Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israeli-occupied territories

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 07:05, 1 November 2010 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive 3.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:05, 1 November 2010 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive 3.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
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 and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions
WikiProject iconIsrael B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconSyria Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WildBot has stopped running and will not check this page. You can still use the Dablinks tool to check this page for links to disambiguation pages. This tag can be safely removed.

Term Occupied Territories

Would point out in addition to the term "occupied territory" to be subject to challenge, the anti-Semitic Arabs and Muslims, when using the term "occupied territories," refer to all of Israel, and consider all of Israel to be disputed. Their desire to obliterate Israel and her population is well documented, both in words and action. Therefore, the term "occupied territories" would appear to slant towards those that advocate genocide, and it is probably unwise to use the term here, either in same or different usage. - MSTCrow 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, he sayed it indeed. Both the fatah and the hamas and also almost all of the Islamic movements in the world agree on the last stage - Islamization of the entire world. However Fatah wants to start to Islamize Israel after they make peace with Israel and Hamas just wants to keep on using terror to achieve this goal. viclick """"" 09:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
True though it may be, this isn't the forum for opinion. The land is recognized as occupied by the U.N., and advocates of genocide can be just as occupied as anyone else. --70.187.207.119 22:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This assertion has no truth to it whatsoever. I have searched for the source of your quote on the internet and can't find anything except pro-Israeli activists claiming that it was said. It is more likely just propaganda spread by those within the Israeli camp that opposed the Oslo negotiations. Furthermore, much of what you say is just speculation. Even HAMAS has made their position clear that if Israel withdraws to the green-line they will end their violent activities. It has reiterated this stance numerous times on Middle Eastern news stations. The majority of the world (including the CIA Factbook) refers to Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as "Occupied Palestinian Territories" and hence this title is appropriate. Hearsay cannot be used as justification to administer changes to the article. Poyani 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Hamas never said they will end the violent activities, they offerd a 10 year old cease fire in exchange for all of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. i think that another thing they wanted was the releas of all prisoners in isreali jails, but im not sure.


JUST TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY.........what everyone "thinks" the areas should be referred to as is irrelevant.....the leading and undisputed international legal body, the International Court of Justice has used the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" to refer to Gaza, The West Bank and East Jerusalem. What WE think is unimportant as per NPOV policy in wiki.......click on the "linked" words in order to jump to reference pages...........oh....and some of you may try to dispute the "validity" of the ICJ.........lol........don't bother unless you have documentation. Shakur420 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I totallee disagree with Shakur420.

The term "Occupied Territories" is POV Israel makes it clear on their official website of foreign affairs.

Israel's presence in the territory is often incorrectly referred to as an "occupation." However, under international law, true occupation occurs only in territories that have been taken from a recognized sovereign. The last recognized sovereign of the West Bank and Gaza was the Ottoman Empire, which ceased to exist following the First World War. The Jordanian and Egyptian control over the West Bank and Gaza respectively following 1948 resulted from a war of aggression aimed at destroying the newly established Jewish state. Their attacks plainly violated UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947 (also known as the Partition Plan). Accordingly, the Egyptian and Jordanian control over the territories was never recognized by the international community. Furthermore, no sovereign Palestinian state has ever existed, neither in the West Bank nor anywhere else. As the West Bank had no prior legitimate sovereign, under international law these areas cannot be considered as "occupied" Arab or Palestinian lands, and their most accurate description would be that of disputed territories.

link: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/FAQ_Peace_process_with_Palestinians_Dec_2009.htm#Settlements1

--Aspergie (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The ICJ examined that claim and rejected it as completely without basis in international law. Israel is not the final authority on international law, and even the Israeli Supreme Court has said that Israel controls the West Bank in state of belligerent occupation. nableezy - 15:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

well you're right but wikipedia is an non-pov encyclopediae so at least we should mention the fact that israel disagree with the term occupied territories. and its arguments. best--Aspergie (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The ICJ is not the final authority on international law, either. In fact, given the history of the U.N. over the last several decades, any opinion by any organ of the U.N. on the subject is worthless.Mzk1 (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Aspergie (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)== Disputed territories ==

I've read through the archives, and I know no one wants to go back to arguing about the title--so I won't--but I do think that the concerns of those calling it POV were never adequately addressed. While I acknowledge that 'occupied territories' is the most common usage, it's difficult to deny that it's POV, even if it is a popular one. 'Disputed territories', is a significant minority view that the territories' status is disputed. So, as a compromise, perhaps that POV can be included in the introduction along the lines of: 'The term is generally used to refer to the Gaza Strip,the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Israel commonly refers to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the "Disputed Territories" (see below)'? Otherwise I feel like the controversy, which, again, is a significant one, gets brushed under the table at the end of a long-ish article. GUSwim 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling the territories held by Israel "disputed" instead of occupied, as recognized by the UN is extremely dangerous and sets a path towards a complete elimination of Palestine. You can win in a dispute, you cannot win in an occupation.99.238.165.215 (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


JUST TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY.........what everyone "thinks" the areas should be referred to as is irrelevant.....the leading and undisputed international legal body, the International Court of Justice has used the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" to refer to Gaza, The West Bank and East Jerusalem. What WE think is unimportant as per NPOV policy in wiki.......click on the "linked" words in order to jump to reference pages...........oh....and some of you may try to dispute the "validity" of the ICJ.........lol........don't bother unless you have documentation. Shakur420 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

shakur

Um, no, YOU have to prove that it is "the leading and undisputed international legal body"; we don't have to prove that it isn't. The ICJ is an organ of the U.N., and it would not be hard to find sources "questioning" - to say the least - the U.N.'s impartiality in this area. We can also mention Reagan's two-year moratorium on World Court decisions during the dispute with Nicaragua.Mzk1 (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The term "Occupied Territories" is POV and Israel makes it clear on their official website of foreign affairs.

Israel's presence in the territory is often incorrectly referred to as an "occupation." However, under international law, true occupation occurs only in territories that have been taken from a recognized sovereign. The last recognized sovereign of the West Bank and Gaza was the Ottoman Empire, which ceased to exist following the First World War. The Jordanian and Egyptian control over the West Bank and Gaza respectively following 1948 resulted from a war of aggression aimed at destroying the newly established Jewish state. Their attacks plainly violated UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947 (also known as the Partition Plan). Accordingly, the Egyptian and Jordanian control over the territories was never recognized by the international community. Furthermore, no sovereign Palestinian state has ever existed, neither in the West Bank nor anywhere else. As the West Bank had no prior legitimate sovereign, under international law these areas cannot be considered as "occupied" Arab or Palestinian lands, and their most accurate description would be that of disputed territories.

link: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/FAQ_Peace_process_with_Palestinians_Dec_2009.htm#Settlements1

there is way more documentation but the term occupied territories is pov because a lot of people ( i mean a LOT) use the term disputed territories and they have got their arguments to do that ( like: how can the jewish people occupie their own land, or : there has never been a sovereign power on that piece of land so it can't be occupied)


http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/2/DISPUTED%20TERRITORIES-%20Forgotten%20Facts%20About%20the%20We http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704103104574623662661962226.html http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-1.htm http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/634KFC

--Aspergie (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that the ICRC, one of your sources, uses the standard term "Israel and the occupied territories" as their preferred terminology. I hope you are aware that the Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the High Court of Justice quite often issues rulings on the basis that some action carried out by the IDF's military commander in charge of the West Bank is 'inconsistent with the rules of international law regarding a belligerent occupation'. Here's an example and you can find others at the Supreme Court's website here. Statements from Israel's Supreme Court judges like Beinisch saying things like "freedom of movement is a basic human freedom, and that every effort should also be made to uphold it in the territories that are held by the State of Israel under a belligerent occupation." are quite common. Even the Supreme Court of Israel accepts that the West Bank is held by the State of Israel under a belligerent occupation. So, if it is POV it is a POV shared by the Israel's Supreme Court at least as far as the West Bank is concerned. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

well i guess you're right on that point, But i think we should at least make clear what the position of the israeli government is on this issue

We should change the POV to disputed territories, the U.N's view is irrelvant. Wiki can't have it both ways, when we can't call Hezbollah and Hams terrorist groups which they are obvious are.Unicorn76 (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. That's not even the Israeli government position, at least on the West Bank, and we don't give preference to minority views. We cover them but "disputed" isn't the usual or correct term. Sol (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Even the Israeli Supreme Court acknowledges that the territories are under belligerent occupation.-- Jim Fitzgerald 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, let's just call this article "Israel's belligerent occupation" to match the term used by the Israeli Supreme Court. Hcobb (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

allegations of war crimes

this is a very bias passage. it does not report the information rather it tries to argue that israel is committing war crimes by settling in the west bank? someone needs to get rid of this passage or at least change it up.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree lets take it out.Unicorn76 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. The questions (it's not really a question to most states but the controversy is worth covering) of settlements as breaches of the Geneva Convention and other international laws is a very politically charged and important issue. The section offers well sourced info directly attributed. What's the objection? Sol (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The objection is that is does not meet the criteria of a war crime. I am taking it out. You are in the minority of the analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn76 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't meet the criteria of a war crime? You can't erase material because it doesn't meet your definition of a war crime. A number reputable organizations think it violates the Geneva Conventions. You don't have to agree with them but disagreement isn't grounds for removal. Sol (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel won a war, there is no war crime in keeping terriotry. You have not stated a repuabble case for having war crimes in this page.There is no pending court trial for Israel on this issue.Unicorn76 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC) This is wikipedia's own definition on War Crimes http://en.wikipedia.org/War_Crimes As you can see Israel's occupation of disputed terriotories is not a war crime.Unicorn76 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me make this clear for you. You cannot disregard what quality sources say and remove entire sections because you feel it is "POV". Israeli settlements are violations of international law, I have added a number of sources that make this clear. If you continue editing in such a manner on pages in this topic area you may be subject to administrative restrictions. nableezy - 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You can not dictate what is an obvious hatread toward the State of Isreal go to the BBC or Al Jazeera propganda sight for that. Or join the terrorist pigs of Hamas.Unicorn76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for that. If you wish to edit here you have to abide the rules and policies the website. You cannot remove what reliable sources say because you think it is "POV". I provided 3 quality sources that say what I put in the article. I can provide hundreds more if you insist. If you make such comments again I will ask that your editing privileges in this topic area be removed. nableezy - 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that the anti-semitism and protection for terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah is still allowed at Misplaced Pages. I put Misplaced Pages's own definition of war crimes to remove a POV yet the offender get pc administrators supporting him. Racism against Jews is still alive and well in 2010. So much for Misplaced Pages claim to clean up the mess of administrators who promote a political view.Unicorn76 (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't use Misplaced Pages's definitions of anything to write articles. We use reliable sources WP:RS. Stop accusing editors of political bias for following policy. Sol (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Unicorn76, the majority of states interpret Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Geneva Convention in accordance with the Article 49 Commentary and with Article 85 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (AP I 1977). The Commentary explains that the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference of 1948 "intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race." The Protocol provides that "the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies is a grave breach of the conventions." Article 85(5) of AP I 1977 provides that "grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes." There are 170 state parties to the Protocol and the Fourth Geneva Convention has been universally ratified.
The Misplaced Pages article on War crime and the US War Crimes Act of 1996 reflect the fact that "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions are in fact war crimes.
The Geneva Conventions and AP I 1977 reflect customary international law (See paragraph 35 ) which is codified in Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. That convention has been ratified by 113 states. harlan (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI: Unicorn76 has been indefinitely blocked.--Chaser (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits - Israeli legal and political views

I don't think that this 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 Fourth Geneva Convention and international conventions. Unomi (talk) 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. harlan (talk) 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. Ewawer (talk) 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. harlan (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


What was the deal with this edit? The previous phrasing was unclear enough that I was moved look at sources pertaining to his statement. Unomi (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It is an improvement. harlan (talk) 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. harlan (talk) 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. Ewawer (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ewawer I'd suggest you review Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks 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 Misplaced Pages:Five pillars and the final decision in WP:ARBPIA. 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. harlan (talk) 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.Edstat (talk) 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: {{cn}}. Zero 13:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yamit photo

I am dubious about the photo 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. Zero 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Israeli draft age is 18 which explains the young age of the soldiers, I think that the photo looks plausibly reliable... Marokwitz (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2010 (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? Zero 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. Marokwitz (talk) 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. —Ynhockey 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think plausibility is a good enough basis to use a photograph of unknown provenance. john k (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories: