Talk:Israeli-occupied territories

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)[1] 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. [2] 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)