Talk:Israeli-occupied territories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Israeli-occupied territories is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Israeli-occupied territories is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article has been marked as needing attention.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Peace

For older discussions, please see below:

[edit] Problem with Archive 3

There seems to be a problem with Archive 3. I'm not sure what method was used to perform the archive, but the archivers should examine it. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem has been sorted out. Archive 3 doesn't exist: I merely created the link to simplify archiving in the future. To remove confusion, I have taken it away. Everything since Archive 2 is in Archive 2. -- Chris Lester talk 09:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

This phrase is not the definitive term encompassing the areas included - just one of the terms. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate what I said above. If you disagree, please respond to what I wrote here. Cheers, TewfikTalk 01:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. —Aiden 06:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)--khello 03:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


David: "Both of these territories were part of former British Mandate of Palestine, and both have populations consisting primarily of Arab Palestinians, including historic residents of the territories" is incorrect. Most Arabs living under British mandatory rule in Palestine in the 1940's had come during the previous few decades, during economic advancement by the British and the growing Jewish population. "Historic residents" thus is inaccurate and seems politically motivated.

The statement "Most Arabs living under British mandatory rule in Palestine in the 1940's had come during the previous few decades" must be under really severe doubt. It's a claim being pushed most strongly by Joan Peters and Shmuel Katz, both authors under severe criticism and debate over whether they belong under WP:RS.
There is good reason to think it cannot be true, eg adjacent villages that speak dialects of Arabic that are mutually unintelligible. These are not recent immigrants, far from it. They've probably been in the same place for many, many centuries, no matter what the anti-semitic Mark Twain claims to have observed. (It's likely they had summer homes somewhere else - partly for hygiene and disease control reasons in a region short of water). (Please excuse the apparent WP:OR - I promise not to put this into any article until I can source it properly).
Almost the best possible source is this one [1] - the initial report of the British High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel.
League of Nations 30 July 1921 - AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920 - 30th JUNE, 1921. ........ The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000.
Herbert Samuel, British High Commissioner and author of the above, was later accused of rabid pro-Zionism eg [2].
PalestineRemembered 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

I propose this page is moved to Israeli disputed territories. The term occupied is, on its own, showing an anti-Israel bias, as Israel officially annexed all of Jerusalem, parts of the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Gaza belongs on the page too, but it was officially given to the PA.

While some of the territories are "occupied" according to anti-Israel sources, the generally accepted terminology is disputed. --יהושועEric 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree, reaching agreement on this title took long enough and proposed new title makes little sense in my view. Is this going to be put forward as a formal move proposal, or is it merely a suggestion to test the waters? Eric, if it's the former, you should list it on WP:RM; unfortunately, this is a pain in the proverbial, but that's how it works. Palmiro | Talk 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, for God's sake no. This is the way the place is known throughout the world. The Pro-Palestinian bias version would be something like "Occupied Palestine". "Disputed Territories" is not the generally accepted term - it is a pro-Israeli propaganda term. john k 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree per John K. Utterly ridiculous proposal. --Ian Pitchford 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • John K has a point, but I certainly wouldn't call the proposal "utterly ridiculous", as the current title sounds POV and does favor one side. The thing is that after much previous heated (quite hostile and disappointing actually) discussion over this, there doesn't appear to exist a neutral term, so second-best is to just go with the most common term, and the current title is it. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • As MPerel says, we have gone over this before, and it was very much not fun. I'd advise anyone who isn't familiar with that debate to look over the archives. john k 02:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • "very much not fun": that is a big understatement..... My eyebrows have just grown back again...Huldra 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree as per above. Yuber(talk) 02:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree per nom. Anyway, the POV title tag should be added to this one if it (wrongly) stays. Amoruso 02:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I had a look through the debate in the archive and I think this is the most appropriate title. I don't even think the newly proposed title is NPOV anyway. --khello 23:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The world knows/knew the West Bank and Gaza as "Occupied territories". They are not disputed. Israel is not entitled to annex these lands, no matter how many guns it has. (Just as China would not be entitled to annex Taiwan if it had enough guns to do so. This is despite the fact that Taiwan is a recent break-away section from 3000 years of being China, hi-jacked by war-lord faction beaten on the mainland). PalestineRemembered 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Sigh. This is "deja vu all over again". Please check the archives. Regards, Huldra 06:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It took enough effort to reach the current comrpomise, let's not do it again. El_C 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Changes to Intro

I've gone ahead and slightly 'cleaned up' part of the intro. 'Generally' and 'sometimes' shouldn't be used in the same sentence! I also put the "Sinai peninsula" in a new sentence, as the area has already been returned. As for the last sentence of the intro, can user:Shamir1 please explain- what do you mean by the 'sense' of the occupation? I can see what you mean with 'definition' and 'legality', but I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'sense of the occupation'. I've left that in for now- just wanted to hear what you think--khello 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I didn't write anything in the 'edit summary'- that was my first edit on wikipedia! :-( --khello 03:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Points of view: Israeli, Palestinian, Hamas, Zionist, etc.

The writing & editing of this controversial article can easily be ressolved if the Point of view were simply Identified. There is nothing wrong with that.

But to try to come to an agreement, as if there were a common view, is like the variation on the joke that a camel (either bactrian, or dromedary) is a horse designed by a committee. And I hope I didn't offend anyone by the joke's suggest that the horse is more beautiful than a camel.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reasons for leaving Gaza Strip

I think the following statement doesn't have a NPOV:

In 2005, Israel forced all settlers to leave the Gaza Strip, in a hope that this would placate Palistinian terrorists, and move the peace process forward.

It is certainly not fact that Israel vacated the Gaza in a effort to bring the peace process forward. There is much suspicion that this formed part of a greater plan by Israeli politicians in imposing Israels permanent boarders on the populations in the area without negotiation. I would think we'd better serve a NPOV by modifying this statement to reflect this? tobybuk

I think we better leave those questions to the article about the Disengagement plan itself and only mention the fact it happened. RoFl 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Much suspicion from who? We shouldn't say either, no matter how probable or improbable either explanation is. Wikipedia deals in undeniable fact. Write in who says that it was for peace, and who says that it was a evil shadowy conspiracy opressing people by giving them land. And be sure to mention what faction they're beholden to. (Not quite in those words, of course.)--70.187.207.119 22:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should not create a POV by trying to assume the motive of Israeli authorities for their withdrawal of the Gaza Strip. Mentioning that they unilaterally withdrew is enough information. Poyani 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Term Occupied Territories

Would point out in addition to the term "occupied territory" to be subject to challenge, the anti-Semitic Arabs and Muslims, when using the term "occupied territories," refer to all of Israel, and consider all of Israel to be disputed. Their desire to obliterate Israel and her population is well documented, both in words and action. Therefore, the term "occupied territories" would appear to slant towards those that advocate genocide, and it is probably unwise to use the term here, either in same or different usage. - MSTCrow 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Was it not Arafat that was documented as saying to take as much of the lands of Israel by negotiation, and the rest by force. Citation needed here please. - Someone
Yeah, he sayed it indeed. Both the fatah and the hamas and also almost all of the Islamic movements in the world agree on the last stage - Islamization of the entire world. However Fatah wants to start to Islamize Israel after they make peace with Israel and Hamas just wants to keep on using terror to achieve this goal. viclick """"" 09:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
True though it may be, this isn't the forum for opinion. The land is recognized as occupied by the U.N., and advocates of genocide can be just as occupied as anyone else. --70.187.207.119 22:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This assertion has no truth to it whatsoever. I have searched for the source of your quote on the internet and can't find anything except pro-Israeli activists claiming that it was said. It is more likely just propaganda spread by those within the Israeli camp that opposed the Oslo negotiations. Furthermore, much of what you say is just speculation. Even HAMAS has made their position clear that if Israel withdraws to the green-line they will end their violent activities. It has reiterated this stance numerous times on Middle Eastern news stations. The majority of the world (including the CIA Factbook) refers to Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as "Occupied Palestinian Territories" and hence this title is appropriate. Hearsay cannot be used as justification to administer changes to the article. Poyani 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Hamas never said they will end the violent activities, they offerd a 10 year old cease fire in exchange for all of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. i think that another thing they wanted was the releas of all prisoners in isreali jails, but im not sure.

[edit] NPOV Cleanup

I attempted to alter some of the language closer to NPOV without changing content. If we could make a laundry list of complaints, it would be easy to adress them one by one. --70.187.207.119 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New historical research: secret Israeli memos about legality of post Six Day War occupations

APF: Secret memo said to prove Israel knew occupation was illegal. --Abnn 05:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed territories

I've read through the archives, and I know no one wants to go back to arguing about the title--so I won't--but I do think that the concerns of those calling it POV were never adequately addressed. While I acknowledge that 'occupied territories' is the most common usage, it's difficult to deny that it's POV, even if it is a popular one. 'Disputed territories', is a significant minority view that the territories' status is disputed. So, as a compromise, perhaps that POV can be included in the introduction along the lines of: 'The term is generally used to refer to the Gaza Strip,the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Israel commonly refers to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the "Disputed Territories" (see below)'? Otherwise I feel like the controversy, which, again, is a significant one, gets brushed under the table at the end of a long-ish article. GUSwim 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling the territories held by Israel "disputed" instead of occupied, as recognized by the UN is extremely dangerous and sets a path towards a complete elimination of Palestine. You can win in a dispute, you cannot win in an occupation.99.238.165.215 (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False controversies

This page is unduly beholden to Israeli POV's which are unsupported by provable fact.

  • Describing the occupied status of the teritories as "controversial" rather than factual is absurd. This very article says that Israeli authorities have argued before the Israeli Supreme Court that an occupation exists (but is not subject to certain laws because the territories were seized from Jordan).
  • Describing the legitimacy of annexations as "controversial" is absurd. The illegitimacy of territorial changes resulting from warfare is the cornerstone of the post-war international system.

Eleland 17:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The controversies are whether 'Israel is an occupying power according to the Fourth Geneva Convention', etc. How can you deny they're controversial? Why are there ongoing debates about them? GUSwim 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the applicability of 4th Geneva has not been the subject of an authoritative legal ruling, so it remains controversial (although just barely). But the occupied status of the territories is not in dispute, even, as I said, by the Israeli occupiers themselves. There was a territory. It was captured by force. Even the UNSC itself issued a resolution calling for Israeli withdrawl from Occupied Territories, thus implicitly ruling that territories were occupied.
Or is the "controversy" rooted in the fact that not every square inch of Palestinian territory has an Israeli boot on it 24 hours a day? Yes, there are small, disjointed cantons, comprising the least desirable and strategic areas in the country, in which Israel theoretically agrees not to operate (but in practice re-invades and pillages whenever they feel like it). If it is seriously argued that that Oslo's "Area A" is not under occupation, fine. Then the article should indicate that Israel maintans a occupation of most of the territories, including the capital, borders, lines of communication, water resources, and choice farmland, and an on-and-off occupation of the ghettos. Eleland 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
And yet highly respected experts in international law have disagreed with you. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to discuss this, but your very short comment makes it difficult. Can you identify some of these experts, and offer a summary of their positions? Eleland 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Eugene Rostow, Julius Stone. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Upon a long and involved process of tracking down your fragmentary leads, I've gleaned the following:
Elihu Lauterpacht, a notable international lawyer who is heavily involved in diaspora Zionist organizations, has argued thusly: The West Bank had no de jure sovereign pre-'67, and was under Jordanian occupation. It was invaded and occupied by Israel, but since no prior legitimate sovereign existed, Israel was not legally obligated to negotiate an end to its occupation, and was free to annex territories as it wished. Therefore, East Jerusalem is not occupied territory. He doesn't say so outright, but his argument would seem to indicate that territories on which Israel exerts practical control, but makes no formal annexation, remain occupied.
Eugene Rostow, a leading figure in international law, partially drafted UNSC-242. This resolution implied that all of the territories seized in 1967 were "occupied", and that Israel was obligated to cease its occupation of some portion of them in the context of an acceptable peace settlement. In 1991, prior to the peace negotiations, Rostow explicitly described the 1967-seized territories as "occupied". The eventual peace settlement, the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace, was negotiated "without prejudice" to the status of the West Bank, which was the subject of ongoing negotations (which are still, technically, ongoing, but don't hold your breath). So it might be possible to argue that "Area A", as in, a disjointed assortment of ghettos, is not under military occupation, but I didn't find any record of Rostow's opinion on that (obviously my search was not comprehensive, after all, I'm working to back up YOUR side of this, not mine).
Julius Stone, another noted lawyer / diaspora-Zionist partisan, pursues a similar argument to Lauterpacht: Israel occupied the West Bank, but is not obligated to return it to anyone, since the previous occupant had no legitimate claim. Like Lauterpacht, he doesn't say so outright, but it would seem that those territories not explicitly handed over (ie, Area A) remain "occupied".
So as it stands, I'm fixing to change the article to say something like
  • Israel occupied West Bank and Gaza in '67, all territories remained occupied to the 1990s
  • Israel ended its occupation of small selected Palestinian areas as the first phase of the Oslo Peace Process, later ended its occupation of Gaza entirely
  • some Palestinian types, and some int'l observers (non-notable fruitcakes like Jimmy Carter) argue that this 'de-occupation' is illusory since the territories Israel left were the least strategic areas, remained entirely surrounded by Israeli control, were cut off from each other and from the center of Palestinian society, East Jerusalem, from economic & agricultural resources, and from crucial water supplies, and since Israel can and does re-occupy these territories on a semi-regular basis
  • some Israeli extremists argue that no occupation exists, because God says so, but they're fucking crazy and even the Israeli military has stated its position that an occupation exists, before Israel's own supreme court
I will not use exactly these terms, of course, and I will do my best to remove nebulous "some Palestinians say" statements and replace with "Abu Somebody, deputy Something of the PNA, says". But I think this gives you the general tenor of my proposed changes. Sorry for the admittedly sarcastic tone of this piece, but I'm writing this all under the full expectation that my changes will be reverted to something worse than it was before, complete with random "cite needed" tags defacing anything not approved by the Eretz Yisrael crowd.
Eleland 06:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside your tone, where exactly would you like to make these changes? Look, I don't think the article is by any means NPOV as it currently stands, but you can't brush aside that one of two major parties to this conflict disagrees with the assessment of 'occupied' and can make a reasoned argument for it. The article is still titled 'occupied'. Where do you see bias or POV in stating that the 'current and future political status of the territories is very controversial'? And there's a whole section devoted to giving both sides on the issue of the term 'occupied' (one of the better sections in the article. GUSwim 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Its factual incorrect and a play on semantics. Controversial implies it is disputed and is an attempt to argue for the legitimacy of the occupation by the occupiers. More so it is not disputed by anyone other than Israel and hardly makes it controversial. The UN's official status of nearly 50% of Israel is "Occupied".99.238.165.215 (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in WB/Gaza section

Here's a list of statements that I think need cleanup due to POV:

1) "although during periods of unrest and terror attacks, Israel has on several occasions redeployed its troops..." (the context is the Israeli position);

2) "construct the Israeli West Bank barrier in response to, and as a preventative measure against, increasing terror attacks as part of the Al Aqsa Intifada" (again, official Israeli gov't position)

3) "In 2006, following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, from an army base in the south of Israel, and after over 1,300 Qassam rockets were fired into Israeli territories, the IDF has once again taken control over the northern area of Gaza. The operation has not resulted in Gilad Shalit's safe return, or in ceasing of Qassam launches, however the IDF reports many terrorists killed during the operation. During the operation, Several dozen or possibly even hundreds of civilians have been killed and Gaza's infrastructure has been badly damaged as a result of the operation directed at the terrorists." This whole para. just sounds wrong....

4) "In 2007, after some serious clashes between Palestinian factions in Gaza, Israel was attacked by rockets aimed at the Israeli city of Sederot and other border towns near the Gaza strip. These attacks have killed at least two people on the Israeli side and many more in the Gaza strip from retaliatory Israeli strikes." (labeling who started it)

I think it shouldn't be hard to clean these up to NPOV, but I figured let's hear reactions before I waste time trying to re-word them. --GUSwim 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Its inaccurate to state that the settlers in Gaza were "forcibly removed." The vast majority left voluntarily. The fact that the Israeli government elected to mobilize their armed forces for the operation against their own people, with greater readiness than in Lebanon War does not mean the settlers were or had to be removed forcibly.

The statement that Israel killed dozens or possibly hundreds of civilians is exactly the sort of lame bias without meaning that Israel has to contend with on a daily basis. Take it to the BBC keep it out of here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigleaguer (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few corrections

  1. The Palestine Partition Plan (181) included both Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the international area.
  2. The de facto annexation of East Jerusalem happened in June 1967 right after the war ended. The Knesset amended a law in a way that enabled the Israeli government to issue an order to apply the Israeli "laws, jurisdiction and administration" in any territory of the former British Mandate. The order delimits an area bigger than the Jordanian municipality of Jerusalem, and included several towns and villages around it.
  3. The Security Council resolution 478 did not refer merely to the official annexation of East Jerusalem, but to the whole proclamation of "united Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. One could argue that this resolution rejects the establishment of an Israeli capital in West Jerusalem too.
  4. Resolution 478 didn't call upon countries to cut their relations with Israel, only to move their diplomatic delegations to Israel outside Jerusalem.
  5. Neither the East Jerusalem nor the Golan Heights residents were granted Israeli citizenship. Israel redefined their status as "permanent residents" - one step before citizenship. Technically they are allowed to request an Israeli citizenship based on the fact that they already hold a permanent residence status, but neither they nor Israel wish to walk the this extra mile. DrorK (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "non-binding"

Perhaps this has been discussed before or elsewhere, but what makes the UN resolutions referred to here "non-binding"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)