Talk:Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

What happened in the West Bank *between* 1967 and 1993? -"mitch"

Thousands of Palestinians have died in this struggle, including hundreds of children. Muhammad a-Dura has streets named after him in Palestine and Jordan. Scenes of his death, captured on film, spurred on the Intifada. This obsession with a naive, blonde American girl, who came to "help" and actually got caught up in the violence is ridiculous. It is an affront to the many people who had no choice but to be there, and who paid for it with their lives. How ironic that her death is being identified with the tragedy of the Palestinians, and not the hundreds of other deaths that occur almost daily. Danny

How about you write what you want to write about, and I write about what I want to write about, and we get on with the business of creating the world's largest free encyclopedia rather than criticising each others choice of subject matter? Martin

While plenty of snide remarks crop up in my mind, I will put them aside and simply point out that you haven't actually responded to my comments. Nevertheless, I will answer yours. An encyclopedia is supposed to describe historical events that took place. History is an interesting thing. It is easy to falsify--people do it all the time. I do not mean putting false facts either. History can be distorted by omission--discussing American history without mentioning the Civil War is a distortion by omission. There are also distortions by exaggerating the importance of events--debating the ethnic origins of Copernicus (Prussian or Polish) while barely delving into his contribution to science is just such a distortion, and it has happened. You seem to want to write about the Intifada. Fine. Just don't distort the importance of events. How many people actually died in the Intifadas in Rafah, Khan Yunis, Gaza, Deir el-Balah, etc.? What were the causes of their deaths? That is why Rachel Corrie and others were there in the first place. Your writing has given me a far greater understanding about why Malcolm X didn't want help from white people. Danny

I thought it was a valid response, though perhaps slightly tangential. Ahh well.

Thousands of Palestinians have died in this struggle, including hundreds of children.
I know. Thousands of Israelis, too.
Muhammad a-Dura has streets named after him in Palestine and Jordan.
I didn't know that. I find that interesting. You may be interested to know that I've seen unconfirmed rumours that the same may happen to Rachel Corrie. Didn't seem important, though - I assumed that happened to all the Palestinian "martyrs".
Scenes of his death, captured on film, spurred on the Intifada.
I've seen the photos - in fact I remember one of them winning the prize for best photo at the "what the papers say" awards in the UK. I wasn't aware that they exacerbated the Intifada, but it doesn't surprise me.
This obsession with a naive, blonde American girl, who came to "help" and actually got caught up in the violence is ridiculous.
My approach to writing about the Israel-Palestine conflict is generally to work from the bottom up, writing about specific details, incidents, people, etc. Corrie is one of these details. I find that approach neither obsessive nor ridiculous. Indeed, for a non-historian like myself, it makes a lot of sense to concentrate on specific incidents that can be more quickly understood, rather than thinking that a total novice can accurately summarise a long and bloody conflict.
I guess these are the points that I find most contentious, so I will answer here. Yes, details are important, but for them to be dealt with adequately, they have to be put into the proper context. When details overshadow this context, history is distorted. Furthermore, the problem is that you have chosen this specific incident as a focus of concentration. If anything, it is anomalous to the conflict--Israelis and Palestinians fighting over a piece of land. You are taking it from the perspective of someone who was not intrinsically involved in the conflict, who chose to get involved, and who died as a result. The fact that it was newsworthy at the time, more than any of the other people, both Israelis and Palestinians, who died, indicates that it is the exception to the rule and not indicative of what the conflict actually involves. As such, it doesn't contribute very much to understand the issues at hand. Furthermore, as "novice," I hope you were referring to yourself. I spent twenty years living in the region, speak Hebrew and Arabic (Palestinian, not classical), and spent more than a little time in Gaza. I've also researched and written extensively on it and met most of the key players and plenty more lesser known ones. But you're right, a novice cannot accurately summarize this long and bloody conflict. Earlier you talked about writing an encyclopedia--one of the keys to doing that successfully is accuracy. Danny
Novice = absolutely myself. I'm not a historian, and the closest I've physically come to Israel was a year in Cyprus.
It is an affront to the many people who had no choice but to be there, and who paid for it with their lives.
I don't see that writing about the death of one person is offensive to other people who have died. If I felt that then I'd never write about anyone's death, and surely that would be a bad thing?
How ironic that her death is being identified with the tragedy of the Palestinians, and not the hundreds of other deaths that occur almost daily.
I believe that the wikipedia articles in question do not identify Corrie's death with the tragedy of the Palestinians. Do you believe that they do? Or are you making a larger point about the wider coverage?

That clarify things at all? Martin

I've just realised that this text (taken from the CIA factbook) is in fact a carbon copy of the same text of the West Bank. Minus my and your additions, of course. I'm now unsure how to proceed - do we need a seperate article on the history of the Strip, or can the info be distributed between articles such as Gaza Strip, Palestinian Authority, Israel, etc? Martin

Zero, please explain the reason behind removal (not even moved to talk) the following paragraph: --- As a result of 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria and called it the West Bank. Jews and Christians were forbidden to visit their holy places. Ancient synagogues were razed or used as stables filled with dung-heaps, garbage and carcasses. Libraries and centers of religious study were ransacked and destroyed. In Jerusalem, The Western Wall is turned into a slum. The former main synagogue of Jerusalem Hurva Synagogue was dynamited. On the Mount of Olives, 38,000 tombstones were removed from the ancient Jewish cemetery and used as paving stones for roads and as construction material, including use as latrines. Parts of the cemetery were converted into parking lots, a gas station, and a hotel. Jews were not permitted to live in Hebron, nor visit or pray at the Jewish holy sites in the city. The Jewish Quarter was razed, the Jewish cemetery desecrated.

--- The accusation of "101%" POV doesn't really work against photos and facts. I can collect more. Thanks. Humus sapiens 10:33, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sure, I'll explain. The title of the article is History of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It is not Vitriolic attack on all the terrible things done in Yesha by the Arab animals. Hundreds of thousands of people were living their lives out and the only thing worthy of reporting is the fate of cemetaries and synagogues. Meanhile Israel was busy destroying or taking over hundreds of Arab villages, all of which had cemetaries and many of which had mosques. At least one hundred mosques (some say 300) were destroyed and quite a few (some major) were taken over for secular use. You are right: the destruction of ancient structures like the Hurva Synagogue was a major cultural crime, but both sides did it. You can show me a photo of a synagogue turned into a stable? I believe you. I can show you a photo of a mosque turned into a bar. What I'm saying is that your paragraph is unacceptably partisan. It also has a sort of hysterical tone that doesn't belong here. --Zero 11:33, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Here is an article from Haaretz on this subject. --Zero 11:55, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Partisanship, hystery and bad wording are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Proven facts should be stated in concise neutral language and links shoud be given. Perhaps accounts from both sides? Simply removing big chunks of text with links is not constructive, as well as denying historical facts and govt. policies. This is the reason why there is Talk page. Humus sapiens 23:10, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That something is a fact is only one of the necessary criteria for its inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. There is also the issue of omission, context and balance. Read what Danny wrote in the top half of this page. The trouble with facts is that the supply of them is almost endless. How about the thousands of pages of statistics that UNRWA produced listing the refugee camps in the WB with countless details of the housing, nutrition, education, health, etc etc of the refugees? Should that be included? Military and paramilitary developments? Raids on Qibya and Samu? What about the relationships between the refugees and those that were there already? What about Jordanian-Israeli intrigues? Did you know that there was a British plan to attack Israel if Israel tried to take the WB by force (early 1950s)? The Palestinian-Jordanian interaction was very complex and more important historically than sacred sites, which is not to say that the latter is not important. Concerning the matter of destruction of buildings and cemetaries, because it occurred mostly in the context of a war and was done to all parties (Christian too) by both sides, it belongs in an article that deals with the war. Otherwise the context is lost. That's my opinion. --Zero 04:35, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Since when is the "political status" of a territory the same as its "History"? I came to this page (redirected from "History of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip") because I was really interested in the more detailed history of these territories in the 1940s... Quite disappointed by what I find!! 195.92.168.166 01:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing the

Should the title be "political status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" instead? — Instantnood 17:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, many times "West Bank and Gaza Strip" are used as a phrase, so I think that's the way it was used here. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete this Page

This page should be deleted and merged into the West Bank page.David Betesh

[edit] Approved barrier route

Uhm, Jack? It might have slipped your mind that the barrier is still under construction and thus the "barrier route" is not the correct term. "Planned" would be more appropriate, "approved" even more so. In any case, the map is outdated and the one from Israeli West Bank barrier should be used at least. If there is no opposition, I will change this.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 23.04.2008 12:50

I don't object replacing the map with a newer map. I'm not sure the wall map should be at the head of the article, but rather in it's own subsection that links to the Israeli West Bank barrier article. A more neutral image would be possibly, one by al-Jazeera (or other pro-Palestine source) with the word "Palestine" replacing Israel, placed next to one by a Zionist group with the word Israel covering the entire territory. Thoughts? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I think the one from Israeli West Bank barrier should work just fine. I'll replace it. Any change of heart on the wording of the caption? pedrito - talk - 23.04.2008 13:19
This article is about the disputed territories of Gaza and the West Bank, not about the separation between Israel and the Fatah Authority. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Granted, but that's what the picture shows, which is why the caption has to explain it. Do you still oppose the wording "Israeli Government-approved"? If so, for what reasons? This is what this discussion is about. pedrito - talk - 23.04.2008 15:00