Talk:Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions.
Peer review Palestine has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palestine article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Note: We need to keep this article written from a Neutral Point Of View. An ideal article on this topic should avoid statements which either Israelis or Palestinians would disagree with, unless it is clearly identified which side makes these statements.

Previous discussions may be found here:

To see older commentary that was here look in these archives.

Contents

[edit] were the jewish population higher in 1914 than i 1922 ??

it isnt even a country, why is there an article, someone show me where palestine is on a map please!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr spork32 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

according to the figures here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Demographics_in_the_late_Ottoman_and_British_Mandate_periods the jewish pop where 94.000 in 1914 and only 84.000 in 1922. I find that a bit hard to believe. According to Justin McCarthy there were about 59,000 Jews in Palestine in 1914, and 657.000 Muslim Arabs, and 81.000 Christian Arabs.--Ezzex (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This land has always been called 'Palestine'.

Max —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.156.227 (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


The name "Palestine" was not used by the Romans before Hadrian (135 BCE). However, this Wikipedia entry talks about a piece of land that has been called so many different things through time and refers to it as 'Palestine'. Palestine in Paleolithic and Neolithic periods (1 mya-5000 BCE), Bronze Age, Iron Age, Hebrew Bible, Persian rule, .. into Classical antiquity where eventually, in 135 BCE Hadrian calls it Palestine. Seems kind of like saying 'Palestine has always been there'. Not true.

The first introduction of this name was by the Romans in 135 AD. After crushing the second Jewish revolt and exiling the Jews from Judea, Jerusalem's name was changed to Aelia Capitolina and Judea ("land of the Jews") was changed to Palestine in order to spite the Jews and in commemoration of their historical arch rivals - the Philistines. The Philistines were part of the sea nations that reaked havoc around the mediteranean in 1200 BCE. They are totally unrelated to Arab Palestinians of modern day or any other Semetic people and are related to Cartage (see Pune wars) and Pheonicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.48.248 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Still, the name "Palestine" has been the official name for more than twice the time it was called "Judea". The name "Canaan" is still older and used as frequently as "Judea" in historical sources, so it clearly has seniority. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because Canaan and Judea are not the same thing. Judea does not encompass all of Palestine either. Out of all the terms though, the Land of Israel has been in use for the longest time (together with Canaan, but which was not used in modern times). Amoruso (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Both are historical rather than political terms. "Israel" was not used as a name of the area for 2,000 years, so it still has 1,000 years of catching up to do. As "Palestine" hasn't fallen out of use, it's doubtful if it ever will lose its status as the longest-used name. MeteorMaker (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Not used by whom? jews have never stopped calling this area "Eretz Yisrael". The fact that this article is called palestine instead of Eretz Yisrael or at least palestine\Eretz Yisrael, and discusses the non existing "ancient palestine", is an absurd example of political bias. Apollo 11 (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia and the area has never been called "Eretz Yisrael" in English, call it "an absurd example of political bias" if you like. Land of Israel has its own article anyway. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
English speakers have been calling that country Land of Israel, long before it was called palestine. Why use that term only in a biblical context (as that article does), but not when discussing the geographical region it was used to describe? Apollo 11 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
First, English didn't even exist as a language 2,000 years ago, so the term "Palestine" is clearly more ancient. Second, neither "Land of Israel" nor "Eretz Yisrael" have ever been the official name of the place in English. Third: It does mention both toponyms as alternative terms many Jews and Zionists use, so it's not true that the article restricts the use to the Biblical context. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added back Mark Twain info

I added back info on Twain's account and Christoson's reaction to it. These were apparently deleted inadvertently in a revert war back in November. If we're going to keep Twain's account, we need to put it in context. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State recognition

I note that Costa Rica has recognized diplomatically a Palestinian state.[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958208.html The Associated Press,'Israeli diplomat postpones meeting after Costa Rica recognizes Palestinian state,' Haaretz 26/02/2008 ]

Where does one put this?Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose somewhere in Proposals for a Palestinian state. okedem (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The name Palestine

When the Romans conquered Judea and dispersed the Jews, they called the land "palestine" after the philistines and in order to distance it from the Jews.99.237.190.52 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Nanette

And when the Hebrews conquered Canaan and killed the Canaanites, they called the land "Judea" for exactly the same reason. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, they did none of this thing. You show your lack of knowledge of history. Judea was created much later and it's only a small part of Canaan. We only know of Canannites from the bible where according to legend, the Israelites conquered the land of Caanan which was their "promised land from God". From archaeological evidence, hundreds of years later, we know that there a Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judah in what Jews call the Land of Israel. Indeed, the Romans destroyed the Kingdom of Judea (the Kingdom of Israel being destroyed earlier), and renamed the land of Judea to Palestina. This is the origin for the term of Palestine which was used in the world to describe the "Jewish National Home" during the 1800 and 1900's.
Anyway, I restored the previous lead. You'd note that Eretz Yisrael is the official translation of "Palestine", and during the British mandate of Palestine, the Hebrew words were Palestine (EY), where EY stood for Eretz Yisrael. Palestine = Eretz Yisrael until basically 1948 or 1967 by Jews as well. Amoruso (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Translation, hardly, and definitely not etymologically related to the term "Palestine", which is the claim I corrected in the lead. By your own logic (see above), if two place names refer to an area that isn't exactly the same, they are not alternative toponyms. Re the Canaanites, you are wrong when you say we only know them from the Bible. I don't quite understand your objection either, are you saying the Hebrews did not invade Canaan and begun calling the land "Judea"? MeteorMaker (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed they did not. The Tribe of Judah, which you probably refer to, had allocated only 1/12 (not identical ) part of Canaan. We have evidence of people before the Israelites of course, but there is no indication that any NATION ever existed in the Land of Israel except for the Jews, and indeed there isn't. As for Eretz Yisrael, it's not etymological but it's how Jews refered to as Palestine, both as Palestina and Eretz Yisrael. I don't understand your objection to remove this information from the article. Eretz Yisrael - (Hebrew) Land of Israel; (modern) Jewish homeland to be established in the general area of Palestine. In Ottoman Turkish times, Eretz Yisrael and Eretz Hakodesh (the Holy Land) were used to designate the area surrounding Jerusalem and including areas from the Litani river in the north to modern Eilat. Under the British mandate, Eretz Yisrael came to designate the area of the Mandate, which was called in Hebrew - Palestina A"Y - Palestine - Eretz Yisrael. [1] See also Britannica [2] which says: "... Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisrael)..." "Amoruso (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see this, for the territories of the tribes. okedem (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Amoruso, please realize that there is no difference between the Roman renaming of the area to Palestine and the renaming by the 12 Hebrew tribes (see Okedem's link above) to the various names they began using instead of Canaan, particularly "Judea" and "Israel".
"Please realize"? You don't even know what's Judea and what's Israel. Okedem post meant to educate you on the subject matter. What does this have to do with your blanking of the translation of Palestine in Hebrew like demonstrated to you. Amoruso (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, Judea and Israel were the kingdoms that came much, much later. (Using the bible as a source) At first the land was called Canaan, and then the Hebrews (or Israelites) returned from Egypt and conquered it from the Canaanites, which were seven or ten peoples. I'm not sure if we can call each one of them "a nation", or if they all belonged to one, Canaanite, nation, but regardless - there was at least one "nation" there. Before and while conquering the land, it was called "Land of the sons of Israel", which later changed into "Land of Israel". When conquering the land, it was divided into 12 territories, for the tribes (see the map I linked). After a few hundred years, at about 1050BC, they united into the United Monarchy (aka Kingdom of Israel), under Saul, David and Solomon. After Solomon's death, at 926BC, the kingdom split in two - the 10 northern tribes formed the Kingdom of Israel (yea, same name...), the two southern formed the Kingdom of Judah. From this point onwards, there's good archeological evidence for the events.
The point of this timeline is - the names Judah and Israel came long after the conquest of the land. Another point is - there were some nations in Canaan before, and during the Israelite kingdoms, like the Philistines - which were long gone by the time the Romans used their name to change Judea province's name to Syria-Palestina (they merged it with the province of Syria), just to anger the Jews. okedem (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record there is no indication that any NATION ever existed in the Land of Israel except for the Jews, and indeed there isn't. This is nonsense, and contradicts the Bible, contemporary Egyptian and Assyrian records, and archeology, apart from playing on the ambiguity of the word 'nation'. It is so profoundly ideological, that one is advised not to even refute the statement. If you come to the text with these absurd prejudices, then you leave other editors little option than that of reverting. Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend before you rebegin to hammer away at this point that you read the whole of the preceding archive and esp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestine/Archive_8#Eretz_Israel Sect 6,7,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestine/Archive_8#Eretz_Yisrael Sect.58 Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem angry, and I don't know why. Please relax. Do not assume bad faith and do not attack me or other users. It's a historical fact that there wasn't any nation in Palestine (before and after the Romans named it as such) except for the Kingdoms of Israel. Some say that the Kingdom of Jerusalem of the Crusaders was also a nation (but without the population). By nation it means countries as such with people defining this region as their nation, not parts of very large empires. I'm sorry if you find the truth to be an absurd prejudice. Amoruso (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Amoruso, since you seem to have great knowledge about what constitutes a nation, would you say, for instance, David's kingdom was one?
Also, I would like to hear a clear yes or no reply to this question: In your opinion, did the invading Hebrew tribes begin to use a new name for Canaan or didn't they? MeteorMaker (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Amoruso, please read what I wrote above. okedem (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not want to go through ideologically infused debates. No. I am not at all angry. I am firm. Please do not edit by coming back to a page with a large number of standard propositions that ignore the best historical literature, and expect your fellow editors to waste months recasting exhausted arguments. Please do not write generalizations that reflect a personal synthetic interpretation of complex events. I have not attacked you. I have pointed out that you justify your position by making a remark that is historically nonsensical. I.e. don't play word games with me, saying there was no such nation (while allowing there was a defined region called Palestine existing according to historical accounts from the 11th century onwards, and registered in Greek sources from the 5th century BCE onwards etc.etc). Don't reintroduce the dead argument that Palestine was created by Romans after 135. Don't tell me no nations (ethic units/political units) existed in the region except the Jewish people or those political entities the northern and southern kingdoms, entities with a comparatively short historical life as autonomous units. Don't give me the Bible legends (which however document that Hebron was in Hittite hands, the whole of the coast in Philistine hands, that Amalekites, Kenites, Idumaeans, Canaanites, Egyptians, Samaritans, Jebusites, Perizzites, Calebites, Moabites, Midianites, Hurrians etc.etc thrived in the area. This is an encyclopedia to be written so that all peoples of the world may read it. It is not an exposition of one Jewish narrative. It has to be written, contextually, so that neither a Jewish person nor a Palestinian, Arab or English Christian would take no exception to it. The 'Jewish people' are among other things descendants of Ivrim and all of these variegated peoples, mostly semitic, and were not an exclusive ethnic unit pre-existing history, and intact as such throughout history, having established the only 'legitimate' national realities in that area. This is extremely boring. Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
okedem Thanks for your comment. I hardly think we need to recast several years of debate over all issues when a simple edit in which the Hebrew word 'Palestine' glossing the word 'Palestine', is challenged by saying we must add 'Eretz Israel'. This has been extensively debated, and perhaps no side is convinced of the other. I see no point in stirring old controversies over one word. People who will stay with the article will eventually iron this out. I will reply today to your remarks, however. At the moment, my wife is complaining I am neglecting our gardens. That explains the vigour of my reply to Amoruso, whose simplifications will only generate a huge and futile restaging of things no one can agree on. We should improve the article, and leave these things aside until we have a comprehensive NPOV overall text. I hope you can at least see my point on this last matter. regards Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
okedem I might engage in a very long point by point argument on some things you wrote, but, friend, we are dealing with the word in the opening section. I am absolutely convinced that what Amoruso argues for is taken by a very large number of people in the Israeli community as self-evident, and therefore that opposition to it is irrational. So, let me put it this way. As a child I was raised always to speak of 'the Holy Land'. No one spoke of 'Palestine'. If I recur to my religious upbringing, absolutely, 'the Holy Land' is the deepest linguistic framework through which I tend to think of the place. In the Christian world, with its millenial and intense attachments to that land (often something ignored here), one spoke in that way, just as Jews spoke of 'Eretz Yisroel'. If one begins to gloss the Hebrew phonetic transcription of this Greek toponym with another Hebrew word, 'eretz yisrael', then a Christian (I am no longer one) could well say, 'I want Palaistina, the word, glossed with 'Holy Land'. Turks or pan-Arabists could ask for their native glosses, etc.etc. You open thereby a can of worms, and endless ethnic challenges. The point Amoruso makes is already made in the text, i.e., that there is an association of long standing between Eretz Yisrael and Palestine. It is made in a section, if I recall, that then mentions the Christian term 'Holy Land'. I hope this clarifies things. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to set straight some points, mainly when the names Judah and Israel (Israel as opposed to Land of Israel) first appeared in wide use regarding this area; and the point about nations in the area. I actually don't think we should have the name "Eretz Israel" in the brackets in the lead, as it is not a transliteration, but an alternate name for a roughly overlapping territory.
By the way, I think some change needs to be made to the last sentence of the lead: "Today, Palestine can also be used to refer to the State of Palestine, an entity recognized by over 100 countries in the world, whose boundaries have yet to be determined."
I think this is a confusing sentence. If I didn't know any better, what I'd understand from this is that there is such a state, but the borders haven't been finalized yet (like some of Israel's borders haven't been finalized). This is, as we know, untrue. The entity named "State of Palestine" does not comply with the definition of "State" - from our article, "A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area". The "State of Palestine" is a political association, but it has no effective sovereignty, or very limited sovereignty (over Gaza and few cities - that keeps changing). This should be somehow clarified. Maybe something like the second paragraph of Proposals for a Palestinian state (State of Palestine redirects there).
Your thoughts? okedem (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This involves a complex legal question. The definition of a state in Wiki is not necessarily authoritative. States can be defined in international law in a way, certainly, that would cast doubt on the notion that a Palestinian state exists. In one sense it doesn't, then, the one we are all familiar with. Hence your point is just. But the complication, as far as I understand it, arises when a state recognizes another area, not formally designated as a state, in terms of statehood. When Costa Rica did recognize Palestine as a state, it was exercising its own legal prerogative, and, in doing so, invests the Palestinian authorities with the diplomatic and technical rights accorded to other states and their representatives. The PLO/PA have de facto diplomatic and consular offices which are accorded the status given to diplomats from traditional, formally constituted states, virtually everywhere. They issue passports, one of the defining functions of a state, that are accepted by other states. Since states result not only from formal definitions, but also from recognition by other states, there seems to be some ambiguity of the kind that warrants the statement made in the text. I'd feel more comfortable with sets of references to the question. I.e. whether what is legally defined as an 'Occupied Territory' from which the Occupier under international law is required to withdraw eventually, can assume functions of a state if the Occupying Power proves reluctant, on whatever grounds, legitimate or otherwise, to withdraw? etc. The short version of my comment is 'I dunno', so I'll await further enlightenment. That Palestine is thus recognized widely seems sourced though, doesn't it?.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've heard about such wide recognition fron numerous sources, so I can only suppose it's correct. But from what I've always known, the one defining characteristic of a state (of sovereignty, if you wish) is a monopoly over the use of force. It's a complex legal situation, for sure; but think about what you'd think, had you read the sentence, not knowing the reality of it. I'd get a very wrong notion, I think, of an actual state, like all those throughout the world, and not the ambiguous semi-autonomous half-nonexistent complex legal entity that it really is. okedem (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
One old definition is that a state exists when a central power assumes the prerogative of using force, for which it alone is armed, in exchange for guaranteeing order and measures of the rule of law to the disarmed population it controls. The right to coerce where necessary in exchange for the civil right to peace. In so far as in certain areas self-rule is allowed, and Israel is indeed empowering the PA with weaponry to police those areas negotiated for exclusive PA jurisdiction, the conditions of this kind of statehood do pertain to certain, not all parts, since Israel, the Occupying Power, recognizes the PA, representative of the Occupied People, as an authority with juridical, civil and policing authority. This is one of the fundamentals of a definition of a state, but doesn't apply to all the areas that are Occupied. As you say it is not clear-cut. It is also, geostrategically, mind you, not, in one reading, in Israel's interests to create or allow conditions of statehood, for in any such recognition, Israel loses far more de facto assets than it secures. That is one reason why, given the definition by the IJC that it is an occupied territory, and not under law, Israeli territory, but a territory from which Israel must eventually withdraw (unless Palestinians consent to its alienation), many nations accept Palestinian statehood (as described above) as a partial but de facto reality (in some strong versions of rabbinical thought, Israel is recognized de facto as a state, but not de jure, unless my Altzheimer's is getting the better of me). I personally would prefer to see something like this:-

Today, Palestine is often used to refer to a state, though it has yet to secure full formal statehood, and does yet meet the usual criteria governing the classic definition of a state. Notwithstanding the technical issue, a Palestinian state entity, whose precise boundaries are not yet agreed upon, has gained recognition as a diplomatic reality from over 100 countries in the world'.

.
That's only an off-the-cuff suggestion. The point you make is salient, and I hope other editors chip in on this one, to clarify any possible ambiguities.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cloak & Dagger

The policy of conspiracy of 'Cloak & Dagger' adopted after Balfour to turn the declaration into a fact , is a fact or fiction? If it is a fact, was it replaced by or added to the "with us or not" policy adopted since September 2001? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.37.112 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian Nakba Omitted from Article?

Good morning, Administrators and Fellow Locked-out Ones.


— The event known to most of the world as "the catastrophe" (to Arabs: "Nakba") should be mentioned at least as early as the '47 partition, including the 1948 Deir Yassin Massacre.

— Also, there is no mention of Zionist-forced expulsion dating back to the early twentieth century. Instead, pseudo-scholars like Howard Sachar and Justin McCarthy are used almost exclusively throughout—including a section on "Arab Immigration to Palestine"(???); while merely a trace of contradictory Palestinian history is included within practically the entire article. This article is not neutral by any stretch: it is state-worship, namely, for the state of Israel.

This is not to say that Sachar, McCarthy, et al., should be outright deleted; but, it would be proper to include references to the mainstream scholars whose analyses differ from theirs. And how many times are pro-Israeli sources cited, like JewishVirtualLibrary and such? This is not scholarship; it is calculated agitprop.

"Historians" like Sachar and McCarthy are known to diminish Palestinian existence and claims to their land, and regularly apologize for Israel and Turkey—especially in relating certain events that are seen as ethnic cleansings by most of the world (e.g., Armenian Genocide, Palestinian Nakba, Deir Yassin, the 1967–present Israeli occupation). Even Israeli historians whose works are known to read as state-apologetics will say the Palestinian catastrophe was not mostly a result of Jordanian and Egyptian authorities telling Palestinian Arabs to flee their homes. A majority of respected historians the world over nominally agree that Zionist terror gangs ("terrorist organizations") drove most Palestinians off their land, beginning many years—even decades—before Deir Yassin and other Nakba-era atrocities. In all, a couple-hundred-thousand (at least) villagers were forced out through Zionist terror throughout the first half of the 20th century.

These are events that even Turkish and Israeli officials have admitted to carrying out: Menachim Begin, for example, did not deny massacres like Deir Yassin, and even detailed the larger strategy of conquest of the West Bank and Gaza as it was carried out by him and other Zionist militants who later became Israeli officials; yet, there is no mention of the Nakba or Deir Yassin in the current article. Shame. Even the trace mentioning of Zionist terror gangs is within the context of attempting to exonerate Israel of wrongdoing.

Wikipedia used to reflect a balance of mainstream, independent, and official accounts in its articles covering Levantine conflicts and histories. What happened?

It should be brought back; otherwise, the whole shabang—the article, the guidelines for editing it, and the page for discussing both—will simply appear as tools for marginalizing accounts that differ from state-approved agitprop.

Respectfully, Blogger4Liberty (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I stopped reading after "Zionist-forced expulsion dating back to the early twentieth century". With false claims like that... okedem (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of the Philistines is silly and irrelevant since Palestinians and Philistines have no historical relationship with each other. The article was extremely wordy and had to be revised-- three sentences were used when a word could have sufficed. It was also argumentative, eg. calling Israel Palestine. It is not. It was Palestine, from 1918-1948 but then it became Israel. Wishing does not make it otherwise. Also, the origin of the term Palestine was swept under the rug. For example, while authors went on and on about the Philistines (irrelevant) there was not mention that Palestine came to be not by Arabs but by Roman conquerors in 70 CE and that was corrected. My computer lacks tildes so I will sign it bigleaguer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigleaguer (talk • contribs) 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza and West Bank cannot be called "occupied territories," they can be called "disputed territories" or "palestinian territories"

The West Bank is occupied. The Gaza strip is not occupied physically or legally by Israel. Thus, in line 4, when the WB & Gaza are collectively referred to (in the piped text for the link to Occupied Palestine), they cannot be called "occupied territories".

They can be called "disputed territories" (their legal staus, under current international law), "palestinian territories" (I don't like this because it can be confusing, but it enjoys widespread usage and so is acceptable), or "West Bank and Gaza Strip" (written out and not referred to as a collective group). Smaug 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

They are "occupied territories" --Ezzex (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The term "disputed territories" is used by the Israelis only. It's something they just made up, and it has no standing in international law, contrary to your assertion. The 2004 ICJ opinion found 14-0 that the West Bank and Gaza were under occupation, in line with the previous academic, legal, and diplomatic consensus that this was so. The 2005 re-deployment of Israeli forces from Gaza's interior to its borders did not change this occupied status, in the view of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, the Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, and all other significant commentators I'm aware of, because Israel retained effective control over life in the Gaza strip. <eleland/talkedits> 03:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not dispute that in 2004 Gaza was occupied. The Red Cross, HRW, and Harvard don't have more legal authority than Israel. If you don't want to say "disputed territories" fine. That is a different argument. You cannot call them occupied just because Israel controls some of the borders. Egypt also controls a crossing. Supplying partial electricity and monitoring some borders does not qualify as occupation. Smaug 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
What about constant military incursions? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Going in and out is very different from making a maintained presence. The military incursions have been their own events, not a continuous occupation, and none were executed with an attempt at establishing any sort of military presence. Smaug 20:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the same can be said about, say, Fallujah. You could make the argument that it was not technically occupied after June 2003 when the US Army ended its military presence inside the city and pulled back to bases outside the city limit. I'm not aware of any such claims though, or even sure of what kind of point such a claim would try to make. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that my argument is somehow less valid because the same argument has not been made in a similar situation (though I do not accept that the one you brought up is similar enough in the first place)? Tell me this; what is wrong with calling them "disputed territories?" Smaug 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You should pose that question to world media outside Israel. While you can certainly find an occasional instance of the unilaterally-declared Israeli term "disputed territories", the term "occupied territories" is more than 300 times as common even on a traditionally Israel-friendly network like FoxNews. [3][4]. The White House, to make another valid example, never uses the term. [5]
My Fallujah parallel was just to put things in perspective. If it were a general rule that an occupied city or similar-sized area ceases to be under military occupation as soon as the occupying force withdraws to nearby bases just outside the city limits but continues to carry out operations at will, one would think there would have been plenty of examples in history. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
But the US occupies Iraq the country even if it doesn't occupy cities inside it. Gaza is not a city. Gaza is a territory from which Israel has fully withdrawn. As for the history example, I'm sure there are comparable things in history, but I can't just pull them out of thin air. I'm not saying people don't still call them occupied, I'm saying Gaza is not occupied and thus should not be called such by us. If you think it is occupied, tell me why? Is the fact that some continue to refer to it as occupied enough justificaiton in your mind? Smaug 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If it were just "some", no probably not. However, as the examples I've given above indicate, "occupied territories" seems to enjoy almost universal acceptance outside Israel, while "disputed territories" is used by an extreme minority in media and not at all by the US government and other official bodies. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Is "occupied territories" used by official bodies, actually? I know lots of people still call them "occupied territories," but it doesn't make it correct. They've been occupied for years, you don't have to be anti-Israel to be ignorant of the legal reasons why Gaza isn't occupied now. You can say people refer to them as "occupied," but you can't say they are occupied. Smaug 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the White House has always used the term "the occupied territories" [6] and never "the disputed territories"[7], and so have most .gov sites, though the plural was admittedly more common before the disbanding of the Gaza settlements. It's possible to make a case both for and against the existence of an ongoing occupation, but I'm inclined to think a mere redeployment of the occupation forces a couple of kilometers to the east and north changes very little. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
"a mere redeployment of the occupation forces a couple of kilometers to the east and north changes very little". Gaza is very small and borders Israel. I'm not sure what you expect Israel to do to un-occupy Gaza. Smaug 21:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Lifting the economic blockade and removing the sniper towers that surround Gaza are just two things that come to mind. More below. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So, having guns pointed at a place is now cause for calling it occupied? As for the economic blockade, 1) what you call an "economic blockade" (I assume you refer to the crossing closures) has been lifted and re-applied many times, it is not some continuous policy. 2) a blockade of any kind is not occupation. Smaug 16:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You didn't ask me for a definition of military occupation, you asked specifically what I think Israel could do to un-occupy Gaza, and removing the sniper towers and the blockade would be pretty high on the list if Israel in fact had that ambition. For the actual pro/con-occupation argument, see below. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't ask for the definition, I asked for your definition of occupation, which seemed to be, and seems now to be, more broad than the formal definition. I guess we'll have to disagree about whether pointing guns at someone qualifies as occupying them. Smaug 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You didn't ask for my definition of occupation either, you asked what Israel could do to un-occupy Gaza, and I gave you two examples. If it's OK with you, I suggest we continue this discussion below, in the active part of the section. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(sure, see below)
I would also like to add, as a side note to Eleland's eariler comments, that "disputed" and "occupied" are not mutually exclusive, and ruling that something is "occupied" does not mean it is not "disputed" as well. Smaug 21:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't that render your initial objection moot? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how. I object to calling Gaza occupied. Saying that it is incorrect to call Gaza "disputed" does not address my objection. In other words, I am not saying to say "disputed" instead of "occupied" because "disputed" is more correct, but rather because "disputed" has always been valid and remains so while "occupied" used to be valid but is no longer so. Smaug 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If anything, by disbanding the illegal settlements in Gaza, Israel has acknowledged that GC4:49 applies. Most definitions of military occupation boil down to "the control of a country by military forces of a foreign power". There is no requirement that the military forces are based inside the area.
Well, Israel saw itself as removing legal settlements and civilians IN ADDTION to a withdrawal of military occupation. 1) I'm pretty sure Israel never put itself above the Geneva Conventions and has always seen itself as acting within their bounds. 2) I don't see how removing settlements is "acknowledging they are illegal." 3) Gaza was never occupied by virtue of the legal definition, which you have correctly quoted. Before 1948 Gaza was not a country under current international law. To this day it is not part of any country, and so the fact that it was militarily controlled does not make it occupied by that definition. (If you recognize Egypt as having annexed Gaza in 1948 then perhaps you could make that argument, but even then I do not know if it would hold, since Egypt and Israel have signed a peace treaty while Egypt did not control or make claims for Gaza.) This didn't matter before because Israel physically militarily occupied Gaza. The definition of occupation in the absense of physical presence didn't matter because Israel had a physical presence; it was occupying Gaza. Now, Isreal is not physically occupying Gaza. Since Gaza is not part of any country, it is also not legally occupying Gaza. Smaug 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
All that legal hairsplitting has one simple function: to defuse criticism against the Israeli occupation. Israel has always tried to claim the territories aren't occupied so they would not appear to violate GC4:49 (which prohibits building settlements on occupied land). All the necessary occupation criteria (complete military and economic control by a foreign power) have existed since at least 1967 and still do, and dismantling a few settlements has only removed one reason for Israel to try to uphold the non-occupation myth. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I could aruge that continuing to call Gaza occupied is an attempt to generate criticism against the Israeli occupation. Also, since Egypt controlled a crossing, there has not been complete economic control of Gaza. Israel also does not have troops on the Egypt-Gaza border. Egypt sometimes lets more people in or out or cracks down less on weapons smuggling than Israel would like. So don't tell me Israel has anything like "complete military control" when all it controls is the airspace and some of the borders. If Israel had military control, like it does in the WB, do you really think Hamas would have taken power? Do you think the palestinians would have even been able to have a "civil war" if Israel militarily controlled Gaza? Israel did not dismantle a "few settlements." Israel dismantled ALL Gaza settlements, uprooting its own people in an effort to disconnect from Gaza. It's nothing like the occupation Israel had before. Smaug 21:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't see anything wrong in criticising the occupation. Per the Paris Protocol, Israel controls every aspect of the economy in Gaza, as well as the airspace and maritime access. The area is closed to foreigners and Gazans are not allowed to travel outside Gaza without Israeli permission. They are not allowed to export anything, nor to import commodities like fuel or even transport water from the West Bank. They are not even allowed to have their own currency or self-defense forces. The IDF is based just outside the border and operates with impunity. The only (IMO, irrelevant) occupation criterium that is not fulfilled is that of nationhood - which hasn't been realized simply because Israel refuses to allow it. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't see anything wrong in defending an occupation. Perhaps people are more interested in accuracy if it supports a position they hold, and perhaps people are less likely to agree that something has changed if it doesn't support their position, but it doesn't make the change any less accurate. Re Paris Protocal: 1) It's from 1994 and it's a document of intentions, it shouldn't be assumed that things are in 2008 as they were intended to be from that, because they are not. 2) controlling airspace - does this count as an occupation? 3) maritime access - blockade, maybe, not occupation 4) Palestinians can import and export under the document you provided me with, and I recall them having done so in recent years. For temporary periods of time, the crossings are closed, but they are always re-opened. Of course they can import fuel. How could Israel cut-off fuel if it wasn't exporting fuel to the Palestinains in the first place? 5) The fact that nationhood hasn't been realized "simply" because Israel refuses to allow it doesn't change the fact that they do not have it. 6) is not being allowed to have "self-defense forces" a criteria for occupation? 7) I'm pretty sure they are allowed to have their own currency, they just don't. 8) The IDF is based just outside the border because Israel is just outside the border. You can't call military incursions occupation. Smaug 16:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Accuracy may have to take a back seat if one is explicitly "defending the occupation". As I've shown, the necessary criteria for an occupation are all there. We agree that tthe West Bank is occupied and there is no significant difference between Gaza and the West Bank except Gaza doesn't have Israeli settlements any more. Re the Paris Protocol, which to my knowledge has never been revoked, it stipulates that Israel control all imports to Gaza and the West Bank. Commodities like fuel, as you note, may only be imported through Israel, an artificial arrangement that has already been misused despite the humanitarian consequences. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You are critical of the occupation, I assume, and I am supportive of the occupation (of the WB and not Gaza, where one is not), I admit. My point is that accuracy doesn't have to take a back seat by virtue of either of us having an opinion. Also, defending or criticizing the occupation in general is a different argument than arguing whether an occupation exists in Gaza.
There is a significant difference. There are no Israeli controlled areas of any kind. There are no settlements, there are no soldiers, there are no Jews. Gazans can go anywhere they like. No roadblocks. No checkpoints. Nothing besides border controls. Also, I'm pretty sure that sometime since the Paris Protocol Israel has allowed Egypt to control one of the crossings, and give fuel and electricity to the Palestinians if they like. Besides which I do not consider a blockade a criteria for occupation, and I don't think international law does either. If it fits your personal definition, ok. You'll have to give me some reason why, for the purposes of this article (I'm not sure if we're discussing occupation in terms of what should go in the article or occupation in terms of a personal discussion right now, so ignore this sentence if the latter) we should go with your personal definition and not the definition by international law. As an additional note, I don't think importing fuel is a humanitarian issue, unless it endangers hospitals, but Israel allows in enough fuel/electricity for that, always. Smaug
You said "I could argue that continuing to call Gaza occupied is an attempt to generate criticism against the Israeli occupation", I objected that Israel's occupation cannot be above criticism. We agree that that is another discussion and that military occupation is a proper designation for the state of affairs in the West Bank. You list a number of claimed differences between the WB and Gaza, that in your opinion make sufficient difference to call Gaza non-occupied. Let's take a look at the facts:
* "There are no Israeli controlled areas of any kind". As I have shown, Israel controls the entire area, physically (airspace, maritime access, border crossings), economically (through having a monopoly on trade and monetary transactions and through restricting import and export) and militarily. To my knowledge, Gaza is not exempt from the restrictions imposed on the West Bank anyway, so no cigar there.
* "There are no settlements, there are no soldiers, there are no Jews." Neither settlements nor Jews are part of the definition of military occupation. Soldiers are, and Israel has numerous military bases surrounding Gaza, and makes frequent incursions. In the last year, more than ten times as many Gazans were killed by the IDF as West Bankers [8][9].
* "Gazans can go anywhere they like. No roadblocks. No checkpoints. Nothing besides border controls." Gazans cannot leave Gaza without permission from Israel. There may not be any roadblocks inside Gaza's huge 40*5 kilometers area, but the existence of roadblocks is not a requirement, and you can probably find similar-size areas in the WB without roadblocks that you probably agree still count as occupied.
* "Egypt [is allowed to] control one of the crossings, and give fuel and electricity to the Palestinians if they like." Israel has a de facto veto on opening the Rafah crossing, which has been closed since June 2007. Neither people nor goods are allowed in or out.
That makes three factual wrongs and one irrelevant of four possible. Arguably the fourth may change if Egypt and the EU dare to challenge Israel and open the Rafah crossing despite Israel's wishes, but that is currently not the case. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(response to previous semithread) Obviously I didn't ask what Israel "could" do, since that would imply I considered it occupied. What I said was, "I'm not sure what you expect Israel to do to un-occupy Gaza." Meaning: at what point would you consider Israel to not occupy Gaza? I assumed that you have a definition of occupation that differed from mine, and that items you brought up to explain your position of considering Gaza occupied could be considered as part of your definition. If they aren't part of your definition in the first place, I fail to see the relevance. Smaug 01:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
* Israel may control the entire territory of Gaza by means of partial border control, etc., but within Gaza, the Gazans are free to do what they want. In the West Bank there are checkpoints and controls and a military presence inside it. (I don't count incursions as a presence, since that is not what are.)
* Again, bases surrounding a territory and incursions do not qualify as occupation. If palestinian suicide bombers frequently invaded Israel, would you call that an occupation?
* The fact that Gazans cannot leave without permission is not part of the criteria for occupation. The size of Gaza and the fact that the WB may or may not have Gaza-sized areas of free mobility is irrelavent. While Gaza's small size makes a blockade very severe, it does not mean it gets upgraded to the status of "occupation."
* Even if you ignore Egypt not always agreeing Israel's requests, it is just another border control.
The first case is you perhaps misunderstanding what I was getting at, the second case is true (there are no soldiers in Gaza - stating that Israel's army still stands on the border doesn't change this fact), the third case is also perahps misunderstanding (when I said Gazans can go anywhere, I meant anywhere in Gaza), and the fourth we'll disagree on and is not the main point in any case. Also, you look at whether Gaza is occupied by how it compares to another occupied territory, but that is not the way to do it at all; one should really start by taking the territory and seeing if it fills the criteria for a military occupation. It doesn't matter, really, how similar or different it is to occupations that exist in other territories. Smaug 01:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
In your suicide bomber example, yes, if a foreign power had complete freedom to strike any target (not just random targets) in a region with impunity, and regularly used that capability, I guess it would fulfill one of the requirements of a military occupation, despite the unconventional type of delivery vehicle. Occupation forces more typically use conventional weapons though, and Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships are a pretty common sight in Gaza. I doubt they were based inside the territory before 2005 either. Your hypothetical suicide bomber occupiers would of course also have the power to arrest large parts of the local government, and enforce a permanent ban on trade or even contact with the outside world.
Again: we agree that the West Bank is under military occupation. Most parts of the West Bank are further away from military bases than most places in Gaza. The IDF operates with impunity in both territories, and the restrictions on economy and freedom of movement are the same. The only difference is that Gaza doesn't have settlements any more, and thus no need for locally based army units. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
A few points: First, in WW2, Britain was bombing Germany constantly (and the other way around) - was one of them occupying the other? A state of war, which may include hostile actions, is not an occupation, and is distinct from it. One may have an occupation with no violent actions, and one may have violent actions without an occupation.
Second, before the Disengagement of 2005 some IDF forces definitely were based within the strip, in several bases and positions (strongholds), close to Gush Katif, the border with Egypt, the northern settlements, etc. Today IDF had many bases in the West Bank. The closeness of military forces has nothing to do with an occupation. A country can have its entire army stationed at the border with another (e.g. North and South Korea) - that's not an occupation.
Third, restriction of movement outside the territory does not constitute an occupation. Before the peace agreements, Israelis could not traverse any land border, because it was surrounded by hostile countries - but that's not an occupation. A country can be surrounded by hostile countries - that doesn't mean its occupied. okedem (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't consider each aspect of an occupation in isolation. If all of your examples applied to one single area, like the case is in Gaza, that area clearly fulfills the requirements for the term military occupation, particularly if the area is also under complete economic control by the foreign power. Would you agree with Smaug and me that the West Bank is under occupation? MeteorMaker (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course I can, and do, consider each aspect independently, to see if the situation warrants the designation "occupation". It doesn't. The "military on the border" point is especially irrelevant. A country can have its military anywhere it wants to within its borders, and that cannot, in any way, be considered an occupation. That's a completely absurd notion. Of course the army is guarding the country's borders. By that logic, most countries in the world are occupying their neighbors, and vice versa. Same goes for closed borders - those are Israel's borders, and it can choose to do whatever it want to with them. Gaza has a border with Egypt.
What we have is a state of war with a neighboring territory. We don't have continuous military presence, we don't have any civilian presence, we don't have any rule of Israel over the strip, which is under the autonomous (and hostile) rule of Hamas. This is an independent territory, in a state of war with Israel. Israel is still kind enough to the civilian populace to give them a supply fuel, electricity, and food, when they're not trying to destroy the very border crossing that allow these transfers ([10], [11]). okedem (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The West Bank is a disputed territory (de jure, lacking any sovereign claiming the land), under a state of military occupation. Thus, it may be called "occupied". This was Gaza's situation before 2005. okedem (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(partial outdent)
(partial outdent) okedem makes all the points I would have made. I wouldn't call Gaza an "independent" territory, but besides that I agree with all that he wrote. Smaug 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Okedem supports his claim that Gaza is not under a state of military occupation with nothing more than the bald statement that it is not under a state of military occupation, which strikes me as somewhat circular. The IDF has always had free unobstructed access to the whole area, unlike border forces in any other country, which makes his "military on the border" parallel irrelevant. And as I've pointed out before, a civilian presence has never been a part of the definition of military occupation. Israels "kindness" manifests itself as complete containment of Gaza, and destruction of all facilities for communication with the outside world (such as the Yasser Arafat International Airport), and expressly forbids even transferring water from other parts of the Palestinian territories. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
MM, perhaps we can discuss this in another way - why don't you list the criteria for occupation (specifically as opposed to a simple state of war), as you see them (or, preferably, as some RS sees them), and we'll see how they apply to Gaza.
The "military at the border" thing wasn't brought up by me; I'm just refuting it as any indication of occupation. The military sometimes enters Gaza, though definitely not freely (enemy forces, such as Hamas, fight it). This is no different from any other state of war between two states. The IDF enters Gaza, or attacks from the air. Hamas et al occasionally invade on the ground, and constantly fire artillery at Israel.
Israel transfers water, power, fuel, food and medicine to Gaza. But that's an aside. Gaza has a border with Egypt, with no Israeli control. okedem (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Rather than the contrary, I interpret the existence of a resistance movement as another good indication that we are dealing with a bona fide military occupation here, and the same goes for Israel's fixation on keeping Gaza hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world (including the crossing to Egypt) and insistence that water, power, fuel, food and medicine must be transferred through Israel (and on misusing that arrangement to further their own political goals). The dictionaries typically defines the word "occupation" as "invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces"[12]. I have not been able to find one definition where local basing of the foreign armed forces is listed as a requirement. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As Hamas constantly tries to smuggle rockets etc. into Gaza, which are then fired into Israel, Israel pressures Egypt to keep the crossing closed (it used to be open under EU oversight, until Hamas' coup). Still, Hamas breached the crossing, and it was open for several days. Israel had no control over it whatsoever, with Egypt deciding what to do.
The situation of Gaza now is that of a country under blockade, not occupied territory. A blockade does not equal an occupation. Israel has no troops there, doesn't control any of the civilian authorities, doesn't interact with the populace, doesn't control any infrastructure etc. What you call a "resistance movement", I call a foreign military. There's nothing to resist. Israel doesn't control anything there anymore. It pulled out all the troops and removed the bases and settlements back in 2005. Hamas, however, continued firing, instead of proving for once that they can (and/or want) to live in peace and care for the welfare of their own people.
I say again - if you want to call it occupied, please bring an RS to list the criteria for occupation, and we'll see how they fit. As far as I can see, this is a foreign entity under blockade, in a state of war, not occupied territory. okedem (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You may have missed the dictionary definition I gave above: "Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces"[13]. Again, I have not been able to find one definition where local basing of the foreign armed forces is listed as a requirement, like you claim. Discussion continues below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeteorMaker (talk • contribs) 11:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Then that definition is not detailed enough to support your position. As there are no foreign armed forces in Gaza, it is difficult to claim there is an occupation there. Using this definition, how would an occupation end? I see it ending by the withdrawal of foreign forces. okedem (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess an occupation ends when the foreign armed forces are not used to exert control over the territory any more. That's the simple negation of the state described in that definition. The IDF has not left Gaza, except in the very narrow sense that they have no garrisons there any more - which is hardly necessary, as their bases are located just a few kilometers away. I venture to guess that the bulk of the forces assigned to Gaza always have been stationed on the Israeli side of the border. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So, in your set of definitions, is it ever possible for an occupation to end and a state of war between entities begin? Or once the occupation started, it can only end via peaceful solution? Because this is what I see here. The current situation seems to me to be no different from a war between states, with one using its army to partially blockade the other (partially because of the border under Egypt's control). In your view, if this exact situation was to happen elsewhere, without a previous occupation, would it constitute an occupation by itself? Or is the history necessary?
When Israel was controlling Gaza, it had multiple bases within the strip. After most of the strip (like Gaza city) was transferred to PA control after the Oslo accords, the army presence was somewhat diminished, but was still large, mostly to defend the settlers of Gush Katif and the few other settlements, and the series of outposts along the border with Egypt (Philadelphi corridor), to prevent smuggling of arms from Egypt's Rafah to Gaza's Rafah. Naturally, there was also army presence along the border, on Israel's territory. okedem (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The key word in all definitions is "control". The tool for Israel's control over Gaza is military force, hence military occupation. I don't see the state of war you see between the PA and Israel either, or how the activities of several resistance movements can be considered proof of the absence of an occupation. Re the IDF's military presence in Gaza before the disengagement, do you know the approximate numbers? MeteorMaker (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, but you haven't answered my question. If the same set of circumstances were to occur elsewhere, would it be an occupation? If the current state of affairs would have been after there were two states, which got in a war, and one partially blockaded the other, as Israel now does - would that be considered an occupation? Or is the history of this case necessary? Do you consider the legal aspects over exactly who is the sovereign necessary?
Israel has declared Gaza to be a hostile entity after Hamas' coup, and Hamas forces are considered an enemy (and Hamas considers Israel an enemy). As Hamas is the de-facto ruler of Gaza - it appears there's a state of war. Both sides fire on each other, using the means available to them; both sides conduct incursions into the other's territory. While Israel's incursions are naturally larger, they are still incursions, as happens in wars, and not a continual presence. Israel wields no power over any civilian matters, and has no interaction with the civilian population of Gaza.
To call it resistance is rather strange - after Israel withdrew its settlers and forces, Hamas only increased its attacks - so what are they resisting now?
I'm sorry, I don't have any numbers, but the presence was substantial. okedem (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The exact same set of circumstances is hard to find, but naturally, that would warrant the term "military occupation" too. As about the goal of the resistance, I assume it is the traditional, to put an end to the occupation. As long as the borders are hermetically sealed and Israel controls Gaza's economy, it's not correct to say that Israel wields no power over any civilian matters, or has no interaction with the civilian population of Gaza. Just one example: the nightly sonic booms that low-flying IAF jets terrorize the Gazans with.

"The stress is phenomenal," said Eyad El Sarraj, a psychologist and director of Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, one of the groups filing the petition. "The Israelis do it after midnight and then every one or two hours. You try to go to sleep and then there's another one. When it happens night after night you become exhausted. You get a heightened sense of alert, waiting continuously for it to happen. People suffer hypertension, fatigue, sleeplessness.

"For children, the loud noise means danger. Adults may know it's only a sound but small children feel threatened. They are crying and clinging to their parents. Afterwards they are dazed and fearful, waiting for something to happen."

The UN Palestinian refugee agency said a majority of the patients seen at its clinics as a result of the sonic booms were under 16 and suffering from symptoms such as anxiety attacks, bedwetting, muscle spasms, temporary loss of hearing and breathing difficulties.[...]The Palestinian health ministry estimates the sonic booms have caused at least 20 miscarriages.''

Re the number of IDF soldiers based in Gaza before 2005, would you say they were more like 10,000 than 1,000, or perhaps 100, at any one time?MeteorMaker (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
First - Gaza has a border with Egypt, and Egypt does whatever it wants there. If Egypt chooses to keep that border closed, it's their choice, and Israel has no control over it (just like Israel took no action when Hamas breached that border a few months ago).
Israel's control over the economy is only external - Israel transports goods into Gaza, but has no control over what happens to them inside. This leads to some negative results, like Hamas taking all the fuel for itself (and leaving a lot in the tanks in the Gazan side), but claiming there's no fuel for hospitals.
The sonic booms that sometimes occur are nothing compared to what Hamas et al have been doing to the people of Sderot and the neighboring villages in Israel. They've been suffering daily firings of rockets and mortar bombs for years now, living in the constant fear of being killed (and occasionally being killed, when they don't get to the shelter fast enough, or when the alarm doesn't go off). By that logic, Hamas is occupying Sderot...
Soldiers - I'd say a few thousand at any given time. Remember, there were about 8,000 settlers to guard in very hostile territory, and a line of outposts along the Egyptian border. Before the Oslo accords there was greater army presence, but I can't even guess how many. I wasn't really interested in the subject at the time... okedem (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Gaza has a border with Egypt, but it remains closed, and one would have to be very naïve to believe it's Egypt's sole decision. The sonic booms "occur" when IAF jets are deliberately flown at supersonic speeds over densely populated area at treetop level in the middle of night, several times per night. That kind of collective punishment of civilians is expressly forbidden in the Geneva Conventions and your comparing them to Qassam attacks is entirely appropriate. The number of IDF soldiers actually based inside Gaza, even with your exceptionally high estimate of 1 soldier per 2-3 civilians, was always insignificant compared to the number based just outside the border. Nothing in any definition of military occupation that I'm aware of is negated by moving a forward-based brigade a couple of kilometers. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Egypt is a sovereign nation, that makes its own choices. If it chooses to close the border, even if this is at Israel's request, it is still their own choice.
The sonic booms are not anywhere as common as the rocket/mortar attacks, and even if they were, noise is nothing like actual rockets flying to kill you, with sirens going off at all hours giving you 8 seconds to run to safety if you want to live. Sorry, as bad as the noises can be, they cannot be compared with willful attacks on civilian targets, with the express intention of killing as many civilians as possible.
Perhaps the estimate sounds high to you, but you'll have to trust me here, those are the kind of numbers we're talking about. You keep bringing up the "just outside the border" thing - I say again, that's irrelevant. Nations can keep their military wherever they want within their sovereign territory, during peace or war. They usually keep strong forces near their borders, for obvious reasons. That has nothing to do with occupation, and proves nothing. It's just irrelevant.
So, back to our point - in what ways does Israel "control" the Strip, and what would be required to end the occupation, in your view? Can there be a transition between occupation and war between entities (as I say happened), or would an occupation only end if it is followed by peace? Specifically, sonic booms, blockade, military incursions - these are all elements you commonly see in wars between states, with no occupation involved. What's different here? okedem (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We are running in circles here, the indent level is getting ridiculous, and this exchange is hidden away in a place that no-one reads, plus I need to do some hard IRL work this week, so I offer a truce. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am interested in your answers to my questions, since they seem to show a different perception, a different viewpoint, regarding this. If you wish, I'd be glad to continue this on my talk page, at a later time.
Anyway, regarding this article - I repeat what I said below, to Nishidani - regardless of what word we use (occupied or not), we should give the details of the situation ("In 2005 Israel removed... still control..."), so the reader can make up his/her own mind, instead of only relying on the one word we choose to use. I believe you too can agree to that, right? okedem (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
okedem Okedem this is a question to be determined by authoritative legal opinion in consensus, not by amateurs. Until recently international law spoke of the 'Occupied Territories'. Occupation is ruled by specific laws (Hague Convention 1907. 4th Geneva Convention) which, despite Israel's unilateral withdrawal, it is still obliged to comply with, such as furnishing food, water and basic necessities to the people inside the strip. The several Gazan winners of Fulbright scholarships cannot yet take their grants and go to the United States because of Israeli obstacles. One could cite many other examples of Israel, though no longer present as settlement power within the Strip, still exercises 'authority' over the strip (and 'authority' if I recall correctly, is a key term in the legal situationd defining 'Occupied Territory'. The term therefore has not been disputed, until raised here. If you therefore wish to dispute the adequacy of the accepted term in international language (and perhaps you have a point) it is you who are obliged to cite recent legal sources that challenge the standard scholarly and legal definition down to 2005. Your remarks above are, disappointingly, not focused on evidence, but on a serious of impressions. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The question of occupation is a very complicated one, with multiple interpretations. I lack the time to review and present the different opinions here, though I still hold that you should present a source for the meaning of an occupation, and how it differs from a blockade during war-time.
I leave you with these words: "Gaza is not occupied, so why should Israel have any role [at the Gaza-Egypt border crossing] when it has no presence on the border between Egypt and Gaza?", spoken by Mohammed Nuseir, a member of Hamas' political bureau, perhaps momentarily forgetting the party line ([14]). Also, here's a column about the difficulty of the definition: [15]. Another interesting read on the subject (though from a seemingly partisan source): [16], and Washington Post column: [17]. Good day. okedem (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Zvi Barel's in ref 13 says the Egyptian government position is that Gaza is occupied.Dore Gold is not a reliable source, nor are declarations by Hamas officials. These definitions are determined by law, not by spokesmen.

Note 14,only underlines the tenuousness indeed parlousness of any attempt by Wiki editors to alter the terminological status quo. It reads in part (undoing your own confident assertions).

. Last week, I asked Secretary-General Ban whether he considers Gaza to be occupied, and he wisely sidestepped the question, highlighting instead the dire humanitarian conditions inside the strip.With this fast-changing, increasingly ominous state of affairs, the word "occupation" is meaningless, a State Department official told me recently. Definitions in various, at times conflicting, sets of international treaties and agreements known as "international law" are also inconclusive. In the read of some legal scholars, the fact that the Israelis control Gaza's air, sea, and telecommunications indicates that their occupation there is not over. Opponents cite a 1907 Hague treaty that defines occupied territory as one "actually placed under the authority of the hostile army"; and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which holds that occupation ends when the controlling power no longer "exercises the functions of government" over the territory in question.Like religious scriptures, so-called international law requires much wise interpretation, and, unlike in the case of the American Constitution, there is no credible world Supreme Court to determine a correct reading. BENNY AVNI The O Word: Is Gaza Occupied Territory? February 11, 2008

Please note that the Secretary-General of the UN cannot determine the issue one way or another (b) Legal definitions are inconclusive (c)The 1907 and IV Geneva Convention agreements define 'occupation' not as a physical act of possession but as being 'under authority' and this can be construed as meaning Gaza is still occupied (the point I made) (d)NO credible court exists to rule on this, (and therefore overturn standard legal descriptions of the Strip as occupied).
In short the source you cite does not support the change in terminology you propose. Until specialist legal scholarship determines that a change in customary status has effectively occurred, we cannot permit ourselves, as editors, to decide the question unilaterally, and idiosyncratically. A long tradition of calling the Strip 'occupied territory' exists. When the legal situation is redefined by international judgements to alter that, we can record the change of status. So far, the literature suggests, no such change in terminology has found its way into established usage.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I make no claims of these links being RSs, and did not bring them to prove a point, only as interesting reads. Just a note - traditions, even long, don't determine what words we should or shouldn't use.

The solution here should be in making sure that whatever words we end up using, the facts should be made clear to the reader in the text. Meaning, we shouldn't simply say "Gaza is occupied", but explain what that means, that Israel disputes that claim, and why. okedem (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are worrying signs recently that wiki editors are taking it upon themselves to challenge standard usage (massacre etc) on many pages. Your suggestion is another example. The 'traditions' I speak of are legal traditions, precedents. What you have in Gaza is an extremely complex legal situation in which Israel perhaps asserts it does not 'occupy' the land, Egypt regards it as 'occupied', the standard legal conventions imposed on Israel as occupying power down to the unilateral disengagement are still, to my knowledge, technically operative, and stem from legal readings and precedents relating to conventions such as those of Hague 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention. If the Gaza Strip were not, in this sense, 'occupied' by Israel, technically Israel would not be held responsible for seeing adequate minimal rations and fuel supplied. The point is a highly technical one. If you have an official Israeli government document outlining why, after the disengagement, Israel no longer regards the Strip as 'occupied' (if I have missed such a document) I would appreciate you referring me to it. I dislike newspapers or spokesmen for political groups, as sources for technical matters. Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could clue me in as to what exactly is that worrying suggestion I'm making. That we should clarify the details for our readers, instead of only using the word "occupied" (or not-occupied)?
Israel has made that claim before the supreme court, but I haven't found the actual text. Maybe you'll find it, if you have the time. Here a supreme court decision regarding this issue, please see section 12: [18].
Here's a scholarly source for the issue: [19], and also [20].
I say again - I brought those links as interesting reads I came by, and specifically not as RSs, so your comment is out of place.
Now can we end it? If you have issue with what I said above (prvide details), I'll find that very strange. If you don't - I'm ending this argument (between us, can't speak for anyone else). I don't have the time for it. okedem (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Most of these issues Israelis raise document Israeli usage or court decisions. This is a matter of international law. At the most whatever an Israeli court, supreme or otherwise, adjudicates, tells us what israeli law holds. This is an Israeli POV, and can be registered as such. You seemed to, as is frequent in discussions of 'disputed/occupied territories', to be confusing Israel's perspective with international law, which is neutral as to national POVs. Israeli court rulings cannot be used as though they represented the de jure definition of the Gaza Strip, since this is something determined by international law. I'll look over the sources. Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, you specifically asked me for "an official Israeli government document", and I provided you with the closest thing I found. Don't accuse me of confusing anything. If you have issue with providing details rather than just saying "occupied", explain. If not - I'm done here. okedem (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
And I thank you for the ref. As I said, I'll look over it. I repeat, many of your remarks are off the point technically, and show little technical understanding of the question. You have just called Hamas's certified victory in the elections, and its resistance to the PA-American attempt at a coup d'état' (see Vanity Fair for dertails) a coup d'état. This goes well down in newspapers, but I am under the impression that as wikipedians, whatever our private takes on things, we are obliged to follow the relevant factual and interpretative records, and not protest at a text because we disagree with it personally. Hamas has never conducted a coup. It won the elections, was duly certified as having won them fairly, and suppressed a coup. It is thus the legal administrative heir of the preceding PA regime in the Gaza Strip, however much political spin may wish to deny these facts. Israel wages war as it always has, defining its own actions as counter-terrorism, preventive war, etc. That is its right, and its POV. It is not the whole story. This requires repeating because we are assailed by a huge barrage of TV and newspaper 'news' that ignores the better informed technical literature on these issues, and to allow Wikipedia to be swamped or influenced by this barrage is to disqualify it as a serious source of objective information,Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, as fascinating as the discussion of me can be, I ask you to stop it. It is both annoying, and useless. More than that, it is false. I call Hamas' violent actions in the Gaza Strip a coup, and I shall continue to do so. I am well aware of the facts in the matter, including the election results. Still, it was a bloody coup. Had I wrote "coup" in an article, you could say that was my own POV, and I should use an NPOV phrasing. But this is a talk page, and in it, I shall use whatever phrasings I damn well please, and I don't intend to accept your criticism or insults for them.
Moreover, you've taken a completely off-topic point, and used it to build a case against myself, as if I have "little technical understanding of the question". In fact, I've continually tried to discuss the issue to the point, as my discussion with MM above can easily show.
While discussing it with you, I've also tried to stick to the point, as concisely as possible, but you seem bent on arguing with me, even resorting to insulting criticism. If you'll notice, my discussion with you has ended - I've already agreed that the issue is very complex, with differing opinions. I said I don't have the time for the research of it. I've also said that the main thing isn't what word we use, but that we present the details of the situation, thus allowing the readers to understand the situation better, instead of relying on our single word - "occupation" (or non-occupation). You have not replied to this, but instead decided to analyze my so-called flaws. You've used every perceived chance to attack me somehow, including the court document above, which you asked for, but then claimed "You seemed to, as is frequent in discussions of 'disputed/occupied territories', to be confusing Israel's perspective with international law". No, you asked for an official Israeli document, I presented it. Did that stop you? No, you tried to attack me in another patronizing way.
What an enjoyable discourse we have. okedem (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If you don't have the time to do the research required by the point you wish to make, which is subjective, then I suggest the proper thing is to hold off until you have reasonable documentation for what you wish to edit in to the article. I'm afraid at this point you too misread what is a query for clarify as a remonstration. Ii assume a right to correct what I perceive to be grossly uninformed opinions, such as those you asserted about Hamas. You raised them, I commented. As I would comment that while no sane person approves of Qassems, no sane person, contrary to appearances, should speak of the victimization of Israeli civilians, when in 2007, the statistics say of the 457 Palestinians killed, some 92 were children (as against 10 Israelis and I child). I will refrain from soapboxing, but with that kind of kill ratio, the kind of remarks you make in here do sound, to put in kindly, emotively unbalanced, and lacking a judicious sense of proportion. No insult intended, and I gladly leave it at that.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break

Seeing that you present the term "Palestinian territories" as an acceptable alternative, what about using that? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I was about to suggest that myself. :) It's not the best term, since the word "Palestinian" has changed over time, and this article spans a long time, but "Palestinian territories" has such widespread usage and is not incorrect so I will accept it. Smaug 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted that change because it's basically a tautology:

As a geographical, apolitical term, in its broadest application, Palestine can be used to refer to 'ancient Palestine', an area that includes contemporary Israel and the area today referred to as the Palestinian territories.

"Palestine can be used to refer to [...] the area today referred to as the Palestinian territories". The original version " Palestine can be used to refer to [...] the occupied territories" didn't have this flaw, and I see no gain in introducing it. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
it's ok, been fixed by someone else to what we had agreed upon by your own suggestion. Smaug 01:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it got restored inadvertently in a revert, so I have removed the tautology again. Perhaps it can be phrased differently. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how it is a tautology. The "Palestinain territories" and "Palestine" are two different things. Furthermore, this is a definition. We're not just using "Palestine" as the subject noun in some sentence, we are defining what the word means; to what area the word refers. You may as well call any definition a tautology. Smaug 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitions rarely consist of recursions to the term they define, so we seem to disagree slightly about the definition of "definition" here. :) Your rewrite looks for all the word like a tautology even though the denotations of "Palestine" and "the area today referred to as the Palestinian terrritoties" may technically be different. I have not reverted, though I still encourage you to find a better and less confusing alternative if the original term "the occupied territories" is unacceptable to you. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have partially removed the tautology. It now reads: "Palestine can be used to refer to [...] the Palestinian territories" instead of "Palestine can be used to refer to [...] the area today referred to as the Palestinian territories". Still, the definition sounds too circular for my taste, so it's probably best rewritten, MeteorMaker (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish immigration

There seems to be discussion on Arab immigration, yet at the same time there was large scale Jewish immigration into the region as well. Perhaps we should also discuss that.Bless sins (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Add it in, if you think it should be. Be bold. Smaug 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error on page - Roman Era.

"this is demonstrated by the continued existence of the rabbinical academy of Lydda in Judea" is incorrect. The rabbinical academy was in Iamnia (Jamnia, modern day Yavne), not Lyddia ( modern day Lod).

As can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yavne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guysoffer (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the Canaanite period entirely neglected ?

The Canaanite and it's Phoenician offspring were vibrant civilizations. Why is their era left unmentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sun of truth (talk • contribs) 09:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Canaanites are discussed in the section "Chalcolithic period (4500–3000 BCE) and Bronze Age (3000–1200 BCE)". I don't know how much we actually know about them, so I don't know the potential for writing more about them in this article.
I don't think the Phoenicians settled in Palestine, but rather just to the North of it. okedem (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)