Talk:Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic

Name discussion

Could we move Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt to Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip please? I'd like to have a consistent naming scheme, like (Xian occupation of Y). This goes along with (Politics of Y), (Geography of Y), (History of Y). --Uncle Ed 17:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't "consistent" naming of the article be Egyptian occupation of Palestine? Jayjg 02:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this a serious question, or just rhetoric?

Assuming it's serious, then we can either:

• put every 'occupation' of ANY PART of the region known from ancient times as "Palestine" into Occupation of Palestine; or,
• put each separate 'occupation' of it, in a separate article -- hopefully, with a consistent naming scheme

I'm leaning towards more articles, for the next several weeks. If we find too much overlap and repetition, and if we can agree on a 'merge version', then why not make one article?

But the beauty of Egyptian occupation of Gaza Strip is that every word in the title is accurate and neutral.

• We all know what Egypt is and where Gaza Strip is
• Occupation is fairly well defined, and any real-world political disputes over whether the "occupation" is justified or not could go in the article.

In fact, I'd say that the most interesting part of the article is not the facts, but the various points of view: what major sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict say about Egypt exerting military control over Gaza.

By the way, has anyone written Israeli occupation of the Sinai yet?

It was a serious question. The next question is, would the state of Israel in the 1949 armistice lines (between 1948 and 1967) constitute an "Israeli occupation of Palestine" or not? If so, then why would the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations of part of Palestine be called anything else? Three countries "occupied" Palestine from 1948 to 1967. Jayjg 23:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jay, I don't know the history of the region as well as you do. I'm focussing on removing bias; I'll rely on you to add accuracy. Okay?

As far as I'm concerned, used of the word Palestine in articles with any of the following titles is neutral, if "Palestine" is taken to mean either the ancient region (way before Zionism became an issue) or the modern post-empire "mandate" region -- or any portion thereof:

• Jordanian occupation of Palestine or Occupation of Palestine by Jordan -- Jordan took some land west of the Jordan River (regions called Judea and Samaria in ancient times, and still called that by some Israelis; Western press always calls this region the West Bank because it's neutral, in that it doesn't imply endorsement or repudiation of any nation or group's claims on it.
• Egyptian occupation of Palestine is really only Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt -- I think this occupation ended when Israel got hold of this area.
• Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula -- Israel captured this from Egypt, and later gave it back as part of a peace deal.

Note that Israel occupies the Golan Heights (a significant but relatively minor issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict). Syria still occupies Lebanon - which I don't think is technically part of Palestine - just thought I'd throw that in for perspective; Israel isn't the only country in the Middle East with occupation troops throwing their weight around. What else have I left out?

Should we have a bunch a separate little articles, or one big one? I'm leaning to a few weeks of temporary creation of separate articles until we work out accuracy and bias issues; then, an agreed-upon merge. Ideally. --Uncle Ed 15:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia already has articles on Belligerent occupation and a List of military occupations including: Occupation of Iraq; Occupation of Japan; Occupation of Denmark; Occupation of Czechoslovakia; Occupation of Baltic Republics. So both Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt andOccupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan fits into that grouping linguistically and logically. IZAK 07:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could we move Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt to Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip please? I'd like to have a consistent naming scheme, like (Xian occupation of Y). This goes along with (Politics of Y), (Geography of Y), (History of Y). --Uncle Ed 17:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't "consistent" naming of the article be Egyptian occupation of Palestine? Jayjg 02:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this a serious question, or just rhetoric?

Assuming it's serious, then we can either:

• put every 'occupation' of ANY PART of the region known from ancient times as "Palestine" into Occupation of Palestine; or,
• put each separate 'occupation' of it, in a separate article -- hopefully, with a consistent naming scheme

I'm leaning towards more articles, for the next several weeks. If we find too much overlap and repetition, and if we can agree on a 'merge version', then why not make one article?

But the beauty of Egyptian occupation of Gaza Strip is that every word in the title is accurate and neutral.

• We all know what Egypt is and where Gaza Strip is
• Occupation is fairly well defined, and any real-world political disputes over whether the "occupation" is justified or not could go in the article.

In fact, I'd say that the most interesting part of the article is not the facts, but the various points of view: what major sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict say about Egypt exerting military control over Gaza.

By the way, has anyone written Israeli occupation of the Sinai yet?

It was a serious question. The next question is, would the state of Israel in the 1949 armistice lines (between 1948 and 1967) constitute an "Israeli occupation of Palestine" or not? If so, then why would the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations of part of Palestine be called anything else? Three countries "occupied" Palestine from 1948 to 1967. Jayjg 23:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jay, I don't know the history of the region as well as you do. I'm focussing on removing bias; I'll rely on you to add accuracy. Okay?

As far as I'm concerned, used of the word Palestine in articles with any of the following titles is neutral, if "Palestine" is taken to mean either the ancient region (way before Zionism became an issue) or the modern post-empire "mandate" region -- or any portion thereof:

• Jordanian occupation of Palestine or Occupation of Palestine by Jordan -- Jordan took some land west of the Jordan River (regions called Judea and Samaria in ancient times, and still called that by some Israelis; Western press always calls this region the West Bank because it's neutral, in that it doesn't imply endorsement or repudiation of any nation or group's claims on it.
• Egyptian occupation of Palestine is really only Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt -- I think this occupation ended when Israel got hold of this area.
• Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula -- Israel captured this from Egypt, and later gave it back as part of a peace deal.

Note that Israel occupies the Golan Heights (a significant but relatively minor issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict). Syria still occupies Lebanon - which I don't think is technically part of Palestine - just thought I'd throw that in for perspective; Israel isn't the only country in the Middle East with occupation troops throwing their weight around. What else have I left out?

Should we have a bunch a separate little articles, or one big one? I'm leaning to a few weeks of temporary creation of separate articles until we work out accuracy and bias issues; then, an agreed-upon merge. Ideally. --Uncle Ed 15:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia already has articles on Belligerent occupation and a List of military occupations including: Occupation of Iraq; Occupation of Japan; Occupation of Denmark; Occupation of Czechoslovakia; Occupation of Baltic Republics. So both Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt andOccupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan fits into that grouping linguistically and logically. IZAK 07:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rejected the plan as too generous to the Zionists?

The Arabs "rejected the plan as too generous to the Zionists"? That sounds like unsourced POV to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was common knowledge. To quote an Israeli site:

Prince Seif El Islam Abdullah (Yemen): "the partition plan is contrary to justice and to the Charter of the United Nations."

Mr. Jarnali (Iraq): "this decision is anti-democratic, illegal, impractical and contrary to the Charter."[1]

Admittedly, my phrasing is perhaps too mild - their attitude could more exactly be summarized as that giving any land at all to a Zionist state is an incredible injustice. - Mustafaa 20:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. It wasn't that the offer given was too generous, it was that any state at all was unacceptable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two points are equivalent. They thought giving the Zionists an independent state was too generous (not to mention unjust.) - Mustafaa 23:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, that's what they said for public consumption at the U.N. What they thought was something quite different. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only on the distinctly paranoid assumption that every Arab figure that expressed any public opinion on the matter at the time was lying. It's not exactly rocket science to figure out that they might be a little offended at the idea of rewarding the colonizers instead of expelling them. - Mustafaa 02:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Their reactions to the Jews returning to their native land after their long exile were not encompassed only in their empty U.N. speeches. It's not exactly rocket science to figure out that Arab leaders might have been a little offended at uppity dhimmis getting any sort of political power in lands that had long been wrested from them; pretty much the way Americans generally felt about native Indians for much of that country's history. The idea that these Arab elites might be concerned about the rights of, and justice for, Arabs in other countries, when they had no such concern for the Arabs they oppressed in their own countries, is laughable. And the actions of the Arab countries subsequent to 1949 made it abundantly clear that their actions had nothing to do with the welfare of the Arabs of Palestine, and everything to do with their feelings about Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Uppity dhimmis" or foreign colonialists? I'll go for the latter. How you can compare a bunch of first-generation German and Russian immigrants with native Americans is... unclear. And who restricted the issue to the "Arab leaders"? - Mustafaa 03:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you would lack clarity on this topic. That's fine. As for the Arab leaders, who else commented on the situation in the U.N., and who else sent the Arab countries to war with Israel, ostensibly becuase of "injustice", but in actual fact (as their actions would prove) for entirely different reasons? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you regard the native Americans as recent immigrants motivated by nationalism who attempted to take the country away from a longstanding European settlement? Very well... - Mustafaa 04:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said on the other page, I'd prefer not to bicker with you any more, this really isn't what we should be using Talk: pages for anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. - Mustafaa 04:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who established what state

Cut from article:

In September 1948, partly as an Arab League move to limit the influence of Jordan (which claimed to be the Palestinians' legitimate ruler) over the Palestinian issue, a Palestinian government was declared in Gaza. The former mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was appointed as president. On October 1, an independent Palestinian state in all of Palestine was declared, with Jerusalem as its capital.

Questions:

1. WHO declared a "Palestinian government"?
2. WHO appointed Haj president?
3. WHO declared an "independent Palestinian state in all of Palestine"

If we leave it in the passive voice, it sounds like these governments simply sprang into being. Or worse, that we endorse their creation in the same sense as "Rome was established in 638 B.C." as if there was nothing there before and they got there first. If that is what these sentences mean to say, then we need a source for this claim, because there are people on opposite sides of the question. --Uncle Ed 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Move protected

This page has been subject to move warring. This is not appropriate, and to prevent continuation another administrator has protected the page against it. Editors who have been here as long as the participants have are supposed to know better than to engage in sterile revert warring. The cycle is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, ...". So discuss the right title! GRBerry 15:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt" vs. "Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt"

As per List of military occupations, military occupations are called just that. This page should follow that lead.

The original move to "Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt" by User:Jaakobou was to make a point regarding the use of the word "occupied" when referring to Israeli-occupied territories in the discussion on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (relevant diffs here, here and here).

The often-cited counter-example Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan is the minority compared to the articles listed in List of military occupations.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 15:51

Copied from here

my move is just as defensible as yours. however, i was hoping to see a comment or two by less involved individuals than us both. please answer me this question does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As stated in Military occupation, the definition given by the Hague Conventions is

“ Art. 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. ”

and

“ Art. 43: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. ”

I'm curious to see how you're going to try to parse this to your advantage... pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:02

pedro, we have opposing opinion regarding this term - but i'm trying to keep an open mind, please do the same. my question was: does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own? and from your given text i see that, "the authority of the hostile army" which would support my notion that the answer to my question is "yes". do you accept that it is indeed the answer or no (explain why)? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not support a strict "boots on the ground" definition. Occupation is when you exercise control. If this control is achieved by having troops there (as in the West Bank or Iraq) or by threatening to move troops there (as in the Gaza Strip) makes no difference.

What is important is that the occupant has authority over a territory which does not belong to him/her. How it is effectively enforced (troops or no troops) is not important. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:15

And by the way, this is a discussion, not an RfC. We should try to work this out ourselves before calling on the community. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:19

"by threatening to move troops there"? i'd appreciate a WP:RS for this addition/extension to the original definition. if someone would apply the same logic in reverse form, than all of israel is occuppied by the arabs/muslims and also the city of mecca which used to be jewish. try to keep emotions/pre-conceptions out of the discussion and keep to what the reliable sources say, please, so we can avoid turning this debate into a facebook style give-and-go.

to quote you: "which does not belong to him/her". so, do you agree that the definition of "occupation" suggests that the "occupier" is a foreign force? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My source is the Hague Conventions. The phrase "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army" means just that: authority is important.

Regarding the ownership issue, no part of the British Mandate of Palestine was ever given to Egypt (the Gaza Strip was to belong to a new arab state, as stated in the article in question), hence it did not belong to them.

Look, I'm no big fan of word-games and entrapment. If you have a point to make, make it. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 10:36

i agree that 'authority' is important, i also subject that 'hostile' is also important. you are avoiding the question - please answer it in relation to the sources and words you've already used - so that we can move on to the ownership issue.

to repeat, the question was: does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own?. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you don't understand about my answer. "Occupation" implies foreign authority in a land not their own. To answer in one word: does the term "occupation" imply foreign army in a land not their own? No. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 11:09

thank you for answering the question - per, "foreign authority in a land not their own." [2].

now the question rises, who owns these strips of land called gaza and west bank. and that is where the real complications begin. according to the balfour declaration, it's jewish land. according to the arab rejected 1947 UN proposal, it's arab land. according to the pan-arab movement and the islamist movement, it's arab/islamic land. according to the zionist/jewish movement, it's israeli land. these are obviously conflicting narratives, and the UN is rejected by both. i agree that the term "occupied" can be used to some extent in this conflict... but not everywhere. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$ The issue of ownership of the Mandate after its dissolution is a rather large and prickly issue... To make the whole thing easier: It doesn't matter who the "land" (i.e. the Gaza Strip) belonged to exactly -- what is important is that it definitely did not belong to Egypt. Hence, it was occupied by Egypt. pedro gonnet - talk - 12.12.2007 12:32

User:Pedro Gonnet,

"what is important is that it definitely did not belong to Egypt." - pedro gonnet 12.12.2007 12:32.

- i agree with you on this 100% (glad we agree on this), although they certainly have a stronger case than Jordan over the West Bank considering the history of Albanian Muhammad Ali.

"Hence, it was occupied by Egypt" - pedro gonnet 12.12.2007 12:32.

this is where WP:OR comes into the picture (again). have you ever given a look to land ownership laws of different countries? what about ownership laws of non countries? ever heard of the "Galactic Government"? (not related to star wars). on point, you are definitely 100% incorrect with your statement that, [if it] did not belong to [anyone]...then it was occupied.

false perceptions are hard to correct, but i trust you will agree (at least on this semi-point) if you explore this issue based on reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So your point is that although it didn't belong to Egypt, and Egypt took it by force, it was not an occupation because, perhaps, of "ownership laws" in Egypt? I did not say, as you try to mis-quote me, that the Gaza Strip did not belong to anyone -- I said it did not belong to Egypt. Can you give me a quote for the legal basis of the non-occupation status? Or for "ownership laws" that invalidate the occupation status? pedro gonnet - talk - 13.12.2007 09:02

How about "Annexation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt"? This seems to be much more neutral than either of the others. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they didn't annex it. If they had, they would have had to make it part of the state of Egypt (which they didn't) and give all inhabitants political rights (which they didn't). pedro gonnet - talk - 13.12.2007 10:02

i'm not talking about ownership laws "in egypt", but the general global conception of ownership laws regarding non-sovereign land. as for a source, at this moment in time, i only found the lunar laws in the FAQ area of the 'Galactic Government' website.. i've seen someone reliable talk about this on t.v. just a few days ago, but to find a book/web source will take a little time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, but we're not talking about a lunar crater or some stretch of land that just popped out of the ocean -- this was UN mandated territory that was set aside for an arab state that has still to come, if ever. Egypt had/has as little right to it as Israel -- namely no right to it. Or am I missing your point completely? pedro gonnet - talk - 13.12.2007 15:55

keeping things honest, the arabs rejected the plan and tried to take the israeli land by force. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$Ok, I moved the page back to its original title. If you want to re-move it, I suggest you post your rationale here and get some agreement first. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 08:25

What is this article about?

The concept of having an article about the Gaza strip when it was under egyptian control is not a bad one, but there is remarkably little in the article as it presently exists about this topic. Instead, we mostly have duplicate material that is treated elsewhere. As an aside, there isn't a reference in the entire article.--Federalist51 (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Map

The map in infobox isn't particularly relevant to the topic of article. Better would be a map of the area under Egyptian control, perhaps superimposed over present-day boundaries of Gaza strip.--Federalist51 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Replace previous map in infobox with map that shows area occupied by Egypt and 1950 armistice boundary. --Federalist51 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Section heading for "History"

Another editor and I have had some back and forth over whether the bulk of this article should be under the heading “History.” Realizing that this is not a momentous decision, I nevertheless thought I would move discussion out of edit summaries so that editors could attempt to reach a consensus.

My point is that since this entire article is about a historical period, it makes no sense to have a “History” header. In fact, if there is to be a "history" section, then every section in the article(except possibly background) should appear as a subsection.

In support of his reversion of my deletion of this section, the other editor comments that “History is a typical section for former country / territory articles.”

This isn’t correct. For example, there are about a dozen articles concerning occupation of countries by the Axis powers during WWII. None of them that I looked at have “History” sections. Here is a sample:

• German military administration in occupied France during World War II (redirected from German-occupied France)
• History of Poland
• Occupation of Denmark
• Occupation of the Channel Islands
• Axis occupation of Greece during World War II

Other articles about occupations follow the same pattern (they don't have a history section). For example:

• Vichy France
• History of the Netherlands (1939–1945)
• Soviet occupation of Hungary
• United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–1966)

The same is true more generally. See, for example, the following:

• Pre-Columbian Mexico
• Spanish Texas
• Republic of Texas

There are hundreds (possibly thousands) of “History of” articles. These don’t generally have a major section labeled “History,” for obvious reasons. This article could just have easily been titled “History of Gaza Strip (1947-1967)” and the same logic applies.

For the above reasons, I'd like to take out the "History" header and correct levels of remaining headings. Would appreciate comments of others. --Federalist51 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion here was plain simple - the occupation period is describing a sort of geopolitical entity, which is "Gaza under Egyptian occupation", coming in between the "All-Palestine Government" and the "Israeli occupation". Since the 1959-1967 occupation of Gaza is related as a "former country" (the template of former country is used, and there is a section on economy) - hence all relevant sections of "history", "demography", "politics" etc. may be used in the article. See Korea under Japanese rule for example. By the way - Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem has a "history" section, even though no "former country template" is used. apparently there is no clear rule - most articles are mess, and the question is do we treat the occupation as an entity (my edits), or as a priod of history (your edits).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of headings, as I understand them, is to logically organize an article. Having a history section makes sense for articles about existing countries, geographic areas, etc. because the heading separates descriptions of the past (History) from descriptions of the present (everything else).

I don't understand, in this article, what topics logically fall under "history" as opposed to "demography", "politics" etc? Most of the content that is now under history relates to governance structures and authority. Why is this more "history" than demographics?

I'm also not sure what you mean by "former country template." Is there such a thing? The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem does have a History section, but it illustrates my point -- the entire article appears as subsections of "History." How is that beneficial? The structure of the other article you mentioin (Korea under Japanese rule) is a disaster. It's hardly a model for anything.

Bottom line, for me, is that article shouldn't have a History header unless we can articulate what subjects are "History" as opposed to something else. If you still feel that a History section is called for here, can you explain what you have in mind?--Federalist51 (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

By former country template i mean the "former country infobox", with the flags, basic info, names etc. I bet you are familiar with those.

I think i got your problematism with the "history" section being used for countries/territories, which no more exist (like the present Gaza occupation article). Since there is no clear rule on this (in addition to previously shown examples there is also the Coalition Provisional Authority article with history section) though i don't feel and passion on using "history" title, can we agree on "chronology" or "timeline"?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that this moves us in the right direction, but it would be helpful to better understand what the chronology or timeline is of. It seems that the material in this section has something to do with the form of government or who is governing. In other words, we are basically distinguishing the period was nominally under the jurisdiction of the All Palestine Government from a later period when it was nominally under the control of a Palestinian National Council. (Side issue:I actually don't think either period should be referred to as "Egyptian Administration." This term probably should be used for the entire 1948-1967 period (except for the 4 months of Israeli control).)--Federalist51 (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That is quiet professional issue, whether All-Palestine Government was de jure or de facto, but as far as i know when official puppet government is assigned, it is still related as "independent" entity, even though it is under direct foreign control, like the Vichi France for example. For this reason i think we should put "All-Palestine Government 1948-1959" in the background section of this article, and focus on the "Egyptian Administration 1959-1967" proper in other sections of this article. Anyway, much material is missing here - the article is underdeveloped.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been away from this article for a while, and just made a slight reorganization that, I now see, reverses the change referenced above (by taking all palestine government out of Background and making it its own section). I still believe this is correct (which is why I'm leaving change in place), but don't feel that strongly about it. --Federalist51 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

pov-label

We rarely heard the phrase "Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt" before 1967, those books I have read from the time, talked about "Egyptian rule" or "Egyptian administration".

This article has nearly a 10 year history of edit-warring, including page moves. May I suggest "History of Gaza, 1958- 1967" Or just "Gaza, 1948-1967"?

BTW, we have the same problems at Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No it used in Scholarly sources for example [3],[4],[5],[6] Also was Gaza annexed to Egypt?--Shrike (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that quite a bit of time has passed since the last dispute about the article title, which is a good thing. I strongly suggest leaving the title alone. I suspect the title is intended to parallel the title of the period after 1967. Changing that title to "Gaza, 1967-present" (conforming to Huldra's proposed title to this article) would provoke a firestorm of criticism. -- Federalist51 (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the links that Shrike gives: it underscores my point: Israeli scholars started using it after 1967, in order to try to "equal" the Israeli occupation with the Egyptian rule. It is a highly POV title. Huldra (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:COMMONNAME and it used widely in scholarly literature.

Suggest removal of POV header

User Huldra added a POV header in August that reads "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." As far as I can tell from Huldra's comments above, the objection is to the title of the article, not to a lack of balance in the article itself. Unless someone comes forward with specific POV issues in article that need to be addressed, I suggest removing this box. Federalist51 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, User:Federalist51: you agree with moving the article then? Do you have any suggestions? I was thinking of the Egyptian era on the Gaza stip, 1948-1967. Not a very elegant title, but the one that captures the reality best, IMO, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• My belief, per comment in section above, is that title be left alone. I think it is the least controversial option, given the titles of other articles about the occupied territories. As you pointed out in your original comment on the subject, the article title has a long history of edit wars and reversions (which, I might add, I was not a part of.) These have not reoccurred in quite a while, suggesting that a consensus has been reached. In any event, I think the POV tag should be removed because it signals imbalance in text of article, which is not what you are pointing out. Federalist51 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have not edited here before (I did not even know about the article until a short while ago). Looking at the article history, it has been "owned" by several of the most pro-Israeli editors here: link, IZAK, Jayjg, Canadian Monkey. And the article name is the most important text of the whole article; by your argument you could mv "Israel" to "Zionist entity" and say that this does not merit a POV-label, it is "only" a discussion about the title..... Huldra (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127035141/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/88A6BF6F1BD82405852574CD006C457F to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/88A6BF6F1BD82405852574CD006C457F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525024736/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9EC4A332E2FF9A128525643D007702E6 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9EC4A332E2FF9A128525643D007702E6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041205142353/http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=132 to http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=132
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050111030119/http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/G/gazastrip.html to http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/G/gazastrip.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Definition addition

In the "Egypt Occupation: All-Palestine Protectorate (1948–1950s)" section, the "According to Avi Shlaim" quote, the word shuttlecock is used. I would like to add the link as shuttlecock (Shuttle diplomacy ) for clarity. Being a quote I am not sure if it can be added as such or as some form of note. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Otr500 (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Added link mentioned above for clarity providing disambiguation from "high-drag projectile used in the sport of badminton". -- Otr500 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the United Arab Republic flag the most appropriate for this article?

Per title.

All-Palestinian Government/Protectorate was officially annexed by Nasser into the United Arab Republic in 1959 and lasted until 1967, which is an eight-year period. In comparison, it spent more time officially/de jure under All-Palestinian Protectorate jurisdiction, which used the modern-day Palestinian flag, from 1948 to 1959, a nine-year period.

Therefore I pose the question of whether the UAR flag is really the most appropriate for this article. Would it not be better to use the Palestinian flag over the UAR flag, or display both together? Sisuvia (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for this annexation. We can't even consider it until then. Zero^talk 01:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The All-Palestinian Government (henceforth APG) nominally administered Gaza from its founding in 1948 to 1959 after which it was replaced by direct Egyptian military administration, per Palestinian Embassy to Australia website. (https://www.palestine-australia.com/about-palestine/historical-and-political-context/)

Israeli historian Avi Shlaim mentions that Nasser "closed" the offices of the APG in 1959 in his article "The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza". (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2537321)

In an opinion piece published in Al-Shorouk about the APG written by a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, its dissolution in 1959 is mentioned. (https://www.shorouknews.com/columns/view.aspx?cdate=13062021&id=3d7ddfae-3cee-4b4c-aaa1-6301e561a5eb)

Difficult for me to find any more beyond that as there doesn't seem to be much of anything about the APG in English sources and I'm not literate in Arabic. Sisuvia (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note that "direct Egyptian military administration" is occupation, not annexation. Annexation would mean that it became part of the sovereign territory of Egypt/UAR. I'm pretty sure Egypt never claimed that. Zero^talk 12:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)