Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uriyan (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 8 October 2002 (Replies to Elian and Ed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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."

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). 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

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, ) 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 and the rest of the Arab bloc, the UK , the EU, the United Nations and (usually) the USA (, ), and the .

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

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