Talk:Israel/Israel and the Occupied Territories-7

Politics and law

My proposed addition:

 Israel is also a Jewish state. That means that Israel gives more privilegies to 
 its Jewish citizens than its other citizens. Some see that as an expression of 
 racism.

Israel's Jewish character needs to be given much more coverage than this. Not even mentioning the fact that each and every Jew can at anytime settle in Israel, while the Palestinian refugees cannot return, is a disgrace against the truth.

Editorials don't belong in an article, particularly ones which contain broad un-referenced claims. Jayjg 03:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. The new "editorial" which includes a reference is:

 Israel is also a Jewish state. That means that Israel gives more
 privilegies to its Jewish citizens than its other citizens. Some see
 that as an expression of racism. In particular, archbishop [[Desmond
 Tutu]] has compared Israel to South Africa during the [[Apartheid
 regime]].

Palestine-info 07:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any references to the other un-referenced claims, and Tutu's opinions about Israel are the opinion of one man, and not relevant to the situation. Jayjg 17:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

occupied vs taken over

My proposed change:

 The territories taken over by Israel since the 1967

To:

 The territories occupied by Israel since the 1967

If they were taken over they would have been incorporated in Israel. They have not been, therefore they are occupied.

OK thats all! Discuss on, form consensuses, do whatever! I will gradually begin to reinsert all points that does not seem to rise an argument beginning from tomorrow. Palestine-info 01:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See discussion above about "occupation". And please give the discussion pages a little more time so all interested parties can voice their opinions. Jayjg 04:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Occupies here will be interperted as the "occupied territory" definition in the international law, rather then what we are trying to say that Israel took over the area (=[literally means] occupied it), but not-relating to the jurisprudence definition of the internatioal-law. So let's leave it in order not to confuse people or upset.

The status under international law is "disputed", not "occupied". Jayjg 21:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is an unanimous practice of labeling the territories as the "occupied territories". It is used by both sides (Israeli/Arab) in the conflict and by the UN:s resolutions etc. Arguing that they are not occupied is rediculous and the onus is upon those who argues in that way to prove that they are not occupied. Palestine-info 10:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a concerted effort to eliminate reference to the Occupied Territories because the Israeli position is that the phrase "disputed territories" should be used instead of Occupied. [1]. The reasons are political. Israelis want to deny that there is an occupation so that they can deny that resistance to the occupation is legitimate [2]. Some also hope to annex more Arab land to use for Jewish settlements. Alberuni 18:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have an odd definition of "unanimous". They are often referred to as "disputed territories" and even sometimes as "liberated territories"; Google gets tens of thousands of hits on those usages. Furthermore, the parts Administered by the PA are now often referred to as the "Aministered territories". Jayjg 17:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about "territory under the physical control of the Israeli government (or army)"? Rickyrab 18:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Physical, though correct, is a bit vague, and is a sort of circumvention: physical (control) viz. military (control), and the Isl Govt. viz. the IDF (which it, the Isl. Govt., controls). Returning to Jayjg's point, perhaps we should consider a compromise along the lines (though not necesarily the order) of the wording in the Hebrew WP, which attempts to accomodate the controversy by accounting for terms representing several political views, possbily with some expansion/correlation of views-to-terms, though this does risks in becoming too convoluted (translation follows bellow) :

..." 'The Territories,' or the 'Held Territories,' or the 'Occupied Territories' or the , or the 'Liberated Territories' — in accordance with the various political views — are territores Israel captured during the Six Day War"

As an aside, in my own writings I usually employed the term Occupied Territories or The Territories, but I realize that the former is a disputed term. El_C

Why not describe the reason why these terms have become controversial. Who is doing the disputing and what is the political motive behind the semantic distinctions. The information is readily available. [3] [4]. Alberuni 20:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As hinted above, in theory, I am in favour of that approach, but in practice, I wish to prevent an opening sentence from becoming too convoluted (as opposed to an elaboration later on in the article). This, then, becomes the real challenge with such a revision. El_C

I agree with Alberuni on this. Let's delve into the origins of the disputes. (Unfortunately, this could well boil down to "who started the fighting to begin with", which is a chicken-and-egg question and not really answerable.)Rickyrab 20:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reason they're disputed is that the use of the term "Occupied" has been part of a deliberate propaganda campaign. However, it's not Wikedia's role to decide which is right, it's just Wikipedia's role to describe things in an NPOV way. Jayjg 20:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And likewise with Liberated, etc. So, as implied in the above comments, one way to describe this in a NPOV manner would be to state that: for the Israelis who setteled in The Territories after 1967, these were Liberated Territories, whereas to the Palestinian population of the Territories these were (militarily) Occupied Territories, etc. El_C

Perhaps. But I wonder whether or not that's a Sympathetic Point of View rather than an NPOV. Rickyrab 21:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sympathies behind each term still exist in the subtext whether we choose to address these or not — if we don't, we're back at sqaure one with the NPOV challenge of which term(s) to mention. El_C

I'll be gone from Wikipedia for one or two weeks and therefore wont have time to respond to any arguments raised right now. However, I encourage everyone to keep the debate hot. Because we cannot let people like Jayjg have their extremist view presented as the truth. Also, remember that the purpouse of this discussion is not to convince Jayjg that the new wordings is better. It is not in my power to do that, and I don't think anyone else has that power except for God maybe. It is merely to show that the large majority of Wikipedias prefer the new wordings. Therefore simple "Agree with the new wording" (on some wording) is enough to show your position. Wikipedians are smart people and Im sure that sooner or later this article will be ok. Palestine-info 22:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is an inappropriate commentary, Palestine-info. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to refrain from personal attacks against other editors; to avoid using terms such as an extremist, questioning other editors' critical faculties and mentioning God and/or god(s). El_C

By Tradition a Jewish State?

I disagree with that sentence. It is not a tradition to have a Jewish state. Zionism is a European political movement of religious nationalism. It is not a tradition. That's like calling apartheid a tradition. I also disagree with the characterization that the modern state of Israel (the subject of this article) is the spiritual home for Jews. The Holy Land is the spiritual home for Jews and other Abrahamic religions whether or not Israel is the political state of the moment. This article should not be just the Jewish POV about Israel. --Alberuni 15:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

This is an article about Israel, not the Holly Land. The passage reads: tradition and national policy. Apartheid is, in part, derived from tradition also (going back to the 1652). And the Jews have lived in that specific region for much, much longer than the Dutch settlers in the Cape. Before it was edited the article said something to the effect of many Jews consider Israel to be the spiritual home for Jews and/or Jewish State: that means within the territory which the State of Israel encompasses, it is so viewed by many Jews. It would be POV not to mention this fact. Of course, Jews are going to recieve an especial emphasis since they are the majority of the population in (and founders of the) State of Israel. In closing, it strikes me that your comments tend to approach the Israel article as the Holly Land one. I therefore disagree with your disagreement. El_C