| Revision as of 23:00, 12 January 2012 editShuki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,955 editsm mv to bottom← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:14, 7 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive 5) (bot | ||
| (338 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Palestine|importance=top|attention=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Syria|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}} | |||
| }} | |||
| <!-- Do not remove the sanction template --> | <!-- Do not remove the sanction template --> | ||
| {{ARBPIA}} | {{ARBPIA}} | ||
| {{sanctions|<br>'''See ] for details'''}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Israel |
||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Palestine |
||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject |
||
| {{Archivebox|auto=yes|search=yes|bot= |
{{Archivebox|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 5 | ||
| |algo = old(90d) | |algo = old(90d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | |||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Disputed to be a military occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Disputed to be a military occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area","appear":{"revid":9866977,"parentid":9862331,"timestamp":"2005-02-01T17:24:36Z","replaced_anchors":{"Disputed to be an occupation by local population":"Disputed to be a military occupation by local population","Disputed to be an occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area":"Disputed to be a military occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":189389395,"parentid":188451970,"timestamp":"2008-02-06T00:36:16Z","replaced_anchors":{"Disputed to be a military occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area":"Disputed to be a military occupation by the nation of military dominance in an area"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Disputed to be a military occupation by the nation of military dominance in an area"} --> | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor ("Occupied" vs. "Disputed" territories) ]. <!-- {"title":"\"Occupied\" vs. \"Disputed\" territories","appear":{"revid":9155411,"parentid":9154587,"timestamp":"2005-01-06T19:36:46Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":325875944,"parentid":325875422,"timestamp":"2009-11-14T22:52:27Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Egypt and jordan == | |||
| == The photo of the Israeli "checkpoint" is odd == | |||
| It's hard to say it's a checkpoint it looks like a fence with a bunch of rocks and a couple of soldiers standing on the fence stopping the a few people from claiming over the fence. | |||
| I'd assume a checkpoint wouldn't require people claiming over the rocks at right side of the picture. | |||
| The photo should be labeled a "a breach in the security wall" or something similar. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Recent edits - Israeli legal and political views == | |||
| I don't think that removal was proper so I reinstated the information. The information relates Israeli legal and political views regarding the occupied territories, the text which springs from the legality of the settlements is argued from the position that the territory is occupied, hence the references to ] and international conventions. ] (]) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages editors frequently make an unsupported editorial claim that "Israel says" the Fourth Geneva Conventions do not apply. In Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel,'' all of the parties'', including the government of Israel, agreed that the military commander’s authority is anchored in the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply (see paragraph 23 on page 14) The MFA page reflects the views of the government, not just the views of the courts. The declassified memos written by government officials discussing the international conventions that govern the rules of occupation are obviously relevant political and legal views. A better question is whether or not the disputed territories view is relevant to the West Bank. ] (]) 16:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I regard a discussion of the legality or otherwise of settlements in the West Bank (there not being any any more in Gaza) as side issues to the article which deals with whether the territories in question are "occupied". If you open up this issue here than you will need to duplicate all the arguments on settlements here. This article needs to remain focused, with the issue of settlements fully discussed in its own article. I think it is generally accepted that the Israeli courts regard the West Bank as "occupied" territories, though they may use other terms such as "administered". The point is that at least the West Bank is not an integral part of Israel, a special status. ] (]) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Ewawer you keep deleting third-party verifiable published legal opinions of Israeli officials about international conventions that are relevant to the occupied territories. This article used to summarize the arguments about the settlements, the Diplomatic Conference for the Rome Statute, & etc. until you elected yourself to the position of acting content gatekeeper. Misplaced Pages policy requires content in these related articles to be harmonized. Deleting well-sourced relevant material from articles over the objection of other editors is disruptive. ] (]) 21:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| What was the deal with edit? The previous phrasing was unclear enough that I was moved look at sources pertaining to his statement. ] (]) 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know. It is an improvement. ] (]) 12:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::The balance of the material in that section of the article consists of legal arguments that the territories aren't occupied because Geneva IV isn't applicable. The fact that Israeli government officials say that it is applicable is relevant to this article. Attempts to present an unbalanced account of published Israeli views on the subject is simply disruptive. ] (]) 22:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Harlan & Co look like they are determined to stuff this article up like they stuffed up other Israel-Palestine articles. I'm surprised that other editors don't put a stop to their constant attempts to introduce their biases and to sabotage these article. ] (]) 03:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ewawer I'd suggest you review ] and delete your post. There have been several community discussions at Misplaced Pages I/P Coll and at the ARBCOM monitored project on Naming conventions (West Bank) regarding the "disputed vs. occupied territories" issue, e.g. Even after your deletions, that is still the topic that the remaining portion of this particular subsection of the article discusses. That is not a strictly political question, since the Geneva Conventions reflect customary international law and they are still mentioned by the sources in the article that say "the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history". | |||
| ::::It has always been agreed that all of the significant published views of the interested parties to the conflict have to be included. That is a fundamental non-negotiable requirement according to ] and the final decision in ]. Nobody is sabotaging the article by including the published historical legal views of the relevant government officials in charge of administering the territories regarding the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. Moshe Dayan was the Defense Minister tasked with the actual oversight of the military commanders that administered the territories for the government of Israel. His view that establishing settlements violated international conventions is not insignificant or irrelevant. ] (]) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsourced opinion == | |||
| There is a LOT of unsourced political opinion in this article. I've deleted two such sentences... but a lot more editing is required. I don't know why this article should be exempt from proper sourcing.] (]) 04:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : What you deleted was not unsourced opinion but unsourced facts, and both facts are easy to source. If you don't want to locate sources yourself, add a "citation needed" tag, like this: <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Yamit photo == | |||
| why Egypt and jordan controled and Israel occupies? | |||
| I am dubious about the that is supposed to show three soldiers evacuating a resisting child from Yamit. The "soldier" on the right looks like a child, and the way the three are holding the young child looks unrealistic. I expect it is a theatrical re-enactment of some sort. There seems to be no source for this photo except "uploaded by" someone. I propose we remove it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The Egyptian and Jordanian rule there were not recognized internationally and in the Egyptian case the territory was not even annexed. | |||
| :Israeli draft age is 18 which explains the young age of the soldiers, I think that the photo looks plausibly reliable... ] (]) 14:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| It is npov ] (]) 06:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: The one on the right looks like 10 years old to me. Look at his face, and compare the size of his hands with the adult hand that is entering the right edge. Also, I don't think we should use photos that we have no known source for. Does the uploader even claim to have taken the photo or stated where it is from? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think that the soldier on a right is a she, though the angle and photo quality make it hard to tell. We don't have many free alternatives, and it is a widely used photo in Misplaced Pages. The description says it was taken in Yamit, 1982, and I think we should assume good faith. Perhaps it is possible to contact the original uploader. ] (]) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I don't see any reason to doubt the authenticity of this photo. It looks genuine to me starting with the attire of the soldiers and ending with the architecture. Of course, we can't be 100% sure, but the same can be said for thousands of other photos on Misplaced Pages. —] <sup>(])</sup> 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think plausibility is a good enough basis to use a photograph of unknown provenance. ] (]) 19:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::This reasoning would apply to and rule out most of the free images on Misplaced Pages, which are "own works" whose provenance is unknown. I don't think that an editor's personal analysis of a photo is good enough reason to doubt it. ] (]) 21:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::The baby-face of soldier on the right, and his/her height makes me think it's a female. Also I can see nothing unnatural in the way the child is held. --] (]) 10:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Grammatical errors in the first paragraph == | |||
| == West Bank barrier construction started when? == | |||
| "Prior to 1967, the Palestinian territories <u>was</u> '''''(-> were)''''' split between the ] ] ] and the ] (controlled) ] ], while the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights <u>are</u> '''''(-> were)''''' parts of Egypt and ], respectively." | |||
| The article states without a citation that "In 2000 the Israeli government started to construct the Israeli West Bank barrier, separating Israel and several of its settlements, as well as a significant number of Palestinians, from the remainder of the West Bank." If I understand correctly, the barrier's construction started not before 2002. ] (]) 15:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights, where <u>Israel had transferred its parts of population there and built large</u> '''''(sentence beyond repair, replacement suggestion: "- roughly 750,000 Israeli settlers live in a multitude of -")''''' ],'''''(sources: West Bank + East Jerusalem -> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/02/jewish-settlers-west-bank-half-million/, Golan Heights -> https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20211226-israel-approves-plan-to-double-settler-population-in-golan-heights<nowiki/>)''''' is the ]." ] (]) 01:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == IP edits, whats wrong and whats right == | |||
| == Context of the 1967 War == | |||
| Ghajar is split in half by the Blue Line, with the UN marking the northern half as being in Lebanon and the southern half as being in Syria (see ]). Israel continued to occupy the southern half of the city. The residents, both north and south, say that it is a Syrian village, Lebanon and Syria dont seem to say much about it, and Israrl announced about a year ago it would withdraw from the southern half, though I cannot find any record in my brief search of them actually doing so. A good article to read about Ghajar and how the Blue Line came to divide the village is Kaufman, Asher (2009). "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie": On Ghajar and Other Anomalies in the Syria-Lebanon-Israel Tri-Border Region". Middle East Journal (Middle East Institute) 63 (4). The Shebaa Farms issue is just as complicated. Israel claims that the territory is Syrian and is thus not required to withdraw its forces from the territory as part of its ending its occupation of southern Lebanon. Syria and Lebanon say that the territory is Lebanese, though whether or not this is Syria's official position or if it is just an attempt to remove Israeli forces from the territory is a question that does not have an answer. Hezbollah uses the continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms as justification for continued action against Israel, as the say action against Israel is justified so long as Israel occupies any Lebanese territory. Where the Shebaa Farms actually is wont be decided until a comprehensive border treaty between Syria and Lebanon is signed.<p>So what should the article say? Thats a bit hard to figure out. I think the right way to put this is to spell it out. Say that Ghajar straddles the Blue Line between Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied Golan, and that the Shebaa Farms continues to be occupied by Israel which says it is part of the Syria's Golan while Syria and Lebanon say it part of Lebanon. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| The article neglects to mention that the 1967 war was a defensive war on the part of the state of Israel, and it is, as a rule, unprecedented for the UN or its associated bodies to have any problem with territories a state seizes in a defensive war. ] (]) 01:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === 173.57.158.145's edits and Lebanon/Jordan === | |||
| :No part of that is true. ''']''' - 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (Due to an edit clash with Nableezy we had two sections appear on the same subject. I'm turning my section into a subsection of his. Hopefully comments can address both of our initial posts.)--] (]) 16:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I reverted these edits because I think they produced quite a confused state of affairs including poor formatting. It will be better to thrash something out here and then introduce material on Lebanon. The latter only appears in the table and we need to explain Southern Lebanon's presence there both in the lede and in its own section. The two remaining Lebanese areas seem to arise from a history of confusion over the country's border with Syria and these need to be explained. The status of the two Jordanian areas need to be thrashed out here with reliable sourcing etc.--] (]) 15:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :From the little I remembered about Ghajar and the Shebaa Farms, the issue is as complicated as Nableezy described it (thank you for taking time to write it down). Definitely it has its place in this article, not so sure about the lead. How common is it to count Ghajar and the Shebaa Farms among "the occupied territories"? My cursory impression is that commonly OP refers to West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights, and that the sources mostly just omit the two smaller areas. --] (]) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024 == | |||
| == 242 == | |||
| {{edit extended-protected|Israeli-occupied territories|answered=yes}} | |||
| Biosketch, even if one were to accept that UNSC Resolution 242 is what defines the ''Israeli-occupied territories'' (which I dont), that does not support removing the word ''the''. 242 calls for withdrawing from territories occupied, and while the lack of the use of the word ''the'' in the English version of that resolution is used as an argument that Israel need not withdraw from all territory occupied in 67, it is not an argument for claiming that the territory Israel captured in 67, all of it, is not occupied. Could you explain why you want to remove ''the''? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Link evidence for claim "A six month ceasefire was agreed in June 2008, but it was broken several times by both Israel and Hamas." in Gaza Strip section ] (]) 23:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{not done}} This seems to be supported by the existing BBC source. ] (]) 20:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on December 10 2024 == | |||
| Request to change "No, but Israel has maintained control over the territory's border crossings, territorial waters, and air space since the end of the occupation in 2005" to "No, but Israel has maintained control over the territory's border crossings, territorial waters, and air space since its disengagement in 2005". This is in the wikitable in the overview section of the article. Using "disengagement" is the more accurate term due to the ICJ ruling (alongside with the RS consensus) that says that the Gaza Strip is still Israeli-occupied even since 2005 because Israel still has control over border crossings, water, and air space. ] (]) 19:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == The article is named incorrectly == | |||
| Please watch this explanation why the said territories are to be called disputed and not occupied http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Please read ] then ]. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia with a mandatory neutrality policy. It isn't Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article uses the common name and informs readers that ''Israel prefers the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank''. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 16:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm I'm reading the the NPOV and it says Misplaced Pages should have neutral point of view. I think the term occupied is pretty much the opposite of neutral. Would you not agree that the term occupied suggests there is an occupation which is a seriously(international courts and such) disputed claim ? The name is a blunt example of bias. It's as if the article about Palestine would be named "The Terrorist State of Palestine" and then in body it would say they rather have the name Palestine. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Latest revision as of 15:14, 7 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli-occupied territories article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
Egypt and jordan
why Egypt and jordan controled and Israel occupies? The Egyptian and Jordanian rule there were not recognized internationally and in the Egyptian case the territory was not even annexed. It is npov 2.55.164.132 (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Grammatical errors in the first paragraph
"Prior to 1967, the Palestinian territories was (-> were) split between the Gaza Strip controlled by Egypt and the West Bank (controlled) by Jordan, while the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights are (-> were) parts of Egypt and Syria, respectively."
"The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights, where Israel had transferred its parts of population there and built large (sentence beyond repair, replacement suggestion: "- roughly 750,000 Israeli settlers live in a multitude of -") settlements,(sources: West Bank + East Jerusalem -> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/02/jewish-settlers-west-bank-half-million/, Golan Heights -> https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20211226-israel-approves-plan-to-double-settler-population-in-golan-heights) is the longest military occupation in modern history." Wolfdale19 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Context of the 1967 War
The article neglects to mention that the 1967 war was a defensive war on the part of the state of Israel, and it is, as a rule, unprecedented for the UN or its associated bodies to have any problem with territories a state seizes in a defensive war. Kandbsoalkan (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- No part of that is true. nableezy - 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Link evidence for claim "A six month ceasefire was agreed in June 2008, but it was broken several times by both Israel and Hamas." in Gaza Strip section SpockKirklovechild (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done This seems to be supported by the existing BBC source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on December 10 2024
Request to change "No, but Israel has maintained control over the territory's border crossings, territorial waters, and air space since the end of the occupation in 2005" to "No, but Israel has maintained control over the territory's border crossings, territorial waters, and air space since its disengagement in 2005". This is in the wikitable in the overview section of the article. Using "disengagement" is the more accurate term due to the ICJ ruling (alongside with the RS consensus) that says that the Gaza Strip is still Israeli-occupied even since 2005 because Israel still has control over border crossings, water, and air space. Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- Palestine-related articles needing attention
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Syria articles
- Low-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles