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.

Legal status[edit]

looking at this paragraph at the Legal status section:

"Since 1979 the United Nations Security Council,[123] the United Nations General Assembly,[14] the United States,[124] the EU,[125] the International Court of Justice,[126] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[15] refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. General Assembly resolution 58/292 (17 May 2004) affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over the area.[127]"

I noticed that none actually refer to the territories as "Palestinian territory occupied". UNSC refer to "Arab territories occupied", US/EU refer to "occupied territories", ICC refers to "Occupied Territories" only the UNGA refers to "Occupied Palestinian Territory". So it seems that the "Palestinian" addition is out of order. --Mor2 (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the UNSC at least said in the cited source "Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The title of the ICJ ruling is "LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY". The contracting parties say "The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory", the US document mentions "Palestinian territories" and occupation (albeit not in the same sentence), and finally the EU document also says "Palestinian territories" and occupation, in separate sentences. Here the EU says "Occupied Palestinian Territory" very explicitly. --Dailycare (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, about UNSC and EU(i'll let US slide) thanks for double checking. Withdrawn.--Mor2 (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is another point about this section that could be discussed, namely the "last recognized sovereign". This sounds like something that comes from a source, could we find one? Something that comes to mind that touches on this point is that now several countries recognize the Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, doesn't that make Palestine the newest recognized sovereign? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Mor2 wrote about this on my talkpage, I think saying that the recognition of Palestine has "nothing to do" with this isn't persuasive, since our actions need to be guided by what sources say. We don't have sources for the statement that Turkey would have been the last sovereign (at least, no sources published after Palestine's recognition by the countries in question) and no source has been provided to support the statement that these recognitions wouldn't be relevant.--Dailycare (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not certain what confuse you, its about "last recognized sovereign" (i.e. recognition + Sovereignty). Israeli, Jordan and brits has/had sovereignty, while Palestine has recognition, non of which had both since the Ottomans, as such your latest change [1] should be reverted --Mor2 (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The plain reading of "recognized sovereign" is that an entity is recognized as sovereign. Palestine is recognized (by some countries) as sovereign over the West Bank. For example Iceland recognizes Palestine as sovereign within the 1967 borders, which includes the West Bank. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
To be honest I don't know anyone who recognize that Palestine HAS sovereignty over the west bank, but I am open to solutions as to the wording. Please pick whatever variant that works for you and says that they were the last who had recognition + Sovereignty.--Mor2 (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
According the source above, the government of Iceland recognizes Palestine as sovereign in the WB. Concerning the wording, I think the current wording is in fact optimal as I don't see a real reason to say anything about historical sovereignty in the first sentence. The section is about legal status and saying the Ottomans had the area for centuries is a good bit of background for the present situation. We do mention toward the end of the section that some countries recognize the WB as part of Palestine nowadays. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree with DC. We also mention the Israeli POV regarding the sovereignty issue later on in the passage so I don't see any reason to open that can of worms in the first sentence as we would have to discuss all viewpoints on the matter per NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a can of worms only to those who don't understand the term Sovereignty or blinded by nationalistic ambitions and thus dig for erroneous sources or those who misquote thing like the latest UN resolution that said that "the Palestinian people have the sovereignty over their territory". Stop and think for a second, if what you claim is true, if Palestine had Sovereignty over the west bank i.e. they had independent authority, they wouldn't be occupied and would have a state! The reason why they are regarded occupied, is because right now they only have the powers that was afforded to them by Israel as part of the oslo agreements.
Furthermore that wording with dates that Dailycare used is what I put in the history section, where it is appropriate giving historical context. However, in the legal section, the second variant is better as it give legal context to the rest of the paragraph.--Mor2 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the relevant quote in the Sovereignty article you linked is this: "Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or total occupation by another power...." Dlv999 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── They key difference is presented in the second half of the sentence i.e. this courtesy was afforded to the holy due its Sovereignty prior to the annexation(it had independent authority over a geographic area similar to ww2 governments-in-exile). More importantly we are discussing the legal section as such the only relevant quote "In international law, sovereignty means that a government possesses full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit". ETA: I just read more thoroughly the second paragraph in the section and finally figured out why you argue so much about this simple phrase and would like to note that unless you can come up with some better arguments, I consider this POV pushing. --Mor2 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't produced a source for the claim you want to introduce into the article so I don't know why I'm even wasting my time with this, but see e.g Quigley (2005) pp15 "The League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, which oversaw mandate administration, said that mandatory powers had no right of sovereignty but that the people under the mandate held ultimate sovereignty." Dlv999 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not certain what I am suppose to see, other than the difference between sovereignty de jure and de facto, we spoke about before. Lets try to focus the discussion, we both agreed that neither Britain, Israel or Jordan were recognized sovereigns in the area, right?(all had de facto sovereignty, not de jure). So the only issue is with your disagreement that currently Palestinians are not recognized sovereign. Considering that Palestinian do not possess de facto sovereignty, can you explain why you object to this wording and then suggest an alternative wording?--Mor2 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
My position is this. Additions to the encyclopedia require a reliable source. You have not produced a reliable source for the claim that you want to introduce to the article. Therefore we have not reached the point where it is worth considering the claim for inclusion. Until you produce a source for the claim I have nothing more to say on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I think Dlv's point is doubly valid considering that Mor2 just removed some text from the article with reference to SYN. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
@Dailycare, It is not SYN, because it doesn't change its meaning. not A + not B + not C = not (A+ B+ C). @Dlv999, I hope you have some other argument because finding a source that Palestinians do not possess sovereignty is easy... Also I have to say that I find your arguments more and more POVish, due how they sound rather than their merit. I suggest that you provide counter arguments instead, like in your recent edit, which was valid and good argument.--Mor2 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, we have sources that say Palestine's sovereignty in the area is recognized. There are no sources for what you're proposing to put to the article. Concerning the SYNTH issue, the notion that Turkey would have been the last recognized sovereign would be a new conclusion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You are rehashing old arguments, as noted before don't confuse sources like the UN resolutions that say that:
"the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory" and later reaffirm its commitment/determination to their state...
or take sources that do not address this in clear maner out of context. As for your assertion that are no sources that state the obvious that the Palestinian do not posses Sovereignty de facto, I am not cetain who you are trying to convince but here is one for start:
"The newly formed Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is explicitly denied sovereignty in the accords of 1993-1995 ... and only has most limited forms of control over fraction of the territory."-Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness p.11
I specifically choose a more "POVish" source for you, but I can get with more formal ones if you wish. As for turkey you have a point there, which I can easily solve with readily available source. Any more objections you wish to pile up on grounds of "WP"? --Mor2 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I have just a few quick points, 1) that source pre-dates e.g. the Icelandic recognition, and 2) it doesn't say that the Ottomans were the last recognized sovereigns in the area. In fact that snippet doesn't as much as mention the Ottomans. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
1. we already had the de jure and de facto discussion, last time it was a couple of post before. As it was noted before there are multitude of sources that support/recognize Palestinian sovereignty, none that they actually an sovereign(de facto) and multitude that they doesn't.(I'll bet that even you agree with this 100%, but choose to look for disagreement rather than on what we can agree) 2. It doesn't have to, only that they possessed it(see previous post), but overall we agree(again see previous post) which I will produce(I don't have time right now to find in which treaty it was specifically referenced from ~1922) but regardless I can always replace them with "since 1917..."--Mor2 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm frankly not clear on why you feel the "de jure" and "de facto" issues would be relevant to this discussion, since the proposed text doesn't have either of them. The source says Palestine's sovereignty is recognized, therefore Palestine is (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) a "recognized sovereign". It really is as simple as that. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Numbers don't fit[edit]

"It has an estimated population of 2,622,544 (June 2012). More than 80 percent, about 2,600,000, are Palestinian Arabs, and approximately 500,000 are Jewish Israelis living in the West Bank, including about 192,000 in East Jerusalem, in Israeli settlements."

So either the total population is 2 600 000, or over 3 million. Which one is correct?--Seerus (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Forming the bulk of the Palestinian Territories[edit]

The first sentence in the lede now reads The West Bank ... is a landlocked territory, located in Western Asia and forming the bulk of the Palestinian Territories. In my opinion it should be The West Bank ... is a landlocked territory, located in Western Asia forming the bulk of the Palestinian Territories without the "and" before "forming", otherwise the recent addition "(and) forming the bulk of the Palestinian Territories" doesn't imo make much sense. But I'm not a native speaker of English. The other question is wether the addition is correct in the first place. Ajnem (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

International community[edit]

This phrase is very vague. Who does it refer to? The members of the UN? The EU? The Arab League? All of these are "international communities". Also, "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law," implies that the "international community" is unanimous. So Frederico1234 and Sean.hoyland, if it is "clear enough" and "doesn't need clarification here", then who do you think this refers to? It may be clear to you but it is not clear to me, nor to many others. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 20:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not just look in a dictionary: definition. --Dailycare (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that the "political leaders and important organizations from all parts of the world" are unanimous in this view? --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 21:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody should care what I think it means and nobody should be asking me the question "who do you think this refers to?" The phrase is sourced to 4 academic sources. The fact that you don't understand it and think it implies unanimity doesn't matter. You can go and educate yourself about all of the countries and international organizations that take the view that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Once you have done that you can consider listing them all in the lead for the few minutes they would be there before the edit is reverted and "international community" sourced to 4 impeccable sources is restored. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying it is wrong. I am not saying the sources are wrong. What I am saying is that if no one can explain what it means, then it does not mean anything. It is better to use a term that has a meaning that people understand and we don't have to use the same terminology as the sources. I asked you what you think it means because you seem to imply that you know what it means. If we can start by giving it a definition on this talk page (and I don't mean listing countries as that is, as you pointed out, unhelpful), then we can decide whether the term is appropriate for use without definition in the article. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 03:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The term is appropriate for use without definition in the article because it is the term used without a definition by the 4 impeccable sources cited next to the statement (and without definition by countless other reliable sources when they describe views on Israeli settlements). It has a WP:V+WP:NPOV compliance of 100%. This level of policy compliance is independent of what you or I think about words and phrases. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not disputing WP:V or WP:NPOV. I am trying to say that the word is not meaningful. Here's a quote from WP:NPOV: "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity." And here's a quote from WP:MOS: "Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible." Please stop avoiding my arguments and address the issue, which is the meaning of "international community". --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 14:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I have addressed the issue in the way that is consistent with policy. I am deliberately not participating in a process that is inconsistent with policy. You want to have a discussion about the meaning of something, the phrase "international community", because you personally have trouble with it and think it lacks clarity or implies unanimity, while countless reliable sources do not have any trouble with it at all. That is not going to happen, not with me anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Since I feel that you are not hearing me out, I have sought dispute resolution. Hopefully they can give us some fresh perspectives. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
But meanwhile, maybe you can answer this question: Would clarifying the term go against Wikipedia's policies? --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I hear you but I'm doing this for a reason. Let me ask you a question and perhaps you will understand why I will not engage in this process. There are literally thousands of reliable sources that use the term "international community" without definition in the context of the legality of Israeli settlements (and many other contexts of course), as you are no doubt aware. How will you decide, using an evidence based process, that the definition that you seek, is the same as the definition used by any given sampled source that does not include a definition ? Think about that and you will find the answer to the question "Would clarifying the term go against Wikipedia's policies?" Does a particular source whether it's a scholarly source or a media outlet, include for example, the ICRC in their definition of "international community" when they use that term without defining it or do they exclude it ? What do JTA mean when they say "The international community, including the United States, considers the Jewish settlements illegal." ? Or China Daily when they say "The international community views all the settlements as illegal."? Or AFP when they say "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including annexed east Jerusalem, to be illegal." ? Or the current scholarly sources we cite ? We don't know unless they tell us. And that takes us back to replacing the preferred undefined term "international community", preferred by countless sources, with a comprehensive list of the members of that named but undefined set according to sources that discuss those individual set members views, and that would certainly just be reverted and replaced with "international community" in the lead. From my perspective you are asking editors to engage in futile original research here, contrary to policy, to produce a statement purportedly to clarify but which in fact cannot be associated with sourced statements without employing WP:SYNTH. So, the discussion itself is inconsistent with policy and the use of the product would be inconsistent with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for finally giving me a straight answer. I have just found we actually have a whole article devoted to this topic: International law and Israeli settlements. Perhaps we can revise that sentence to include a link to that article. I also now see that Israel is the only country to officially disagree. Would you be ok with this version: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, except for Israel who disputes this." The words "except for" clearly indicate that Israel is still part of the international community, which makes it clearer that "international community" refers to all countries. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 20:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to try to assess whether the information is true, all we need to bother ourselves with is whether it's reliably sourced. However, to the slightly obiter question I make two points in reponse: 1) the sentence in the article doesn't mention unanimity, and 2) yes, from all parts of the world - the Americas, Europe, Asia, etc. --Dailycare (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be entirely missing the point. Have you even read through this? --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 21:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really in favor of changing "though Israel disputes this" to "except for Israel who disputes this" because it strikes me as an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The word "though" doesn't indicate that Israel is not a member of the set of things that comprise the "international community". For example, the scientific community consider X to be the case, though <named scientist> disputes this. Would you think that implies that <named scientist> is not a member of the scientific community or that it implies the scientific community is unanimous ? I doubt it. Perhaps you process sentences related to Israel in a different way from sentences related to other things even when the sentences share the same structure. If that is the case you should have a look at the "Editors counseled" section of the discretionary sanctions that cover the WP:ARBPIA topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not say that "though" implies Israel is not a part of it. I only said that "except for" makes it clearer that it is a part of it. So unless you think there is something wrong with "except for", then I see no reason not to change it. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 14:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
W, I was responding to your comment to me. --Dailycare (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I apologize. This discussion has moved pretty far since that comment. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 22:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

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)