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 194.90.18.242 (talk) at 14:58, 12 January 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:58, 12 January 2012 by 194.90.18.242 (talk)(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 
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:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

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.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.
See discretionary sanctions for details
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 B‑class Low‑importance
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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance 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.

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


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)
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. Shanghai Sally (talk) 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. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

West Bank barrier construction started when?

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. VelvetSkies (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

IP edits, whats wrong and whats right

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 this map). 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.

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. nableezy - 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

173.57.158.145's edits and Lebanon/Jordan

(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.)--Peter cohen (talk) 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.--Peter cohen (talk) 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. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

242

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? nableezy - 17:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories: