Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Problem with Archive 3

There seems to be a problem with Archive 3. I'm not sure what method was used to perform the archive, but the archivers should examine it. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem has been sorted out. Archive 3 doesn't exist: I merely created the link to simplify archiving in the future. To remove confusion, I have taken it away. Everything since Archive 2 is in Archive 2. -- Chris Lester ^talk 09:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

This phrase is not the definitive term encompassing the areas included - just one of the terms. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate what I said above. If you disagree, please respond to what I wrote here. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 01:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. —Aiden 06:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)--khello 03:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

David: "Both of these territories were part of former British Mandate of Palestine, and both have populations consisting primarily of Arab Palestinians, including historic residents of the territories" is incorrect. Most Arabs living under British mandatory rule in Palestine in the 1940's had come during the previous few decades, during economic advancement by the British and the growing Jewish population. "Historic residents" thus is inaccurate and seems politically motivated.

The statement "Most Arabs living under British mandatory rule in Palestine in the 1940's had come during the previous few decades" must be under really severe doubt. It's a claim being pushed most strongly by Joan Peters and Shmuel Katz, both authors under severe criticism and debate over whether they belong under WP:RS.

There is good reason to think it cannot be true, eg adjacent villages that speak dialects of Arabic that are mutually unintelligible. These are not recent immigrants, far from it. They've probably been in the same place for many, many centuries, no matter what the anti-semitic Mark Twain claims to have observed. (It's likely they had summer homes somewhere else - partly for hygiene and disease control reasons in a region short of water). (Please excuse the apparent WP:OR - I promise not to put this into any article until I can source it properly).

Almost the best possible source is this one [1] - the initial report of the British High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel.

League of Nations 30 July 1921 - AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE, during the period 1st JULY, 1920 - 30th JUNE, 1921. ........ The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000.

Herbert Samuel, British High Commissioner and author of the above, was later accused of rabid pro-Zionism eg [2].

PalestineRemembered 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

I propose this page is moved to Israeli disputed territories. The term occupied is, on its own, showing an anti-Israel bias, as Israel officially annexed all of Jerusalem, parts of the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Gaza belongs on the page too, but it was officially given to the PA.

While some of the territories are "occupied" according to anti-Israel sources, the generally accepted terminology is disputed. --יהושועEric 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree, reaching agreement on this title took long enough and proposed new title makes little sense in my view. Is this going to be put forward as a formal move proposal, or is it merely a suggestion to test the waters? Eric, if it's the former, you should list it on WP:RM; unfortunately, this is a pain in the proverbial, but that's how it works. Palmiro | Talk 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, for God's sake no. This is the way the place is known throughout the world. The Pro-Palestinian bias version would be something like "Occupied Palestine". "Disputed Territories" is not the generally accepted term - it is a pro-Israeli propaganda term. john k 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is known incorrectly is no reason to leave it incorrect in an encyclopedia. --155.70.39.45 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree per John K. Utterly ridiculous proposal. --Ian Pitchford 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• John K has a point, but I certainly wouldn't call the proposal "utterly ridiculous", as the current title sounds POV and does favor one side. The thing is that after much previous heated (quite hostile and disappointing actually) discussion over this, there doesn't appear to exist a neutral term, so second-best is to just go with the most common term, and the current title is it. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As MPerel says, we have gone over this before, and it was very much not fun. I'd advise anyone who isn't familiar with that debate to look over the archives. john k 02:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "very much not fun": that is a big understatement..... My eyebrows have just grown back again...Huldra 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree as per above. Yuber^(talk) 02:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree per nom. Anyway, the POV title tag should be added to this one if it (wrongly) stays. Amoruso 02:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. I had a look through the debate in the archive and I think this is the most appropriate title. I don't even think the newly proposed title is NPOV anyway. --khello 23:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. The world knows/knew the West Bank and Gaza as "Occupied territories". They are not disputed. Israel is not entitled to annex these lands, no matter how many guns it has. (Just as China would not be entitled to annex Taiwan if it had enough guns to do so. This is despite the fact that Taiwan is a recent break-away section from 3000 years of being China, hi-jacked by war-lord faction beaten on the mainland). PalestineRemembered 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. Sigh. This is "deja vu all over again". Please check the archives. Regards, Huldra 06:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• It took enough effort to reach the current comrpomise, let's not do it again. El_C 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree In the Arab perspective the land is "The Arab Palestine, occupied by the Israelis", while according to the Israelis the same land is the "Arab Occupied Judea and Samaria". The fact that the term "Israeli Occupied" is more commonly used, only shows that the Arab propaganda has been more successful than the Israeli propaganda. This, however, does not make the Arab propaganda any more objective than the Israeli. As there indeed is a dispute about these territories, the term "Disputed Territories" is factual and objective. It is not Wikipedia's job to takes sides in disputes.
• This is a ridiculous suggestion, the person above who says some look at it as 'Arab occupied Judea and Samaria' needs to understand the situation better. It is obviously OCCUPIED because it is under Israeli military rule, a fact which cannot be disputed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.244.112 (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Parenthetically, "Palestine Remembered", is mistaken about Taiwan. It has only been discovered 400 years ago by the Portuguese,(so it does not share the 3000 years of Chinese history). The island has been effectively ruled by the mainland China less than half of that time. (During the 400 years, Taiwan has been Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, Japanese, French as well as independent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.155.28 (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor Changes to Intro

I've gone ahead and slightly 'cleaned up' part of the intro. 'Generally' and 'sometimes' shouldn't be used in the same sentence! I also put the "Sinai peninsula" in a new sentence, as the area has already been returned. As for the last sentence of the intro, can user:Shamir1 please explain- what do you mean by the 'sense' of the occupation? I can see what you mean with 'definition' and 'legality', but I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'sense of the occupation'. I've left that in for now- just wanted to hear what you think--khello 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I didn't write anything in the 'edit summary'- that was my first edit on wikipedia! :-( --khello 03:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Points of view: Israeli, Palestinian, Hamas, Zionist, etc.

The writing & editing of this controversial article can easily be ressolved if the Point of view were simply Identified. There is nothing wrong with that.

But to try to come to an agreement, as if there were a common view, is like the variation on the joke that a camel (either bactrian, or dromedary) is a horse designed by a committee. And I hope I didn't offend anyone by the joke's suggest that the horse is more beautiful than a camel.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for leaving Gaza Strip

I think the following statement doesn't have a NPOV:

In 2005, Israel forced all settlers to leave the Gaza Strip, in a hope that this would placate Palistinian terrorists, and move the peace process forward.

It is certainly not fact that Israel vacated the Gaza in a effort to bring the peace process forward. There is much suspicion that this formed part of a greater plan by Israeli politicians in imposing Israels permanent boarders on the populations in the area without negotiation. I would think we'd better serve a NPOV by modifying this statement to reflect this? tobybuk

I think we better leave those questions to the article about the Disengagement plan itself and only mention the fact it happened. RoFl 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Much suspicion from who? We shouldn't say either, no matter how probable or improbable either explanation is. Wikipedia deals in undeniable fact. Write in who says that it was for peace, and who says that it was a evil shadowy conspiracy opressing people by giving them land. And be sure to mention what faction they're beholden to. (Not quite in those words, of course.)--70.187.207.119 22:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should not create a POV by trying to assume the motive of Israeli authorities for their withdrawal of the Gaza Strip. Mentioning that they unilaterally withdrew is enough information. Poyani 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Cleanup

I attempted to alter some of the language closer to NPOV without changing content. If we could make a laundry list of complaints, it would be easy to adress them one by one. --70.187.207.119 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New historical research: secret Israeli memos about legality of post Six Day War occupations

APF: Secret memo said to prove Israel knew occupation was illegal. --Abnn 05:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• See discussion here Talk:Israeli_settlement#New_historical_research:_secret_Israeli_memos_about_legality_of_post_Six_Day_War_occupations. --Abnn 07:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

False controversies

This page is unduly beholden to Israeli POV's which are unsupported by provable fact.

• Describing the occupied status of the teritories as "controversial" rather than factual is absurd. This very article says that Israeli authorities have argued before the Israeli Supreme Court that an occupation exists (but is not subject to certain laws because the territories were seized from Jordan).
• Describing the legitimacy of annexations as "controversial" is absurd. The illegitimacy of territorial changes resulting from warfare is the cornerstone of the post-war international system.

Eleland 17:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The controversies are whether 'Israel is an occupying power according to the Fourth Geneva Convention', etc. How can you deny they're controversial? Why are there ongoing debates about them? GUSwim 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the applicability of 4th Geneva has not been the subject of an authoritative legal ruling, so it remains controversial (although just barely). But the occupied status of the territories is not in dispute, even, as I said, by the Israeli occupiers themselves. There was a territory. It was captured by force. Even the UNSC itself issued a resolution calling for Israeli withdrawl from Occupied Territories, thus implicitly ruling that territories were occupied.

Or is the "controversy" rooted in the fact that not every square inch of Palestinian territory has an Israeli boot on it 24 hours a day? Yes, there are small, disjointed cantons, comprising the least desirable and strategic areas in the country, in which Israel theoretically agrees not to operate (but in practice re-invades and pillages whenever they feel like it). If it is seriously argued that that Oslo's "Area A" is not under occupation, fine. Then the article should indicate that Israel maintans a occupation of most of the territories, including the capital, borders, lines of communication, water resources, and choice farmland, and an on-and-off occupation of the ghettos. Eleland 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet highly respected experts in international law have disagreed with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to discuss this, but your very short comment makes it difficult. Can you identify some of these experts, and offer a summary of their positions? Eleland 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Eugene Rostow, Julius Stone. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon a long and involved process of tracking down your fragmentary leads, I've gleaned the following:

Elihu Lauterpacht, a notable international lawyer who is heavily involved in diaspora Zionist organizations, has argued thusly: The West Bank had no de jure sovereign pre-'67, and was under Jordanian occupation. It was invaded and occupied by Israel, but since no prior legitimate sovereign existed, Israel was not legally obligated to negotiate an end to its occupation, and was free to annex territories as it wished. Therefore, East Jerusalem is not occupied territory. He doesn't say so outright, but his argument would seem to indicate that territories on which Israel exerts practical control, but makes no formal annexation, remain occupied.

Eugene Rostow, a leading figure in international law, partially drafted UNSC-242. This resolution implied that all of the territories seized in 1967 were "occupied", and that Israel was obligated to cease its occupation of some portion of them in the context of an acceptable peace settlement. In 1991, prior to the peace negotiations, Rostow explicitly described the 1967-seized territories as "occupied". The eventual peace settlement, the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace, was negotiated "without prejudice" to the status of the West Bank, which was the subject of ongoing negotations (which are still, technically, ongoing, but don't hold your breath). So it might be possible to argue that "Area A", as in, a disjointed assortment of ghettos, is not under military occupation, but I didn't find any record of Rostow's opinion on that (obviously my search was not comprehensive, after all, I'm working to back up YOUR side of this, not mine).

Julius Stone, another noted lawyer / diaspora-Zionist partisan, pursues a similar argument to Lauterpacht: Israel occupied the West Bank, but is not obligated to return it to anyone, since the previous occupant had no legitimate claim. Like Lauterpacht, he doesn't say so outright, but it would seem that those territories not explicitly handed over (ie, Area A) remain "occupied".

So as it stands, I'm fixing to change the article to say something like

• Israel occupied West Bank and Gaza in '67, all territories remained occupied to the 1990s
• Israel ended its occupation of small selected Palestinian areas as the first phase of the Oslo Peace Process, later ended its occupation of Gaza entirely
• some Palestinian types, and some int'l observers (non-notable fruitcakes like Jimmy Carter) argue that this 'de-occupation' is illusory since the territories Israel left were the least strategic areas, remained entirely surrounded by Israeli control, were cut off from each other and from the center of Palestinian society, East Jerusalem, from economic & agricultural resources, and from crucial water supplies, and since Israel can and does re-occupy these territories on a semi-regular basis
• some Israeli extremists argue that no occupation exists, because God says so, but they're fucking crazy and even the Israeli military has stated its position that an occupation exists, before Israel's own supreme court

I will not use exactly these terms, of course, and I will do my best to remove nebulous "some Palestinians say" statements and replace with "Abu Somebody, deputy Something of the PNA, says". But I think this gives you the general tenor of my proposed changes. Sorry for the admittedly sarcastic tone of this piece, but I'm writing this all under the full expectation that my changes will be reverted to something worse than it was before, complete with random "cite needed" tags defacing anything not approved by the Eretz Yisrael crowd.

Eleland 06:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside your tone, where exactly would you like to make these changes? Look, I don't think the article is by any means NPOV as it currently stands, but you can't brush aside that one of two major parties to this conflict disagrees with the assessment of 'occupied' and can make a reasoned argument for it. The article is still titled 'occupied'. Where do you see bias or POV in stating that the 'current and future political status of the territories is very controversial'? And there's a whole section devoted to giving both sides on the issue of the term 'occupied' (one of the better sections in the article. GUSwim 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Its factual incorrect and a play on semantics. Controversial implies it is disputed and is an attempt to argue for the legitimacy of the occupation by the occupiers. More so it is not disputed by anyone other than Israel and hardly makes it controversial. The UN's official status of nearly 50% of Israel is "Occupied".99.238.165.215 (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in WB/Gaza section

Here's a list of statements that I think need cleanup due to POV:

1) "although during periods of unrest and terror attacks, Israel has on several occasions redeployed its troops..." (the context is the Israeli position);

2) "construct the Israeli West Bank barrier in response to, and as a preventative measure against, increasing terror attacks as part of the Al Aqsa Intifada" (again, official Israeli gov't position)

3) "In 2006, following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, from an army base in the south of Israel, and after over 1,300 Qassam rockets were fired into Israeli territories, the IDF has once again taken control over the northern area of Gaza. The operation has not resulted in Gilad Shalit's safe return, or in ceasing of Qassam launches, however the IDF reports many terrorists killed during the operation. During the operation, Several dozen or possibly even hundreds of civilians have been killed and Gaza's infrastructure has been badly damaged as a result of the operation directed at the terrorists." This whole para. just sounds wrong....

4) "In 2007, after some serious clashes between Palestinian factions in Gaza, Israel was attacked by rockets aimed at the Israeli city of Sederot and other border towns near the Gaza strip. These attacks have killed at least two people on the Israeli side and many more in the Gaza strip from retaliatory Israeli strikes." (labeling who started it)

I think it shouldn't be hard to clean these up to NPOV, but I figured let's hear reactions before I waste time trying to re-word them. --GUSwim 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Its inaccurate to state that the settlers in Gaza were "forcibly removed." The vast majority left voluntarily. The fact that the Israeli government elected to mobilize their armed forces for the operation against their own people, with greater readiness than in Lebanon War does not mean the settlers were or had to be removed forcibly.

The statement that Israel killed dozens or possibly hundreds of civilians is exactly the sort of lame bias without meaning that Israel has to contend with on a daily basis. Take it to the BBC keep it out of here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigleaguer (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is patently false that "The vast majority left voluntarily". According to all reports, he vast majority where expelled, or forcibly evicted, or whatever you want to say. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A few corrections

1. The Palestine Partition Plan (181) included both Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the international area.
2. The de facto annexation of East Jerusalem happened in June 1967 right after the war ended. The Knesset amended a law in a way that enabled the Israeli government to issue an order to apply the Israeli "laws, jurisdiction and administration" in any territory of the former British Mandate. The order delimits an area bigger than the Jordanian municipality of Jerusalem, and included several towns and villages around it.
3. The Security Council resolution 478 did not refer merely to the official annexation of East Jerusalem, but to the whole proclamation of "united Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. One could argue that this resolution rejects the establishment of an Israeli capital in West Jerusalem too.
4. Resolution 478 didn't call upon countries to cut their relations with Israel, only to move their diplomatic delegations to Israel outside Jerusalem.
5. Neither the East Jerusalem nor the Golan Heights residents were granted Israeli citizenship. Israel redefined their status as "permanent residents" - one step before citizenship. Technically they are allowed to request an Israeli citizenship based on the fact that they already hold a permanent residence status, but neither they nor Israel wish to walk the this extra mile. DrorK (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Pargraph in section "The West Bank and the Gaza Strip": "In 2006, following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, from an army base in the south of Israel, Israel fired airstrikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon, and bombed Beirut International Airport. As a response, 1,300 Qassam rockets were fired into Israeli territories, and the IDF once again took control over the northern area of Gaza.". This actually confuses two wars which happened in a close timescale. On the one hand, the kidnapping of Shalit by Hamas from Gaza in the South, and the conflict involving Hamas's Qassam rockets. On the other hand, not much later, the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers from the North by Hizbollah, resulting in a war in Lebanon and , for example, bombing in Beirut and other parts of Lebanon. These events are conceptually, but not factually, connected and the paragraph is confused and misleading. I do not have time to correct this with viable facts but they exists in other wikipedia entries and should be easy to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.23.18 (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"non-binding"

Perhaps this has been discussed before or elsewhere, but what makes the UN resolutions referred to here "non-binding"? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"against international law"

User:Zencv has been inserting the phrase "against international law"[3] into the sentence:

In 2000, [against international law] the Israeli government started to construct the Israeli West Bank barrier

using the following source: [4]. I would like to point out a number of issues with the insertion:

• The International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on international law in this case is just that, and advisory opinion. It does not create international law, nor are its advisory opinions the final word on international law.
• Even if the insertion were not inaccurate, it violates WP:NPOV, which states quite clearly that articles should not attempt to assert "truths", but instead, regarding opinions, should be attributed to the source which holds that opinion. Something that is described as an "advisory opinion" is quite obviously, an opinion. Please review WP:ASF.

I am therefore removing this inaccurate and policy-violating material in accord with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Phrased the opinion of the ICJ more accurately and presented as the ICJ's opinion. Fixed.

pedrito - talk - 28.11.2008 08:47

Arabic interwiki

The Arabic interwiki that was added here says the following:

The Occupation of Palestine - The occupation of Palestine is a single term which refers to more than one issue, based on the party that uses the term. Its definition varies from between the occupation of whole historical Palestine by the Jewish forces after 1948 to the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by the Israeli forces following the War of 1967, or not regarding Israel as occupying historical Palestine at all, and considering it a legitimate land of the Jews.

Now, I have nothing against this Arabic article in particular, but this is a whole different subject, somewhat related, but not equivalent to the one dealt with in this English article. DrorK (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And what do u suggest? should I edit the English article to make it more similar to the Arabic one and link them to each other? Yamanam (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic article defines the occupation of Palestine as follows:

1. 1. The whole historical Palestine is occupied by Jewish forces;
   2. Only West Bank and Gaza stip are occupied by Israeli forces; and
   3. Historical Palestine is not occupied at all as it is the legitimate land of Jews.

The English artilce mentions only the 2nd definition, without mentioning the other 2 definitions. Both articles discusses the same issues but the Arabic one is broader, if we are to remove the interwikis from all articles that are not 100% mirrored in other languages, then I am afrraid we will hardly end up with a couple of hundred articles being linked. Both articles discuss the occupied lands of Palestine and both have the same ideas so I think they should be linked.Yamanam (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the English Wikipedia is not about vague concepts. There are certain disputed territories which are defined internationally as Israeli-occupied. This article deals with the status of these territories. It doesn't deal with how Arabs regard the status of Israel or how they define the status of the region of Palestine. If you want to create an equivalent article in Arabic - that's fine, but make it equivalent. If you link here articles which are not equivalent, you ruin the whole inter-wiki idea. DrorK (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Another look at the article shows that it talks about the occupation of Golan Heights as well, which makes the Arabic article out of scope. Will remove the interwiki. Yamanam (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Political Status" section

This section needs to be cleaned-up before it goes back in. It doesn't explain what a "Political Staus" is, and the text talks about several international legal issues that are already within the jurisdiction of national and international criminal tribunals as if they are still open for discussions, or a vote:

The current and future political status of the territories is very controversial. Specific issues include the legality of Israel's policies of encouraging settlement and of appropriating water resources in the territories, whether it is legitimate for Israel to annex portions of the territories, whether Israel is legally an occupying power according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and whether an independent Palestinian state will be created in the territories.

In 1950 the UN International Law Commission (ILC) promulgated its 'Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal' and began work on proposals for a permanent international criminal tribunal. The same recognized principles were adopted by the Legal Commission of the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference, and incorporated into the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Article 49, paragraph 6: Deportation and Transfer of Persons into occupied territory.

Between 1983 and 1998, the UN repeatedly affirmed that Israel's annexations violate international law, and that Geneva IV applied in the occupied territories. Israel raised various technical objections to the application of that particular treaty. The Nürnberg Tribunal had not relied upon the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, or on recognition of title, sovereignty to territories during a war, and etc. So, the ILC wrote the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (Part II) - including the Statute for an International Criminal Court - so that the 'laws and customs' of international law were cited:

'Article 8

War crimes

...2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

...(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

...(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, Done at Rome on 17 July 1998. Entered into force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, p. 3

The Sasson Report revealed that state officials had funded or facilitated the West Bank settlements, and even the Israeli Courts and Attorney Generals have stipulated the territory is under belligerant occupation and subject to Hague IV.

The MFA is aware of the International Criminal Court Statute, but characterizes it as a "Political" problem and says "we've been working in preparatory committees in order to establish the various documentation needed for the court to exist, and within these committees we've managed to bring in a sort of footnote or comment to that particular provision on transfer of populations that refers the court back to international humanitarian law, and thereby closer to known position vis a vis settlements." The MFA failed to mention that the ICJ, the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the High Contracting Parties had already agreed that the settlements were a violation of those earlier international humanitarian laws. harlan (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems that u r quite informative about this issue, please go ahead with your edits and clean-up and let us see what will u add. Yamanam (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that we are talking about political status here. The whole idea of International Criminal Court is new and very debatable, not only in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict. One should also consider the fact that Syria, Lebanon and significant parts of the Palestinian leadership, failed to implement their part in the 242, 338 and other relevant Security Council resolutions. This fact makes the issue much more political than legal. DrorK (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

When an Israeli, Palestinian, or other government official commits overt criminal acts or omissions and there is a duty to act, non-compliance is (at best) a "political crime", not a "political status". Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for propaganda by either side in these conflicts. There are no "political" criteria or exceptions that are applicable under the law of occupation contained in the The Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV). Professor Eyal Benvenisti provides a brief explanation in The International Law of Occupation, pages 67-68. The Israeli Supreme Court opinions on the West Bank Barrier are already mentioned in this article. In the Beit Sourik Village Council case, all of parties agreed to the stipulation that Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation, since 1967.

The legal principle of universal jurisdiction and the customary law contained in the Rome statute are not new or debatable. Israel itself invoked customary international law, and universal criminal jurisdiction in the Eichmann and Demjanjuk cases. The same legal principles recognized by the ILC were utilized in the statutes for the Ad Hoc Tribunals established for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Between 1997 and 2006, Canada alone reported that it had concluded 29,968 modern war crimes cases or investigations.

The First International Conference of American States in 1890 issued a declaration containing a proscription against territorial conquest and announced the non-recognition of all acquisitions made by force.

Under customary and formal international law, recognition of a State merely signifies that the State which extends the recognition accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and obligations determined by international law. see article 6 of the Montevideo Convention. UN Security Council Resolution 242 was addressed to "every State in the area". It mentioned their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

International law is the standard of conduct for States in their reciprocal relations. International order consists essentially as the respect for the personality, sovereignty, and independence of States, and the faithful fulfillment of obligations derived from international law. see the reaffirmation of principles in Chapter 2 of the Charter of the OAS. The Rights and obligations as determined by international law, or Security Council resolutions regarding mutual "respect for borders", "territorial integrity", and "respect for and acknowledgment of the independence and sovereignty of every state in the area" requires that the UN Security Council and the State of Israel recognize the "Palestinian Leadership" as a State with its own international legal personality and obligations.harlan (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific - what is it that you wish to change or add? DrorK (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to be very specific. The Israeli High Court has ruled that customary law regarding belligerent occupation is enforceable as part of Israel's code of common law. Recent codifications of customary international law contain specific clarifications and proscriptions against any transfer of an occupying state's population into occupied territory. In addition to the Rome Statute cited above, see The 2005 ICRC/AALCO Customary Law Study and the 161 rules of International Humanitarian Law that the ICRC and the African Asian Legal Consultative Organization jointly determined to be customary. States have the right to vest universal jurisdiction in their national courts over these matters.

You said the Palestinian leadership failed to implement their portion of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which speaks about "acknowledgment of sovereignty", "territorial integrity", and "recognized boundaries". The General Assembly partition plan authorized the creation of an Arab state. The General Assembly recognized that the 1988 proclamation of the State of Palestine was in keeping with its earlier resolution, and that it was issued in exercise of "the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people". see UN GA Res 43/177, 15 December 1988. You can not realistically argue that the Palestinians have responsibilities that are reserved exclusively for "States" under international law, unless you extend recognition to a state of Palestine on the basis of sovereign equality. Under customary and formal international law, recognition of a State merely signifies that the State which extends the recognition accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and obligations determined by international law. Antonio Cassese explained that this is "an awkward legal situation in which liberation movements do not posses a right to use force, but cannot be held responsible for a breach of international law when they use force in response to the forceable denial of the right of self-determination." see Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures), page 151.

Israel has already recognized the Palestinians as "a people" with "legitimate rights" in the exchange of letters between the government and the PLO. Israel has an erga omnes legal obligation under Article 55 of the UN Charter to promote the equal rights of the Palestinian people, and their right to self-determination. See the discussion on pages 197-200 New Political Entities in Public and Private International Law, By Amos Shapira, Mala Tabory, Cegla Institute for Comparative and Private International Law, Tel Aviv University and paragraph 118 of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Construction of the Wall. The overwhelming majority of states consider self-determination to include "territorial integrity" and "permanent sovereignty" over natural resources within the "recognized boundaries" of the occupied territories. see for example UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES and Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN GA/C.2/63/L.5, 22 October 2008. harlan (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Loaded with original research

Deleted one section per wikipedia:original research. May add cleanup tag/factual inaccuracies if necessary, though that should be left up to discussion.

08:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk)

reference tag broken

I deleted this because it was conflicting with the reference list:

• East Jerusalem is annexed and belongs to Israel, while the Golan Heights is unofficially annexed with the ratification of the Golan Heights Law. Their residents are eligible for citizenship.
  • The Golan Heights was abused by Syria as base for a series of Syrian and Fedayeen incursions and attacks on Israel. Israel has continued to administer the region for protection and security. The majority of its residents are content with being governed by Israel.
• The West Bank and Gaza are "disputed" and not occupied territories, because:
  • They were part of the Mandate in Palestine and therefore part of what was officially declared to become a "a national homeland for the Jewish people" (Balfour Declaration)
  • The Arab states and leadership rejected the 1947 Partition Plan, thus making it non-binding
  • No attempt was ever made to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967 (See Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt and Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan.)
  • No Palestinian rebellion, intifada, or jihad was waged against Jordan or Egypt--the former of which refused entry of Jews and many Christians to Jerusalem's Old City, and the latter of which denied the Gaza Strip's residents citizenship and insurance. Neither country allowed self-determination in these territories.
  • The Geneva Conventions only apply to sovereign territories captured from a signatory to the conventions
  • Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war. The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. [5]

Please don't delete. If a user wants to reinstate the reminder properly go ahead. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

edit summary for 276393245

I wanted to say "remove WP:NPOV restrictions" (Why, o why, is "Save page" the default, instead of "Show preview"?). Israeli-occupied territories are territories occupied by Israel. Some people may like to exclude any mention of some of the territories occupied by Israel, but WP:NOT#CENSOR. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We know they are occupied. But the passage you reverted contained detailed information and clarified what is generally understood as fact. "Israel-occupied territories are territories occupied by Israel" is horribly redundant and was promptly corrected. Jay is an admin, he knows the rules...reverted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The part I removed excluded the territories occupied during other wars, such as Deir Yassin, whose survivors "rot in camps" as you accurately described. The term "captured" for gains in an aggressive war seems based on the same POV: blatant racism. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The territories were captured in a war. Nothing racist about it. No need to preach Erik. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit Deir Yassin was captured. The treatment of the people living there, is the reason for why I call the fate of the village (where most/some inhabitants were killed during the attack, and the survivors are killed by the Israeli army if they return home) racism. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what you call it. No one is disputing the tragedy if that is your angst. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Israeli-Occupied Territories" Vs. "Occupied Palestinian Territories"

It is necessary to distinguish between the two terms in order to avoid disputes between the interested editor-parties. As a rule of thumb I propose that we use mainstream and credible sources when writing about either term or even broadly writing about the Israel-Palestine conflict (For example, we should use credible sources such as ICJ rulings, U.N. documentations, and mainstream human rights reports in place of personal, Israeli, or Palestinian claims). Also, we should refrain from editing sections unless: 1)There are no citations and no verifiable statements. 2)If there are suspect citations, then we should write a dispute with alternative credible sources with citation before editing.

Israeli-Occupied Territories are territories occupied by Israel, that is - not part of Israel proper, but occupied. Both territories now claimed by Palestinians, and the Golan Heights. okedem (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Israeli-occupied territory includes more than occupied Palestinian territory, it also includes the Golan Heights which is Syrian territory. The Palestinian territories have a specific article as well here. Please dont continue conflating the two things, they are not equivalent. nableezy - 20:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The withdrawal line ("Blue Line") does not constitute a mutually agreed upon territorial settlement with Lebanon either. The status of villages and farm land in places like Ibel al-Qamah, Hunin, Qadas, Malkiya, Salha, Safed, Tarbikha, Al-Bassa, and Shebaa Farms remains disputed. harlan (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that the Green Line was never more than a cease-fire line, not an international border. Jordan's annexation was accepted by almost no-one, and they did not push it in the peace treaty, even though they otherwise insisted on every last millimeter.Mzk1 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Article 3(2) of the Jordan-Israel peace treaty preserved the legal status of every last millimeter of the territory Israel occupied in 1967:

The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

The act of union between the East and West Banks didn't have to be recognized by any other states to be legally binding. The inhabitants, Abdullah, and the Arab League declared that the union was without prejudice to the resolution of the final settlement of the Palestinian problem and Palestinian national aspirations. The union was recognized by most countries, including the United States, Great Britain, and France. Jordan was admitted to the UN in 1955 without any objections, and the Charter required other states to refrain from the threat or use of force against its territorial integrity. Jordan signed a number of bilateral treaties with other states that extended to the entirety of Jordan, including the West Bank. None of the other parties included any reservations regarding the West Bank. The Security Council evidently shared that view when it adopted resolution 228, since it observed that the grave Israeli military operation against the West Bank "constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel." harlan (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Some states claim Israel was created by the General Assembly, others say it was created by force. It follows that the uncontested borders of Israel at the date of its admission as a member of the United Nations, following the adoption of the Chapter VII SC resolutions, e.g. 70, were no greater than the areas left under its control by the Armistice Agreement. The remainder of the mandate territory of Palestine was manifestly not Israeli territory or under its control. It was not (and is not now) open to conquest, accession, or settlement by Israel, and Israel had (and has) no latent or putative claim to sovereignty over it without the consent of the other parties to the Armistice Agreements. Following the 1988 act of dissolution, the majority of states have recognized the legal successors to be Palestine and Jordan and of course Lebanon and Syria in the north. harlan (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Any sources for any of this? The Mandate clearly says that the area (technically including Jordan itself, but with a loophole) is for "close Jewish settlement" and a Jewish National Home. It doesn't say this about any other group or nation in the area. It doesn't mention that any other group has political rights there.Mzk1 (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I can usually provide references for anything I mention. The Mandate mentioned settlement on state land and waster land, but it did not encourage Jewish settlement on stolen private land. See Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlement [6]

The information you asked about comes directly from Jordan's written submission to the Court in the case regarding the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. See paras 2.17-2.21 [7] Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations recognized the communities of the former Ottoman Empire as independent nations, subject to the condition of tutelage until such time as they were able to stand alone. The Covenant described that responsibility as "a sacred trust of civilization". The text of the resolution of the San Remo Conference accepted the terms of the draft Mandate's articles as stated with reference to Palestine, "on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal of the resolution an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities." The non-Jewish communities of Palestine were specifically mentioned in the text of the draft Mandate.

The Court said that the "sacred trust" and the Mandate were the origin of the United Nations' "permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy", and noted that the United Nations has created subsidiary organs to fulfill the responsibility toward the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The Mandate took the form of a resolution of the Council of the League of Nations. Article 26 of the Mandate provided that any disputes whatsoever relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate were subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Article 36(5) and 36(6) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice gave the new international tribunal subject matter jurisdiction and authority to decide any of those disputes. The International Court of Justice found that since 1967 Israel had established settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in violation of international law.

The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine had said the Jewish National Home was a concept that was limited in scope and that it never applied to all of Palestine. The commission said it derived from the formulation of Zionist aspirations in the 1897 Basle program and had provoked many discussions concerning its meaning, scope and legal character, especially since it had no known legal connotation and there are no precedents in international law for its interpretation. It was used in the Balfour Declaration and in the Mandate, both of which promised the establishment of a "Jewish National Home" without, however, defining its meaning. A statement on "British Policy in Palestine," issued on 3 June 1922 by the Colonial Office, placed a restrictive construction upon the Balfour Declaration. The statement excluded "the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or customs in Palestine" or "the imposition of Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole", and made it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home. The Committee noted that the construction, which restricted considerably the scope of the National Home, was made prior to the confirmation of the Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations and was formally accepted at the time by the Executive of the Zionist Organization. See the report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, UN Document A/364, 3 September 1947

Great Britain extended de jure recognition to the annexation of the West Bank and de facto recognition of Jordanian government of East Jerusalem. See British House of Commons, Jordan and Israel (Government Decision), HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41. The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan on January 31, 1949 after the Jericho Conference had declared Abdullah King of Arab Palestine. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume VI, Page 713. In 1978 the U.S. State Department published a memorandum of conversation held on June 5, 1950 between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Abdel Monem Rifai, a Counselor of the Jordan Legation: Mr. Rifai asked when the United States was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan. Mr. Rockwell explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of the United States to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn that the US did in fact recognize the union. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921.

In 1967 US Secretary of State Rusk stressed to the Government of Israel that no settlement with Jordan would be accepted by the world community unless it gave Jordan some special position in the Old City of Jerusalem. The US also assumed Jordan would receive the bulk of the West Bank as that was regarded as Jordanian territory. See Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 411. In his letter to David Ben-Gurion dated 9 January 1968, French President Gaulle explained that he was convinced that Israel had overstepped the bounds of moderation by taking possession of Jerusalem, and so much Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian territory by force of arms. The text of his letter was published by Reuters and is available through the NY Times archives. [8] harlan (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Security Zone

This part of the text is not so good. It's not so much POV, as written by someone who is very "now"-centric. The security zone was an effort to get Fatah and other Palestinian militant groups away from Israel's borders to prevent Maalot and such. Hizballah did not become a major threat till the 90's. For example, see quote from Amal_Movement#February_1988, where it clearly states Amal was in control of south Lebanon in the early 90's. 89.139.203.140 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Roy

Jewish lands prior to 1948

We need to make some mention of the lands, villages, cities, whatever you wish to term them that were inhabited by Jews prior to 1948, This would include Hebron/Kiryat Arba, "east" Jerusalem, and Gush Etzion, as well as other areas. These areas had Jewish residents for decades, if not centuries prior to 1948. When Jordan took over the "west bank" and "east" Jerusalem, it expelled the Jewish and some Christian residents. After 1967, Israel (re)asserted control over these areas and allowed Jewish residencies to be re-established. These cannot be "occupied" territories, then, if the former residents intended to be part of a Jewish state.

On a separate point, we can note the fact that these re-established Jewish areas are considered occupied by the majority of sources which demonstrates that the term "occupied territories" in inherently biased. However, this is another debate that I am not starting here; I am just adding some context.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The status "occupied" is a legal status related to sovereignty. It has nothing to do with residency. Zero^talk 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

citations needed

The opening two paragraphs do a really good job with a very touchy subject -- making clear both what is disputed and who holds what positions -- but while I think all the information is correct, none of it is footnoted with citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.240.246 (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

San Remo Convention Essential

The legal impact of the San Remo Convention of 1920 with the Palestine Mandate cannot be over-estimated. These instruments established Jewish national sovereignty over Palestine under binding International Law. Deleting references to them as "unsourced" is incorrect and attempts to erase history.

AreaMan (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

San Remo did NOT create sovereignty, nor did the Mandate. These were created in 1948. Ewawer (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Term Occupied Territories

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

Yeah, he sayed it indeed. Both the fatah and the hamas and also almost all of the Islamic movements in the world agree on the last stage - Islamization of the entire world. However Fatah wants to start to Islamize Israel after they make peace with Israel and Hamas just wants to keep on using terror to achieve this goal. viclick """"" 09:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

True though it may be, this isn't the forum for opinion. The land is recognized as occupied by the U.N., and advocates of genocide can be just as occupied as anyone else. --70.187.207.119 22:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I totallee disagree with Shakur420.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shakur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disagree. That's not even the Israeli government position, at least on the West Bank, and we don't give preference to minority views. We cover them but "disputed" isn't the usual or correct term. Sol (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Even the Israeli Supreme Court acknowledges that the territories are under belligerent occupation.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's just call this article "Israel's belligerent occupation" to match the term used by the Israeli Supreme Court. Hcobb (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

allegations of war crimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We don't use Wikipedia's definitions of anything to write articles. We use reliable sources WP:RS. Stop accusing editors of political bias for following policy. Sol (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unicorn76, the majority of states interpret Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Geneva Convention in accordance with the Article 49 Commentary [9] and with Article 85 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (AP I 1977). The Commentary explains that the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference of 1948 "intended [Article 49(6)] to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race." The Protocol provides that "the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies is a grave breach of the conventions." Article 85(5) of AP I 1977 provides that "grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes." [10] There are 170 state parties to the Protocol and the Fourth Geneva Convention has been universally ratified. [11]

The Wikipedia article on War crime and the US War Crimes Act of 1996 reflect the fact that "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions are in fact war crimes.

The Geneva Conventions and AP I 1977 reflect customary international law (See paragraph 35 [12]) which is codified in Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. That convention has been ratified by 113 states. harlan (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Unicorn76 has been indefinitely blocked.--Chaser (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits - Israeli legal and political views

I don't think that this removal was proper so I reinstated the information. The information relates Israeli legal and political views regarding the occupied territories, the text which springs from the legality of the settlements is argued from the position that the territory is occupied, hence the references to Fourth Geneva Convention and international conventions. Unomi (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors frequently make an unsupported editorial claim that "Israel says" the Fourth Geneva Conventions do not apply. In Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, all of the parties, including the government of Israel, agreed that the military commander’s authority is anchored in the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply (see paragraph 23 on page 14)[13] The MFA page reflects the views of the government, not just the views of the courts. The declassified memos written by government officials discussing the international conventions that govern the rules of occupation are obviously relevant political and legal views. A better question is whether or not the disputed territories view is relevant to the West Bank. harlan (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I regard a discussion of the legality or otherwise of settlements in the West Bank (there not being any any more in Gaza) as side issues to the article which deals with whether the territories in question are "occupied". If you open up this issue here than you will need to duplicate all the arguments on settlements here. This article needs to remain focused, with the issue of settlements fully discussed in its own article. I think it is generally accepted that the Israeli courts regard the West Bank as "occupied" territories, though they may use other terms such as "administered". The point is that at least the West Bank is not an integral part of Israel, a special status. Ewawer (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ewawer you keep deleting third-party verifiable published legal opinions of Israeli officials about international conventions that are relevant to the occupied territories. This article used to summarize the arguments about the settlements, the Diplomatic Conference for the Rome Statute, & etc. until you elected yourself to the position of acting content gatekeeper. Wikipedia policy requires content in these related articles to be harmonized. Deleting well-sourced relevant material from articles over the objection of other editors is disruptive. harlan (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't know. It is an improvement. harlan (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The balance of the material in that section of the article consists of legal arguments that the territories aren't occupied because Geneva IV isn't applicable. The fact that Israeli government officials say that it is applicable is relevant to this article. Attempts to present an unbalanced account of published Israeli views on the subject is simply disruptive. harlan (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan & Co look like they are determined to stuff this article up like they stuffed up other Israel-Palestine articles. I'm surprised that other editors don't put a stop to their constant attempts to introduce their biases and to sabotage these article. Ewawer (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ewawer I'd suggest you review Wikipedia:No personal attacks and delete your post. There have been several community discussions at Wikipedia I/P Coll and at the ARBCOM monitored project on Naming conventions (West Bank) regarding the "disputed vs. occupied territories" issue, e.g. [14] Even after your deletions, that is still the topic that the remaining portion of this particular subsection of the article discusses. That is not a strictly political question, since the Geneva Conventions reflect customary international law and they are still mentioned by the sources in the article that say "the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history".

It has always been agreed that all of the significant published views of the interested parties to the conflict have to be included. That is a fundamental non-negotiable requirement according to Wikipedia:Five pillars and the final decision in WP:ARBPIA. Nobody is sabotaging the article by including the published historical legal views of the relevant government officials in charge of administering the territories regarding the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. Moshe Dayan was the Defense Minister tasked with the actual oversight of the military commanders that administered the territories for the government of Israel. His view that establishing settlements violated international conventions is not insignificant or irrelevant. harlan (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion

There is a LOT of unsourced political opinion in this article. I've deleted two such sentences... but a lot more editing is required. I don't know why this article should be exempt from proper sourcing.Edstat (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What you deleted was not unsourced opinion but unsourced facts, and both facts are easy to source. If you don't want to locate sources yourself, add a "citation needed" tag, like this: {{cn}}. Zero^talk 13:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yamit photo

I am dubious about the photo that is supposed to show three soldiers evacuating a resisting child from Yamit. The "soldier" on the right looks like a child, and the way the three are holding the young child looks unrealistic. I expect it is a theatrical re-enactment of some sort. There seems to be no source for this photo except "uploaded by" someone. I propose we remove it. Zero^talk 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The one on the right looks like 10 years old to me. Look at his face, and compare the size of his hands with the adult hand that is entering the right edge. Also, I don't think we should use photos that we have no known source for. Does the uploader even claim to have taken the photo or stated where it is from? Zero^talk 14:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the soldier on a right is a she, though the angle and photo quality make it hard to tell. We don't have many free alternatives, and it is a widely used photo in Wikipedia. The description says it was taken in Yamit, 1982, and I think we should assume good faith. Perhaps it is possible to contact the original uploader. Marokwitz (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to doubt the authenticity of this photo. It looks genuine to me starting with the attire of the soldiers and ending with the architecture. Of course, we can't be 100% sure, but the same can be said for thousands of other photos on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This reasoning would apply to and rule out most of the free images on Wikipedia, which are "own works" whose provenance is unknown. I don't think that an editor's personal analysis of a photo is good enough reason to doubt it. Shanghai Sally (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The baby-face of soldier on the right, and his/her height makes me think it's a female. Also I can see nothing unnatural in the way the child is held. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The photo of the Israeli "checkpoint" is odd

It's hard to say it's a checkpoint it looks like a fence with a bunch of rocks and a couple of soldiers standing on the fence stopping the a few people from claiming over the fence. I'd assume a checkpoint wouldn't require people claiming over the rocks at right side of the picture. The photo should be labeled a "a breach in the security wall" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.184.24 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

West Bank barrier construction started when?

The article states without a citation that "In 2000 the Israeli government started to construct the Israeli West Bank barrier, separating Israel and several of its settlements, as well as a significant number of Palestinians, from the remainder of the West Bank." If I understand correctly, the barrier's construction started not before 2002. VelvetSkies (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

IP edits, whats wrong and whats right

Ghajar is split in half by the Blue Line, with the UN marking the northern half as being in Lebanon and the southern half as being in Syria (see this map). Israel continued to occupy the southern half of the city. The residents, both north and south, say that it is a Syrian village, Lebanon and Syria dont seem to say much about it, and Israrl announced about a year ago it would withdraw from the southern half, though I cannot find any record in my brief search of them actually doing so. A good article to read about Ghajar and how the Blue Line came to divide the village is Kaufman, Asher (2009). "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie": On Ghajar and Other Anomalies in the Syria-Lebanon-Israel Tri-Border Region". Middle East Journal (Middle East Institute) 63 (4). The Shebaa Farms issue is just as complicated. Israel claims that the territory is Syrian and is thus not required to withdraw its forces from the territory as part of its ending its occupation of southern Lebanon. Syria and Lebanon say that the territory is Lebanese, though whether or not this is Syria's official position or if it is just an attempt to remove Israeli forces from the territory is a question that does not have an answer. Hezbollah uses the continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms as justification for continued action against Israel, as the say action against Israel is justified so long as Israel occupies any Lebanese territory. Where the Shebaa Farms actually is wont be decided until a comprehensive border treaty between Syria and Lebanon is signed.

So what should the article say? Thats a bit hard to figure out. I think the right way to put this is to spell it out. Say that Ghajar straddles the Blue Line between Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied Golan, and that the Shebaa Farms continues to be occupied by Israel which says it is part of the Syria's Golan while Syria and Lebanon say it part of Lebanon. nableezy - 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

173.57.158.145's edits and Lebanon/Jordan

(Due to an edit clash with Nableezy we had two sections appear on the same subject. I'm turning my section into a subsection of his. Hopefully comments can address both of our initial posts.)--Peter cohen (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I reverted these edits because I think they produced quite a confused state of affairs including poor formatting. It will be better to thrash something out here and then introduce material on Lebanon. The latter only appears in the table and we need to explain Southern Lebanon's presence there both in the lede and in its own section. The two remaining Lebanese areas seem to arise from a history of confusion over the country's border with Syria and these need to be explained. The status of the two Jordanian areas need to be thrashed out here with reliable sourcing etc.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

From the little I remembered about Ghajar and the Shebaa Farms, the issue is as complicated as Nableezy described it (thank you for taking time to write it down). Definitely it has its place in this article, not so sure about the lead. How common is it to count Ghajar and the Shebaa Farms among "the occupied territories"? My cursory impression is that commonly OP refers to West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights, and that the sources mostly just omit the two smaller areas. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

242

Biosketch, even if one were to accept that UNSC Resolution 242 is what defines the Israeli-occupied territories (which I dont), that does not support removing the word the. 242 calls for withdrawing from territories occupied, and while the lack of the use of the word the in the English version of that resolution is used as an argument that Israel need not withdraw from all territory occupied in 67, it is not an argument for claiming that the territory Israel captured in 67, all of it, is not occupied. Could you explain why you want to remove the? nableezy - 17:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)