Talk:Status of territories captured by Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Israel Portal Status of territories captured by Israel is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu): edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Anglophone pronunciation of foreign languages#Hebrew, Road signs in Israel, Chiloni, Vehicle registration plates of Israel, Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, Area A, Area B, Area C Copyedit: Palestinian views of the peace process Merge: Rechov Sumsum & Rechov Sumsum Shara'a Simsim Cleanup: Media Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Agricultural Research In Israel, Cyprus internment camps, Carmel Winery Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Category:Israeli songs, Port of Haifa, Allon Plan, Israel Antiquities Authority, Goldstar, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel, Geneva Accord, Zman Tel-Aviv, Haifa Airport Stubs: Israel stubs Update: National Religious Party NPOV: Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Six-Day War, Ashkelon Other: Assess: Translate from Hebrew: He:אותיות השימוש, He:כתיב חסר ניקוד, He:האקדמיה ללשון העברית Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, Palestinophilia, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Hasbara, Israeli wine, Pierre van Paassen, Uri Davis, Aaron Valero
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Naming dispute? 2 Why the Golan belongs here too 3 References? 4 New historical research: secret Israeli memos about legality of post Six Day War occupations 5 Remove Tag Citing Neutrality/Accuracy Dispute

[edit] Naming dispute?

I don't have a better title for this article off the top of my head, but it does seem wrong to call the arguments presented here a "naming dispute". There are very significant legal and humanitarian issues at stake. The real issue isn't what you call them, it's who they belong to and whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applies. Brian Tvedt 02:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The title was right off the top of my head; if anyone has ideas for a better one in mind, by all means. El_C 10:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How's "Legal status of the Palestinian territores"? While some may object to the term, its the best and only we have on those territories (excluding the Golan Heights), and corresponds well with the contents. Cybbe 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to higghlight: International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict#"Occupied" vs. "Disputed" territories. El_C 11:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

See also Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the Golan belongs here too

I don't know if Israel makes quasi-legalistic claims arguing that the Golan Heights are "disputed" and not "occupied" terrority, but: (1) The UN resolutions mentioned in the article do state very clearly that the Golan Heights is occupied; (2) Israel has contested that in its actions, if not its words, for example by passing the Golan Heights law. Brian Tvedt 23:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs, as I've never seen Israel or supporters claiming that the Golan Heights is not "occupied". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It would seem, however, to be well worthy of inclusion based on the current title of this article. Marsden 18:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

But not based on the opening sentence, as Israel's supporters do not seem to say it is "disputed", nor based on the contents, which present no arguments for it being "disputed". Perhaps this should be remerged, or renamed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References?

There is something seriously wrong with the footnotes here... They need to be changed/fixed.

A student of history 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• See discussion here Talk:Israeli_settlement#New_historical_research:_secret_Israeli_memos_about_legality_of_post_Six_Day_War_occupations. --Abnn 07:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all quite old news - "The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

And the US knows the same thing, in 1978 it asked the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State and reported to Congress[1] that "While Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law." PR^talk 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Tag Citing Neutrality/Accuracy Dispute

The purpose of the two subsections, Occupied, and Disputed, is not to factually state the legal status of the Palestinian territories, but to accurately present two opposing sets of arguments and perspectives on the matter. Whether or not these arguments are "right" is irrelevant in this context. So long as the subsections in question describe said arguments as they exist in the public political discourse, they contribute to the encyclopedic accuracy of the article, regardless of whether said arguments are themselves factual or correct. On these grounds I am removing the tag. Please discuss here and provide reasons before reinserting.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)