Talk:West Bank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Western Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon West Bank is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see West Bank at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Jordan conquered/Jordan annexed[edit]

I've introduced Benvenisti here because wiki articles are dotted all over with this 'conquered and annexed' language, which is historically incorrect, and secondly Jordan did not conquer the West Bank. The Jordanian army withdrew and then re-entered that area, to defend the territory accorded Palestinians under the Partition Plan. Its brief was basically defensive, and the people in that area's villages were not 'conquered'. There is further a technical distinction between annexing territories of sovereign states, and claiming to annex territory that had ambiguous juridical status.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


Under economy it states that the cause of the west banks depression is the occupation, and links to a World Bank Article which is no longer available. Assuming the claim can be verified, that still sounds like a controversial statement. Should it be made more neutral?

  • Asked and answered. Unfortunately we're talking about Wikipedia here where a large sub-set of editors are not interested in objective truth. Obviously it is a POV issue. "Israeli occupation of the West Bank has destroyed the Palestinian economy"??!! Destroyed, how? Destroyed relative to what? How destroyed is the West Bank economy relative to say Gaza? Objectively, I'd have no choice but to concluded the West Bank is absolutely booming compared to Gaza, as things stand now. Don't be afraid of the Wikipedians. They are much, much more bark than bite. Next time, sign your name. I'll see if I can't track down some more objective sources. In light of the current Gaza situation, I was interested as well in how things are going economically in the West Bank. 10stone5 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Regavim behind the news. On EU buildings[edit]

All the newspaper reports on this stem from a denunciation made by not-for-profit (cui bono?) Regavim, Rona Moran and Miryam Wijler,'One rightist group's creeping state influence, on both sides of Green Line,'+972 magazine 4 September, 2012. Unfortunately, we have no article on it: it is not an NGO of any repute, but a settler lobby that systematically trawls for evidence, and makes court cases, against any Palestinian constructions in Area C of the West Bank, Bedouin constructions in the Negev, and even militates against Galilee Palestinians. Wherever it finds evidence of a lack of permit, it mobilizes to get the army to demolish it, or the High Court to authorize its destruction. It does not say a word about the numerous illegal settlements, land encroachments, and unauthorized building by Jewish settlers. The Daily Mail was the vehicle for its exposition. It's the only self-defined NGO I know which is dedicated to enforcing the systematic dispossession of a people, rather than, as is the classical case for NGOs, defending a people from abuse and dispossession.

That said, the matter is newsworthy, and might be included. The EU is accused of infringing Israeli law. Probably true. Israeli is infringing on its obligations as a military administrator of occupied foreign land in (a) both transferring its population there and (b) Articles 47-78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and esp. here of Art. 53.

Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

The legal issue not mentioned is encapsulated by the bolded terms. Technically, Israel is asserting no external cooperative organization has a right to provide accommodation to homeless people in the foreign territory it occupies, esp. when the homelessless is a result of Israel's violation of its own obligations to that people under international law. Therefore, the news can be reported, but in context, with the balance you do not get in breaking news reporting only one side of the issue. It is not very relevant to this article, except to Area C. The best thing would be to await until some outlet like the New York nTimes reports the matter (if it ever does).Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any reason for deletion this info & RS from article. There is the standard procedure to place {{reliable source}} tl and to open discussion before (as you did), but deletion itself should be made after discussion's result only. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, as I see it's another reason for Jeppiz's last edit:
  • "(Please discuss first. This recent edition (today) is poorly written and poorly sourced. It's entirely possible we could use it and mention it, but then in proper format if not WP:UNDUE. Remember that Wikipedia is NOT NEWS)" for

The daily mail published a story on 5'th of February 2015 titled "European Union ‘is breaking international law’ by funding illegal West Bank building projects" [1], The folowing day NRG News had reported that the construction had been probaby funded by the EHCO organization [2] and published EU east jerusalem office response for the alegations. I24News stated that [James Carver] sent a slamming letter to it's peers.[3] The Jerualem post had published COGAT response for the story stating "The civil administration acts against illegal construction, and no organization is exempt from enforcement.COGAT has sent official letters to embassies and international organizations cautioning them against building illegally in Judea and Samaria.". [4] The times of Israel reported on the 6'th that a demolishen order had been requested by the (Israeli) PM [5].

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
You're wrong Igorp_lj, please read WP:BRD. It's fine to make bold edit, but it's also fine for others to revert said edit, and then is the time to discuss. Furthermore, and no offence intended, this is English Wikipedia and the articles have to be written in correct and readable English. Your proposed edit is filled with spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes and unencyclopedic language. Both the content and the format is problematic, but the format is at least easy to change. The more relevant question is whether a report from a non-notable and strongly partial organization is due here or not.Jeppiz (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: It seems me that a sequence with {{reliable source}} is more correct, but let's check.
Any way my first reply was about Nishidani's reasons for deletion in this, not obvious case.
Regarding to "correct and readable English": I am no going to revert this version, I've copied its text & RS to let us see what is the issue and (may be) to correct it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "report from a non-notable and strongly partial organization".
It's not the issue now how much Regavim differs from other NGOs.
What one may see, is that different RS+ do consider its info and use it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "it is not an NGO of any reput" (@Nishidani)
What about this sourth?

מספר תאגיד 580460319
שם תאגיד בעברית רגבים (ע"ר)
שם תאגיד באנגלית
סוג תאגיד עמותה
תאריך רישום התאגיד 10/05/2006
מלל סטטוס תאגיד רשומה
כתובת ת.ד 44439, ירושלים, 91443
סטטוס ניהול תקין לשנת 2015 יש אישור
תאריך סטטוס ניהול תקין לשנת 2015 18/09/2014

 ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an article on Regavim is needed. A sample of their great humanitarian work: IDF confiscates 8 tarps meant to shelter Bedouin from winter storms. By the way, all this talk about Israeli law is bizarre. Israel does not apply its laws to demolish Palestinian structures in the West Bank, it applies the "emergency regulations" questionably inherited from the British Mandate, with modifications at the whim of the local IDF Commander, and before the High Court it claims to follow international law on Belligerent Occupation. Zerotalk 00:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Zero, sarcasm serves no useful purpose whatsoever on Wikipedia. I happen to agree with you concerning both Regavim and the application of the law, but the tone of your message is entirely unhelpful. As for the actual content, I would prefer seeing this in some reliable media. The Daily Mail is not what I would call a respected newspaper, it's almost entirely devoted to juicy gossip about celebrities. Can a better source be found, and is this due in the article?Jeppiz (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There's probably a story behind this, I think. Unless I'm mistaken the Regevim report came out last October, and did not make a splash. All of a sudden, it pops up before the elections, after William Schabas, perhaps the most authoritative scholar in his field, resigned after Israel managed to dig up innocuous 'dirt', and get him replaced on the investigatory panel for the war crimes etc at Gaza. The EU, once highly critical of the devastation of the West bank, is now distracted by ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo incident, and, of all the organs in the world, the Daily Mail suddenly discovers this obscure stuff (which is actually simply about sheltering people made homeless by dispossession), and then, only then, do conservative newespapers with a POV in Israel jump at it. Of course, this is neither here nor there to editors, but we are, as editors, obliged to be very careful about what appears to be 'breaking' news, which is often manipulative. I concur with Jeppiz's call, and would add we should await serious EU official responses, rather than allow the encyclopedia to be sucked into what looks like a 'placed' piece of rather ugly purport. If the issue is a serious one for the EU it will probably be on the agenda today and when the outcome of that is reported, we may have an official response. Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The report had been published just few days ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Regavim is not a reliable source. Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 ??? As I see it was reply to your:
  • "the Regevim report came out last October, and did not make a splash. All of a sudden, it pops up before the elections..."
--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


Revert or you will be reported[edit]

Regardless of all that, the long standing formulation is both accurate and neutral, whereas giving it as a common name when it's settler speak is neither. nableezy - 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria[edit]

Not saying that the land is officially called 'Judea and Samaria' is a bold bias towards the Palestinian POV. I added that it 'also referred to as Judea and Samaria'. it lasted 3 days, until User:JDiala reverted it.

I suggest something along 'also referred to as Judea and Samaria' or even 'officially referred by Israel as Judea and Samaria'.


  • It is the official Israeli name.[1][2]
  • It is the most common name of the land in Israel and in the Israeli political discussion (I can cite many articles in Hebrew if you want).
  • Jordan named the land the 'West Bank', contrary to South Bank of the Jordan River (this is actually a name that represents the Jordanian POV, historically). It used only when Jordan annexed the land between 1948-1967. It is a modern name, that officially used only 19 years.
  • The land was called Samaria under the British Mandate.[3]
  • "Judea is the biblical, Roman, and modern name of the mountainous southern part of the historic Land of Israel, also known since 1948 as the West Bank"[4]
Read the archives, and the article. That it is known in Israel by that recent joint moniker is in the lead. That all around the world, it is known as the West Bank, and that this is the default term used in wiki's neutral narrative voice, was established by consensus years ago, following arbitration. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani is right. See WP:WESTBANK, this issue has been settled already. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)