problem" (which is actually pretty racist but...). Wanting to pull out of the occupied territories just to stop attacks is not quite accurate in most situations, and is actually anti-Palestinian POV (they are all terrorists banter). Go to web sites such as www.peacenow.org or www.gush-shalom.org to see what I mean. Ramallite (talk) 3 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)
    • What prompted these movements? Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)
      • I don't understand the question. How are the origins of Peace Now and Gush Shalom relevant? Ramallite's version is simply more accurate. (typo - be should be by) The other version suggests something false, that all Israeli supporters of 2 states consider the present conflict as solely characterized by Arab attacks on Israel, (excluding, say, their desire to end Israeli attacks on Arabs.) --John Z 3 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)
This one I'm sure on - the ones who want a two state solution are mostly pro-peace with for the desire not to be occupiers or to guarantee a Jewish majority. The ones who complain of "Arab Attacks" (almost forgot who occupies who for a moment) are the ones who advocate forceful retaliation, not running away! Ramallite (talk) 3 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
Ramallite, I understand why you desire to express your point of view but your usage of qualitive statements about the racism desire to maintain the demographic balance is both superfluous and quite harmful to your argument. It clearly indicates your bias and presents the situation for ad hominid arguments from other equally biased people. So please, do not create controversy if it is useless to your argument, less this entire discussion reverts to counter-productive mud slinging- Khalid Constantine Al-Silverburg

[edit] Judea and Samaria

The article states that the names Judea and Samaria are bibical. They are bibical in the same sense that Galilee, Jerusalem, Bethehem, and others are bibical. The names were in common usage until Jordan invaded the area and re-named them as "West Bank of Jordan", now shortened to just "West Bank". The reason for the retention of "West Bank" usage is among those designed to delitgitimize any Jewish reference to them. Also, the use of the term "Cisjordan" is a transparent ploy to avoid using the terms "Israel" or "Palestine".

As to Palestinian rejecttion of Judea and Samaria as "expansionist aims", at the time of the partition, the new government of Israel accepted the truncated partition, the Muslims did not and launched aggressive war on the new state of Israel. Israel did NOT occupy the so-called West Bank until the Jordanian army invaded (or attempted to invade) Israel and were defeated. The presence of Israeli troops is due solely to the aggression by Jordan. Had this not happened, there would now be no Israeli presence in the "West Bank".

Jews have every right to be where they are and have for the most part accepted the partition. They were there before Islam and before Christianity. They have NEVER given up their claim to the land. Unfortunately, Jews are a small populaltion controlling none of the World's oil and very little of the land area. They also have little voice in the United Nations which supports the "professional refugees" of Palestinians and provides financial support for hate-dominated Palestinian schools where students are taught that the entire area between the River Jordan and the sea is theirs and that Jews have no rights at all. All Jews are to be killed and the country of Israel destroyed.

It is untrue as stated in the article that Israeli maps often show all Israeli-controlled territopry as "Israel"! I have never seen such a map anywhere. I remember being in Jerusalem after 1967 and seeing the signs, "come to Jordan and see Jerusalem". Those signs are long gone now.

Emil Schafer

The reason for the retention of "West Bank" usage is among those designed to delitgitimize any Jewish reference to them.
Source? Ramallite (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The presence of Israeli troops is due solely to the aggression by Jordan. Had this not happened, there would now be no Israeli presence in the "West Bank".
In other words, I have to be caged in by a racial segregation barrier because of what a former occupying power did to the current occupying power? Ramallite (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
students are taught that the entire area between the River Jordan and the sea is theirs and that Jews have no rights at all. All Jews are to be killed and the country of Israel destroyed.
Absolute nonsense - I know these books, but I assume you don't even know Arabic - but if it makes you feel better claiming this just for purposes of dehumanization to justify continued subjugation, you're free to do so. Furthermore, there is no point to being "taught" to kill Israelis in schools when the Israelis are doing most of the killing outside the schools. Ramallite (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm... the opinion of Emil Schafer is (at least for me) really controvertial. Unless he can prove with facts some of the things that he has stated, I don't believe those are accurate arguments. . Messhermit 14:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

While the opinions expressed by Emil Schafer are clearly controversial, they are not neccassarily inaccurate, they do undoubtedly indicate a non neutral POV so obviously they have no place in the article, I do however found it equally unnessasary for user Ramallite to use personal attacks on Schafer in place of a proper rebuttal. I know we are all amateur Historians but let us at least act rational intelligent adults and at least pretend not to have any prejudices.-67.169.170.140 01:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not intend to personally attack anybody, and I've been learning to be more and more patient since my first month on WP. However, I also take offense to this technique of "dehumanization" by describing patently false accusations that make certain people sound inhumane, and I will respond negatively to it regardless of whom it is directed against. I recently did so here. There have been many terrors throughout history that have come about through the process of dehumanization, which is desensitization of the general population to crimes or atrocities done by leaders against other people through the dissemination of lies. The Hutus referred to the Tutsis as "cockroaches" in order to desensitize people to the fact that they are actual human beings, for example. And there are much more abhorrent examples that most people have learned about in history books. I cannot help but take a stance against such opinions on talk pages, I presume most people would too. In the case of the Palestinian schoolbooks, it is a very noteworthy subject for me having grown up with them and having never seen whatever people claim they contain, and I can only view such claims as malicious at best, but I won't elaborate more. Ramallite (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Also in reference to the sopposed maps that show all territories in question as part of Israel proper, I am going to have to agree with Schafer and say that these maps do not exist other than perhaps a few fringe groups that print maps of Eretz Israel in the Internet. I have however seen official maps with both the Golan Heights and Jerusalem inside Israel proper, this is probably to be expected though due to the Knesset formally annexing those areas, which both have a solid Jewish Majority.- 67.169.170.140 01:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Not true at all. Firstly, only recently I have started seeing Israeli maps that even show the green line; Hardly any Israeli map indicates the status of the West Bank. Secondly, the Knesset did not formally annex the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, they only extended Israeli law to these territories. Thirdly, there is no Jewish majority in these territories -- in both territories, only 45% of the population is Jewish.--Doron 15:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terms

The article is about the West Bank, and included in that is different names for it. It's not about names for other territories. Jayjg (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, those who live here (the majority Palestinians) call it "falastin", while our cousins (as they are generally referred to in slang) call it "yehuda ve shomron". Why aren't both acknowledged? Also, you claimed redundancy as one reason for removing "occupied territories", did you see the paragraph further down entitled "Political Terminology"? Ramallite (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Do the Palestinians refer to the West Bank alone as "falastin"? Or does that term encompass a rather larger area? As for the section below, it's obviously a POV relic of an earlier editor, which needs to be made more accurate as well. Jayjg (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, depends on context - the official apparatus (newspapers, etc) refers to the West Bank as the "al-aradi al-falastiniyah", or the "Palestinian Lands" to differentiate between the West Bank (and Gaza) and Israel proper. It is referred to as "Falastin" when discussing political or cultural events, such as "the first of it's kind in Palestine" or "being screened in Palestine for the first time", which is irrelevant to Israel proper because such slogans would not apply there (i.e. it would have happened in Israel before). "West Bank" is less commonly used unless there is a specific reason to single it out from Gaza. That bottom paragraph is mostly about Israeli and Jewish references, with one sentence at the end that discusses Palestinian objections. As such, the way this article stands now is highly unneutral, and in fact is not even a compromise edit because it almost completely ignores the majority population of the territory and is written from an anti-Palestinian presence point of view. It will need to be fixed. Ramallite (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
It certainly seems to me that we could use most of what Ramallite just wrote, here and/or at Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian. The fact that Palestinian media rarely single out the West Bank from Gaza is, itself, interesting. Ramallite, when Palestinian media need to refer to the West Bank in particular, what do they call it? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, then, there is a specific term for West Bank, though it's more rarely used? If you want to start that paragraph with the terms that Palestinians specifically use for the West Bank, then terms Israelis use, I think that would be great. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the West Bank is "rarely" singled out, but it is "usually" not mentioned in favor of "al-aradi al-falastiniyah" as that is the normal term used for the occupied territories. In fact, "Gaza Strip" is more commonly singled out in the press just because it's smaller and a lot of events happen there (especially these days). But as far as the West Bank is concerned, most references to specific locations are usually "the Nablus district" or "the Hebron area", etc. The term "West Bank" is used more when citing a foreign source, for example, "Ariel Sharon promised to dismantle four settlements in the northern West Bank". It's all depending on context, and usually the context from our point of view is "Palestinian territories" rather than "the West Bank". When the West Bank needs to be specified, it is called in Arabic "Al-Difa Al-Gharbiyah", literally, "the West Bank", or sometime "Al-difa" (the Bank) alone for short. This is similar to Israeli press, where, for example, they refer to the "governor of the Judea and Samaria region" or to "demonstrations erupted today in Judea and Samaria", but when citing a different context, will say, for example, "Elections are scheduled next week for the Palestinian local councils in villages in the southern West Bank".
But this is all immaterial and starts to get very confusing. I don't think we should be citing all of this in the article. The problem with the article is that it is clearly written from a one-sided POV. Specifically, it is POV for what it omits, rather than what it includes, and it fails to acknowledge the Palestinians as having any critical role or presence in the territory, save for some obscure sentences. This is a typical pattern where writers sympathetic to the stronger power in a conflict will conveniently omit certain details, whereas those sympathetic to the oppressed will insist on adding certain details. Ramallite (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Very true, and this pattern extends to most Wikipedia articles on the topic (see also WP:CSB.) As a West Banker, I rather think you are in an unmatched position to fix it here, and you have already proved your writing skills; I look forward to seeing the result! As to Jayjg: "liberated territories" is non-notable to the point of approaching a neologism, while the mention of the normal Western terminology for the two areas belongs naturally after the discussion of how they got that way. - Mustafaa 22:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan

There are hundreds of Internet sources that say the same thing we do -- that the UK and Pakistan were the only countries to recognize the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (and that the UK excluded Jerusalem). I've not been able to find any discussion of why Pakistan did so (Britain was bound by treaty to do so.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure User John Z has stated that it's not clear that Pakistan did so. I'll notify him. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Hokay. Chaim Herzog asserted this to have been the case on the floor of the UN in 1975 [1] for what it's worth. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there are many, many sources that say this. But no one seems to know why - nobody has a Pakistani statement or a reference to one. I saw on the net several years ago an article written by a Pakistani diplomat stating that he could not find any source for this, and disputing the truth of it. (Another interesting trivia sidelight - perhaps it even has some obscure relation :-) - the Foreign Minister of Pakistan at (around) that time was a formerly Jewish survivor of Hitler's camps that had converted to Islam (This I do recall a source for - Tariq Ali's Clash of Fundamentalisms) I remember reading something just a couple of weeks ago (might have been somewhere in The Arab-Israeli Conflict ed.by J.N. Moore a compendium of international law articles on the conflict) that gave pretty old but conflicting sources, perhaps the actual source(s) of the story - not primary ones though - one indicating that Iraq , one indicating that Pakistan had recognized the annexation - but seeming to express a bit of doubt on either. Iraq makes more sense to me, as both Jordan and Iraq were ruled by Hashemite relatives at the time. There are Knesset debates at http://www.jcpa.org/art/knesset6.htm on the Jordanian action. Although it is subtitled "Only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation of the West Bank." in http://www.jcpa.org/art/knesset-index.htm , there is no mention of Pakistan or any other country but the UK recognizing the annexation in the debate.
Just did a bit of googling, couldn't find the old article but found this: Beyond the Veil: Israel-Pakistan Relations by P. R. Kumaraswamy from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. From the first paragraph of the intro, page 8: "Pakistan is often accused of being the only country apart from the United Kingdom to have recognized Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950. Even though there is no historical evidence to support this assertion,..."3 referring to "3. A serious and pioneering refutation of this allegation can be found in Sanford R. Silverburg, “Pakistan and the West Bank: A research note”, Middle Eastern Studies, vol.19, no.2, April 1983, pp.261-263. The allegation, however, persists." So the article should probably state something like "although very many sources state that Pakistan ..., this is apparently false", referring to these sources. --John Z 14:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Good stuff! It explains why I couldn't find anything actually documenting Pakistan's alleged recognition. I wonder now (surprise!) why this particular piece of common knowledge is out there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Why would anyone make something like this up? I would like to know how a nefarious scheme could be based on this useless piece of misinformation. There's an amazing amount of such errors, lies and propaganda creeping into even honest histories of the conflict, but this one is a head-scratcher.--John Z 21:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Can't find a single item on Arabic Google about Pakistan recognizing Jordan's annexation. Ramallite (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted from Status section: "The three latter views, however, are held by only a tiny minority in Israel."

"Nearly one-half of Israelis support expulsion of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and nearly one-third support expulsion of Israeli Palestinians (three-fifths support 'encouraging' Israeli Palestinians to leave) while bumper stickers around Jerusalem urge the government to 'Deport the [expletives]'."
- Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict 2nd ed. p.xxix

--joveis 00:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd be interested in knowing what poll (if any) Finkelstein cites on that, especially given that you are citing the introduction to his book, not its main body. From what I've read of him, he seems reasonably honest and accurate, but he's not exactly a neutral observer of Israeli politics. I'd want to see something more solid by way of citation before I was sure there was something solid behind that statement. Meanwhile, I don't think there is any harm done in removing the statement about "tiny minority" from the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Joe, thanks. I'm not sure there are 'neutral' observers of Israeli politics, especially among historians, who are well informed and less inclined to neutrality! The extended paragraph I'm quoting from the Finkelstein book cites 14 different news articles in one footnote (mostly Ha'aretz and Jerusalem Post, but also including the Chicago Sun-Times article mentioned below) and the footnote in the book doesn't specify which source belongs to which data. However, there is an earlier version of the introduction on Mr. Finkelstein's website that clarifies:

"According to a recent poll conducted by Israel's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, nearly one-half of Israelis support expulsion of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and nearly one-third support expulsion of Israeli Palestinians (three-fifths support "encouraging" Israeli Palestinians to leave). (58)"

and the footnote begins

58. "Many Israelis content to see Palestinians go," in Chicago Sun-Times (14 March 2002) (Jaffee poll)."

Emboldened by this citation, I'd like to add a brief note to the article. --joveis 13:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It should be possible to find something better than a tertiary link, and I'd object if one were used. Jayjg (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayig, "tertiary link" is a phrase with which many of us are unfamiliar. Define? --joveis 20:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The primary source is the survey by the Jaffee Center. The secondary source is the Chicago Sun-Times report about that. The tertiary source is Finkelstein referring to the Chicago Sun-Times report. The primary source would be best (Jaffee Center poll), next best would be a newspaper report on it. We have no idea when the poll was even taken, much less what questions were asked. It's certainly not "recent" any more, since it was taken before March of 2002; moreover, it's undoubtedly been made moot by subsequent events and polls. Cherry-picking that one poll is POV at best, even assuming Finkelstein's take on it is accurate. It would sort of be like picking the one poll that shows the highest Palestinian support for suicide bombings against civilians, and completely ignoring the rest. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
O.K., you've found a primary source. Now how are you going to deal with all the other problems? Please find a more relevant poll, not one from early 2002. Much has changed since then. Jayjg (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayig, I was originally confused by the phrase "tertiary link" but I saw how you edited the page and understand. I see what you mean about the primary source and have located the primary source and cited it in place of the Finkelstein citation. Hoop obligingly jumped through.

Your other concerns, however, lack merit. I submit that March 2002 is recent. If you insist on changing the word "recent" to the clunkier "2002" I won't strenuously object. As for omitting the data altoghether, that would be extremely POV. If you have a later poll or more Israel-friendly poll to submit, I won't 'ignore' it: we'll include it on the page. For you to assume that there IS a more Israeli-favorable poll (or any poll more recent on the topic) is original research until you produce one. Your assertion that Israeli public opinion has changed since 2002 is original research. The article as I have edited it never states that all polls agree with this one: it only states the contents of a poll. Find another poll if you have a problem with it - but rejecting this poll because the numbers are too high - which is what you are advocating in tricky language - is POV. --joveis 20:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. "More Israeli-friendly poll"? Don't know where that came from. An early 2002 poll is simply not relevant; much has happened in the region since then, particularly the death of Arafat, the barrier has been built, and now the disengagement plan. Popular opinion always changes, and even more so in Israel, where dramatic events regularly occur. Recent polls are relevant, not ones from 3 1/2 years ago. I've provided stats from the most recent polls I could find, which date from early 2005. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The newer polls you cite (there would have been only one poll but two more were conducted, your source suggests, because the first was too high) do average to about 32%, but they were answers to an "either/or" question: Should Israel pull out of Gaza or expel the Palestinians? with some 30% choosing one approach and some 30% choosing the other and 40% giving no answer. The poll I cited from 2002 merely asked: would you approve of Palestinian transfer? with no other multiple choice options. Consequently, it's the more reliable figure. Also, it's the only one applicable to the West Bank, since the poll you cite concerned Gaza, not the Occupied Territories as a whole. But: I pick my battles. --joveis 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Joe, on the West_bank talk page I told Jayjg:

The newer polls you cite (there would have been only one poll but two more were conducted, your source suggests, because the first was too high) do average to about 32%, but they were answers to an "either/or" question: Should Israel pull out of Gaza or expel the Palestinians? with some 30% choosing one approach and some 30% choosing the other and 40% giving no answer. The poll I cited from 2002 merely asked: would you approve of Palestinian transfer? with no other multiple choice options. Consequently, it's the more reliable figure. Also, it's the only one applicable to the West Bank, since the poll you cite concerned Gaza, not the Occupied Territories as a whole. But: I pick my battles. --joveis 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

But I really didn't get a response. Do you agree with me that the 2002 Jaffe center poll on Palestinian transfer, for reasons cited above, is more relevant than the two-polls-cherrypicked-from-three, dealing entirely with Gaza and NOT the West Bank, which Jayjg finds acceptable for the West Bank page? Would you support introduction of more inclusive, less POV language like "(differently-conducted polls from 2002 [2] and 2005[3] (both still cited) returned totals of either 45% or 30% of Israelis favoring Palestinian transfer)." If so, would you as a more seasoned editor introduce such language? I'll back you up. Feel free to respond to me on my talk page. --joveis 22:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I personally didn't cite a poll: I just changed the text to more accurately reflect the content of a citation it already linked to. What you say sounds reasonable, but I bet there is a lot of good polling data on Israeli attitudes on this question. I think this may merit several citations, a statement of the range of numbers that have shown up in polls depending on wording, and perhaps a "note" near the bottom of the article (using Template:ref and Template:note) listing what each cited source says. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it's sufficient to just link to the sites where we got the poll data. Brevity is important. I'm going to introduce my change to the West Bank page. We can edit from there as more or better data becomes available. I doubt there'll be much controversy, as it's an incredible stretch to include the very questionable Gaza Strip data from 2005 at in a West Bank article at all. This is a compromise position and I don't forsee Jayjg starting an edit war. I'm going to quote this conversation on the West Bank talk page, and then make the change. --joveis 23:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The polling company themself said the first poll wasn't properly conducted, and did two others. It's hardly "cherry-picking". And 3.5 year old polls simply aren't relevant any more. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the text to make it accurate. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • A 2002 poll is relevant to views in 2002. If it is labelled as such, it should be fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. As for the quality of the poll, that's another question, on which I have no view. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since the 2002 and 2005 polls were conducted very differently and solicited two very different "numbers" on very different data, it was POV to refer to "the number" dropping to 30% - the 2005 poll excluded the West Bank from consideration and only included transfer as a multiple choice option. Your version attributed the difference solely to time elapsed, and that's clearly original research on your part. In an attempt to compromise further with you I didn't revert, since part of your concern might be to clearly link the poll numbers to the dates on which they were conducted, by including each poll in a different clause. This sacrifices brevity but as you seem to insist I've preserved this in my current version. --joveis 22:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

2002 was a very different time than 2005. Relevant context has now been provided. Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who added the statement about "tiny minority". I agree now that it was not proper. However, many polls during a long period of time show a wide support in the first view, for example (taken from http://www.mifkad.org.il/en/more.asp) : The Center sor Middle East Peace and Economics Cooperation commissioned Dahaf, the most respected Israeli public opnion research firm, to ask Israelis the following: if the government of israel brought to you a referendum on a peace agreement based on the following principles, would you support it?

- Two states for two peoples

- Right of return of the Palestinian refugees only to the new state of Palestine.

- The Palestinian State will be demilitarized, and its borders will be based on the June 4, 1967, lines with 1:1 territorial swaps, so that the Palestinians state will have the equivalent of 100% of its pre-1967 terriory, and so that settlements close to the 1967 line would become part of Israel.

- Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem will come under Palestinians sovereighty and the Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereighty.

The Temple Mount will be without sovereighty, and all people- Jews, Muslims, Christians and others- would have free access to the Temple Mount.

- A solid security fence would be built along that border.

- The United States and Israel would enter into a mutual defense agreement


Total support for this proposal was 76%, only 21% were opposed.

I added a note about this in the article, but as english is not my mother tongue, I will be grateful if someone can fix it to be expressed properly and add a link to the website it is taken from (I don't know how to do it). (unsigned approx 8 Oct 2005)

Surely, as a final note, the Israeli people just elected a governmnet committed to a total withdrawl from Gaza and at least a partial withdrawl from the West Bank, to create a Palestanian state. This surely wouldn't have happened if ethnic cleansing in the West Bank was considered a mainstream political idea. The idea may have been banded around in Israel in the past, but is clearly (and thankfully) dead. --Indisciplined 18:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WEST BANK Perspective

Everyone is saying alot about the West Bank. I want to make a very simple point about what is commonly referred to as "Palestinian Land". The Gaza Strip was under egyptian control until it was lost to Israel in the 67 war. The west bank was under jordanian control until lost to Israel as well. This isn't an issue of eye of the beholder truth, those are facts. The most recent controllers of these two land areas before Israel were egypt and Jordan. So, it seems the calls for a Palestinian State on "Palestinian Land" conveniently started when Israel came into possession of these lands. Does anyone disagree with this? WOuld someone like to cite for me the calls for a Palestinian State when these lands were controlled by their respective Arab states? Were these Arab states advocating for Statehood for Palestinians when they controlled the land? We all know the answer is "no". None of this should really impact where the world goes from here on in. The present situation and the best remedy should be the only consideration. I would only ask that there be accuracy in reporting who controls (or controlled) what land. Palestinians never controlled anything, they only lived on the land, and if living on land constitutes ownership then I would like to stake my claim of "ownership" on the Island of Manhattan. Everyone lieks to quote international law and UN resolutions and say Israel violated them, but when the argument is made that Palestinians never legally owned ANY land that is called "zionist" and "racist".

If you look into a lot of the historical documentation, until the initial Intifadeh of the 80's Palestinians enjoyed some of the greatest freedoms under Israeli rule than they ever did in any Arab state. Lets look at some other facts...While any Palestinians death is horrible, Israel has killed far less Palestinians than in other Arab states the Palestinians have lived in. For instance, in Jordan in 1970 when 5000 - 10000 Palestinians were slaughtered. See the daily telegraph for citation http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/28/wpal28.xml Then there was the mistreatment of Palestinians during the 3 month marshall law period in Kuwait following the Iraqi withdrawal. But despite this, the world only seems to care when a Palestinian dies at the hand of a Jew. I find that curious.

My only desire is to point out the hypocrisy of many of the posts regarding this issue. No one gave a damn about Palestinians till it involved Israel. And attempting to misinform about the land issue to support your cause is disingenuous and dishonest and i urge wikipedia to maintain their long-standing credibility and continue to present information based on citable and documented sourcing.

I suggest you all read Michael Oren's book "6 days of War"... and before you start whining about biases please flip to the back of the book and view the Works cited section. This individual is fluent in multiple languages and was able to review old soviet documents and has interviews with former egyptian officials as well. It is thorough and comprehensive. Best of luck to the Israeli's and Palestinians and may the withdrawal from Gaza spark a lasting peace.

okay. Ramallite (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, Jordan wasn't calling for a Palestinian state on the land it controlled, it was nearly in a civil war trying to prevent one: the Palestinian aspiration for such a state was already strong. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging "Judea and Samaria" here

Judea has its own article; so does Samaria. I don't see the requirement for a separate article on "Judea and Samaria" - the use of the joint term to describe the West Bank could as well be put under the West Bank article.Dooley 00:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Which is why I've proposed that the two articles be merged here. Does anyone object to merging?--Pharos 01:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The unusual number of Kahanists on this enyclopedia will definitely object. I don't recommend going through with it.Heraclius 01:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you look at Judea and Samaria, it says "this page is mostly for disambiguation", which is silly to have, because it's just about an alternate name. There is nothing that could be in that article that shouldn't be in this one.--Pharos 01:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what he means either, and he's said it more than once. Heraclius, what is an "unusual number of Kahanists", and how many are the on this encyclopedia? Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm referring to the editors who advocate the expulsion of all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. It is those same people who would oppose any merge of Judea and Samaria with this article, as they have their own ideas about what Judea and Samaria is. I'm saying there's an unusual number because they are a minority among Jews in the real world; yet here they are over-represented and their egregious POV is actually accomodated at times! I think you do know what I mean, but I won't comment any more on this.Heraclius 04:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually won't care that much. Guy Montag 02:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged into this one. It's an article in its own right, and it explains why some people use those terms rather than West Bank. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Why people use different terms should be (and is to a significant extent) discussed at this article. We shouldn't have a different article for every alternate name of something, even when different names can reflect different points of view.--Pharos 23:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
If these terms were hardly ever used, I'd agree, but they're used by millions of people all over the world (though particularly in Israel), either in English or Hebrew, so it's a significant-minority usage, and politically important. The issue of which part of that area will end up with what name is undecided, and while it's important to stress that the majority view is that it's currently called the West Bank, the significant-minority view shouldn't be absorbed into the other title, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Naming issues aren't unique to this situation, but apply to practically every part of the world. For example, most Koreans call the body of water whose article we have at Sea of Japan the "East Sea". It's not that the usage of "Judea and Samaria" is minor, but that we should have only one article about the region, to include details about all views. I don't think we should separate out the information under a different title; you should be able to learn everything under one roof, so to speak.--Pharos 23:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
It is a matter of official Israeli policy that "Judea and Samaria" and "the West Bank" denote the same piece of land. This was in the side-letters of the Camp David accords, afaik no changes since. John Z 00:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Look, Slim, is there anything that you think should be in a Judea and Samaria article that doesn't belong in the West Bank article? If not, I can't see how separate articles can be justified.--Pharos 23:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
More or less what's there at the moment. I think it's analagous to Israeli West Bank barrier and Apartheid Wall. There are particular reasons for the use of the minority term, and the article explains them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well, Tomer requested that Israeli West Bank barrier and Apartheid Wall be merged, and you agreed, as I agree, and will post to that effect there shortly. As far as I can see, you're not naming a single fact from Judea and Samaria that doesn't belong in this article. There is just no reasonable purpose given for two articles.--Pharos 00:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I was persuaded there was a good reason for having both Israeli West Bank barrier and Apartheid Wall and I can see the same holds true here. viz. that there are distinct motivations for the use of both terms, and both are used by millions of people. I'm not sure I understand the argument in favor of merging. My reasoning with Apartheid Wall was that it's a perjorative term and therefore shouldn't be given its own page, but that's not the case with Judea and Samaria. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, per me and Pharos. [can I say that? :-p] Tomer TALK 01:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, I think. Slim, what's lost with merge and redirect, as long as both names are discussed? This is, for example, exactly what we do with cities that have been known by different names, such as Bombay/Mumbai or Danzig/Gdansk. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. If I'm the only one to oppose a merge, then I won't try to stand in its way any longer. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:42, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Removing merge tag since no discussion on topic for 3 months and no consensus obtained. Doright 03:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging "Palestinian territories" here

I'm against. "Palestinian territories" refers to a political issue and West Bank refers to a geographical region that is part of the "Palestinian territories" according to one interpretation. I think the West Bank warrants an article of its own.--Doron 10:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm against it also. Brian Tvedt 11:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I also think it is a strange idea. From and Israeli standpoint, from and Arabic standpoint, and from a neutral standpoint it doesn't make sense. I could see why they would want to merge the article with Judea and Samaria but with Palestinian territories is silly.- 67.169.170.140 01:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
This article and the one about the Gaza Strip should be merged with the Palestinian Territories one.

Disagree/against. Nothing has changed in the geo-political status quo that would necissitate a change on wikipedia. Israel still controls the area of the 'West Bank'/Judea and Samaria, and it has not (yet) retreated or even officially expressed, through a knesset vote, a desire to retreat from this area. I don't think the discussion is relevant until at least, some sort of consistant declaration is made. --Shuki 22:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highways

To User:84.228.42.65, I want to clarify why I reverted your edits:

  • Please read the Original research policy page. I do not dispute that "Palestine" was used in the Roman era. What I dispute is that if I were to ask a typical Israeli why they object to "Palestine", that I would get the response that you wrote. Retorting that the Palestinian claim is "more dubious" is not valid, because Palestinian objections to "Judea and Samaria" are nationalistic, whereas I doubt the Israeli explanation involves a history lesson, it is probably just as nationalistic. I say "probably" because I have found no source over the internet that states that Israelis object to the term "Palestine" because it was a Roman era name. Could you please provide a source that says so? Until then, I have removed both the Palestinian reason and the Israeli reason.
  • I didn't write the part about the highways, but noticed it after you edited it. You are claiming something different from what I'm saying: I say that some highways are closed to Palestinians, you are saying all are open with the proper permit. You used original research for your route 5, and I could also use original research to tell you that if I drive south-west from Ramallah, I come to a settler bypass road on which I cannot drive on and have to turn back. So we'll have to find sources for our claims other than our original research, which is not allowed, and I have now attached sources to my edits.

Ramallite (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

(Concurring with this first point...) We keep having this recurring claim that the Romans were the first to use the name Palestine, but isn't related to "Philistine", a name far predating the Roman Empire? In any case, one would do well to remember that 100 years ago, Jews including Zionists quite happily used the term "Palestine" for the region. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
no claim was made that the Romans were the first to use the term. However, the Philistine ("Plishtim" - stemming from the Hebrew word for invaders, since the Philistine were greek people who invaded this mostly semite region) lived in present day Gaza strip, while the Israelites lived in the mountanious areas.

it was the British, not the Jews, who reffered to it as Palestine, during the ages, the Jews have always called it either "Eretz Hakodesh" (holy land), Tzion (Zion) or Eretz Israel (the land of Israel). furthermore, even during the British mandate, the Jewish agency insisted that the British attached the phrase hebrew writing "Eretz Israel" to the English name "Palestine" on formal documents, including British mandate currency and postage stamps.

I don't know who wrote the preceding unsigned comment, you might want to look at this article from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906) for an unquestionably Jewish perspective from a time when the issue was not yet so fraught. You will notice that, while their version of the history up to that time intersects yours, it disagrees in quite a few particulars. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original research on why Jews object to the name "Palestine"

Deleted:

On the other hand, many Israelis strongly object to the term "Palestine", as historicaly, this is the term that Emperor Hadrian coined for the Judea province after the failed Jewish rebellion against the Roman Empire in 135 AD in order to eradicate all trace of Jewish existance and self governance in the region [4] [5] [6].

The sources only show that Romans once ruled the area and persecuted Jews. They give no support at all for the contention that Jews object to the name "Palestine" for that reason. Brian Tvedt 11:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nineteen hundred years from the present, I wonder if the Greeks will object to the renaming of their land to "New-Turkey" or vice versa.216.58.9.243 05:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

[edit] Conditions on west bank roads

Conditions have improved dramatically for Palestinians from how theyr were 2 years ago. Anyone who would object to that statment I would start dounding if they really live in the west bank (just kidding) anyhow, apart for my own observation about the situation (which are OR and thus not included in the article) there are the UN reports which clearly demonstrate the new reality. As much as I like Btselem, their report is no longer current. Many checkpoints have been removed since they did the research (2 years ago) for the report published last year. Let's refelct the current situation in this article. Historic data on how the roads were between 2000-2004 belong in an historic overview of what the Intifada caused the Palestinians people. Zeq 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying you want to remove the link to the map? Or you also want to remove some text? In your edit, you quoted the most current August 2005 UN report. Is there anything in the text you object to? Ramallite (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you please revert to my version (and take out the Btselem map if you want), but I corrected a lot of English and you just blindly reverted. Yours is not different than mine, it is just constructed better. I used your references. Can you PLEASE READ what you are reverting BEFORE you revert it? Ramallite (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The situation has very improved. The lack of Palestinian violence has virtually reduced all restrictions on vehicular travel on the roads. (Many checkpoints still exist though). In the past, there were serious restrictions of cars with green/white plates, but this was in the past. The second paragraph explains the alleviation of the readiness. The first paragraph which might have been relevant in it's current 'general' description, is no longer relevant today on the vast majority of 'Jewish' roads. Every road I have traveled on in the past year on the West Bank and Gush Katif has been open to Palestinian-licenced cars, except those roads that are inside the gate of a settlement itself. It would do justice for the first paragraph to be updated and put in context. --Shuki 07:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I will not speak from personal experience (which contradicts yours by the way), but we can only use published materials on Wikipedia and not original research, as you know. Very recently, there were articles from Israeli outlets about how Nablus is cut off from Tulkarm, how the northern West Bank is cut off from the southern, and how the Jordan valley is actually being closed off as well. This article has links to most of the claims made, so if you have newer links could you update them? You should be aware of two things (for your info only): Many roads in the West Bank are indeed open, but connecting roads are not, so for example, Palestinian cars you see on a highway most probably needed to access a dirt road (or the people were driven to one point, got out and climbed a hill, and then got into another car on the other side). In other words, clips of roads are open, but it is extremely difficult for one vehicle to make one trip, you need to make multiple 'stop and goes' with a lot of walking in between. Second, absolutely no way a Palestinian from the West Bank can fly out of TLV (unless in extremely rare circumstances like a medical emergency, but even then it usually isn't allowed unless somebody is close friends with Captain Shlomo). Believe me, I would generally be in a much better mood if I could fly out of TLV, I would much rather get humiliated by Israelis than be dicked around by Jordanians. Did you ask this group you saw if they are from the West Bank or just assume? There are 3 kinds of Palestinians who can use TLV: Israeli Arabs, Jerusalem Arabs who do NOT have Palestinian Authority IDs, and Palestinians from abroad who have foreign citizenship but no Palestinian ID. If a Palestinian has foreign citizenship AND a Palestinian ID card, TLV is off limits. If the group you saw was going to the West Bank, they are most definitely foreign passport holders visiting relatives in the West Bank. Ramallite (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Lokiloki, only last Thursday, two days after the article is dated, did I drive on Route #90 through the Jordan Valley in both directions and did not pass one checkpoint (other than the permanent(?) de facto border crossing in the north near Mehola). Your BBC article comes up with this 'new' idea/accusation of 'annexation' (what's the difference between now and in 1967?) and relies on an anonymous Israeli soldier and another 'spokesman' as authorities. No Israeli government spokesman is asked for comment (fair respectable journalism or something with high school level?). Dore Gold is an ordinary Israeli with his own opinions. I wish you could provide more references than BBC.
Ramalite, I cannot confirm the residency/citizenship of that family. They were travelling towards Shechem, and I was watching them try to get an estimate on taxi ride, and definitely going to get screwed. Some drivers don't even want (not obligated either) to take settlers in that direction, but there have been several stories lately of taxi drivers getting 'hijacked' in the area near Marda, so another 'worry' was in the equation. --Shuki 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Shuki, The BBC is a well-respected news source; and while your personal experience is interesting, such original research shouldn't form the basis of disputing cited facts presented herein. Lokiloki 20:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The newer link is much more comprehensive, thanks. BUT, 'slightly' misleading. The symbol for checkpoint is a 'no entry' sign, while the actual checkpoint itself does not mean the road is closed to Palestinian traffic. For instance, at Tapuach and Gitit, the checkpoint might not even be manned occasionally, and again, traffic is allowed through, nonetheless a checkpoint I do not deny this. You'll claim that this is "OR", but for the UN to lump 'prohibited' and 'restricted' roads in the same colour is also misleading. Why are routes 505 and 5066 in blue. White/green license plates can travel freely, for instance, on these roads from Marda to Ginsaput and further with no checkpoints or restrictions. But since I can't find a reference in English, this remains 'OR'. --Shuki 21:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education

1. out of the arab Universities in the west bank, the 2 most prominent ate Bethlehem, which is a memeber of the catholic church organization (and partially financed by the Vatican), and Bir Zeit, in which the Hamas wins the student elections regularly. I am not sure what the situation is in other Universities, but I don't think that it is right to say that the Universities are secular. 2. when people are acting violently, such as throwing rocks, it is no longer a domenstarion, but rather a riot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.130.67.163 (talk • contribs) 16 Oct 2005.

[edit] Education levels since 1967

An editor added a section under "Higher education" stating that the number of Palestinians in the West Bank who had attained an education above 13 years stood at 1% in 1970 and 14% in 1986. I am going to remove this quote and replace it with another more general statement for the following reasons:

  • 1- The source is in Hebrew, and there is no English language verification of this claim
  • 2- According to the Hebrew source, these figures include both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and since the Strip was a lot poorer than the West Bank, the statistics may be inaccurate.
  • 3- Most importantly, the quoted source (to the best of my knowledge) does not clarify how the statistics were done or who their poll-taker was. The reason this is important is because the source refers to Palestinians in the West Bank and not Palestinians from the West Bank. During Jordanian rule, all seekers of higher education had to go abroad for their degrees, and a significant percentage of them (if not the majority) stayed outside for work to be able to send money home. When Israel captured the area in 1967, almost everybody who was from the West Bank but was abroad (for study or work) lost their residency rights and were unable to return, which meant that a significant portion of educated West Bank Palestinians would not be considered by Israel as "West Bankers" in 1970. If the 1% figure is true, it is a forced reset of the counter to zero as many students and educated people were abroad and stayed abroad after 1967.

Ramallite (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think reasons 2 and 3 fully justify your claim, but reason 1 is irrelevant. Foreign-language sources are generally acceptable, though of course when an equivalent English-language source is available it should be used. - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Palestine

Isn't Jordan (formerly known as Trans-Jordan) 80% of the territory known as Palestine(administered by Ottoman Turks until 1919; administered by British until the land-for-peace partition of 1922). If so, I question the history of the 'west bank':

..."While a Palestinian Arab state failed to materialize, the territory was captured by the neighboring kingdom of Jordan."

If Jordan is 80% of Palestine, then the Arab state did indeed materialize in the form of Jordan in 1922 (a.k.a. Trans-Jordan). It would be reasonable to say: ..."while a second Palestinian Arab state failed to materialize, the territory was captured by the neighboring kindom of Jordan." —the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.50.51 (talk • contribs) 17:27, November 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Characterizing Trans-Jordan as a "Palestinian Arab state" might be correct or might not; the Hashemite rulers of Trans-Jordan might not characterize it that way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Although I have grave concerns regarding Britain's installation of a Hashemite king (King Abdulla I)as the dictator of Trans-Jordan, it doesn't negate my claim that Trans-Jordan was cut from the fabric which we call Palestine, and that it's citizens are 99.9% Palestinian Arab. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.50.51 (talk • contribs) 20:13, November 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, I agree. But in the time period the paragraph refers to, it was not by any means a "Palestinian Arab state", any more than apartheid South Africa was a "Black African state". But maybe some other phrasing, omitting the question entirely, might be better. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. I believe countries are defined by their citizens and not by their leadership. Iraq is an Arab Mesopotamian State, even though King Faisal I (Faisal bin Husayn) was Saudi Hashemite, etc. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.50.51 (talk • contribs) 21:33, November 21, 2005 (UTC)

The PLO agreed with you (anon), and in fact tried to do something about it in the early 70s and failed. Of note, the Jordanian government does not agree that Palestinians constitute a majority in Jordan (which is what I assume you are alluding to), and everything we read about that are estimates, not based on any official census. Jordan right now is not a "Palestinian Arab State" but a "Hashemite Kingdom", so it would not be accurate to say that a "second Palestinian state failed to materialize" because there wasn't a first one to begin with. In any case, by your definition, how would you have defined Palestine in 1935? And how would you define the non-sovereign areas between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river now? :) Ramallite (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, let's go back to my previous analogy. Though the Palestinians might have been a majority, population-wise, they were utterly powerless -- as were the vast majority of South Africans during apartheid, or for that matter the citizens of any colonized territory. Perhaps this gets into the distinction between state and nation. The Palestinian nation lived (and lives) in a Hashemite state. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I agree that Jordan isn't a democratic Palestinian Arab state, nor is it governed by a representative government, the land is Palestine, and it's citizens are predominately Palestinian Arab ( Arab 98%, Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%) (sources:British mandate (1921-23), League of Nations; CIA World Fact Book 2000). I welcome data that counters my position.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.9.158 (talk • contribs) 05:21, November 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Neither source specifies the population as "Palestinian Arab", this is your invention.
  • Transjordan was administered separately since 1922 and was not referred to as "Palestine" since then, certainly not at the time the sentence in question refers to (Transjordan became independent in 1946).
  • Transjordan's native population has never been referred to as "Palestinian", the Palestinian population of Jordan today stems from refugees of the 1948 war and internal migration during 1948-1967.
Thus your assertion that the Hashemite Kingdom was or is a Palestinian state is not based on any facts.--Doron 06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. In several cases, I cannot work out who wrote what here, or even which paragraphs are written by the same person. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The monarchy of Jordan isn't going to broadcast Jordan is a Palestinian State. It simply isn't in the king's best interest. Therefore, I decided to investigate raw data. In order for my position to remain viable, two assumptions must remain true: 1)the majority of Jordan is Arab AND 2)the land we call Jordan today was part of the territory Palestine pre 1922.

Hence my references: CIA World Fact Book 2000 (yields population characteristics and population strata); British Mandate (1921-23), League of Nations deals with land/border issues.

I'll continue to search for more references. I did find some interesting quotes allegedly made by kings (even former king of Jordan), politicians, political activists in the region, referring to Jordan as Palestine, but I'm afraid quotes are notoriously poor sources. If anyone is interested in verifying them I can post. (MO)—the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.9.158 (talk • contribs) 05:21, November 22, 2005 (UTC)

The majority of Jordan is Arab, but not necessarily Palestinian Arab. If you are arguing that they are Palestinian Arab for the sole basis that at one point in time the area where they live was called "Palestine", then there are many peoples of the world who would need to change the name of their nationality because of a different name given by some other power at a point in history to the land where they live. Second, I suspect most Arabs in Jordan who you call Palestinian would actually refer to themselves as "Jordanian of Palestinian origin" or "Jordanian of Palestinian ancestry" but Jordanian nevertheless. You wouldn't call Boston an "Irish city" now would you? Yet a significant proportion of its population is of Irish origin. Since the conflict began at the turn of the century, I guess one can argue that the native population of the land of Palestine took the name "Palestinian" once their nationalism and striving for self determination rose up, right along with everybody else's nationalism in the area. This label did not stick on the other side of the river. So it is very possible to argue that the modern day usage of "Palestinian" is not directly derived from the geographical location per se but to a number of other factors as well, most of which do not apply to modern-day Jordan. In any case, your attempts to pass off Jordan as a "Palestinian state" is highly POV (not to mention original research) and probably won't pass muster with most other editors around here. Ramallite (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And please, anonymous user, sign your posts with ~~~~. It makes it a lot easier to follow the conversation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The admission that Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania is predominately Arab, and that it's citizen's feel they are "of Palestinian origin" is progress. Rome wasn't built in a day. I'd like to address some of the other issues you raised, by focussing our attention briefly on another country/state, within the British Mandate Palestine territory (Pre- 1922): Israel. Israel's populations is composed of Jewish Palestinians, Arab Palestinians, Circasian Palestinians etc. (Jewish 80.1% (Europe/America-born 32.1%, Israel-born 20.8%, Africa-born 14.6%, Asia-born 12.6%), non-Jewish 19.9% (mostly Arab) (1996 est. CIA World Fact Book 2000). Simply changing the name of Israel, doesn't change the status of the country. It would still remain a predominately "Jewish Palestinian State." Likewise, the name modification of Jordania to Trans-Jordan and finally to Jordan (British Mandate Palestine east of the Jordan river), also doesn't alter it's status as the predominately "Arab Palestinian State." Citizens of Israel identify themselves as Israeli's. Citizens of Jordan identify themselves as Jordanians. National identification is independent of the historical status of these two sovereign countries. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.9.158 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That some of Jordan's citizens may regard themselves as "of Palestinian origin" is not an admission, but a mere fact, just as Senator Ted Kennedy claiming to be of Irish ancestry would not be an "admission". As for the rest of your paragraph, I don't quite follow, except to say that your last sentence actually sums up why your own argument that started this discussion is unsound! Ramallite (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

To summerize: Israel is predominately a "Jewish Palestinian State" and Jordan is predominately an "Arab Palestinian State" regardless whether the inhabitants identify themselves as Israeli in Israel's case, or Jordanians in Jordan's case. Therefore "a Palestinian Arab state did materialize in 1922, and the statement: ..."While a Palestinian Arab state failed to materialize, the territory was captured by the neighboring kingdom of Jordan." is in question.216.58.9.158 21:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)MO.

  • I do believe strongly that the terminology you are suggesting, though it could be construed as accurate (as indeed you are doing), would only serve to confuse the reader, for whom "Palestinian state" means what the rest of us are saying: a state of and for the people known nowadays as the Palestinian people (as opposed for a state that happens to be in the historic land some call Palestine.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. The term "Palestinian" refers to the peoples that have lived in this territory (British Mandate Palesine and preceding). Palestinian's can be Jewish, Arab(Muslim or Christian), Circasian, etc. Actually, pre- 1948 the term Palestinian referred to Jews. Today the term is typically and commonly used to refer to Arab Palestinians, but it's important to recognize/acknowledge equally the other Palestinian communities and ethnicities as well. Furthermore, Palestine is simply the territorial land (British Mandate 1919-1922). Palestine is analogous to Antarctica today. Antarctica is a territory, not a country. A country called Antarctica doesn't exist! Like Antarctica today, Palestine too was a territory. Two sovereign countries have emerged out of the territory (20th century). One sovereign country is Israel and the other is Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania. Jews of Palestine (Jewish Palestinians) have their county (called Israel), and Arabs of Palestine have their country (called Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania). 216.58.9.158 21:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)MO.

And the article Palestinian would be a good place to have that discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon, I think what you really mean is that Israel and Jordan are Canaanite states.--Doron 07:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. Due to the vast number of peoples who have lived in these lands: Canaanites, Jews, Ancient Egyptians (they were not Arab),Assyrians, Babylonians, Maccabees ,Romans ,Byzantines ,Caliphates (were Arab), Crusaders, Ottoman Turks, and British, this land will have more than one name. For simplicities sake, let's call this land British Mandate Palestine (though many other designations are equally correct) Note: if I've left any societies out my quick list, I apologize.216.58.9.158MO.

No, I see no reason why choose a name that was relevant only from June 1922 till September 1922 (or till 1946 if you want to be strict). To call the native population of Jordan "Palestinian" just because their land was included in the Mandate is slim. It is certainly not factual.--Doron 09:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Following this territory pre-1919 British Mandate leads directly to the Ottoman Turk Empire (incidentally,they too were not Arab). Even during the 400+ years this land was administered by the Ottoman Turks, the peoples living in this territory remained reasonably static: Jewish, Arab, Circasian, etc. See Ottoman Turk Census for this region (yes, I know the census records are poor, but unless you can offer an alternative source...)216.58.9.158 18:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)MO.

The demographics are not disputed here, your designation of Transjordan and its population as "Palestinian" is what's being disputed.--Doron 11:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm just curious. Who did you think the "Jordanians" were?216.58.43.81 23:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)MO

Let's see, many were indigenous nomads, some came from the peninsula, many came from across the river... Wait, are we talking about Jordan, Hungary, or Belgium here? I lost my train of thought... Speaking of Belgium, we should probably rename it Netherlands Part II or something, since the Flemish majority are of Dutch origin... :) :) :) Ramallite (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL... --Doron 08:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

By nomads, you refer to the Bedouin(desert-dwellers) (I personally met a tiny Bedouin clan in 1988; very hospitable). Analogous to the nomadic native tribes of North America, they, like their North American counterparts, traditionally make no claims to land. Until the 50's and 60's they migrated throughout the desert (Sahara, Sinai, Arabian, and Negev). Bedouin lived as a nomadic people both inside British Mandate Palestine and outside. They are not a defining characteristic of Jordanian Palestine. I reiterate my position: Jordania/Trans-Jordan/Jordan is Arab Palestine because 1)it was cut from the same territory of 'Palestine' (as was Israel and the land between Israel and Jordan; sharing the same territorial history), and 2) it's population is predominately Arab (same language, traditions, religion, history and ethnicity as Arabs who live west of the Jordan River). Israel is a sovereign Jewish 'Palestinian' country, and Jordan is a sovereign Arab 'Palestinian' country.216.58.42.49 05:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)MO.

No. Jordan was not called a Palestinian country. Israel is certainly not a Palestinian country. This is entirely your invention.--Doron 07:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Since never in recorded history has a country called 'Palestine' ever existed, I'm forced to apply the term 'Palestine' to the territory British Mandate Palestine/Ottoman Emipire territory (only a segment of Ottoman Empire). Therefore, both Israel and Jordan emerged from the territory known as 'Palestine'. Israel is a Jewish 'Palestinian' country and Jordan is an Arab 'Palestinian' country.216.58.10.18MO.

Two questions (not for sake of argument as much as curiosity): First, what term would you be forced to apply to a- The territory of the West Bank and Gaza, b- The natives of the West Bank and Gaza, and c- a future country established in the West Bank and Gaza? Second, why are you 'forced' (i.e. who is forcing you)? Ramallite (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The land between Israel(Jewish Palestinian country) and Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania(Arab Palestinian country) is remnants of the same British Mandate 'Palestine' territory/Ottoman Empire territory. By definition, the land remains simply 'territory.' Until I find credible data to the contrary, I continue to support my position.216.58.10.18 23:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

You can call it whatever you like, Wikipedia reflects what is acceptable, and to say that Jordan was a "Palestinian state" in 1948 is false.--Doron 06:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Jordan was 1) cut from the same British Mandate 'Palestine'/Ottoman-Turk Empire territory and 2) it's citizens (predominately Arab) have the same language, religion, history, and ethnicity as other Arabs living in British Mandate 'Palestine'/Ottoman-Turk Empire territory, until I see credible evidence to the contrary, Jordan is an Arab 'Palestinian' country.216.58.9.221 20:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

You've said that over and over again, and that does not make it any closer to the truth. Please cite a credible source that explicitly refers to Jordan as a Palestinian state.--Doron 20:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Several references that suggest emphatically that Jordan is Arab 'Palestine' follow: 1)Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 9, 1916(see land assigned to Britain) maps available at:http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/graphics/sykespicot.jpg; League of Nations 2)British Mandate 'Palestine'territory (1921-1923); also see League of Nations Mandate for Palestine,1920. 3)see: mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. 4)see British alterning of Mandate 1923 (Creation of Trans-Jordan from Palestine west of Jordan river) 5)see Ottoman Turk Empire (1481-1916); maps available at:http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/ottoman_empire_1481-1683.jpg 6)history of Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania: "At the end of World War I, the territory now comprising Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem was awarded to the United Kingdom by the League of Nations as the mandate for Palestine. In 1922, in an attempt to assuage Arab anger resulting from the Balfour Declaration, with the approval of the League of Nations, the British created the semi-autonomous, Arab Emirate of Transjordan in all Palestinian territory east of the Jordan river." Wikipedia history of Jordan. 7)CIA world factbook 2000:see Jordan's population and borders (cross reference with Ottoman Turk maps above and British Mandate Palestine) 8)see Flag comparison: Jordans vs. 'Palestinian' Arab Flags: image of Jordan's flag at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Jordan.svg. Palestinian Arab proposed flag:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Palestine.png. 216.58.9.243 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

  • Please cite a credible source that explicitly refers to Jordan as a Palestinian state. I don't quite get the point of the maps. What does a map of the Ottoman Empire in 1683 have to do with anything? That shows the region in question as "Syria". What does the Sykes-Picot map show besides a big crescent labelled "B Zone under British influence"? At any rate, you are coming to the conclusion that Jordan is a Palestinian state. That's just fine. But your opinion and your conclusions are original research, which is why we keep asking for a cite that explicitly refers to Jordan as a Palestinian state. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The maps indicate that the territory that became Trans-Jordan (Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania did not exsist before 1922) was that of the British Mandate 'Palestine'(1921-23) and British Mandate territory outlined by Sykes-Picot Agreement (May 9, 1916). Also, the same land was Ottoman-Turk Empire territory(1481-1916); without distinction from any other land within Ottoman-Turk Empire/ British Mandate 'Palestine' territory.216.58.9.243MO.

  • Please cite a credible source that explicitly refers to Jordan as a Palestinian state. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As per your request, Jpgordon, some quotes worth further investigation/verification:

  • Concerning Palestine East Of The River Jordan

On August 23,1959, the Prime Minister of Jordan stated, "We are the Government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine."

Each day brings me closer to the realization that Palestine, as it wants to exist within the boundary of Israel, and impose this view on the world community, is a farce... an imaginative place with imaginative people. History proves over and over again that JORDAN IS INDEED PALESTINE.

  • "Palestine and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country."

- King Abdullah, at the Meeting of the Arab League, Cairo, 12th April 1948

  • "Let us not forget the East Bank of the (River) Jordan, where seventy per cent of the inhabitants belong to the Palestinian nation."

- George Habash, leader of the PFLP section of the PLO, writing in the PLO publication Sha-un Falastinia, February 1970

  • "Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate."

- Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2nd February 1970

  • "There is no family on the East Bank of the river (Jordan) that does not have relatives on the West Bank ... no family in the west that does not have branches in the east."

- King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2nd February 1972

  • "We consider it necessary to clarify to one and all, in the Arab world and outside, that the PALESTINIAN PEOPLE with its nobility and conscience is to be found HERE on the EAST Bank (of the Jordan River), The WEST Bank and the Gaza Strip. Its overwhelming majority is HERE and nowhere else."

- King Hussein, quoted in An-Hahar, Beirut, 24th August 1972

  • "The Palestinians here constitute not less than one half of the members of the armed forces. They and their brothers, the sons of Transjordan, constitute the members of one family who are equal in everything, in rights and duties." (Quoted by BBC Monitoring Service)

- King Hussein, on Amman Radio, 3rd February 1973

  • "There are, as well, links of geography and history, and a wide range of interests between the two Banks (of the River Jordan) which have grown stronger over the past twenty years. Let us not forget that el-Salt and Nablus were within the same district - el-Balka - during the Ottoman period, and that family and commercial ties bound the two cities together."

- Hamdi Ken'an, former Mayor of Nablus, writing in the newspaper Al-Quds, 14th March 1973

  • "The new Jordan, which emerged in 1949, was the creation of the Palestinians of the West Bank and their brothers in the East. While Israel was the negation of the Palestinian right of self-determination, unified Jordan was the expression of it."

- Sherif Al-Hamid Sharaf, Representative of Jordan at the UN Security Council, 11th June 1973

  • Past "President Bourguiba (of Tunisia) considers Jordan an artificial creation presented by Great Britain to King Abdullah. But he accepts Palestine and the Palestinians as an existing and primary fact since the days of the Pharaohs. Israel, too, he considers as a primary entity. However, Arab history makes no distinction between Jordanians, Syrians and Palestinians. Most of them hail from the same Arab race, which arrived in the region with the Arab Moslem conquest."

- Editorial Comment in the Jordanian Armed Forces' weekly, Al-Aqsa, Amman, 11th July 1973

  • "With all respect to King Hussein, I suggest that the Emirate of Transjordan was created from oil cloth by Great Britain, which for this purpose cut up ancient Palestine. To this desert territory to the bast of the Jordan (River)., it gave the name Transjordan. But there is nothing in history which carries this name. While since our earliest time there was Palestine and Palestinians. I maintain that the matter of Transjordan is an artificial one, and that Palestine is the basic problem. King Hussein should submit to the wishes of the people, in accordance with the principles of democracy and self-determination, so as-to avoid the fate of his grandfather, Abdullah, or of his cousin, Feisal, both of whom were assassinated."

- Past President Bourguiba of Tunisia, in a public statement, July 1973

  • "The Palestinians and the Jordanians have created on this soil since 1948 one family - all of whose children have equal rights and obligations."

- King Hussein, addressing an American Delegation, 19th February 1975

  • "How much better off Hussein would be if he had been induced to abandon his pose as a benevolent 'host' to 'refugees' and to affirm the fact that Jordan is the Palestinian Arab nation-state, just as Israel is the Palestinian Jewish nation-state."

- Editorial Comment in the publication The Economist of 19th July 1975

  • "Palestine and Jordan were both (by then) under British Mandate, but as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs, they were hardly separate countries. Transjordan being to the east of the River Jordan, it formed in a sense, the interior of Palestine."

- King Hussein, writing in his Memoirs

  • "...those fishing in troubled waters will not succeed in dividing our people, which extends to both sides of the (River) Jordan, in spite of the artificial boundaries established by the Colonial Office and Winston Churchill half a century ago."

- Yassir Arafat, in a statement to Eric Roleau

  • "Palestinian Arabs hold seventy-five per cent of all government jobs in Jordan."

- The Sunday newspaper The Observer of 2nd March 1976

  • "Palestinian Arabs control over seventy per cent of Jordan's economy."

- The Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram of 5th March 1976

  • "There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people."

- Farouk Kadoumi, head of the PLO Political Department, quoted in Newsweek, 14th March 1977

  • "Along these lines, the West German Der Spiegel magazine this month cited Dr George Habash, leader of one of the Palestinian organizations, as saying that 70 per cent of Jordan's population are Palestinians and that the power in Jordan should be seized." (Translated by BBC Monitoring Service)

- From a commentary which was broadcast by Radio Amman, 30th June 1980

  • "Jordan is not just another Arab state with regard to Palestine but, rather, Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan in terms of territory, national identity, sufferings, hopes and aspirations, both day and night. Though we are all Arabs and our point of departure is that we are all members of the same people, the Palestinian-Jordanian nation is one and unique, and different from those of the other Arab states."

- Marwan al Hamoud, member of the Jordanian National Consultative Council and former Minister of Agriculture, quoted by Al Rai, Amman, 24th September 1980

  • "The potential weak spot in Jordan is that most of the population are not, strictly speaking, Jordanian at all, but Palestinian. An estimated 60 per cent of the country's 2,500,000 people are Palestinians ... Most of these hold Jordanian passports, and many are integrated into Jordanian society."

- Richard Owen, in an article published in The Times, 14th November 1980

  • "There is no moral justification for a second Palestine."

- The Freeman Center (September 3, 1993)216.58.9.243MO.

  • Which of those refers to Jordan as a "Palestinian State"? (We can't use our own inferences; that's original research.) I might have missed it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they all do, but some more directly than others. Direct references were made by: 1)Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2nd February 1970 2) (August 23,1959) the Prime Minister of Jordan, King Abdullah, at the Meeting of the Arab League, Cairo, 12th April 1948 3) Editorial Comment in the publication The Economist of 19th July 1975 4)King Hussein, writing in his Memoirs 5)Marwan al Hamoud, member of the Jordanian National Consultative Council and former Minister of Agriculture, quoted by Al Rai, Amman, 24th September 1980.216.58.9.243 05:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

  • What you (or I) interpret them as saying or not saying is irrelevant. What not one of them uses is the expression "Palestinian state". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

More quotes for your viewing pleasure:

"We don't need two states of Palestine" declared Dr. Kadri Toukan, a former Jordanian Foreign Minister on December 9, 1970.

Anwar Nusseibi, a Former Jordanian Defense Minister, on October 3, 1970 stated "The Jordanians are also Palestinians. This is one State. This is one people. The name is not important. The families living in Salt, Irbid, and Karak maintain not only family and matrimonial ties with the families in Nablus and Hebron, they are one people."

Ahmad Shuqairy, the first President of the PLO told the Palestine National Council, May 1965, that " Our Jordanian brothers are actually Palestinians."

The following is excerpted from a speech, delivered by Yosef Tekoah, Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. November 13, 1974. These comments precisely describe the status of the two Palestines:

"No nation has enjoyed greater fulfillment of its political rights, no nation has been endowed with territory, sovereignty and independence more abundantly, then the Arabs. Of common language, culture, religion and origin, the Arab nation stormed out of its birth land in the seventh century and conquered one people after another until its rule encompassed the entire Arab peninsula, the Fertile Crescent and North Africa. As a result of centuries of acquisition of territory by war, the Arab nation is represented in the United Nations by twenty sovereign States. Among them is also the Palestinian Arab State of Jordan. Geographically and ethnically Jordan is Palestine. Historically both the West and East Banks of the Jordan River are parts of the land of Israel or Palestine. . The population of Jordan is composed of two elements - the sedentary population and nomads. Both are, of course, Palestinian. The nomad Bedouin constitute a minority of Jordan's population. Moreover, the majority of the sedentary inhabitants, even of the East Bank, are of Palestinian West Bank origin. Without the Palestinians, Jordan is a State without a people. "216.58.9.243 06:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

  • Good! One quote calling Jordan a Palestinian State...Now, consider the source, and see if we really want to use that characterization. Good research, by the way -- I was hoping you could come up with the example we were asking for. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The first two quotes (King Abdulla and Jordan's Prime Minister) are reasonably definitive. Furthermore, I attempted to search "sovereign Jordan" and was unable to find a emphatic quote. Yet, I think you would agree, there is enough indirect evidence to suggest Jordan is indeed a "sovereign country."216.58.42.30MO.

First of all, we are talking about 1948, so none of the later quotes are relevant, because in 1950 Transjordan annexed the West Bank and renamed itself "Jordan", after which a large percentage of its population was indeed Palestinian. This, however, was not the situation in 1948. The 1948 King Abdullah quote (which is missing) is "Palestine and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country", by which King Abdullah merely claims Palestine as part of his domain -- and he clearly distinguishes between "Palestine" and "Transjordan" (one is the coastline and the other is the hinterland), he does not claim that Transjordan "is Palestine" or "is Palestinian".--Doron 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the significance of 1948, other than a second sovereign county (Israel) emerged from British Mandate Palestine/Ottoman Turk Territory (Jordan being the first to rise (1922) from THE SAME British Mandate Palestine/Ottoman Turk Territory). In addition, aside from the small number of installed Hashemite royal clan, the entire population of Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania (pre and post 1922) was Arab, Jewish(until 1948), and Circasian 'Palestinian.' Altering the name of this land to Jordania/Trans-Jordan/Jordan doesn't change the history of the land or its' people.216.58.42.30 07:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

  • Nope, it doesn't. But nobody described Trans-Jordan as a "Palestinian state", so Wikipedia doesn't get to either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

....more quotes, still, suggesting Jordan is Arab Palestine:

"The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture."

Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980

"Palestine has never existed - before or since - as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire, and briefly by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. There was no language known as Palestinian. There was no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a Palestine governed by the Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc."

Joseph Farah (Arab-American columnist)216.58.10.48 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)MO

How would you incorporate this into an article called 'West Bank'? The article 'Palestine' does debate what the terms 'Palestine' and 'Palestinian' mean. This has meant different areas at different times. Jordan was only considered to be part of 'Palestine' for 4 years under British rule, before it was separated as a different masndate. Jordanians, unless they are descended from Palestinian refugees, do not generally consider themselves Palestinians. Personally, I think it's like saying that the Belgians are Dutch, and that Belgian is the second Dutch state, because they were part of the Netherlands for 15 years, and that their country had been referred to as part of a vague area called the 'Netherlands' for many years before that. We CAN debate what the term 'Palestinian' means, but that debate should be had as part of articles on the Palestinians or Palestine. This is an article about an area of territory - The West Bank. --Indisciplined 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Liberated"

Cybbe, with a little more effort you would have found 74,800 Google hits, so you cannot claim the term is not in use. I assure you that it is sometimes used in Israel by extreme right-wingers.--Doron 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Sure, but "sometimes used" isn't particularly useful. A more relevant search is this one, for "liberated judea" or "liberated samaria"; that gets 224 hits. Most of the usages in your search seem to be of the form, "When Israel liberated..."; actually referring to it as "liberated XXX" seems vanishingly rare, especially in comparison to the rest of the adjectives used in that sentence ("occupied" and "disputed"). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, come to think of it, calling them "liberated territories" is somewhat archaic, I believe it was more prevalent among right-wing circles a couple of decades ago, closer to the time when they were "liberated", now they mostly call them Judea and Samaria. The Hebrew article on Judea, Samaria and Gaza includes this term. If you feel strongly about removing it, I won't object.--Doron 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I took out the pesky word. Didn't mean to step on your toes, but I did check Israeli right wing media sources: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/, http://www.jpost.com/ , http://www.voiceofjudea.com . They use the term "Disputed territories", or simply "Yesha". Rearden Metal 00:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly one way or another; I'm just gathering and presenting information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Israeli right wing media sources - while the former and certainly the latter would qualify, the Jerusalem Post <http://www.jpost.com> would not qualify according to either their own or the right-wing's definition. Tewfik 02:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging articles

The West Bank and Gaza Strip articles should be merged and the WB and GS should be treated as one territorial unit as agreed in Oslo II. In addition, the are both linked because the are Palestinian territories and should be treated as a country (not a soverign state) because they are the current home for the Palestinians.

The territory is treated together (quite inadequately, I will admit) at Palestinian Territories. There is also space for individual coverage of the two areas of which it is composed. Palmiro | Talk 15:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Palmiro. This is like saying we shouldn't have an article on Texas because we have one on the United States. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Should the Palestinian authority be mentioned in the first paragraph? It is mentioned, in a somewhat abrupt yet detailed way, in the second, but is there space for a line like "The autonomous (semi-autonomous?) Palestinian authority exercises varying degrees of control in some areas of the West Bank"? Palmiro | Talk 13:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] limitedgeographicscope

Could someone please explain why {{limitedgeographicscope}} is on this page? This is an article on a specific geographic location. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] demographics

The "team of American and Israeli researchers" who authored the study which was excessively quoted just now seems to be composed of known right-wing activists. You can put any of their names into Google and find previous political activism in support of the Israeli right wing. For example "historian Roberta Seid PhD" doubles as executive director of StandWithUs. So presenting this "study" as if it is by objective scientists is clearly a deception. It deserves a much briefer mention as a claim made by a right-wing group. --Zero 05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the numbers have not been proven falsified. The political opinions of the authors is noted but is not the issue here. No one has disputed the objectivity of the Palestinian authors who continue to record people who have left the areas, and other irregulaties. --Shuki 11:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Ramalite, agree on correction. --Shuki 15:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Of note, many (and I venture, the vast majority) of Palestinians who have left the area do not really have citizenship elsewhere, they are either on extended work visas in some Arabic-speaking country (where they would never be given citizenship) or out for education or work elsewhere. I was not there during the census, but I was counted, and rightfully so, since I was only getting my PhD on a student visa elsewhere, but I do not have any permanent residency of any sort anywhere else other than Palestine. The economic and educational conditions in Palestine make it standard for people to be gone for extended periods of time, as long as they can secure visas which is getting harder and harder these days. So the arguments these people are making are not really sound. Ramallite (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No doubt. But international standards for censuses say that if someone is more than a year away from their "usual" home, they should be counted in their "temporary" residence. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that, so I appreciate the info. There are so many aspects of 'international standards' that are severely lacking in this part of the world, unfortunately....And as is the case for almost everything else, even a basic thing as a census becomes a topic for a political dispute, evidently (sigh). Ramallite (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do the Arabs call it, then?

Different names in different languages for that same little strip of land are discussed in great detail (and quite rightly so) -- but Arabic is oddly missing. There must be some Arabic name, right? And I do think it's relevant, given the demography of the territory in question. Taking Ramallite's contrib's to the discussion as a bona fide source, I'd suggest adding some text to the 3rd paragraph (introduction) like:

[snip]... some English speakers use the equivalent Judea and Samaria. In Arabic, preference is given to the term Falestin (Palestine), but West Bank is also used. The name Cisjordan ... [snip] (Preferably with Falestin + West Bank in Arabic letters) + something along the same lines in the section "Political terminology"

I'm sorry for possibly heating up an old debate, but I think this way it would be quite NPOV: Some call it like this, others call it like that. Nuf said. --DerHerrMigo 10:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone calling the West bank by itself Palestine. Palestine, in Palestinian usage, refers either to the whole of historic Palestine, or to the Palestinian territories. The West Bank in Arabic is الضفة الغربية or often for short just الضفة. Palmiro | Talk 11:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I live in the US and so far I have never heard of the name Judea and Samaria. Not in the news, or papers or radio, so I think that name should be stated: used by Pro-Israeli. Messhermit 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing faulty summary of history

The following is not up to standard. My comments in (itals in parens):

After World War I, and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, a Jewish-Arab agreement (the Faisal Weizmann Agreement) was signed by Haim Weizmann (later the first president of the state of Israel) and Emir Faisal (later the first King of Iraq) in which the Emir pledged to support the 1917 Balfour Declaration regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. Both men disregarded the wishes of the Arabs in Palestine. In exchange, the Arabian Peninsula was to form an Arab kingdom. (There was nothing in the agreement about the Arabian Peninsula, and Feizal expected a much bigger area than that.) This agreement was ratified during the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. (Feisal and Weizmann signed it for the first time while they were both at the peace conference, but the conference itself did not ratify it. Both the timeline and the facts are wrong here.) However, the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 between the United Kingdom and France ultimately took precedence, and the arrangement was short-lived.

As well as the errors, there is no cause in an article on the West Bank to start with the Feizal-Weizmann agreement. It had no practical effect on the history of this geographical region. Better to just refer to the other articles where the early history is explained better. --Zero 22:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Update

Should mention of the dismatling of settlements be added to the history here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.157.136.113 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2006.

[edit] external links make a joke of wikipedia

One of the links in this article (American thinker opinion article) is from a contributing editor of FrontPage magazine, a US neo-con propaganda rag dedicated to zionism and removal of Arabs from "Jewish" territories. I'm totally in favour of free speech (unlike the US government which has recently closed down a satellite TV company in New York for distributing Hezbollah TV). I have no problem with US neo-cons setting up their own web site advocating the "removal" of palestinians etc. The question is, how does linking to people like that help wikipedia in its mission to inform? It is true that Frontpage has something to say about the situation in the Occupied territories. But i'm sure that Volkischer Beobachter did too. Should we get some references in from them as well? Pmurnion 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not annexed

The reasons included are written very well and clearly. Most of them are confirmed all throughout Wikipedia's articles. Some of them were on this page long before I touched them (I personally added a 'citation needed' to the first world insurance part. In addition, here are some more sources.

I also have some personal e-mails from Mitchell Bard, a prominent historian:

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:26:31 EDT Subject: Re: West bank info

"Not sure I understand what was in the original. Israel did not award citizenship to anyone in the West Bank because the territory was never annexed to Israel. Palestinians who live in Israel have full rights"

Sincerely, Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D. Executive Director American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)


Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:40:07 EDT Subject: Re: West bank info

"Short answer is that Israel believed part could be exchanged for peace with Arabs, it was what they agreed to in UN Res 242 and they couldn't remain a democracy and a Jewish state if they incorporated more than 1 million Arabs into Israel."

Sincerely, Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D. Executive Director American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)


Again, the rest is mostly made up of facts and a lot of which is on Wikipedia. You can find wuotes from Arab leaders all over the net. Also, the subject is very relevant and it clearly states that none is formally confirmed by the Israeli government, but that historians and analysts have studied the history and issues. --Shamir1 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

These sections consist entirely of unsourced material or material not supported by the references given. --Ian Pitchford 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ian, Youre being stubborn. --67.120.168.41 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Ian, I explained it. It says historians and analysts established it, TRUE. All the rest I have given sources for (the "vote Israel out of existence" was written by a Palestinian Muslim as a fact by the way). The only naked one would be the first world/insurance part which I added a +ref to. These words anyway were on Wikipedia before, I didn't put them there. Is it true that there had been an overwhelming number of non-Zionist Arabs whose allies were sworn to the destruction of Israel? Yes, 100%. Is it true they feared they would outnumber them? Yes. Anyway, it says all of them are a POSSIBILITY laid out by the pros. No argument. --Shamir1 02:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Shamir1 you really need to read and re-read WP:NOR. The text you didn't write but are re-inserting says "however, historians and analysts have established a variety of such" but proceed to not enter a single reference, and come to the talk page and cite obscure people who are neither historians nor analysts. It is extremely simple, so let me break it down for you:
  1. Reluctance to award its citizenship to an overwhelming number of non-Zionist Arabs whose allies were sworn to the destruction of Israel. Here, you would need a reliable, notable, and verifiable source by a historian or analyst who states that Israel doesn't want to give citizenship to "non-Zionist Arabs" and that the reason for this is that "they have allies sworn to the destruction of Israel". We can't embellish article text with our own emotions.
  2. Fear that the population of Palestinian Arabs would outnumber the Israelis, appeal to different political interests, and vote Israel out of existence; eliminating the concept of a Jewish state So find a notable, verifiable quotation by a historian or analyst who makes the statement that Israel didn't annex the areas because of these reasons. Many arguments against the right of return have used these lines, so I'm sure that it must be mentioned with regards to annexation... somewhere...
  3. To tote the bill for First-world Social insurance for the local Third world society[citation needed] if citation is not present, do not add it. In actuality, Israel provided insurance to all the inhabitants of the areas, with our tax money, up until the Oslo accords. So this one is BS. But in any case, yet again, find a reliable, notable, and verifiable source by a historian or analyst who states that Israel did not annex the territories because it did not want to pay insurance to a "third world society" (the prejudice and racism this implies should be appalling to you by itself).
  4. To ultimately exchange the land for peace with neighbouring states again, provide a.... you get the idea, and make sure it mentions "with neighboring states" or some derivative thereof.
Ramallite (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ramallite, you really need to read and re-read the sources I gave you.
  1. Reluctance to award its citizenship to an overwhelming number of non-Zionist Arabs whose allies were sworn to the destruction of Israel. Where they non-Zionist? Yes. Where they Arabs? Yes. Here is a direct quote from David Bamberger's book: "Then came the Six Day War, and Israel conquered the lands where refugees were living. After the war, Israel expected to return the conquered lands as a part of a general peace treaty, but the Arab states refused to negotiate. And so Israel, against its will, found itself governing nearly two million Palestinian Arabs whose allies were sworn enemies of the Jewish state" (128). Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, who declared: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.” The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini stated: "I declare a holy war my Moslem brothers ... Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" I can give quotes all day, but just remember the ONLY goal Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and others had in mind when they attacked Israel: to destroy it, completely. They don't deny it.
  2. Fear that the population of Palestinian Arabs would outnumber the Israelis, appeal to different political interests, and vote Israel out of existence; eliminating the concept of a Jewish state Yeah, read the freemuslims.org site I gave. It was written by a Palestinian Arab Muslim. David Bamberger and Mitchell Bard's words also support it.
  3. To tote the bill for First-world Social insurance for the local Third world society[citation needed] I did not write this, nor have I heard of it, nor did Mitchell Bard mention it in his e-mail back. So I added the 'citation needed' note since it had been on Wikipedia beforehand. That's all. If you want to take it out, I don't mind.
  4. To ultimately exchange the land for peace with neighbouring states Not only is there an article here on it, but Mitchell Bard as well as David Bamberger said this.
All done. --Shamir1 18:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Annexation

The word "conditional" does not appear anywhere in the cited source. It is a POV edit apparently meant to belittle the Israeli actions. the fact is that all these palestinian residents were offered citizenship, and if they rejected it (as many did, for political reasons) still allowed them to remain as permanent residents - a status equal to citizenship in all rights and obligations except the right to vote. This is a common status in all countries, and all of them (as far as I know) require you to pledge your loyalty to the new country. Including the list of "conditions" that the Palestinians must meet (which is th esame as when any other non-citizen applies for citizenship in a new country) is a form of well-poisoning. It has no place in the article Isarig 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Israel would be so bold as to say that they are 'allowing' the native population of Jerusalem to stay in their own homes and lands that they've lived in for generations, and calling that a favor to them, is kind of arrogant of the state, don't you think? Ramallite (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand what your point is. Israel annexed the territory, and offered the residents 3 alternatives: (1) They could become full fledged citizens of Israel. (2) They could retain their previous citizenship and legal status (i.e: refuse both Israeli citizenship and permanent residency) or (3) They could become permanent residents, without becoming citizens. What else should they have been offered? This is the epitome of good will, and yes it is a "favor", because it didn't have to offer all these options. To see why that is so, consider the alternatives. Israel could have forced the residents to take on Israeli citizenship (as the Chinese did to Tibetians). It did not do that. Israel could have prevented them from acquiring Israeli citizenship (as it does in the rest o fteh West Bank). It did not do that. It could have forced them to become permanent residents. It did not do that. Not to mention the fact that it could have expelled them (as the Czechs did to the Sudetn Germans). It gave them the full spectrum of opportunities -and left it up to them, at the individual level, to choose whichever option they want. They can stay in their own homes and lands that they've lived in for generations, they can even retain their citizenship and loyalty to an enemy governement. Isarig 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually Ramallite, Jerusalem has maintained a Jewish majority since the 1870s. In addition, the Israelites are the native people of the region, and their descendants are the Jews. Jewish claims to the land predate the Arab invasion by over 2 and half milleniums. Arabs rejected the peaceful Partition Plan, went on a violent rampage, Arab states attacked the tiny State of Israel from all corners, encouraged the Arabs to leave to make way for invading armies for a "quick and easy victory", thus causing the refugee crisis. Don't blame the Palestinian problems on Israel. They managed to achieve statehood without violent means. After 1948, the Arabs who stayed in Israel's borders were equally eligible for citizenship. During the twenty years Jordan had the West Bank and Jerusalem (and restricted any entry to Jews and Christians) and Egypt had the Gaza Strip, there was NO attempt or talk of creating a Palestinian state there, and there was no rebellion against Jordan or Egypt, the latter of which denied the Strip's residents of citizenship and insurance. Meanwhile Israel has accepted and offered a Palestinian state, and in the 50's and 60's contributed more to refugee relief than most Arab countries. Neighboring states hesitated to relieve the situation, as they wanted to keep them as political pawns.
From the Oscar-nominated film Munich, Ali: "Eventually the Arab states will rise against Israel -- they don't like Palestinians, but they hate Jews more."
The passage from the source reads: Permanent residents were permitted, if they wished and met certain conditions, to receive Israeli citizenship. These conditions included swearing allegiance to the State, proving that they are not citizens of any other country, and showing some knowledge of Hebrew. For political reasons, most of the residents did not request Israeli citizenship. This is pretty clear to me. Your edit changes the sense of this. If you want to go ahead and delete the specific conditions, I'll leave it to Ramallite to continue the argument on that point. But for now I'm reverting back. Please don't change the sense of well-sourced material. Dasondas 05:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
the pledge of allegiance and all that doesn't belong here. I'm not even sure it's true. Most countries have much more strict conditions. Check out what Canadaians have to say: [7] Anyway this exists in the whole world and obviously doesn't belong here, see: Oath of citizenship Amoruso 05:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I don't appreciate the thoughtless changing of well-sourced material. I've said twice that I agree with you two about the relevancy of listing the specific conditions, but I don't see why you can't remove that extraneous information without changing the sense of the cited material. It is not credible to claim that it is not a serious source; it most clearly is and it should be treated that way whether we agree with it or not. Dasondas 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If you truly don't appreciate the thoughtless changing of well-sourced material, I wonder why you are reverting. Until today, the relevant section read "Israel has only annexed the parts known as East Jerusalem; its residents have been offered Israeli citizenship, although many refuse and settle for permanent residency. " This sentence is entirely accurate, and was changed today to a claim that they are "regarded as conditional permanent residents" - sourced to an article that does not use the word "conditional" even once. That same edit claimed in it's edit summary that "it's residents weren't exactly 'offered', see source. Also, it is rare for a Jerusalem Palestinian who applies for citizenship to get approved." - the latter part was completely unsourced, and the first part says the opposite of what the cited source said, which is "Permanent residents were permitted, if they wished and met certain conditions, to receive Israeli citizenship." Today's changes are clearly POV, attempting to paint a normal, common way for non-citizens to become citzens as some sinister plot by the evil israelis, who insist on restrictions and conditions. Isarig 05:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That was in the edit summary, but not part of the article. You are reverting under false pretenses then. because yes I did complain in the edit summary, but the actual edit I made, which was sourced, was not related to the edit summary, and you know that. Ramallite (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not that concerned about what another editor put in his edit comments; I'm concerned about what shows up in the article. Right now, the word "conditional" does not appear in the article so I don't know why you are so worked up about that word. I'll say again, for the third time, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT LISTING THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. Did you get it that time? So go ahead and delete them if you want -- just don't change the sense of the well-sourced and cited material. If you have information contradicting that source, then you need to include it and cite it and note the discrepancy within the body of the article. You can't just go around changing or deleting well-sourced and cited material. And while we're on the subject, the rest of the material in that section has not yet been sourced or cited properly even though several editors, including myself, have been complaining about it for days. I don't care how true the information is, if you want it to stay then source it. I am surprised that you want to apply a different set of rules to the part of this section you agree with than to the part you disagree with. This isn't a rhetoric club; it's an encyclopedia. Dasondas 05:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
And one more point I forget to mention in the heat of argument --
Even though I do agree with you about it being unnecessary to list specific conditions for citizenship, I think it would be inappropriate to assume that a Palestinian having to swear allegiance to Israel is being asked to do the same thing as a Mexican farm worker in San Diego, for example, who wants to become a US citizen. We need some perspective here as well; all situations are different. Dasondas 05:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
MY BAD. I just noticed the word "conditional" in the first sentence. Sorry, now I know what you were getting worked up about. I hadn't even focused on that sentence; I was concerned about the rest of the section. I'll take a look now. Sorry again. Dasondas 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Read my comment in my list below regarding the word "conditional". There are strict conditions to maintaining permanent residency in Jerusalem if you happen to be Palestinian. Ramallite (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] If I may weigh in...., the word "conditional" actually does appear in this latest edit. [that was before I see your current comment after edit conflict] I actually think the bulk of Dasondas' edit listing the conditions for acquiring citizenship should be left intact. The only change I suggest is removing "conditional" from "conditional permanent residents" unless that phrase is used in the source (I didn't see it). As far as the conditions of citizenship, they look to me to be relevant and sourced. Many countries allow dual citizenship with allied entities, so of course there is somewhat of a predicament for Palestinians who must choose between Palestinian citizenship and Israeli citizenship. It's understandable that Israel might impose this condition with the current political situation, but the resulting predicament for Palestinians certainly warrants mention. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the word "conditional" and added a cite for the full sourced document rather than the inadequate summary that was provided previously. I hope this is OK with (almost) everybody. Dasondas 06:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
many countries allow dual citizenship, and Israel is among them. This dual citizenship is usually the result of a child being born to parents of different citizenships or being elligble for dual citizenship under two sets of laws (e.g: by birth to a citizen of one ocuntry, and by geography to another). Most countries I am aware of require a naturalized citizen to renounce his previous citizenship. The US for example requires that a naturalized citizen "To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:
   * support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S.;
   * renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title;"
So, there is nothing unique about the Israeli requirement. Isarig 06:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
When people become naturalized citizens, they generally immigrate from somewhere else. The case of East Jerusalem Palestinians is unique because it is not that they have immigrated, but their place of residence came under Israeli jurisdiction when it was annexed. While their families in the next town (not some far off country) are Palestinian citizens, they must choose to forfeit that citizenship and become isolated and cut off from the rest of the Palestinian community in order to become a citizen in the place where they already reside. At least this is my understanding, is this not the case? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Note, the US does not require naturalized citizens to give up citizenship of the country of birth, and US citizens do not lose citizenship by being granted foreign citizenship unless they also voluntarily choose to give up their US citizenship.[8] --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You are simply wrong. I have quoted the US requirement verbatim to you - Naturalized citizens are required to "renounce any foreign allegiance". The source you are quoting says that your US citizenship is not lost if you acquire a foreign one through naturalization, but the converse is not stated there, and is not true. See [9] Isarig 17:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The converse actually *does* apply and explicitly states so in the Department of State link I gave above, which is the authoritive source. It says, a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. And I personally know several people who have become naturalized US citizens who hold dual citizenships with Israel, with Holland, with Venuzuela, with Ireland, with South Africa, and with Germany. I don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear there is a requirement to even give up citizenship to an enemy government to the US, though I'm sure citizens of enemy foreign governments would not be permitted to naturalize in the first place. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned below, this "converse" example has to do with the possibility that a naturalized US citizen may not be able to give up his foreign citizenship even if he wants to. The foreign government may not permit it. When you read the text surrounding this paragraph in the State Department document cited, I think it becomes clear. Dasondas 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If naturalized citizens actually did renounce any foreign allegiance then so many Israelis would no longer be Israeli citizens. Yes, the US does require new citizens to renounce foreign allegiance, but the US does not enforce this since dual citizenship is not illegal under US law. As your source shows, the old country in most cases does not recognize a renunciation based on a "routine" pledge printed on a routine application form (provided the old country accepts dual citizenship). That is why all new US citizens retain their original citizenship except where the original country doesn't recognize dual citizenship (e.g. India, Norway). Some countries (e.g. Spain) require it's citizens to apply for reinstatement of citizenship should a citizen be naturalized elsewhere, but that's just a routine procedure that takes a few weeks. Other countries (e.g. Denmark) will insist on proof that a naturalized citizen has renounced his/her previous citizenship, and in cases where the home country refuses to recognize such renunciation, the applicant is stuck as a permanent resident in the host country. But the bottom line regarding the US is that, as long as the original country recognizes dual citizenship, naturalized US citizens retain their old passports. But none of this is comparable to Jerusalemites, since Palestinians from Jerusalem are not immigrants, but are treated as such nevertheless. Ramallite (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
user:Isarig is right about the oath of citizenship requiring a renunciation of "foreign allegiances", although technically I don't think this necessarily means giving up a foreign citizenship. Giving up the citizenship is an issue between the citizen and his (former) country; the US doesn't require proof that the person actually formally renounced citizenship of the other country; it only asks for an oath renouncing allegiance to that (and any other) country. However, I think the main thrust of the source that user:MPerel is citing has to do with the fact that the country which the new US citizen is abandoning might still consider that person to be a citizen even if the person doesn't any longer desire to be. In other words, he might not be able to give up his prior citizenship even if he wants to. Dasondas 17:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm glad you see the distinction between the law and its enforcement. The US (and Israel, and many other countries) require a naturalized citizen to renounce a previous citizenship. That is why the Israeli requirement of Jerusalem Palestinians was not unique, and there's no need to mention it in this context. The US (and Israel, and many other countries) have no way of effectively enforcing this requirement, and so their naturalized citizens often reatin their dual citizenship. The same holds true for the Jerusalem Palestinians. Those who chose to do so could have renounced their Jordanian citizenship, gained Israeli citizenship, yet keep their Jordanian passports and ermain Jordanian citizens (assuming Jordan allows it). Yes, the Palestinians from Jerusalem are not immigrants - but what other option could Israel have given them ? They coudl becoem citizens, they could become residents, or they could remain as-is. Isarig 17:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The Israeli requirement of Jerusalem Palestinians IS unique in that, as you acknowledge, they are not immigrants and are yet treated as such. What other option could Israel have given them? Well, according to International Law, upon annexing the territory Israel must give all residents automatic citizenship, not just the option. This is complicated for 2 reasons: 1- The same international law doesn't recognize Israel's annexation, and 2- the Palestinians themselves don't recognize the annexation. Israel has placed them in an impossible situation: "Love us or we'll kick you out of your homes" - now that's not really a common situation. The Palestinians, by the way, are NOT Jordanian citizens, but are eligible for passport-style travel documents- that eligibility is lost if they attain Israeli citizenship. Now why anybody would want to keep a Jordanian passport is beyond me, but considering that the alternative is de facto recognition of an illegal occupation, subjugation, and humiliation in their own city (again, not my words, that's how they see it), perhaps its understandable why they wouldn't want to be Israeli. Ramallite (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Do tone down the hyperbole, this is not a usenet forum. Your claim that the option Israel gave them is ""Love us or we'll kick you out of your homes" is false. The options were "become our citizens" , "become our permamnent residents" or "stay as you are". Choosing any of these options would not result in anyone being kicked out of their home. Your claim that

"The Palestinians, by the way, are NOT Jordanian citizens" may be true today (since Jordan unilaterally revoked their citizenship in '88), but was not true at the time of the annexation - they were most certainly Jordanian citizens at that time, and could have chosen to retain that citizenship. I fully understand why they may not want to be Israeli citizens - and they were offered the option of not becoming ones. What I don't understand is the bitching about being given all three options, as if there was yet another option not given to them. Isarig 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'hyperbole' is just a summarization of the B'tselem article that documents evidence of 'silent expulsion' as they call it. Also, I don't know what the "stay as you are" option is, they only had two options, not three, and the 'bitching' stems from the fact that the Palestinians do not believe that Israel, as an occupying power, has the moral or legal authority to demand any options/choices of Palestinians at all, especially when it is the government's policy to limit the growth of their population in order for it to remain a comfortable minority (sounds creepy). Saying that the "become our permanent residents" option "would not result in anyone being kicked out of their homes" is apparently false, as evidenced by numerous human rights groups. Lastly, the Palestinian population of Jerusalem will have almost doubled in another few years relative to 1988, meaning that a significant percentage of Jerusalemites alive now were not born in 1988, so what the Jordanian government did back then is slowly eroding in relevance. Ramallite (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The b'tselem article did not use the phrase "Love us or we'll kick you out of your homes", and your characterization of that statement as a "summary" of the article is disingenious. This is hyperbole, nothing more nothing less. The "stay as you are" option means - don;t becoem a citizen, don't become a permanent resident. That is the same status as the rest of the Palestinians in the non-annexed West Bank. Surely you are not suggetsing that someone creeped up on those who refused Israeli citizenship and forced then to carry an Israeli ID card in their pocket?. The "evidence" by "numerous human rights groups" is an unsourced claim, by a single group (B'tselem) that Israel has a secret plan, whose details are unknown to cuase permanent residet to lose their status. The "evidence" produced is that those who actually stopped being resident (ie, moved abroad or to other parts of the West bank for long periods of time, established their lives abroad etc...), found that , surprise, their residency has been revoked. This is a totaly common and expected outcome. In the US, for example, permanent residents may lose that status if they "Remain outside of the US for more than one year without obtaining a reentry permit" or "Remain outside of the US for more than two years after issuance of a reentry permit". In fact, such loss may occur for periods much shorter than even a year: "in determining whether your status has been abandoned any length of absence from the US may be considered, even if it is less than one year. "[10]. For some strange reason, human rights groups don't consider this a sinister plan to kick people out of their homes. Isarig 19:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay okay I'll drop mention of the love talk if it makes you uncomfortable. As for the US, again you are mixing and matching contexts in order to create a convenient analogy - remember in the US they are immigrants applying for a green card, in Jerusalem they are already in their own homes and lands. As for your third option of "stay as you are" by your definition, such people would NOT be allowed to stay in Jerusalem. And in fact they are not. Ramallite (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The relvant issue is whether or not Israeli permanent residency requirements are unique or not. CLearly, they are not. If anything, they are far more lenient than comparable US requirements. After settling in the US (a pre-requisite to gettign a green card) the immigarnts are surely living in their own homes and lands, and if they leave, they are subject to losign those - ditto for Palestinains. And you are wrong regarding the "stay as you are". The article you are using as a source say that these people "lose their rights as residents" - not that tehy are kicked out. They lose the right to Israeli social security, they lose their right to vote in the Israeli municipal elections, etc.. - but no one is preventing them from living in the city, in their home. Isarig 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, it is not the requirements that are unique - it's who they are required of that's unique. As for losing residency rights, yes of course that means they are no longer allowed to live in the city and are kicked out. You obviously have not been to any West Bank checkpoints lately (and let's not make this a new prolonged debates about checkpoints). Ramallite (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
But "who they are required of " is not unique. It is true of Palestinians who became PR in Jerussalem, and it is true of Australians who became PR in Tel Aviv, and it is true of native Hawaiians who became PR in the US. I have a (non-Palestinian) relative who is a PR of Israel. Were he to leave his current hoem in Jerusalem and go live in the US for a few yeras, he'd liekly lose his PR status jsut as much as a Palestinian who does the same. You can assert that "course that means they are no longer allowed to live in the city and are kicked out" until you are blue in the face, but it is not true, and is not claimed in the article you are using as a refernce. Isarig 20:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we have entertained our audience enough; I'm not sure why you don't realize that an Australian - born and raised in Australia by a family who was present in Australia for generations - moving to Israel and obtaining PR there, is not the same thing as a Palestinian - born and raised in Palestine by a family who was present in Palestine for generations - not moving anywhere but having PR imposed on him in Palestine. I'd say that's a huge difference. I have nothing else to claim for the moment, because I'm not here to convince you or anybody because it's not really my priority, especially as whatever you or I think is not going to change anything on the ground. And one last thing, I never get blue in the face. Sometimes I get a little bit of purple around my navel, and on occasion my toes will start to itch, but no, can't say I've ever had the blue in the face syndrome. Regards, Ramallite (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you think is unfair Mperel ? If you think about it, you are right... he has to choose whether he wants to be a Palestinian or an Israeli ! He doesn't have to move from Jerusalem of course. He gets all the rights inside Israel as a permanent resident and he can go vote for the Palestinian government. But if he wants to become an Israeli citizen then it means he sees himself as an Israeli and needs to think of Israel's interests - you see ? Sounds very obvious to me. Btw, U.S law is similar to Israeli law in one important aspect. You do realise that the Hamas governmnet in the Palestinian "state" at the moment is at a state of War with Israel. Countries certainly do not have to accept dual citizenships from enemy states and no country in the world does accept it.... so even in that sense, there's no problem here. It's really quite a basic demand, that if one wants to become an Israeli then he will show that he really wants to become an Israeli. These Arabs ARE immigrants to the Jewish state - if they want to remain Palestinian/Jordanian citizens they certainly can and they'll also remain living where they are. I don't see how that obstructs on them in any way. Amoruso 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
restarting indent. It's not about what I think is unfair, the unique predicament of Palestinians in East Jerusalem having to choose between citizenships due to the political situation should be noted in the article, that's all. If they want to vote and have any say in the government that governs them, they are essentially required to alienate themselves from their own surrounding Palestinian community. It's a unique situation not common to citizens of other countries. Israelis who immigrate to the US are not required to give up their Israeli citizenship and they can vote in both US and Israeli elections, as can US citizens who make aliyah to Israel, but then of course yes, the two countries are allies. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 11:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. also I think your last sentence is key in understanding the whole issue. Amoruso 11:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

btw, since east Jerusalem is part of Israel today, Arabs residents in Jerusalem that are born today and don't have another citizenship will automatically get citizenship if they wish without any other requirement. Amoruso 07:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, I wonder whether Jewish immigrants to Israel who get Israeli citizenship are required to renounce their previous citizenship. I think they aren't. So why should Arabs in East Jerusalem? To me it looks unfair and calculated to minimize the number of Arabs who get the right to vote in Israeli elections. Anyway, at the very least the fact that Arabs who desire citizenship are required to meet such conditions should be mentioned in the article. This is an encyclopedia. Well-sourced and relevant information should not be deleted. Let the reader evaluate the facts and decide for themselves whether this Israeli policy is fair or not. Dianelos 08:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's really rather simple. Israelis can get citizenship in numberous ways : (1) the law of return which applies to Jews - this is similar to the law of return of other countries like Germany. Obviously here you don't have to renounce other cititzenship and it's automatic. (2) if you were born inside Israel and you don't have another citizenship (3) if you were in the area made into Israel - this includes all Arab citizens of 1948 - you get it automatically and you don't have to renounce anything (4) by applying for a citizenship - then you have some limitations like oath and renouncing if you have different citizenship, similar to almost all the world's immigrant laws. (5) special permit from the ministry of interior if he wants to grant citizenship. Amoruso 10:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Okay, to answer some questions above (all summarized from sources, these are not my own words):

  • It's "conditional" because, according to the source, if the residents leave or live anywhere else for 7 years (usually less in practice but we'll stick to the source), the residency is revoked, even if the resident does not have actual 'citizenship' anywhere else (e.g. lives in the West Bank). Instead of explaining all this, I found it easier to just type 'conditional' and attach a reliable verifiable source (something I wish more people would do). But we can certainly add more detail if desired.
  • Isarig's allegiance argument is not appropriate in this situation. When somebody chooses to move to a new country and chooses to become a citizen, that new citizen needs to swear allegiance, that's pretty common. But in this case, it is the State of Israel that came to the people, not the people who moved to the state of Israel. They have lived in Jerusalem for generations and generations and suddenly, they no longer had natural rights to their land where they were born, but became conditional permanent residents where anybody who dares study abroad or go a fellowship abroad or (G-d forbid) gets married to a non-Jerusalemite risks losing that residency right. There is something very unique about that.
  • The Law of Return in Israel bestows automatic citizenship on Jews, ergo no oath of allegiance and no renunciation of former citizenship is required because no such ceremonials are necessary; the citizenship is automatic.
  • By International Law, the occupying country is required to bestow automatic citizenship on the population of any territory it annexes after capturing it in war. The Israelis did not do that with Jerusalem, they placed the onus on the non-Jewish population on Jerusalem to apply if they wanted. But the Jerusalemites would have had to give up their Jordanian passports, which would cut them off from travel to certain countries where they have an interest in traveling to. (Note, they are not Jordanian citizens, but are allowed Jordanian passports to travel with).
  • Although it is rare for a Jerusalemite Palestinian to apply for Israeli citizenship, from those who do, only a small fraction get approved anyway (after a very lengthy process compared to non-Palestinian immigrants).
  • The Israeli system of discrimination has started to backfire. Thousands and thousands of Palestinians who lived in the outskirts of Jerusalem (in the annexed areas outside the main city) have been returning in droves to love inside Jerusalem proper, fearing Israeli severance of their right to be residents if they remain outside (or close to) the wall.
  • As a result of the ensuing housing crunch, many Palestinian families have started moving into settlements in East Jerusalem, such as Pisgat Zeev and the like. Of course, landlords practice discrimination when it comes to renting or selling units to Palestinians (who they call 'those Arabs'), but it seems like Israeli policies, as usual, breed the grandest of unintended consequences.
  • This stuff is all encyclopedic and relevant because it affects the real lives of thousands of people and is not 'routine' by any human rights standard. It doesn't have to be in this article necessarily, but this stuff is certainly relevant and encyclopedic - with good sources of course.
  • There is no 'Palestinian state' that is at war with Israel. First, there is no Palestinian state, and second, nobody can declare a war without an army and sovereignty, and third, Israel controls the whole place anyway, so how can there be a war between Israel and territory controlled by Israel?

Ramallite (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On the "conditional" issue, I don't think that the "seven years away" condition is materially different than condtions that other countries place on permanent residency. We can do some research if you insist, but I think you'll find that permanent residents in other countries are subject to lose their status if they stay away too long, etc. Yet we don't call them "conditional". On the "oaths of allegiance" etc, one outcome of the prior discussions is that I have changed my opinion on listing these oaths, et.al. Having worked through the discussion and had a chance to read some of the sources I now believe that it is entirely appropriate to continue including those conditions of citizenship for pretty-much the reasons you just articulated; it is now my opinion that it would be more POV to exclude them than it is to have them included. (Hey, what do you know, Wikipedia can actually change a mind once and awhile...). Your point is interesting about the practical difficulties facing Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who actually want to become citizens of Israel; I don't see why that shouldn't be included in the article if we can source well. On the "Law of Return", as Amoruso noted above it is not fundamentally different than that for Germans or Japanese or a host of other countries. On the other points regarding demographic movements caused by specific policies, I think that is a big can or worms to open and will lead to a huge debate involving Jewish historical claims, legal rights and responsibilities of belligerent parties, etc. I would personally not want to start down that path in this article, but I understand completely if you feel differently. One thing I did find myself wondering after working through this debate is about the status of Palestinian babies born to parents without citizenship. It is one thing for an adult to choose not to have a country, but what happens to a child without a country who reaches the age of maturity and decides he wants to be a citizen somewhere and can't become one anywhere? (This is not an argument in favor of a Palestinian state, per se; it is an argument that perhaps at a certain age a child born in the territories should have a definite right to citizenship in Israel if he is willing to "take the oath of allegiance and renounce other citizenship rights, etc." It's not clear to me that this right is automatic for such children.) Dasondas 15:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right about the seven years thing, but the differences from normal situations are very clear in this source. You have to admit that this situation is not normal for democracies. The demographic movements thing I just added to the discussion above to reduce tempers on this page, but have no intention of adding it to this article. As to your question, no Palestinian 'chooses' not to have a country, but Jerusalemites choose not to recognize the annexation of their land by a foreign power (or to be NPOV, that's how they see it) where, even if they chose to become citizens, they would remain second-class citizens (can get the study-source for that if requested). Second, if the child is born to Palestinians, the child still has no automatic rights to Israeli citizenship. That's because Israel does not grant jus soli, so the child is whatever the citizenship that the parents are. Most countries (the US being one of the famous exceptions) no longer grant jus soli EXCEPT if the child is to become stateless otherwise. For example, as of 2006, New Zealand no longer grants automatic citizenship by birth unless the child will otherwise become stateless (i.e. is unable to apply for the parent's citizenship). For Palestinians living abroad on Israeli or Palestinian travel documents (neither of which are citizenship documents), this presents a dilemma, especially if the parents are from the West Bank or Gaza, because according to the Oslo accords the Palestinians are not allowed to have actual 'embassies' with consular sections or anything like that, so such a child would be stateless until s/he returns with the parents to Palestine, whereupon the Israeli military at the Allenby Bridge issue the child a special certificate through which the child can then be registered in the Palestinian population registry (which Israel controls). But how can the child fly back to Palestine without some kind of passport to begin with? That's a good question and would be interesting to find out... Ramallite (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ramallite, I agree that the information who mention above is encyclopedic and relevant to the section about Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. If you can supply good references I think you should include in the article the information that contrary to international law the Arab residents of East Jerusalem did not automatically receive Israeli citizenship after the annexation, and that they can only receive it after renouncing their current citizenship, in contrast to Jewish immigrants who automatically become Israeli citizens and can keep their previous citizenship. Also that the Arab residents of East Jerusalem, many of whose families have lived there for generations, can even loose their permanent residency status if they leave East Jerusalem for a number of years and not be able to move back to their homes. Only this shouldn't be more than a few lines of text in the main article. If you feel like it I think it would be worthwhile to write a specialized article about the status of the Arab citizens of East Jerusalem after its annexation. Dianelos 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardizing references

I'm going to standardize the references in this article according to this example, and also convert all the links into references. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This ref was given as one of the sources for "Approximately 30% of Palestinians living in the West Bank are refugees or their direct descendants, who fled or were expelled from Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (see Palestinian exodus)." If someone could cite a specific document or web page at that site where that statistic is mentioned, instead of just referencing the whole website, that would be helpful. I'm sure it must be there somewhere but I looked for awhile and couldn't seem to locate anything referencing any statistics about refugees. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Under the Annexation paragraph, there is a reference to Bamburger and Bard. Can someone provide a page number for the Bamberger source, and we need the reference info for Bard as well. "Reluctance to award its citizenship to an overwhelming number of non-Zionist Arabs whose allies were sworn to the destruction of Israel (Bamberger, Bard)". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In the Settlements and International Law paragraph, one of the references given for "Israeli settlements on the West Bank beyond the Green Line border are considered by some legal scholars to be illegal under international law." is Plia Albeck, but there's no specific article title given and it's unclear if the reference to the Times is for information about her death or whether it is actually a reference of something she said in support of the sentence: Plia Albeck, legal adviser to the Israeli Government was born in 1937. She died on 27 September, 2005, aged 68', The Times, 5 October, 2005, p. 71. Does anyone have more info on this? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not just "some legal scholars" who consider the settlements on the West Bank illegal. There is a unanimous decision of the International Court of Justice in this sense, several UN Security Council resolutions consider them "not legally valid" and "in violation of the Geneva conventions", the EU, the Red Cross, the World Council of Churches, the Palestinians, the Arab League of Nations, virtually all countries, several eminently neutral academic studies, some Israeli legal experts who worked for the Israeli government, and several Israeli and human rights and civil rights organizations, not to mention several Israeli journalists - all consider them illegal. I find it troubling that this hugely relevant fact is not clearly mentioned in Wikipedia. Here are some references you might find useful in your work: [11],[12](very good but requires a simple registration),[13],[14](this is International Court of Justice ruling),[15](EU's position),[16],[17](this Israeli prof has written a book about the issue),[18],[19],[20](,[21]( UNSC resolution 465),[22],[23],[24], [25]. As far as I could find out only Israel and exactly one scholar not related to the Israeli government (Eugene Rostow) claim that the settlements are legal: [26],[27],[28]. I find the "TWO-STATE SOLUTION ASAP" section in this essay by Zbigniew Brzezinski to be brutally clear about this issue. Dianelos 09:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
While I didn't have time to review these as a whole, I noticed that the EU statement does not define settlements as illegal, but only the latest construction (perhaps in violation of the most recent agreements). TewfikTalk 05:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The relevant section reads as follows:
"In this context, the European Council is alarmed at the con­tinuing illegal settlement activities, which threaten to render the two-State solution physically impossible to implement. The expansion of settlements and related construction, as widely documented including by the European Union’s Settlement Watch, violates international law, inflames an already volatile situation, and reinforces the fear of Palestinians that Israel is not genuinely committed to end the occupation. It is an obstacle to peace. The European Council urges the Govern­ment of Israel to reverse its settlement policy and as a first step immediately apply a full and effective freeze on all settlement activities. It calls for an end to further land confiscation for the construction of the so-called security fence."
I understand you interpret "continuing illegal settlement activities" as "latest construction", but I don't see how such an implication is warranted. In any case, as international law has not changed lately, if the expansion of settlements and related construction violates international law (as the EU claims) then such expansion and construction was illegal all the time. The most fundamental point though that gets lost in all the legalistic talk is that the settlements are perceived as an obstacle to peace. (Incidentally I recently read a book by Richard Ben Cramer, who is a Pulitzer Prize-winner American Jew, titled "How Israel Lost" - meaning "How Israel lost the capacity to act in the national interest". It's a frank, funny, and intimate page turner, which gives the reader the picture behind the facade. Highly recommended.) Dianelos 17:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The cities nav box

What's the problem? Gaza and the West Bank are in the Palestinian Territories. What's wrong with having a nav box for them? Pockets23 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is titled "The West Bank". What's the problem calling the box "The West Bank" and limiting the list of cities to that area?Dasondas 01:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to become "a national homeland for the Jewish people."

This phrase is incorrect and will be replaced with the appropriate "not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State" taken directly from the White Paper of 1939[29]. This document cites the 1922 Command paper. It was also written more than a decade after the split of Transjordan and Palestine, therefore the 1939 paper is not conflating transjordan in the following excerpt

"The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine. Their views and proposals are set forth below under three heads, Section I, "The Constitution", Section II. Immigration and Section III. Land. Section I. "The Constitution"

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will. "

No need to replace it, deletion is just fine. The issue is covered in lots of more relevant articles. --Zerotalk 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero -(remove political allegation in the form of historical distortion). Fair assessment of the reasoning to remove the re-post of "a national homeland for the Jewish people." However, I believe, this rationale to remove the political statement should have been applied before I presented facts that it was incorrect. At any rate, this momentum should continue. If these standards to remove political statements are applied to all arguments in this article that are used to legitimize or delegitimize territorial claims to the West Bank, its content would improve dramatically and its neutrality would improve.

[edit] what the hell??

i'm used to nearly everything in this area being disputed, but the idea that population figures can vary by nearly 50% (1.4 million vs. 2.4 million) is just bizarre, even more so when these disparate figures are quoted without any comment on this page. surely there should be an agreed figure? surely the israeli military, for example, has a very good idea how many palestinians there are in the west bank. and what do disinterested observers say?

Benwing 08:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the sources (http://www.pademographics.com/) explains it all. Click on the link following "Arab Population in the West Bank & Gaza: The Million Person Gap."
Also, Haaretz Daily (one of the largest Israeli newspapers, said recently that the West Bank's Palestinian population is around 2.5 million. That slightly exceeds Wikipedia's maximum estimate.
I m dude2002 20:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pov tag: map

i think it's quite POV to put a map of "population areas where access is limited to palestinians" at the top of this article. (surely, for example, there must be many areas that are legally or practically unvisitable by israelis, as well.) consider this -- how many internationally recognized magazines or newspapers would use such a map to identify the west bank?

everything else in this map -- green line, boundary well, population/settlement areas -- is fine. the map should be redone in this fashion.

Benwing 08:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The image used to be neutral, some POVd it along the way. I've restored the original neutral image. Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 40 Spheres of Civilian Authority, not 40% of the Area

The article states that "40% of the area ... is under the limited civilian jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority." The source states that "40 spheres of civilian authority [are under the control of] the Palestinian Authority." I don't know how that translates into percent of area. In fact I don't know how many spheres of civilian authority there are. Are "spheres" geographical, or are they spheres of legal power?

Myself, I can't find exactly what percentage of the West Bank is under PA civilian authority, because all the articles I can find use Wikipedia as a source.

That would be a good thing to find out.

I m dude2002 05:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)i_m_dude2002

I think it would be important too to find out what percentage of the land itself in the WB is under PA control. Off the top of my head I think it's something around 15%. I'll try to find a source. Also, I'm not sure if it's stated here, but the PA doesn't have full control, as said above, it has "limited jurisdiction" or "partial autonomy" for examples of accurate terms.

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=6035 This source says that Area A is 17% of the West Bank, This seems like a reliable source to me. I think this page should actually have a section discussing the differences between areas A, B and C, the origins of this system under Oslo and Wye River. I'm quite surprised this page doesn't discuss these issues.

A student of history 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update on Population of Settlements

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1167467697743&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The Jerusalem Post published Israel's newest West Bank statistics.

Ma'ale Adummim has been overtaken by Modi´in Illit as the largest settlement in the West Bank, although I think this might include the entire settlement block (but I'm not sure either way).

I therefore ask the opinion, permission and blessing of Wikipedia readers and editor(s) to change the Ma'ale Adummim, Betar Illit and Ariel sections to reflect the new populations, and to comment as to their size relative to other settlements.

I would also like to see a section created for the largest Jewish community in the West Bank (Modi´in Illit), since it deserves some attention. If no one is interested in doing it... I would not mind. But I figure it's probably better if a Wikipedia editor did it.

It also might be useful to incorporate the growth rate of the West Bank's Jewish population into the article.

I m dude2002 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)i_m_dude2002

[edit] Merge Judea and Samaria Here

If you look at the Judea and Samaria page, it is a joke. As a neutral and non-politically oriented move, I recommend that Judea and Samaria be redirected to the West Bank page. The West Bank page, which I significantly helped establish, is a very neutral page, meaning not pro-Israelis and not pro-Palestinians. The name West Bank is very neutral; it merely refers to the geographical location of the territory. Please merge Judea and Samaria to the West Bank page and allow all efforts and improvements on the article to be focused on the West Bank page.David Betesh

I don't know which very neutral page you are referring to. This one is appalling. --Zerotalk 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to have three separate pages all referring to the same location. Why should there be both the Palestinian territories, Judea and Samaria page, and the West Bank page? We should all agree to merge all three of those articles into a centralized West Bank article. The West Bank page reflects reality to the best of my knowledge and is not biased in any way or form. Can someone help on this issue?David Betesh

West Bank is not a neutral term, whereas the names 'Judea and Samaria' have been around for thousands of years. If you recommend it, slap on the template and we'll only go through another merge discussion which will fail. Pleaes review all talk archives before suggesting this serisously. --Shuki 17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said Judea and Samaria hasn't been around for the past three thousand years! Just look at the Judea and Samaria page though. It is a joke. It is also offensive to have such a weak page representing that area. At least put some of the content on the West Bank page and paste it onto Judea and Samaria. Because of these conflicts of terminology, nothing ends up getting done or accomplished. David Betesh

"West Bank" is the most common English name for the region, and there's no reason why there should be two articles about the same region. "West Bank" is neither more nor less neutral than "Judea and Samaria".--Doron 22:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the three articles refer to three different ideas. "Palestinian territories" is the sum of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and "Judea and Samaria" refers to an Israeli administrative division that includes much [but not all] of the West Bank, as well as a discussion of the semantics surrounding the term. There might be some content that overlaps, but not to the extent that a merge is necessary. TewfikTalk 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The Palestinian Territories is a different matter, but I think "Judea and Samaria" and "West Bank" refer to roughly the same territory, the difference between them hardly warrants a separate article in my opinion. They both refer to a disputed territory whose boundary is also disputed, but it's still the same territory.--Doron 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Judea and Samaria is currently the redirect for Judea and Samaria Area, an Israeli administrative division. I also don't see any benefit to merging all the information about such an important term. TewfikTalk 07:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. West Bank is the term used by the international community, including the UN. This is a POV-fork, and is not a demonstration of Wikipedian's capacity to work together. Tazmaniacs 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - the two articles are talking about the same piece of land regardless of its title. West Bank is the preferable title as that is how it is known to the majority of the world. Number 57 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Judea and Samaria, does not belong in this article except maybe in the history section. The west bank is an internationally recognized term used to refer to a land that be the basis of a Palestinian state. Judea and Samaria are a district of Israel. Not recognized internationally. Thus my answer would be, that it depends on the way the merger will take place.Bless sins 13:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

A recent edit summary requested the addition of a map showing areas A, B, and C. There don't seem to be any, but some map representing the real human and political geography of the West Bank as it currently stands is obviously necessary. I have restored a map that was on this page until recently - it's the one discussed in the above talk page section entitled "POV map". Actually, it seems to me to be quite neutral itself (though I can see why it might be thought that having it as the first and only map wasn't), and if we are to believe the image details, was produced by the UN. Palmiro | Talk 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 98% of Palestinians in area A

I would like to see a better source for the 98% figure. From the source it is not clear that it refers only to the West Bank (in the Gaza Strip it's nearly 100%), it is not clear that it refers to area A (B is also under Palestinian jurisdiction), and it is not clear where this figure comes from. These points need to be addressed, because this author is hardly a neutral source.--Doron 07:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Administration of the WB" section that I started still needs a lot of work. I also do not like very much the source for this figure (I didn't add it). The source is not very good. As I understand it, 97-98% of Palestinians live in areas 'A' AND 'B', not 'A' alone. A student of history 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agreed initially, but this Electronic Intifada article confirms the JCPA implication. Perhaps someone can find a clearer source? TewfikTalk 17:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is there a confirmation? I don't see the figure 98% anywhere. The only thing coming close is the sentence "Oslo’s handing over of Palestinian towns representing 5 percent of the land but containing 95 percent of the Palestinian population, was a hand over of Israel’s crowd control problems", and this sentence shows absolutely nothing. Firstly, the numbers are probably symbolic rather than accurate (and I have a strong feeling this is also the nature of the 98% figure), the author, which appears to be a blogger, is making a political statement and gives us no indication that the figures are derived from any sort of official source. Secondly, he does not refer to area A specifically, nor does he refer to the West Bank specifically. If I missed a reliable reference to the 98% figure, please point it out.
I did some original research myself. I took data from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics 1997 census and using a B'Tselem map I started to sum the population of all non-area-A towns and villages. I reached 10% of the total West Bank population before I even finished with the Jenin, Tubas, Tulkarm and Nablus governorates (and there are seven more governorates left), so I estimate that at least 30% of the West Bank population lives in areas B and C. I can't imagine this percentage changed considerably since 1997. I could go on and complete the count, but of course this wouldn't be something I could put in the article, because it is original research. But my point is that the 98% figure is dubious, and should be confirmed from a reliable source that states it explicitly.
Oh, and even that is without counting the 200,000+ Palestinian population of East Jerusalem, which is certainly not area A, and is considered part of the West Bank by anyone that doesn't recognize Israel's de facto annexation, i.e., almost everyone. That alone is enough to rule out the 98% figure.--Doron 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight you are entirely correct that there is no way that 98% of the West Bank population lives in Area A - it must refer to Areas A and B. My apologies. TewfikTalk 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And hence the need to use reliable sources. I wish all editting could be this positive and constructive. A student of history 02:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everything2

How is this a reliable source? It's somewhat like Wikipedia in a way; anyone can write articles there, no? What are the qualifications of benjya? Khoikhoi 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly fails the reliability test. It's more like an online forum than an encyclopedia. --Zerotalk 05:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, many of the 'articles' on this site are nothing but rants by anonymous people. This is like a blog or forum, this is definitely not a reliable source. A student of history
The site is moderated. I checked this with User:Anthony cfc, and its certainly not a blog or a forum. [30] --Shamir1 06:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway I have changed the source to one undoubtedly reliable. --Shamir1 06:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Alan Lowinger is not a neutral source, either. Khoikhoi 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why should there be a reference there at all? That the West Bank was occupied by Israel following a Jordanian attack is a well known fact that appears in every textbook on the subject and in the Six Day War article, so why do we need to cite a source to support it? (and have an edit-war over it...) --Doron 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but "occupation" is an absolutely neutral term denoting the military act. It's also the most commonly used term to describe the current situation. Khoikhoi 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely the reference Shamir1 has provided has no bearing on the usage of the term "occupation". It's not clear what exactly that reference proves. Anyway, this term is brought up at the end of the same paragraph, so there's really no need to insist on "occupied" in that sentence, "captured" is perfectly correct.--Doron 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The source was simply to source its following a Jordanian attack, not the occupy. Also, Jordan's rule was considered occupation and not recognized by the UN. Anyway, it already says which political bodies consider it occupied. There shouldn't be a dispute. --Shamir1 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, most articles seem to use the word "occupation" when it comes to the West Bank, so we should probably be consistent. Secondly, there's no need to state that there was a Jordanian attack here. If people want to know the details, they can just click on the link. Khoikhoi 19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Shamir1 is right, there shouldn't be a dispute. The term is occupied, that is the legal and de facto standing of the territories as accepted by the entire world. Captured and occupied should both be in the sentence. A student of history 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part of text

The signing of the Oslo II agreement in 1995 by Yasir Arafat and Yitzak Rabin marked a change in the administrative policies in the West Bank. Nothing else links to Oslo II agreement, so i am wondering whether it is reliable? West Brom 4ever 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Added relevant wikilink.--Doron 13:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/s/Talk%7EWest_Bank_012a.html"