Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.18.242 (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:FIVE then WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a mandatory neutrality policy. It isn't Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article uses the common name and informs readers that Israel prefers the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I'm reading the the NPOV and it says Wikipedia should have neutral point of view. I think the term occupied is pretty much the opposite of neutral. Would you not agree that the term occupied suggests there is an occupation which is a seriously(international courts and such) disputed claim ? The name is a blunt example of bias. It's as if the article about Palestine would be named "The Terrorist State of Palestine" and then in body it would say they rather have the name Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.184.24 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. If you think occupied is the opposite of neutral in this case you are misinformed and perhaps you should consider broadening your reading material. The Supreme Court of Israel has referred to the status of the West Bank as a territory held under belligerent occupation in many of their rulings. That's why it is administered by the IDF. The international community regards it as an occupation and has said so repeatedly. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. Claims that we should say disputed rather than occupied are based on ignorance of how sources deal with this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sean, there is no need to insult other editors. There is a natural tension between two meanings of the word neutral. Linquistically, aruablly, the word disputed is more neutral and less loaded than occupied. However that is not how Wikipedia understands the word neutral. Wikipedia's understanding of neutral is to use the terms used by the majority of reliable sources. Clearly, the majority of reliable sources use the word occupied, and thus this term, however biased, is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. - BorisG (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't seen me insult other editors. It doesn't look like this but I'll bear it in mind if I decide to insult other editors. I gave the editor some feedback that should save them the trouble of wasting their time and other people's time discussing things because Danny Ayalon says something in a Youtube video. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I referred to your use of the word ignorance, but I do not care that much. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if it's a simple matter of tallying up the reliable sources I'm willing to spend some time to verify that indeed the majority refer to the territory as occupied. Before I do that, in order to avoid any unnecessary controversy, I'd like to know what is the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source ? 79.182.196.113 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia definition of a reliable sources. Please consider registering an account, as a gesture of courtesy, for the conversations with IP jumpers are extremely hard to follow. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 11:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is trivial for the parties on the ground to not treat this as an occupation. Simply hand out voter registration cards to the natives and invite the displaced populations back. Until then it is being treated as an occupation and we are correct to name it so. Hcobb (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those has any bearing on whether a territory is occupied or not, at least not according to international law. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

They also have nothing to do with any WP guideline. --Shuki (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

They consist of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip until 2005

This seems like an NPOV violation. According to the UN Security Council and and UN General Assembly the Gaza strip remains part of the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" [1]. All the mainstream Human rights organisations still regard Israel as the occupying power in Gaza [2]. We should not be presenting the idea that Gaza is no longer part of the occupied territories as fact in the Wikipedia voice, when it is the minority position. In fact if we look at the definition from the lead "Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by the United Nations and other international organizations", the statement about Gaza is plain wrong, because the UN and other international organisations still designate Gaza as being part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.Dlv999 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

first sentence

The sentence currently reads:

The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by the United Nations and other international organizations, governments and others to refer to the territory seized by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

Now, the attempt to equivocate so as to appear even-handed may be laudable, but it results in a poorly written sentence that isnt even true. The UN and other international organizations, governments and others do not designate territory as occupied. The territories are occupied, that is a super-majority position and one that can be given in the narrative voice. I propose this be changed to:

The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories that were captured and occupied by Israel from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War in 1967.

Comments? nableezy - 19:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the phrasing is very awkward as is and I approve of the suggested change. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment regarding diagrams in beginning of page

The diagram is incomplete, showing 1916-1922, then 1947, 1947 proposal, 1948-1967 then current. Where is 1967 until 1982? 1993? etc. My opinion when I first saw it is that this is a discarding of unfavorable data, a misleading graph manipulated to make it visually look like like the green area is constantly being reduced, ignoring a different, more complex history behind it, but of course if it's too complex you can't use it to generate bias right? kind of cheap if you ask me, and I hope that wikipedia is against omitting data from an entire picture of the history of a place, because otherwise that jeopardizes it's neutrality... thanks

Would you be able to elaborate of what you see as the "unfavorable data" that is being discarded and perhaps link to map somewhere, either on Wikipedia or on an external site, that includes this data. It's not exactly clear what you mean in terms of a spatial representation of the "more complex history", at least not to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to any better graphs and I do not make them. I thought I quite clearly stated that 1967 till 1982 is not portrayed, or till 1993 depending if you are speaking about southern lebanon or gaza strip. Or till the establishment of the palestinian authorities 1994. Once you add how the area looked like in those periods it will not be a continuous decline but a disappearance of the green colour then its resurgence, so that's why the way the graph was represented gave a (false and simplified) impression of palestinian territories "disappearing". The reality of the area post-1967 till the oslo accords and till the second intifada is definitive, relevant to current history and shows a different and more fluctuating image of modern palestinian territories; and yet none of this is at all mentioned in the graph... Let's not even mention what a case this graph makes for the "palestinian population": especially when you put an image like this all the way up at the top of a page this way, being the first visual thing one sees and right after intro... as if they have suffered the same "disappearing" fate as their land, that Israel is eliminating them step by step... Or what about not using the same green colour for "1948-1967" as the "current" graph for west bank and gaza??? because then these territories were not of the same status as the identically coloured areas in the 'today' frame, they were not 'palestinian territories' they were occupied by jordan and egypt and not related, not legally or otherwise, and definitely not representative of the same green "palestinian territories" as the last graph (today) shows... Or is the graph trying to show that under jordanian and egyptian rule, these territories had "free palestinians living in their own land", which is not true at all?? I mean, am I the only one who has visited this page to think of this graph as kind of (bluntly) manipulative? Sure this whole issue is popular to bandwagon for everyone and his uncle's political commentary, and I usually do not comment about these controversial issues because the internet is a cesspool of ignorance and pretty sure nothing will come out of such interactions, but this is a textbook case of discarding unfavourable data, and misuse of colour labelling, a misleading trick... I digress, but the original issue is the one that I would most like to take note of, the fact that 1967-current is not addressed in any way. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.116.32 (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sean or whoever else is dealing with this page, I would like to have the issue I raised in my posts above addressed please... It's been a while since i heard from anybody. Either that or remove the diagram altogether. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.87.20.186 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello whoever is in charge of this "high" or "top" importance page on the israel palestine wikiprojects, it's been one month since anybody has addressed my query. Sean asked for qualification for what seemed like an obvious fault in the picture, and I have not heard from him or anyone here since. As I said before, I do not make maps so I cannot "provide a better one", if there is no one to edit the graph it should be removed. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.116.32 (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I just saw this. I think you are overreacting, but you are right that the graphic doesn't illustrate the military administration period between 1967-88.

As far as I am concerned, this is simply because I haven't seen it represented on other maps, so it's unclear how we would show it. An all white map as you suggest would be misleading - it really wasn't as simple as that. We could show it as light green, but i'm not sure that would provide any more information over and above the 48-67 map.

How about we amend the text underneath the last map on the right to explain what happened between 67-93?

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

International Views: ICRC

The phrasing is pulled straight from the reference but using "parties to armed conflict" makes the sentence unnecessarily confusing to the average reader; it could changed to "those involved" to make it clearer to those who had not read the source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.141.125 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you insist on the phrase "The term "Occupying Power" has taken on a precise legal meaning following the International Court of Justice advisory opinion in July 2004 that Israel is occupying this territory in violation of international law?"[9] I don't understand what your phrase is attempting to say. In any event, the meaning of "Occupying Power" is not addressed by the ICJ Advisory Opinion and the Opinion specifically confines itself to a determination of the legality of the Separation Wall, not to the legality of the occupation itself. . If you have a specific citation in the ICJ opinion in mind, please provide it. Greatnecker (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's properly cited, if you have problem understanding it, then consult someone who can help you, don't remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightsmiles (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it unless you can provide a pinpoint cite in the ICJ opinion. The ICJ opinion is that the separation wall is in breach of international law as are the settlements but the opinion is silent as to the occupation itself. The question of whether Israel's occupation of the territories it conquered in 1967 is, in and of itself, illegal has not been answered by the ICJ:

Illegal Occupation: Framing the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Berkeley Journal of International Law Volume 23 Issue 3 Article 2 2005 p.552.Greatnecker (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you've just cited to a statement by an NGO made to the UN. It is not a statement by the UN and carries no force of law. I am requesting that you remove the text that the Israeli occupation is, in and of itself, in violation of international law. Greatnecker (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why remove it? Why not simply just correct it? I'm requesting that you take a look at the correction.Lightsmiles (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What would be the appropriate correction? When we speak of illegality or violations of international law, we can't rely on the opinion of a biased NGO. There must be an opinion by some authority that at least holds itself out as an impartial arbiter.

It said that the UN General Assembly made the declaration. I corrected it to the NGO that made the declaration. It should not be removed because the opinions of NGOs are commonly used in Wikipedia articles. And by the way, all NGOs are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightsmiles (talk • contribs) 20:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't corrected it and the NGO's statement is based on a kangaroo court it set up itself. "The Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) is a court of the people, a Tribunal of conscience created in reaction to injustices and violations of international law that are not dealt with by existing international jurisdictions, or that are recognized but continue with complete impunity due to the lack of political will of the international community." In any event, you are still citing to UNISPAL as making the finding when UNISPAL is simply a document repository that doesn't make findings about anything.Greatnecker (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There, I made the correction.Lightsmiles (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that in the view of many, Falk is a reputable source. Certainly more so than BADIL. However, I don't believe that Falk's generalized opinion is actually worthy of mention in an article which is intended to be entirely factual. Surely you will concede that a statement that something is purportedly an "affront to international law" differs from the specifics of UN GA and SC resolutions and findings by the ICJ.Greatnecker (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Fringe pushing

Despite the article clearly stating that many nations and organizations including the UN, ICJ, HRW, all view Gaza as being occupied and that no one but those who occupy the area disputes this view, a single BBC article can be used to present the occupation as over as a fact. Presenting a fringe, highly rejected, viewpoint as fact is of course unacceptable and should be reverted. Sepsis II (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you're wrong describing the BBC article as fringe, but I agree that J intela's edit oversimplified the situation. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not contradict it or represent only one view expressed in it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I describe the view that the Gaza strip is not under occupation as fringe. It's much more reasonable to describe the strip as the world's largest prison than to say it is free from occupation. Sepsis II (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly displaying your own personal biases in your comments, you can say the Gaza strip is under a blockade, but an occupation is defined as a territory actually being placed under governance of a belligerent army, and nothing else. No troops on the ground no occupation. Can you give one other instance where territory has been considered to be under occupation because of a blockade once? Where in international law dose it say the occupational status of a territory shall be determined by a majority vote of a group of NGO's.--J intela (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about what we think, it's about what reliable sources, like all those you just deleted, say. Sepsis II (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I gave reliable sources, perhaps I was a little clumsy with my restructuring and Ideally it should've have been rearranged better, but I was trying to make the overall article consistent, like the previous concerns brought up. Those sources state what the opinions of a handful of organizations are in a few sentences, and are not a thorough legal analysis of the situation of the actual territory using a thorough explanation and examination of international law, or the objective reporting of a respected international news organization, like the sources I brought up. --J intela (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find an article which contains a sentence quickly saying that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel, but just like here, that source would be ignored due to the vast amount of in depth sources which contradict it. We would not delete all the in depth sources because they contradict a quick summary in an article not about the conflict. Sepsis II (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Jerusalem, Giant prisons, what do any of these have to do with the the relevant matters of the issue being discussed? There are vast amounts of genuine sources that can say anything, Kennedy was killed in a conspiracy theory, Intelligent design is a theory with mainstream scientific acceptance, There is no conclusive scientific evidence of global warming, vaccines cause autism, views should not be accepted as the definitive of the situation just because some stated sources can say it. You say there are vast amounts of sources but there are only a handful there, and there're already other sources that contradict those right there in the article. In addition to the sources I tried to add that you got rid of, and some of those supposed definitive sources mentioned are dead links anyway. The ultimate logical test to define the situation of Gaza as stated should be; "is the situation on the ground concurrent with Wikipedia's definition of occupation."--J intela (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be original research which is against wikipedia policy. The idea that Gaza is not under occupation is an idea held by very few people and almost exclusively held by those who are pro-occupation. The international community holds that the occupation of Gaza continues. Here's a BBC article[3] which states "As far as Israel was concerned that was the end of the occupation. However, that has not been accepted internationally". Of course this should not be accepted alone, but the sources which state that the UN, the US, Palestine, ICJ, HRW, etc all state that Gaza is occupied show that this article is correct. Sepsis II (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes but that source is from 2009, I can give a source from the same organization in 2013[4] saying there is no more occupation - they seam to have changed their mind. Where is your proof that its held by very few people? Were's your proof that that analysis is by definition only congruent with a position that only supports all Israel's actions? How can you tell what the international communities position or definition is? How do you demonstrate a handful of NGOs are the whole international community? The US dose not state Gaza is occupied. The UN has not passed any resolution or ruling saying that; one guy (who was probably an econ major or something) said one statement in one sentence, and didn't even explain his logic or reasoning. ICJ has not ruled or stated Gaza is occupied, your making things up. These are the quality of your 'sources'. Legalistic matters and those that define the physical situation on the ground are not defined by what some say or others say or state, but an actual description of the situation on the ground and an analysis as to its fit to a definition. If they said the sky was green or some of the other examples I mentioned would that make them true just because some one said or stated it!--J intela (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Many of your statements contradict sources, as such I suggest you read the sources used in this article. Sepsis II (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Tell me exactly where the statements in my last response contradict the sources! and why didn't you point them out or explain them in your last statement?--J intela (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How’s what you are saying any less original research? I brought out plenty of sources to cite and support my statements, and the citation to the UN was the dead link (or at least it no longer shows the relevant marital), anyway. I can find plenty of sources showing Gaza is not occupied –and explaining the reasons why, and refuting the logic of the other sources. – The quality of my source seams better than the quality of those sources. So to see what the situation really is and what the article should say we need to use a logical examination of the matter and its parameters.

So in other worlds you’ve given up using reasons, explanations, examples, and sources, and are now saying ‘I’m right just because I said so’. --J intela (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If no one ells has anything additional to input I'm changing the article.--J intela (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You must surely be aware that there are variety of views about the current status of Gaza Strip (see this CNN article for example). There's zero chance that this article is going to say that it either is or isn't occupied, that it is occupied because x, y, z says so or because of effective control or that the disengagement means that it is no longer occupied etc, as an unattributed statement of fact using the narrative voice of the encyclopedia. That is simply not going to happen. It would be entirely inappropriate and inconsistent with NPOV, so don't even think about it. Are you aware that this article is covered by discretionary sanctions ? Editors need to ensure that when they edit this article or any article in the WP:ARBPIA topic area that they take special care to comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why does this article say that the strip definitively IS occupied and that no one but Israel possibly disputes it, that doesn't seam very neutral. Wikipedia's own article on the Gaza strip DOES NOT say it is occupied, it merely says that some UN officials and the PA dispute that the strip is not occupied. Why should this page be different from the other Wikipedia page on the Gaza strip itself? --J intela (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does the article say "the strip definitively IS occupied" ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The first line "They consist of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; much of the Golan Heights; the Gaza Strip" sure it then says Israel disputes it, but after definitely stating the strip IS occupied grouping it with the definitively occupied territories where there are actual Israeli tropes and Israeli control of non Israeli borders, implying that any contestant of that fact is baseless and a baseless position that only Israel can possibly take. --J intela (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It says there is a thing called "Israeli-occupied territories" which is defined as a set of objects. It says what they are, attributes the designation "as occupied territory" and includes Israel's view. It doesn't even say that they are occupied in the voice of the encyclopedia. It's textbook NPOV compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So where's the source that such a thing called "Israeli-occupied territories" actually exits and designates them as such?--J intela (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So, if I understand this, this article is not about Israel's actual history of military occupation and control of certain places and areas, (Even though this article includes a definite description of the time period of occupation, the occupation of the Sinai with an end period, and the occupation of southern Lebanon,(not even mentioned in the introduction)), but is about a set of defined objects, named the "Israeli-occupied territories", which have been designated as such? Only there is no source that states that that thing exits, as defined as such. So this article is about a thing that doesn't even have a source showing its existence. That sounds like original research. This looks like this article is in fundamental need of restructuring and renaming, if not being deleted all together. --J intela (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Would changing the introduction to this violate NPOV? "The Israeli-occupied territories are the term used to refer to the territory seized by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. They consist of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; and much of the Golan Heights. The Sinai Peninsula was also seized by Israel, though Israeli troops have not had a presence in the territory since 1982. In 2005 Israel implemented its disengagement from the Gaza strip and withdrew its forces. The West Bank together with Gaza Strip also referred to as the Palestinian territories or "Occupied Palestinian Territory". It dose not refer to Gaza being occupied or unoccupied in any way in the article, and addresses some of the points I brought up.--J intela (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So what are going to be the objections this time? Or I could keep raising these fundamental contradictions in the basis of the article.--J intela (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well OK then, Don't say I didn't give anyone a chance to say anything.--J intela (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edit changed a perfectly clear and true introduction into an ambiguous one, as such I reverted. Any attempt to remove the fact that the international community views Gaza as occupied will be reverted by myself. Sepsis II (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Whose violating NPOV now! Wasn't the whole point of the entire previous talk above that there isn't definitive evidence or concurrence on this issue, or the relative parameters that have to do with it, or even anything to do with this issue, to definitively state anything this article is saying on this as true.--J intela (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You say you are right, that your view is that of the international community, that the international community, as defined by you, has the omnipotent power to declare what the truth is on anything regardless of the situation on the ground, (the Egyptian military has been in Gaza more these days) but Wikipedia should not be making such a firm statement on something so controversial, ambiguous, and contentious,--J intela (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Israel considers it part of its territory"

In the table in the first section, we say no for "Israel considers it part of its territory" and West Bank.

This is an oversimplification, as Israel does consider the settlements part of its territory.

I will amend.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says Israel consider settlements in the West Bank as part of its territory ? That would mean that they would be placed under civilian rather than military administration wouldn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in "The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel" by David Kretzmer. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sean, good question. The way I see it, this is ambiguous on the ground and is ambiguous in our article. We write "Israel considers it part of its territory", but what part of the state machinery do we mean when we say Israel, and what do we mean by "considers"?

The Israel Central Bureau of Statistics includes settlers in its statistics, as settlers are Israeli citizens. Area C is governed to all intents and purposes as part of Israel, even if legally it is not. The legal-technical status is more for the international community's benefit, and is not that relevant in practice.

So in the round I think our ambiguity mirrors the ambiguity of the actual situation quite well.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is ambiguous. I think it is wrong. If the depth of the Israeli administration is enough to include Area C now, one should treat the whole of the West Bank the same way prior to the Oslo accords. Zero^talk 02:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Links to general article about disputed territories.

I made a minor change to the section titled Applicability of the term "occupied". I changed the link provided under the word "disputed" to the general page about territorial dispute because there was already a main link to the status of territory captured by Israel under the section title. It seemed redundant to provide the same link twice in such a short space. Furthermore, this provides a better opportunity to encourage people to learn how territorial disputes are defined in general.--Matityahu V (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of map template in use on this page

Template:Palestinian territory development has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No such discussion appears on that page. 98.247.126.245 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Two proposed changes

The message I left to Huldra who made the last revert -

• Can you explain me how "The term occupied is challenged by some pro-Israeli official bodies and organizations, including the Israeli government" is better than "The Israeli government maintains the territories were captured in a defensive war thus according to international law their status is"
• Since Israeli claims are mentioned in regards to Gaza after 2005, doesn't it make sense to put first Israel claim after 1967. It either both (in that order) or neither. And why it is alone two paragraphs later?

Neither of these change I have made are about my opinion, it is simple logic. If you can't answer, please revert and save me the fire from up above :) Nomoskedasticity, Since you are sitting on my tail (1 minute to revert on an article you have never edited before) and want some discussion & consensus, would you enlighten me with your issue with my changes. It isn't even POV but clear logic.Ashtul (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

One reason for rejecting "The Israeli government maintains the territories were captured in a defensive war thus according to international law their status is..." is that it is nonsense, not corresponding either to the facts or to the official Israeli position. It is true that Israel says that the territories were captured in a defensive war, but Israel does not base its claim on that. The possibility of territory captured in war being unilaterally kept disappeared from international law with the Charter of the United Nations. Israel's argument, including what is in the video of Ayalon, is more sophisticated than that. Zero^talk 11:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Zero,The original wording is terrible about pro-israeli organizations etc', so your solution for the fact the new statement doesn't cover it all is to revert it? under what WP rule? And what about the first change? Ashtul (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Zero, are you OK with following text.

The Israeli government maintains that according to international law the West Bank status is disputed territories.

I also don't see any problem on your side for first change. Ashtul (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul Seems appropriate to me, though perhaps 'the status of the West Bank is that of disputed territories' is better grammar. Cpsoper (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Have unified 2 Gold refs per req. Cpsoper (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was silly of me to refer to just that, as that was the least of worries. Another problem is that now we have introduced the most partial sources in the lead. I will revert. Please discuss changes fully here, Huldra (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, however I think we can easily find more widely regarded sources that say exactly the same thing. Cpsoper (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The MFA is RS for Israeli views. I have upgraded and archived the reference. Cpsoper (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Occupied

That is not the correct term, disputed territories, not occupied, you cannot occupy yourself, you cannot steal something given to you, the British who owned the land after World War One gave them everything from Jordan to Modern day Israel, the only occupied territory is Jordan which is occupied by the Jordanians, the true Palestinians. This is not an occupation by the Jews, it is a refusal to peacefully live side by side, therefor it is a Territorial Dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plzwork1122 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia constructed from information published by reliable sources according to a set of rules described by policies like WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. The term used by the vast majority of published reliable sources is occupied, so that is what we are required by policy to say. To exploit Wikipedia to promote the preferred terminology or the ideology of advocacy organizations that regard themselves as 'pro-Israel' or the Israeli government is not only forbidden by policy (WP:NOTADVOCATE), it is simply wrong, as in right and wrong. This should be obvious. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you (Sean.hoyland) are wrong on this respect. The question whether the area is occupied or not is indeed ideological. But you make the mistake of thinking it is ideological only for one side. Clearly the Israelis and the Palestinians have different perspectives. But from the legal and international aspect, the area was occupied in 1967 from Jordan, and since 1988 the Jordanians have waived their claim on the territory. So it is reasonable to at least acknowledge that the term "occupied" is politically and legally controversial. Tom Peleg (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It makes no difference if it was taken from Jordan and not the Palestinians as the issue is, as Marco Sassòli writes here (citing the International Court of Justice), that in an armed conflict, Israel took control of a territory it had not controlled previously.

That the West Bank is occupied isn't "controversial" according to an overwhelming majority of reliable sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It does make a lot of legal difference that the land was taken from Jordan, and not from any other state. The fact that other "reliable" sources claim that it is "occupied" does not change the legal controversy here, since these sources do not necessarily claim that the legal status of the West Bank is occupied, rather use the word "occupied territories" as a general known name referring to the territories. This is a crucial difference. So I expect the entry to make this distinction between using the word "occupied" and actually claiming a legal fact, clear enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Peleg (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It does not according to Marco Sassòli who cites the world's highest judicial body. There is no "legal controversy" if the West Bank is occupied or not, just some extreme right-wingers and a few others who dispute it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

He is right. There is a double standard- Israel never "occupied" those areas from any sovereign country. so the areas according to international law are 'disputed'. However, Russia has occupied crimea from Ukraine (a sovereign country) and those areas called "disputed". So it's a double standart right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.142.136 (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Since we're including all formal legal positions, we should also cite official Arab and Palestinian opinion on West as well as East Jerusalem, which I've done, others may wish to reference such views about other parts of Israel, within the armistice lines. Cpsoper (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

recent changes

To begin with, the United States considers the West Bank "occupied territory", see for example here. Also, the Israeli position is given shortly after, with the line Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank. I dont really see the need for Israeli governments in place of Israel, but others have argued that because the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the West Bank is held under belligerent occupation that we shouldnt just say Israel. All the same, the line is added is wrong in places and redundant where it is correct. nableezy - 07:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

And here's a recent statement from the United States too. here --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israeli-occupied territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120310094724/http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/Volume_22/issue_4/doocy.pdf to http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/Volume_22/issue_4/doocy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israeli-occupied territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070926212046/http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=110349 to http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=110349

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

political concept

I see this was added at the beginning of the year so I dont want to just restore the lead as it was, but Greyshark09, would you mind talking about this for a bit. It isnt a "political concept", its a place, or places, distinguished by its status as held by Israel under belligerent occupation. Id like to go back to The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories still occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. They consist of the Palestinian Territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip; much of the Golan Heights from Syria; and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. Its simple, factual, and not under any dispute based on the reliable sources. nableezy - 17:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not a "country" - it has been a concept (valid concept, no doubt) to refer to certain geopolitical structures under Israeli control. The place has a name - Sinai, West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza Strip, though if you seek an article on belligerent occupation rule/governance - see Israeli Military Governorate and Israeli Civil Administration. Palestinian territories (areas controlled by PA during 1994-2012) was renamed to State of Palestine - see UN resolutions.GreyShark (dibra) 17:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I didnt say country. Concept implies it isnt something physical. That isnt the case here. The occupied territories arent something that is abstract, a subject of academia and not an existing entity(ies). nableezy - 18:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly opposing what you are saying, but i want to emphasize that the IoT has originally been designated to the Israeli Military Governorate (which was applied as military government based on Geneva War guidelines and of course not recognized by neither Arab League nor the UN); the governorate has however been dismantled in 1981-2, with Israeli Civil Administration adopting some of its functions. Many consider the civil administration system also as belligerent occupation, but Israel and actually Egypt (which demanded the establishment of civil administration) have viewed it as a semi-civil system. Though this system has been in a way continuing to this day, in 1994 most of its controlled areas and population has become ruled by Palestinian Authority. Also Palestinian Authority was considered by many as occupied entity, though Israel and US and some other countries considered it a civil autonomy (similar to Iraqi Kurdistan status in Iraq). Now the situation on the ground changed again with State of Palestine and Hamas Authority emerging out of original PA entity. I must agree that even State of Palestine and Hamas Authority are considered as occupied by some/many, though it is quite differing from the original status of military occupation. So, Israeli-occupied territories is a generic term, referring to several geopolitical structures on the course of 20th and 21st centuries. In fact i had to remove category:States and territories established in 1967 from the page to prevent this kind of confusion.GreyShark (dibra) 05:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The advent of the Civil Administration made no difference to the status of the territories under Israeli law. The authority still rests with "the Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Area" just like it did before (but not for East Jerusalem or Gaza), which you can check in multiple Supreme Court judgements. In the same place you can also check that the IDF Commander's authority stems from the international law of belligerent occupation, both according to the court and according to the state's representations to the court. Zero^talk 07:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli-occupied territories. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060628073107/http://www.wws.princeton.edu:80/wws401c/geography.html to http://www.wws.princeton.edu/wws401c/geography.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Gaza

It is a NPOV violation to say the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005. That is the view of Israel, however much of the international community disputes this as Israel continues to exercise effective military control over the territory. Saying in Wikipedia's voice that the occupation ended in 2005 is a violation of NPOV. nableezy - 19:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: - i'm familiar with this, but blockade of Egypt and Israel on Hamas Authority in Gaza is not technically a belligerent occupation (at least to some opinions). What is the most recent announcement of the UN on Gaza as territory "occupied" by Israel; what about the status of Egypt?GreyShark (dibra) 17:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Heres a story from the Washington Post. The United Nations also calls Gaza occupied territory, most recently in a report commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council that concluded that both Israel and armed Palestinian factions in Gaza may have committed war crimes. The United Nations says it does not matter that Israeli soldiers are not based inside the strip; they have “effective control.” Im aware of a statement by the UN during the 2009 war that was to the effect yes we consider Gaza occupied territory. You are right that it is a dispute on this, but the majority view is seemingly that Gaza continues to be occupied territory, but there is a substantial minority, beyond just Israel, that disputes that, so the language we use shouldnt be as clear cut as East Jerusalem and the West Bank or the Golan, but we cant also say that it ended in 2005, as that clearly is not an unchallenged view. nableezy - 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way in any case, the status of Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip is very different from the status of the West Bank (which is de-facto partitioned into unilaterally annexed areas like East Jerusalem, Palestinian State territory (areas A+B) and the unclear status of Judea and Samaria area (area C). "Palestinian territories" is thus a very ambiguous inclusion for so different areas of WB and GS.GreyShark (dibra) 16:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Views on terminology used

This section gives undue weight to Israeli views. Perhaps I should point out that international views are much more important than Israeli views? "According to the views of most adherents of Religious Zionism and to certain streams of Orthodox Judaism, there are no, and cannot be, "occupied territories" because all of the Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl, Eretz Yisrael) belongs to the Jews, also known as the Children of Israel, since the times of Biblical antiquity based on various Hebrew Bible passages." Lol what on earth did I just read? Are we really interpreting modern international laws by 3,000 year old books?!?!!? There are also many other things wrong with this artcle. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the source of this statement?GreyShark (dibra) 16:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This article. The first sentence of the section titled "Israeli Jewish religious views". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Israeli-occupied territories. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/FAQ/Pages/FAQ_Peace_process_with_Palestinians_Dec_2009.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/InternatlOrgs/Speeches/Pages/Amb-Prosor-addresses-the-UN-Security-Council-18-Jul-2014.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508013916/http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=2059 to http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=2059
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090512141943/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109194300/http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre5053r7-us-palestinians-israel/ to http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre5053r7-us-palestinians-israel/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511121653/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727552054&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727552054&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002213659/http://www.jcpa.org.il/art/knesset6.htm to http://www.jcpa.org.il/art/knesset6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Talia Sasoon Quote

I propose to delete the Talia Sassoon quote in the lead because it either misconstrues what she means or it is utterly false. The Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly taken no position on the legality of the military occupation, and has instead repeatedly evaluated Israel specific conduct in the WB by assuming the legality of the military presence. See for example an article by Military Law scholar David Kretzmer -- https://www.icrc.org/en/international-review/article/law-belligerent-occupation-supreme-court-israel -- which repeatedly refers to the "legal authority" of Israel's commanders in the region. When Sassoon says the justices have disputed the legality of "israeli presence" she means conduct committed by Israeli military or the construction of home, not the very fact of Israel's military presence. Her misleading quote should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmayer18 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

UN territory map modified to say "disputed territories"

The article's introduction repeatedly uses the term "occupied territories", referring to the original UN resolution (242). It then describes how the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council regard Israel as the "Occupying Power". It states that the Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "occupation". The title of the article is "Israeli-occupied territories." Yet the original UN territory map modified and placed at the top right of the article has been changed to say "ISRAEL and the Disputed Territories". The original map did not describe or qualify the territories in the title at all. If nothing else, this is an inconsistent description. But worse, it ascribes a false description to the UN-produced map, one which the UN itself deliberately does not use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Growly (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Growly, You are absolutely correct. Nicely spotted. That map has to go. Huldra (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2017

Reference #5 is a link that doesn't seem work. Please add a functioning link or a full case citation from the Israeli High Court. Ashertray (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced the dead link with a working link. Thank you for informing us about the problem. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Serious misquote of a source

The article says this: "According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than four decades that Israel's presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law." Nowhere has the court said this, and the source doesn't even state that the court has ever said this.

The source says that that Sasson states the High Court has ruled that the Israeli occupation is subject to international law, which SASSON BELIEVES is violated by the occupation. The Court does not, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shicoco (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Shicoco. I think the footnote should be improved, but I don't understand your complaint. The article doesn't say the court said it; the sentence you quoted clearly attributes it to Talia Sasson.

What does the source say? It clearly quotes the comments of "[l]awyer Talia Sasson, who served in the past as the head of the special tasks department of the state Attonery General's office".

"If the Levy Committee is pushing the government to determine that Israel's presence in the West Bank does not violate international law, Israel is in a dangerous position facing the rest of the world," said Sasson this morning to Haaretz. ...

"For 45 years, different compositions of the High Court of Justice stated again and again that international law applies to the West Bank, which is clearly opposed to Levy's findings. This is a colossal turnaround, which I do not think is within his authority. He can tell the government that he recommends changing legal status, and that's all," said Sasson.

Our article's sentence—"According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than four decades that Israel's presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law."—seems like an accurate summary of the two paragraphs I copied and pasted from the source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I think you misread what she said she only said that "international law applies to the West Bank " it didn't talk about violation.--Shrike (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read the source's quotes from Sasson in their entirety. I don't see how you can argue that she isn't saying that the court has said that international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids an occupying power from resettling its population into occupied territories, applies to the West Bank. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see it I am sorry could you say to me what is quote exactly for " High Court of Justice in Israel ... has repeatedly stated ..that Israel's presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law."?She never said she said that what international community thinks--Shrike (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. The sentence you're quoting is from this article, not the Haaretz article, and it summarizes what Sasson said. Of course it's not in the source -- if it were, it would have quotation marks around it to indicate that. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Malik, I tend to agree more with Shrike on this (first time for everything). The HCJ has never ruled that Israel's presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law, so it is unlikely that it is a correct summary of what the expert Sasson said. What she did say, and this is the main point of the Levy committee's extraordinary claims and the main point of the Haaretz article, is that the HCJ has always ruled that international law applies in the West Bank. That is, international law not Israeli law, which is the same as saying that the HCJ has always ruled that Israel's position in the West Bank is one of occupier, not one of sovereign. Which indeed is a correct statement of the HCJ's many rulings. How I interpret the words in the article (which are admittedly unclear) is that Sasson holds, contrary to the Levy Committee, that Israel would be in violation of international law to act as sovereign. The solution would be to use some wording that matches the source more closely. I'm too sleepy... Zero^talk 15:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israeli-occupied territories. 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/20060821032728/http://english.golan.org.il/vaad/efacts.asp to http://english.golan.org.il/vaad/efacts.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402070502/http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=5387 to http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=5387

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israeli-occupied territories. 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/20140825085245/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415203350/http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm to http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Israeli-occupied territories. 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/20060301091150/http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.689861/k.7BC5/Israels_Withdrawal_from_Sinai_19791982.htm to http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.689861/k.7BC5/Israels_Withdrawal_from_Sinai_19791982.htm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525130051/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/0163EF0C6E99036F85256EB3004E6EBF to https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/0163EF0C6E99036F85256EB3004E6EBF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029190612/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/CE5E268886F715968525732F00484598 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/CE5E268886F715968525732F00484598
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120714031343/http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=276802&R=R1 to http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=276802&R=R1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-12/no.-1/conference-of-high-contracting-parties-to-the-fourth-geneva-convention-declaration
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925191640/http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/cache/offonce/pid/11838;jsessionid=BDA36D4EF581DFDDEBE96B33A6C965E2 to http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/cache/offonce/pid/11838;jsessionid=BDA36D4EF581DFDDEBE96B33A6C965E2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305232558/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1579.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1579.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 16:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Beit Surik vs. Israeli government

Footnote #7: Link to High Court ruling is dead. This alternative link (provided by UNHCR) may do the job: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ISR_SC,4374ac594.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdallasalmi (talk • contribs) 06:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Additionally, an archived copy of the original link can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170404131225/https://www.unodc.org/tldb/pdf/Israeli_high_court_ruling300604.pdf SkinnyMariah (talk)

Bias

The article has a clear bias, it should be re-written from a neutral view point. It is incorrect to present the topic without also a balanced reference to the Israel government's stand point. Beginning with the article's premise, the title "Israeli-occupied territories", this should read "Israeli-occupied territories / Israeli disputed territories" If an editor is interested in picking through the article and creating a more balanced view point, I'll be happy to discus the issue. EditWikiJohn (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Your first (and so far only) contribution to WP is a bit like asking the convict whether he thinks he's guilty. "Disputed" refers to a fringe legal theory propounded by Israel and accepted only by a very small minority of legal scholars. Suggesting that is indicative of your position, I would say.Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move because of disputes between editors about the topic of the article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Israeli-occupied territories → Israeli occupation – Five reasons: (1) The article content is primarily about the occupation rather than the territories. We already have the articles Palestinian Territories and Golan Heights, which is why this article’s content does not duplicate the “territory” part; (2) The “sub articles” to this article (e.g. Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon, Israeli occupation of Sinai) all have the same format; (3) “Israeli occupation” is about 30x more common than “Israeli occupied” (ngrams); (4) This is the entry article for readers looking to find out “what is "The Occupation" that I have been hearing about”, so this is a more natural and recognizable title; (5) It is more concise. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this fails on WP:PRECISION. "Israeli occupation" may be more common in Ngrams, but I think that is probably because it is part of sentences like "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" or "by the Israeli occupation authorities", rather than being a standalone term like the current title. Number 57 08:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  I am not entirely clear how ngrams work but it seems that if you test that idea by including phrasing as you suggest, here, it doesn't seem to make much difference to the outcome. Anyway, I am going to look into this a little more, I do seem to come across the phrase "Israeli occupation" much more frequently than the other which doesn't really trip off the tongue. What else would they be occupying other than territory?Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The article describes territories, and "Israeli occupation" could refer to an act -or- a place. It is overly vague and thus fails WP:PRECISION._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this article is about the territories, not the occupation. An article on the occupation would be useful as a parent article to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank article, but this aint it. nableezy - 15:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm and Nableezy: I read the article, like you both did, but concluded the exact opposite – that this article is really about the occupation, not about the territories. An article about a territory would cover the geography, the economy, the demographics. This article does not. This article covers the legal nature of the modern governance arrangements, and the history of the development of that governance. Would you help me understand what you are seeing that I am not? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I see what the objection is. Coming at it from the other direction, there is an article Palestinian territories which if we are looking at everything in the same way, ought to be called the "Occupied Palestinian territories(y)".Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm, Nableezy, and Selfstudier: could someone explain it to me? I must be missing something, but I am currently convinced that the content of this article is about "The Occupation" not "The Territories". Onceinawhile (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesnt really deal with the occupation itself. No material on fragmentation, on displacements, on permits, on bypass roads, barely anything about settlements. It is basically an overview of the places that Israel has occupied. nableezy - 14:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Admittedly, all the forks of very closely related articles connected to this dispute are getting a bit confusing to separate, and certainly makes it harder to find the content one is looking for. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

change article name to Israeli-disputed territories

in 1947, UN resolution 181 recommended the splitting of the British Mandate into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an internationally administered enclave of Jerusalem, The resolution designated the territory described as "the hill country of Samaria and Judea"(the area now known as the "West Bank") as part of the proposed Arab state, but following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, this area was captured by Transjordan.

Transjordan annexed the area west of the Jordan River in 1950, naming it "West Bank" but Jordan's annexation was never formally recognized by the international community, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Iraq.

In June 1967, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were captured by Israel as a result of the Six-Day War. With the exception of East Jerusalem and the former Israeli-Jordanian no man's land, the West Bank was not annexed by Israel; it remained under Israeli military control until 1982.

so lets arrange:

the West Bank was under the British Mandate in 1947, and although The resolution designated the territory described as "the hill country of Samaria and Judea"(the area now known as the "West Bank") as part of the proposed Arab state.

such state was never created, and the Arab side declined the resolution, therefore it has no legal bound.

The West Bank was captured by Transjordan by the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, but since Jordan annexation wasn't recognized by the international community, this land was disputed land.

Jordan annexation wasn't recognized, and also there wasn't a Palestinian state controlling the land, therefore this land can't be considered occupied, since it wasn't gained by capturing another's country \ state territory.

the West Bank is disputed land, such as many other disputed lands, and political opinion shouldn't change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.162.108 (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Not done; Also; Jordan had as much right to the West bank as Israel has to eg Nazareth and much of Galilee (which was also supposed to go the "Arab state" in 1948.) Would you say that Nazareth and much of Galilee isn't a part of Israel today? If not, why do you say that the West Bank wasn't a part of Jordan 1948-1967? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Huldra (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The diffrence between Nazareth and much of Galilee to The West Bank, as I wrote before, is that "Jordan annexation wasn't recognized by the international community" , which is just fact. while Nazareth and much of Galilee are recognized by the international community as part of Israel, this is not political opinion or my opinion... 141.226.162.108 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Quite. But this only shows that Israel has/had more international friends than Jordan. Legally speaking; it was exactly the same. (And not everyone in the international community accepted Israels conquests, either, as I am sure you know), Huldra (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem is occupied not "disputed" territory and the Israeli position re missing reversioners and other such are very much a minority position in the legal scheme of things. See Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 Selfstudier (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I tend not to trust wikipedia as source, but its sources did have links to actual facts, that I didnt know of, thanks for the info. 141.226.162.108 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Self-revert undder threat of sancftions

I restored the following idiotic sentence:

Reasons cited for its illegality include that the occupation continues for illegal purposes such as prohibition on the acquisition of territory through force,

under a threat of sanctions in my talk space. I will no longer edit this page, because I am not a fan of fighting with idiotic rules and their enforcers. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You know you could have just added "violating the" prior to "prohibition" right? I did that. Cool story on the rest. nableezy - 16:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Uh huh, bit of a mountain out of a molehill here, I added a couple wikilinks for added clarification. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2022

On the "Territories within the 1949 cease fire lines" it says Palestine claim them. But it's only Hamas/Gaza Strip that claims it. Can someone change it? Marko8726 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(State of) Palestine includes Gaza. Idk if the note there is even correct, it has no reference and the section in the article (rather than the table) "Territories within the 1949 cease fire lines" is currently empty. Do you have any references yourself or do I (or someone else) need to go look? Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I didn't find anything. Maybe you should go look and if not, I think you might remove it. Marko8726 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Tagged it for citation, maybe someone will know. I'm guessing this is the no man's land, Latrun and that but I don't really know. I agree that if it remains uncited for a time, it should be removed. I'll look into it a bit when I get a chance. Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess "within" means "between" so if we take Latrun (44 km^2) this is claimed by both and in some peace negotiations it was suggested to go 50/50 but no peace deal was ever implemented. (Source EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GEOPOLITICS, 4, 2016 Biger, G., Latrun – a no man’s land in Israel, EJG, 4, 2016, pp. 122-131).

I'll keep looking. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned in No man's land. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2023

Replacing the word “effectively” with “illegally” in the lead to give more informative and accurate meaning, specifically in:

After the treaty with Egypt, Israel effectively annexed the Golan Heights into its Northern District through the Golan Heights Law

And

referring to the West Bank (including East Jerusalem, which Israel effectively annexed in 1980)

Or at least include both using “effectively and illegally” Stephan rostie (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Might be better to use language from Status of the Golan Heights rather than bluntly stating that it is "illegal", it is rather of no legal effect/largely unrecognized. Unless you have current sources that specifically just say it is illegal, do you? €€Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably should contain a note on Israel and Syria still being at war over the occupation of the Golan Heights (with the mere hiatus of a technical ceasefire being in effect, however oft ignored by the regular Israeli bombing runs in Syria). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

What does the word “occupied” in the “occupied Golan heights” and “occupied Palestinian territories” mean to you ?

what does “null and void and without international legal effect” mean to you ? Stephan rostie (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what it means to me, or to you or to any other random editor. It's what is in sources and that's what we should use. Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It's what is in sources and that's what we should use. Great !, all international organizations, and justice and juridical institutions consider the occupation and annexation “illegal”. Thus we should write it “illegal” too, not “effective”. Stephan rostie (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The legality of the annexation is discussed later in the article, as well as being elaborated on in the lead. It doesn't need extra attention drawn to it beyond what is already covered. --Jayron32 15:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Map inaccurate

The map "1947 Jewish private land ownership" embeds a highly inaccurate representation of Palestinian land ownership in 1947. Suggest replacing with the map from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Statistics,_1945, with appropriate title change. Supporting link also only shows Jewish-owned land.

The wiki media file (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories#/media/File:Jewish_and_Arab_Land_Ownership_in_Mandatory_Palestine,_1947.svg) also has dubious supporting links, and if compared to the Village Statistics, is false information. The 1rst reference only shows the Jewish-owned land as a submap, the second (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories#/media/File:Jewish_and_Arab_Land_Ownership_in_Mandatory_Palestine,_1947.svg) seems to be someone's random blog. Sami Hadawi (see https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001326662) added up the numbers from Britain's Survey of Palestine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_of_Palestine_%28Anglo-American_Committee%29) and found Arab ownership of 47.79% 47.138.223.68 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out - it has been fixed. You may have to purge your cache to see it. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Occupied Lebanese Towns

The IDF still occupies parts of Lebanon. 37.39.205.138 (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Golan Heights section

must edit the wording. Native residents of the Golan Heights are Syrians, most of which are Druze. All other people living in the Golan Heights are not Residents, they are illegal settlers, occupying the land illegally. All the UN member states see it that way, except for the USA; the only country that sees this occupied region as legally belonging to "israel" 37.39.205.138 (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2023

Currently administrated by Israel (Areas B and C) is inaccurate, Area B is under full Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Marko8726 (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

1949 ceasefire lines

The section "Overview" currently presents the state of Israel as either occupied or disputed territory. But it is neither. It states that the territory is claimed by Palestine, but that's not true as Palestinian Declaration of Independence was only regarding the territories Israel occupied in 1967, not pre-1967 territories. Furthermore, Hamas accepted a Palestinian state within 1967 borders in 2017[5].VR _talk 21:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fictious Citation regarding the claim from the human rights watch about Gaza occupation

Citation 80 is supposed to support the claim that "Human Rights Watch also contested that this ended the occupation" but the citation in question predates the time Israel claims it left Gaza.

"Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation" Archived 2008-11-01 at the Wayback Machine Human Rights Watch. October 29, 2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regtic (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Well that is true, but HRW does indeed still call Gaza occupied, so for example 2022: As an occupying power that maintains significant control over many aspects of life in Gaza, Israel has obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure the welfare of the population there. Palestinians also have the right under international human rights law to freedom of movement, in particular within the occupied territory, a right that Israel can restrict under international law only in response to specific security threats. But the sentence is HRW saying that the disengagement will not end the occupation, and I think that citation works for it. But Ill add later ones as well. nableezy - 16:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Done, used the following quote from that cite: Because of the continuing controls Israel exercises over the lives and welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, Israel remains an occupying power under international humanitarian law, despite withdrawing its military forces and settlements from the territory in 2005. nableezy - 16:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if a citation is consistent with the stated position of the organization, it is crucial that the given citation actually supports the claim it is purported to support. This is Wikipedia's standard for fictitious references, as noted in and is one of the given examples on that page: "Off-web references that do exist, but the meaning of the source text differs significantly from the information claimed by an editor (editors may summarize what a source says, but the meaning must not be changed)". The meaning of the source text cannot be interpreted to opine on an event which did not yet occur. Regtic (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I should also mention that the summary you provided here is more accurate, as from what I understand the sources did not comment on the continuity of Israel's occupation, but rather that at the time of writing, the opinion of the organization was that it remained occupied (please correct me if I am mistaken). Regtic (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree to a point, it would have been better phrases as HRW contested the disengagement would end ... instead of did end. But I think we good now, right? But I think you are misreading it slightly, the original cite was saying that even with the planned disengagement Israel would remain occupying power. There was a tense difference with what we had in the article but not, imo, a meaningful distinction in meaning. nableezy - 17:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 03:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)