Talk:Palestinian territories/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page needs a bit of work, since it explains the motivation without explaining the justification. For example, "occupied Palestinian territories": the lands are occupied under a international legal standard, correct? Israel doesn't claim the territories as part of the country, but what? What is the legal status of the territories?

Darn good questions, mate, but dash it all, I haven't the foggiest notion. The deuce of it is that for a land to be "occupied" it's supposed to belong to someone else, but those dratted Arabs refused the West Bank and so on when it was offered to them on a silver platter. It seems a bit of a sticky wicket. Could be an attempt to put the cart before the horse by asserting that the territories belong to the Palestinian people and that Israel thus should "return" what it "took from them" -- after all, they _are_ Palestinian territories, aren't they?

That's why I defined Palestinian territories as "lands sought by ... nationalists" rather than "lands taken from X". Really, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are no-man's-lands until either:

  • some country, like Israel annexes them (and enough other countries recognize this act -- fat chance!), or
  • a credible government emerges in some or all of the territories.

But there's the precedent of Taiwan to reckon with. It's one of the oldest, most stable democracies in the Far East, but it hasn't gotten the recognition it wanted (like Rodney Dangerfield, "I don't get no respect") -- even though it has a constitution, elections, a thriving economy, allies, a modern army, etc.

See: Taiwan independence, One China policy, Political status of Taiwan

It is not surprising that at the United Nations, the U.S. has opposed the phraseology of "occupied Palestinian territories." In March 1994, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright stated: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory." [1]

Has anything changed since 1994? --Ed Poor

The following sentence is vague:

Since the early 1990s, Israel has negotiated with the Palestinians concerning the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on these territories.

Which "Palestinians" did Israel negotiate with? Leaders of the Palestinian Authority? Other Arabs living in Palestine? --Ed Poor

The following doesn't make sense to me:

The Palestinian territories' borders were originally determined by the 1948 cease-fire agreements;

If "Palestinian territories" means "lands sought by nationalists to form a new state", then I don't see how the 1948 agreements would relate to nationalists' aims.

Or was is this supposed to mean that the 1948 cease-fire agreements designated territories to form a Palestinian state?

The 1948 agreements were strictly provisional, they didn't have any political rationale.

This is all very unclear (to me, at least).

The boundaries between Israel and the Palestinian territories were originally determined by a partition plan of the United Nations 1947, in which the foundation and the borders of two separate states Israel and a Palestinian were decided. As a consequence of the war 1948 the plan was only partially implemented. Instead the cease-fire agreements following the war constituted the de facto boundaries.

The 1947 plan (Resolution 181) was never implemented, any connection between it and the final status is purely incidental. The borders of West Bank and Gaza have never been defined anywhere but a cease-fire agreement. --Uri
Uri, don't you agree that parts of the plan were implemented, namely the establishment of the state of Israel, as the plan states? Second: the cease-fire agreement led to a de facto definition of the borders, but not a legal definition. --Elian
No, the establishment of Israel was not an implementation of the plan, which was rejected by the majority of the population (Arabs).
This a dangerous thing to say. For me (my particular point of view) the legal establishment of the state of Israel rests on this very partition plan, if the Arabs may agree to it or not. The de facto establishment is a different thing - this is something in the sphere of law of custom. But you never, never can refer to "legal rights" simply by assuming: "there was something laying in the street, I picked it up, so it's mine" (bad analogy to military occupation). Arguing that something has no owner doesn't make it yours. Either you have to refer to the religious claims by the Jewish fundamentalists (holy land whole ours) (which doesn't seem appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia) or you have to base claims on international law. Or, the best, you do neither but mention these _views_ in a neutral way. --Elian
(reply to the above) Not everything in this world is driven by international law. The fact that the unilateral creation of Israel happened to coincide - in the temporal sense - with the UN partition offer, does not mean that Israel was created because of it (and by the way, serious doubt exists whether the U.N. even had the right to make the partition offer). The creation of Israel is a logical conclusion of the earlier Zionist movement, which seeked the establishment of Israel on at least some of the lands known as Palestine. --Uri
In this paragraph, I want to present one Israeli position that states that the borders of West Bank and Gaza are temporary and provisional in nature, hence the Palestinians should not abuse during negotiations the de-facto existence of the borders to jeopardize Israeli security. --Uri
as it is written now, it implicitly assumes that Israel has a legal claim to these territories (this is my personal impression). Or did I misunderstand it? --Elian
(reply to the above) In the Camp David negotiations (which can be seen as a maximum-concession offer), Israel has explicitly asked for the incorporation of some settlements (to the north-east of Tel-Aviv) into Israel. The reasoning is obviously to make Israel more than 20-25 kilometers wide so it couldn't just be cut in two. --Uri

If someone could put this in better english and move it in the article? It's still not wholly correct - you could also argue that "originally" the boundaries were determined by the agreement of the british with sherif Hussein (1915) or the Sykes-Picot agreement (1916), or anything else, but since the partition plan marks the foundation of the state Israel it makes most sense. --Elian

Moved to Talk, since these changes seem to add nothing but unsourced POV to the article:

The Palestinian territories' borders were originally determined by the 1948 cease-fire agreements; however for more than 50 years they have been the focus of political negotiations (see, for instance, UN Security Council Resolution 242). Some critics claim that the strict adherence to their makeshift shape would do much more harm than good in the long run.
Since the early 1990s, Israel has negotiated with the Palestinians concerning the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on these territories. Following the Oslo Accords, Israel has implemented an autonomous Palestinian entity - including Palestinian civil administration in the smaller towns and security presence in the bigger cities on the West Bank and Gaza (see below for the current status).
The implication of the term "Palestinian territories" is that these lands are rightfully "Palestinian" and that the presence of Israeli settlements or military forces in them is a violation of international law. Israel, on the other hand, claims that these territories are not currently claimed by any other state and Israel has the right to control them, at least temporarily. In other words, Israel's stance is that while Palestinians do have the right for self-determination (as confirmed by the Oslo Accords), it does not mean they should automatically receive these territories or other. These concepts adamantly disputed by Israel (see, for example, [2]) and occasionally by other countries.
Israel's position, at least in the declarative plane, is not accepted by most countries and international bodies. The West Bank, and the Gaza Strip have been declared "occupied territories" (with Israel as the occupying power) Palestinian Arabs [3] and the rest of the Arab bloc, the UK [4], the EU, the United Nations and (usually) the USA ([5], [6]), and the [[UN].
The international community did not declare any change in their percieved status of the territories as a of the creation of the Palestinian Authority between 1993 and 2000. Although an 1999 U.N. document (see the link above) implied that the the chances for a change in that status was slim, most observers agreed that the Palestinian territories' classification as occupied was losing substanciality, and would be withdrawn after the signing of a permanent peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians (see also Proposals for a Palestinian State).
Israel claims the situatuation was absurd, considering the fact that the vast majority of the Palestinians after 1997 did not have to see a single Israeli soldier or official. However, following the events of the Second Intifada, most of those areas are now once again under effective Israeli military control, so the discussion along those lines is largely moot as of now (autumn 2002).
Uh Jacob, the POVs are actually marked out quite well, and you didn't really bother to explain yourself. Could you please do that, or frankly, I see no reason why I shouldn't paste the parts back in (with the clarifications Elian asked for). --Uri
Uri, please do me a favor and post your intended changes in the talk page first, this time. I think that will be faster in this case than moving each other's edits in and out of the article. --Ed Poor
I join Ed's request. --Elian
"Israel has negotiated with the Palestinians": better: Israel and the ... have negotiated.... second: you can't negotiate with a people. By whom were the negotiation carried out on the Palestinian side? This must be stated in the article. and, Uri, please send me a mail, so we can discuss about what are "occupied territories". --Elian
I'm writing the email at these very moments :-). Israel has negotiated with the PLO, acting as a representative of the Palestinian people. As to the edit, Jacob has all but removed my changes. I can begin work on Palestinian territories/NPOV version, with your approval. --Uri
That depends on what you are writing ;-) but I hope we will arrive at a satisfying version. --Elian

I must say I am delighted that some of us Wikipedians have been able to work together on our mutual goal of creating a balanced and neutral encyclopedia article. Since Uri, Elian and Jacob know a great deal about the subject and I know next to nothing, I will probably not contribute much information to this process. I hope more to "grease the gears" so we can work together as a "well-oiled machine" (sorry for the technical metaphor, but I am, after all, an engineer by profession). --Ed Poor

Well I am very thankful for your moderation so far, your rational thinking has often provided the breath of clear air I felt I needed. And concerning the information, I think you've already become something of an expert in the process of moderating (and an unbiased one, too :-) --Uri
I join in to say thank you and must add: I never wanted to become an expert on Middle East affairs (political philosophy is so much nicer, nobody gets killed in it) BTW, Jacob doesn't join the project. He already lost hope. --Elian
He may have made only 30 edits in the last 2 weeks, but I for one still welcome his input.
You, Uriyan and I have apparently formed a "special interest group" based on mutual respect and common purpose -- I'm guessing none of us would object to the addition of more like-minded people. --Ed Poor

I believe that some clear distinction needs to be made between Golan and the rest of the occupied territories. AFAIK the Palestinians do not claim the Golan as their own, but recognize Syrian rights to it. i.e. it is not a "Palestinian" territory. Eclecticology

I think you're right, Eclectic. Let's try to distinguish between the occupied territories (which Israel "has") and the Palestinian territories which nationalists "want". --Ed Poor
That's a good distinction. --Uri

Editing log

I added a history section.

Israel has pointed out that the lands are currently not contested by any existing country but Israel and are therefore not "occupied", but this argument has been repeatedly rejected by other nations, most recently the UK's Foreign Secretary. Since the early 1990s, Israel has negotiated with the Palestinians concerning the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on these territories. Following the Oslo Accords, it seemed that Israel had implemented limited Palestinian self-administration on the West Bank and Gaza.

I have returned the old version of the Israeli argumentation, because it is fuller, and does not immediately qualify itself as wrong

The UN's 1999 assessment in [7] indicates that any such change is considered unlikely to occur. Since those areas are now once again under effective Israeli military control, however, any discussion along those lines is largely moot.

The UN assessment doesn't touch the issue directly, and in no place it reads "even if a Palestinian state is created, it will remain occupied". I therefore return my old wording.
I'll move the question of the Golan Heights to Occupied territory.
I think the changes I introduced are important both for the structure and the fair presentation of the Israeli position. If any other contributors think a significant modification of the structure is necessary, I'd like to discuss it first over here. --Uri

I'm still hoping for eventual clarification of:

  • what it means to call a territory "Palestinian"
  • precisely what lands are considered "Palestinian territories" -- and by whom

which might be different from

  • why each of the various advocates maintains or denies that these are or should be part of a Palestinian state

The latter question might be better addressed in proposals for a Palestinian state. --Ed Poor

Is the version at Palestinian territories/NPOV version suitable for replacing the older version here? --Uri

Yes. I copied it to Palestinian territories . I also extensively revised West Bank. --Ed Poor

Elian, there are many websites that are linked to from Wikipedia that I consider to be pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian propaganda. Some of these sites even contain material that is anti-Semitic. But we don't delete them. We label their POV, and offer them as additional material to read. Further, your brief claim was in error: It is simply a historical fact that the existence of settlements, per se, has never been an impediment in the signing of peace treaties with Egypt, with Jordan, and even with the PLO! Perhaps you meant to say that if no Israeli settlements are ever removed that would be a big impediment to any possible peace process. (And on that I would agree with you.) RK


That's not the claim the sites you included make. They say:

  • MYTH: “The Geneva Convention prohibits the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied territories.”
  • MYTH: “Settlements are an obstacle to peace.”

Both is clearly a lie. Every Arab (and many other people) I know will tell you: the settlements are an obstacle to peace (at least for the Palestinian side and since peace needs two partners they are a obstacle for the Israeli side as well). And the UN itself affirms that the settlements are a violation of international law. If you find links on WP to anti-semitic sites which f.e. deny the holocaust you are welcome to delete them as well. --Elian

The UN does see settlements as a fundamental breach of international law. That is also the view of European Union members. JTD 02:50 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
Correct me if the following is wrong. I believe that the UN General Assembly has called the settlements illegal, but the Security Council has not. Remember that General Assembly resolutions are non binding. User:FightingCock
it is not a question of binding or not, we all know Israel ignores since 50 years every UN-resolution it doesn't like. But do you deny the GA to represent the UN? --Elian
That depends on what you mean by "represent" (sigh) - GA resolutions are non binding, on that we agree? So the GA is free to declare whatever it wants, but those declarations are nothing more than symbolic. Better examples for your POV would be to include SC resolutions that Israel has ignored... User:FightingCock
sorry, it's not a question of binding or not. We speak about a point of view in the interpretation of international law, not an order to do something. Or what do you say to someone who tells you "I think the stove is hot"? "You have no authority to order me something"? --Elian
If someone tells you that they "think the stove is hot" you are free to measure the temperature of the stove yourself and form your own opinion as to whether it is hot or not, using your own definition of "hot". But look, we aren't here to talk about stoves, or even to talk about how the UN is organized. I'm suggesting that your edit could be made more precise by pointing out that you are referring to GA resolution.
Actually there are many Security Council resolutions that declare the settlements to be in breach of the clause in the Geneva Conventions against moving a population into an occupied territory. (Of course. Israel denies that the Geneva Conventions apply.) I know of resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465(1980) and 471(1980) but maybe there are others too. -- zero 07:28, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Removed the words sought by from opening sentence. Saying Palestinians are seeking those lands implies that they don't have a right of ownership, with in turn implies Israel does. Palestinians argue that they are simply trying to get possession of their own illegally confiscated lands. "Sought by" implicitly (even if perhaps accidentially) takes sides in the dispute over ownership, therefore is POV. A totally neutral phrase was added in instead. JTD 04:38 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Jerusalem status and the US

In re the US and East Jerusalem...it's not just argued, it's actual law that was passed, IIRC, by a fairly veto-proof margin. (Which is hard.) The "Jerusalem Embassy Act" of 1995. (I want to say it's PL 95-480, but could be wrong.)