Talk:List of military occupations

RFC: Should East Jerusalem and Gaza be moved from Current military occupations for the sake of consistency?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) No consensus to remove Gaza from the list. Consensus not to remove East Jerusalem. Overall, the oppose arguments were somewhat stronger and better supported by scholarly sources. Several commentators sought to give the Israel state more weight in the determination of whether the territories are designated as militarily occupied, a view which is pretty widely disputed. There seems to be support for including wording in footnotes, or by highlighting, to the effect that the status of these territories is disputed. - MrX 🖋 16:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The lead says, "Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population." East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel. Available sources on the subject show that the majority of all international bodies and the majority of all international actors view this annexation as Illegal and further view that East Jerusalem is under Military occupation. For the sake of consistency with the Lead do we remove the listing for East Jerusalem?

Israel disengaged from the land of Gaza in 2005. Israel no long views Gaza being under Military occupation them. Their control of the borders, sea, and air of Gaza the sources show is the reason the international community views Gaza to still be under Military occupation. The Sources show that the majority of all international actors and the majority of all international bodies consider Gaza to still be under Military occupation. For the sake of consistency with the lead do we remove Gaza?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

UN Security Council: Resolution 242, Resolution 250, Resolution 251, Resolution 252, Resolution 267, Resolution 271, Resolution 298, Resolution 465, Resolution 476, Resolution 478, Resolution 672, Resolution 1073, Resolution 1322, Resolution 1397, Resolution 2334 Consistently show from 1967 to the recent in 2016 that the UN Security Council views East Jerusalem under Military occupation.

There are also plenty from the general assembly. References the EU's position that East Jerusalem is occupied. I would list more but the position that East Jerusalem is under Military occupation is so pervasive and well know that anyone can find reliable sources showing the position held by the majority of the international community. There's even more for Gaza.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Survey

• Oppose Gaza should not be removed for the sake of consistency, nor should East Jerusalem. It's also not actually inconsistent. While East Jerusalem may have been annexed in a de facto manner, in the international community the pervasive view is that it constitutes a Military occupation under international law. In the international community the pervasive opinion is that Gaza is under Military occupation as well. In the case of Gaza the position of Israel, that it is no longer occupied is represented and attributed to Israel while the position that it is occupied is presented neutrally.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Further as for consistency there are plenty of historic examples of Annexations that are historically considered Military occupations. World War Two is notable for this. Many of the annexations by the Axis powers are regarded as Military occupations by scholars. Portions of the Geneva Conventions regarding Military occupations were negotiated based on World War 2 Military Occupations. The German occupation of Czechoslavokia as an example. Many if not all of the World War 2 annexations are recognized as Military occupations. It's a ridiculous proposition that we should ignore the well known and ever present international position that East Jerusalem is under Military occupation as defined by international law based on some half baked position that this is inconsistent.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Golan and East Jerusalem are akin to Crimea (which was annexed) - both were annexed, both are largely unrecognized by the international community. Citizenship is open to all East Jerusalem residents (many have chosen not to accept) and they are all treated legally as Israeli residents. In regards to Gaza - it should be shaded or with an astrick - a significant portion of international legal scholars do not consider it occupied. Some international bodies, notably the UN, still see it as occupied. Some see it as jointly occupied by Egypt and Israel - the case for occupation resting on prevention of goods/people crossing in/out of the Gaza border.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: as we have discussed before, we have agreed that those scholars who believe the occupation has ended are in a very clear and self-acknowledged minority. And the “some international bodies” who consider it occupied, should be “the vast majority of international bodies”. We need to be precise here to avoid being misleading.

Separately, you said some consider it jointly occupied by Israel and Egypt. I have never seen that in an WP:RS, and it sounds like nonsense to me, or at least an extremely loose interpretation. Please could you provide a source? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No, we did not agree - and definitely those scholars who take the position the occupation has ended do not frame themselves as minority. As for jointly/collusion - I will have to pull a better reference (I have seen this claim somewhere - very few do say possibly jointly) - but here is B'Tselem [1] discussing the Egyptian decision to keep Rafah crossing mostly closed - since Israel (a few years after the disengagement?) withdrew from the Rafah crossing (as well as all other points on the Southern Gazan border) - import/export/travel via Rafah to/from Egypt has become an issue that all those who claim continued occupation address (usually claiming Israeli influence/agreement/collusion with Egypt have caused this crossing to be mostly closed as well).Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we did agree. I am quoting you here: [2] “The question is the weight of the minority view - which I stress is a significant minority.”

And they do frame themselves as minority, as you know from this conversation: [3] “It is sourced to a PhD student who admits they are taking a minority / fringe position in the debate.” I remember it well because you spent so long talking about how credible a source “he” was...

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a PhD student when published in book form, and sex of the author is irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Question What about Abu Dis? Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Abu Dis was not annexed to Israel - it is the same as the rest of the West Bank. It is very close to the annexed portion - but outside it. The more interesting oddities are Kafr 'Aqab and Shu'fat camp which are formally annexed, but outside of the separation barrier and de facto are lawless.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Gaza, oppose East Jerusalem, support Golan – The military occupation of Gaza has ceased in 2005. We can add a note about the Israeli blockade of land and sea access points, and about the U.N. denomination, but it would be very strange to call "militarily occupied" a place where the occupying power has dismantled all military presence, and even expelled its own "colonizing" civilians against their will. Regarding East Jerusalem, the claim of Israeli sovereignty is still ambiguous, possibly deliberately so; I would be convinced if a large number of sources called it Israeli territory, and I don't see that happening even inside Israel. On the other hand, Golan Heights are pretty much settled as fully annexed, and I support their removal from the list of current occupations, moving to former occupations followed by annexation. — JFG ^talk 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if editors commenting here could back up some of their commentary with sources - much of what is said above is contradicted by WP:RS about the Golan and about Palestinian citizenship in East Jerusalem (denied automatic citizenship, can't vote, have to speak Hebrew, etc) [4]. As for controlling access to and from Gaza - there are also situations like Ismail Haniyeh for example has family who live in Israel, and I'm sure other families are separated as well, even those who are married — to them it must still feel occupied. How can the Israeli court say the occupation is over, without recognizing the government in Gaza? See this rather lengthy discussion [5] as well for some discussion of this ambiguity..Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't access your Haaratz source without a subscription, but from the title, it sounds speculative: "Assad may try to get back the Golan". It does not change the situation on the ground today. If Syria takes back part of the Golan, by force or by negotiations, we'll update at that time. — JFG ^talk 09:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support There is no military force in Gaza.East Jerusalem and Golan are annexed and the inhabitants there could receive Israeli citizenship if they want. Shrike (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: the occupations occurred; whether the military forces are presently there is not material to the inclusion in the list. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  @K.e.coffman: - the question here is inclusion in ongoing occupations. All 3 would remain in the past occupations list (in the article), with a start date of 1967 and an end date per circumstances of each.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Gaza, Oppose Golan and Jerusalem There is no way to source "end dates" for these two right now, and the arguments given for the change are weak. It's not true that they can receive Israeli citizenship if they want - there is a language requirement not everyone can pass, even if they wanted to, and less than half the applications are approved [6] - The arguments presented here for these changes are very unpersuasive. Regarding Gaza the source I presented is very thorough and detailed and supports a clear 2005 end date for occupation, though some qualification is likely warranted. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: your source on Gaza was discussed in detail a couple of months ago at Talk:Israeli disengagement from Gaza, having been brought by Icewhiz. The article was based on Cuyckens’ PhD thesis from just one year prior, and you’ll note in the abstract that she acknowledges that her view is a minority position (“though the majority argues that the Gaza Strip is still occupied”) and doubles down on the same later (“contrary to what most have argued”). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair point. It's complicated and based on post-withdrawal texts in strong sources like OSAIL - there's no clear answer right now. Inclusion on these types of list articles is often far from ideal, but perhaps a note could be added in lieu of outright removal.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason scholars debate over this seemingly semantic question is that “occupied” status provides protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention. So the question being debated is whether the Gazan population is due that legal protection, and most of the global scholarly and political community believe they are

I think a footnote is a good idea, given the unique nature. We could also call it an “indirect” military occupation as some commentators do.[7][8]

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It should not be removed. The military siege is occupation. I don't think it makes any inconsistencies. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support removing Gaza. It is no longer occupied. No, intercepting the boats at the sea is not occupation, quite obviously. Also support removing Golan and Jerusalem per Icewhiz. Those are permanent annexations which are different from military occupations that suppose to be temporary as our pages on this subject correctly explain. My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support for this page has specific requirements for inclusion. EJ, Gaza and certainly the Golan don't meet those requirements for military occupation based upon this list criteria. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: what criteria are you referring to? Since we have established above that the clear majority of WP:RS consider Gaza to be occupied today, are you suggesting that this page should have a different criteria to the WP:RS? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The criteria for this page as outlined in the lead is what we go by. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: the only criteria there is “post 1907”. What are you talking about? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead doesn't end there. The next paragraph explains the list criteria. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: notwithstanding the WP:OR nature of your proposal, the criteria in that paragraph clearly includes Gaza, which ticks every single box. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Does the paragraph even include a criterion other than 1907? Does it even present a accurate definition that a military occupation ends with annexation or does it actually provide a historical context pre-Geneva convention? If we are to grasp at such a straw we should do our due diligence to measure that straws length for accuracy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's what the article says are items for inclusion:

Military occupation is a type of effective control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign, and provisional in nature.[2][3][4] Military occupation is distinguished from annexation[a] by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.[3][5][6][7] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

[a] Annexation refers to de jure annexation or annexation as defined under international law. That part didn't pop up in your copy paste job so I thought I would help. And as Pål Wrange has put it illegal annexation is military occupation under international law. Chistine Chinkin offers a very similar rationale when discussing Western Sahara and the illegal annexation of it by Morocco.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - regardless of whatever criteria one seeks to impose here, the one that counts on Wikipedia is what reliable sources say. Wikipedia editors making arguments about what really is an occupation is precisely what WP:OR forbids. Reliable sources say that the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights are currently held by Israel under military occupation. All the palaver notwithstanding, that is what counts here. Comparisons of EJ and the Golan to Crimea are irrelevant, as I am unaware of any UNSC resolutions stating that any attempted annexation is null and void and that the territories remain occupied. nableezy - 15:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support moving Gaza to past occupations, whatever the opinion there is no Israeli military government or administration in Gaza of any kind since 1994 and there is no permanent military presence since 2005. Further more the use of 'Occupied Palestinian Territory' term is not relevant any more (replaced in 2012 with State of Palestine). Golan Heights issue is the case of annexation akin Crimea, whether recognized or not is another question, but there is certainly no military government there since 1981 and the army is not ruling over the civilian population. Neutral regarding East Jerusalem - i know the sensitivity and the opinions which widely differ: the fact is of formal annexation from early 1980s, but some would argue of ongoing military presence there, so we can discuss it again later.GreyShark (dibra) 06:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose very weak arguments, many of which are pure OR - including dismissing most of the world community (below) are mustered for this change. There is no reason why a footnote or somesuch could note that the designation is disputed (by a minority AFAI can see). It might have been preferable to examine each instance on its merits, but there is no persuavive argument for removal. Pincrete (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all 3, of course. So, while the world at large still regards all three areas (Golan, E. Jerusalem, Gaza) as occupied areas, ...we have some extremely active pro Israeli editors wanting Wikipedia to adopt the exact opposite view. This is really quite incredible, (I guess they are hoping that whoever close this RfC is a complete clueless person...), Anyway, here is what, eg BBC says about Gaza: "Israel continues to control Gaza's air space and coastal approaches, on the basis of which the international community considers Gaza still to be occupied territory." What we have here is Israel first making a concentration camp out of Gaza ...and pro Israeli editors then wants to give Israel no responsibility for it. A very ugly picture, indeed. Huldra (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, I expect that whoever close this do looks at the arguments (say, what the international community thinks), and not at the number of pro Israeli editors that can be shepherded out to vote (We know that right wing Israeli groups have recruited Wikipedians for years), Huldra (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, for reasons outlined by fellow-editor Icewhiz. Gaza is a self-governing enclave, although it still contends with the Israeli army beyond its borders.Davidbena (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - East Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza and the Golan heights are all literally occupied by Israel. The Israeli military are occupying and controlling the areas. Thefore they can not be removed or be described as anything else. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - All of these areas (Golan, E. Jerusalem, Gaza, etc.) are occupied territories, and top-notch academic quality sources seem to confirm that. Utmost Palestinians also see these areas as part of the areas occupied by Israel.GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There is international recognition as shown by the United Nations. Sandenig (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Regarding the Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, there is a legal difference between a occupation (military) and annexation. See for a different, but related, example the Wikipedia article on Jordanian annexation of the West Bank – the terminology "annexation" is used even though the legality of Jordan's annexation of the territory was almost universally rejected by other countries. Back to Israel, both Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are governed by regular civilian Israeli law. This is unlike the West Bank, which is controlled by the Israeli military and the Palestinian government subject to the terms of the Oslo accords. In Gaza, the occupation ended in 2005 when the Israeli military pulled out. OtterAM (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Note on process: This is a nuanced discussion not suitable for !votes. An RFC like this attracts lazy partisan behaviour from editors who do not respect the need to read the sources (a few of the editors above are well known for this behaviour in Israeli-Palestinian talk pages). It would be better to progress the sensible discussion above than have an RFC turn this into a numbers game. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC is not the best process; in "Recap" above, I suggested to discuss each case separately. But here we are… Would Serialjoepsycho be willing to cancel the RfC and move to a case-by-case discussion format? Each case can have its own RfC later if editors cannot reach rough consensus. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Following the above discussions I do not feel that it will be possible to have a sensible discussion or to gain a rough consensus. Since it was mentioned, lazy partisan behaviour was already present here and this may very well attract more. It may attract some from the other side. It may also attract people who are not partisans, which I do expect. A numbers game? Consensus is not a head count. I do not agree to end this. When the prevailing position by the international community is that East Jerusalem and Gaza are under military occupation and that can be backed by sources, why should it be removed? The positions of the international community (states and organizations of states) offer the most weighted point of view on on this matter. In their diplomatic interactions with Israel and with other nations as a majority they consider East Jerusalem and Gaza to be under Military occupation the sources show.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Countries frame their positions not on the merits, but purely due to their interests. We should be basing our classification on the merits, reflected via neutral scholarship (and there is plenty of partisan scholarship here as well). Quite obviously if a country sees an annexation as illegal then it will state that occupation still exists. However, what matters is reality on the ground - civil vs. military control and integration within the annexing country. As for Gaza - positions that frame it as still occupied - stretch the definition of occupation to the edge and perhaps beyond it - this is a very non-conventional occupation even by such positions.Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Merit vs Self interest? Regardless of what you would like to define personally as Merit or Self interest, there is an international significance to the position of countries. For example, the EU labeling guidelines for what the EU considers under Israeli occupation, including East Jerusalem. The world treats Israel as an occupier of Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan. While some scholars, notably not all, disagree but have no international consequence at all in their positions. The facts on the ground are that the majority of the world views and treats these areas as occupied and Israel as an occupier. The point of view of the countries of the world are more notable than what ever scholars you would like to personally cherry pick. NPOV, that this list requires along with every wikipedia article, would have us list the most notable POV's. Both positions are notable. That these areas are occupied and that these areas are not. The list shows both positions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

We should distingush between military occupation and an unrecognized annexation - a distinction that is not parseable from political international positions.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

When the international community does not do this I can not see a reason that we should. That sounds more like synthesis than anything else. The World War 2 occupations that resulted in annexation are viewed to be occupations. East Timor was an occupation that resulted in an Annexation that is regarded as an occupation. Only in the case of legal annexation, recognized annexation, or rather de jure annexation is it regarded as no longer being a military occupation. Pål Wrange, head of subject for international law and course director for the course International Law and the Global Economy of Stockholm University and Director of the Stockholm Center for International Law and Justice (among other positions) says that annexation can only be carried out by a peace treaty and preferably after a referendum to be legal under international law. Further that for the purposes of international law they remain occupied. You can find the corresponding PDF where he discusses this at .-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

For both EJ and the Golan it is well beyond "unrecognized". In both cases the UNSC condemned the act that sought to change its status and declared it null and void and without international legal effect, that is still governed under GCIV and still occupied (United Nations Security Council Resolution 476, United Nations Security Council Resolution 497). The list should include that there are those who dispute that these territories are occupied, but removing them is a violation of both NPOV and OR. nableezy - 06:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The UNSC's (rather dated) declaration on the matter is clear, however this merely reinforces the rather clear view that this is, presently, unrecognized. We make a distinction between an unrecognized annexation and military occupation.Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Uh it dates to the point in time and has been recalled repeatedly by both the SC and the GA. Again, unrecognized is misleading, it is denounced and ruled as a matter of international law as null and void. Occupation is an international law topic. As is annexation. You are seeking to ignore what the actual authorities on the topic say. They specifically say that not only is the annexation invalid but that the territory remains occupied. nableezy - 00:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern: While the current status of Gaza is obvious to all, the status of East Jerusalem may be less obvious to most editors here. Former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, Meir Shamgar, wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (as of the 1970s, when autonomy had not yet been given to Gaza), since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." Israeli diplomat, Dore Gold, has stated that 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. Moreover, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention "cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted" from living, e.g., in Gush Etzion, Jerusalem, or Hebron before 1948.Davidbena (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This propaganda has been ignored outside of the Israeli right wing – it is no more than a weasel-worded attempt to avoid human rights obligations on a technicality.

The simple fact is that Israel controls the lives of 5 million people to whom it does not give the protection of its own civil laws by conferring citizenship. That is “occupation” to its very core.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect, my friend. Please assume WP:Good Faith, as I am all for human rights and human dignity. Here, we are addressing a real legal issue, and since the Palestinian Arabs have NEVER governed a sovereign country in the last 500 years, seeing that it was a country held under foreign rule (British, Ottoman Turks, Mamluks, etc.), it was necessary to point out these bitter facts, no matter how hard or unpleasant they may sound.Davidbena (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on #Mamluks continues way below… — JFG ^talk 16:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This argument doesn’t hold as Palestinian sovereignty claims are based on UNGA 181, exactly the same document which underpins Israel’s claim to sovereignty. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the UNGA 181 was only a proposal, and not binding. Even so, while the Israelis had agreed to such a proposal at the outset, the Palestinian Arabs did not agree to it, and in May of 1948 (with the help of Jordan and Egypt) tried to gain control of as much territory in Palestine as possible by the dint of war. The outcome of the war, therefore, ended up determining the border, and which border became officially recognized as such under the 1949 Armistice Agreements, until they too were dissolved in the 1967 Six Day War.Davidbena (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Israel's borders were defined by the war but Israel's international legitimacy was defined by UNGA 181, to the extent that this is stated in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, and numerous international recognition statements. We can argue technicalities forever, but from a moral standpoint wikt:what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Israel's existence as a nation has, since time immemorial, been against the odds, and it has had to deal with those who hate it, and who have tried to eradicate it, but with God's assistance it has withstood the test of time and the vicissitudes of life. As a people, hopefully, it will always do so. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, please, this is Wikipedia, not a Synagogue. Please keep God out of the discussion, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I hear you. So, can I say: "what's his name, who is working behind the scenes"? Lol. I think that we can all agree here that what has transpired in the history of this nation is extraordinary and beyond all human comprehension. I mean the way in which the local Arab population was given an opportunity to have a country governed by themselves (based on the 1947 UN Partition Plan), but that they refused to have it, hoping instead to gain as much as they could take through war. And suddenly, when the territory of the country was largely expanded by war to Israel's advantage, and to the chagrin of its Arab population, at this time, the people of Israel scattered throughout the nations, and often oppressed by the nations, had a burning desire to return to their ancestral homeland, where Jews now controlled the government. They came en masse, and by the wisdom and insight given unto Levi Eshkol (head of the Settlement Department in the Jewish Agency), many were settled in those very same abandoned regions, lost unto the Arabs in that war.

I was reading today about the exploits of a female soldier assigned to the Harel Brigade during that war, a woman named Aviva Rabinowitz. Her task was to make sure that refugees who fled from their villages were not harmed, but made their way safely to the Hebron region. In November of 1948, or thereabouts, when they came across a group of Arabs from the 'Ajjur region of our country who had fled from their villages and hid-out in caves, the Israeli soldiers accosted them and kindly requested of them to pack-up their belongings and to proceed by foot to the Hebron region. Some were tired and refused to move. One IDF soldier, being angry, took up his weapon and pointed it at one of the people, as if he would shoot one of their numbers to get them to move. Aviva, upon seeing this, immediately pointed her rifle at the soldier, saying to him that if he shot the poor Arab, she would shoot him. I seriously doubt that you would find this kind of spirit among the Arab militias, had they been the victors. In fact, during the war, Israeli soldiers that were taken captive had a cruel and bitter fate, as they were almost always killed and their bodies mutilated.

In saying these things, I do not intend thereby to make our nation sound as though it is superior unto others. I am all for mutual respect and co-existence between Jews and Arabs, all those who share this one and the same country. Some have called the Israeli treatment of our fellow Arabs as an "Apartheid-like system." I, however, feel that this is terribly inaccurate, and often said by those who do not know what is really happening in our country. Even the Arabs do not want to pray in our synagogues, since they have their own mosques. They even have their own language and schools, and they're completely happy with that. You see, they do not wish to be like us, nor do we wish to be like them. With that said, we still work together and share the same country. There is a symbiotic relationship with mutual benefits. However, seeing that many of them profess to be our inveterate enemies, they are not permitted to take the helm of government, nor to serve in the army. Yet, are they given a form of self-government, under the agencies of the Palestinian Authority, and they vote for their own municipalities. Israeli law accords them with due protection and justice under the law. And while there are still security fences and "separation walls" in our country (I can remember when my wife and I and our newborn baby were living in Jerusalem in the 1990s, before these walls were constructed, when there were many suicide bombers infiltrating into Jerusalem and killing innocent civilians), this was a necessary evil (done for expedience). I have always been supportive of Israel's right to defend itself, and considering the gigantean security concerns of Israel due to the Arab insurgency and belligerency, I can understand why it was necessary to erect walls in Israel's countryside. They brought a swift end to terrorist infiltration. However, when peace between Arabs and Israelis is restored, I hope these ugly walls are taken down.

References

Davidbena (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know how to respond to what you said or even if I should. You seem to be living in another world where the West Bank is a part of Israel. The sources of that world are however not in this one. That would fall into the fringe. We can agree this is historic and beyond all human comprehension because no one ever expected that a Military occupation would last this long. Your original research not with standing, this an encyclopedia. The sources do say these areas are occupied. Some sources contest this occupation in some areas. This wall of text has nothing of substance to add to this discussion. Call your god "He who walks behind the rows" or Randall Flagg for all I care but drop this argument that is essentially about the "divine right of men". You really can't argue the divine right of men when you can actually prove the existence of the divine in the first place. Well you can but it would be like me arguing that a naked incorporeal, intangible, and invisible bunny rabbit that is currently standing on your shoulders and urinating is actually the cause of the negative aspects of this world. Or in short, It's a nonsensical argument.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Aside from my last post, I provided sources that speak for themselves. The simple truth is that there are divergent opinions about the status of the West Bank. The reality is that Israel controls it, whether you agree that it is de facto annexation or not. Bear in mind that the word "West Bank" was not used until Jordan conquered parts of British Mandate Palestine in 1948. Before then, it was all one country, as it rightfully should be, and to which Israelis are entitled, by virtue of the fact that before 1948, Jews living in Palestine were also called "Palestinians" and have an equal share in the land. Jews still make-up the majority in the pre-1948 traditional borders of Palestine (also known as the Land of Israel), excluding Gaza. And, yes, we can agree to disagree about whether or not there is divine intervention in Israel's case. Have a good day.Davidbena

References

(talk) 13:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

On an interesting not all other states control the land they hold in military occupation as well. That seems to be a specific criteria od military occupation. Note that Iceland is not controlled by Russia so Iceland isn't under Russian occupation. The Palestinian Jew's may or may not have a right of return but I assume that will come at the conclusion of this military occupation. The only De Facto annexation's are the illegally annexed portions of Golan and the Illegal annexed portions of East Jerusalem. The West Bank is under military occupation. There are differing opinions or points of view. There also happens to be no reason to ignore the Palestinian POV.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As another editor once wrote, the same can be applied here: "You may not like it, your government may not recognize it, the United Nations can denounce it, but that doesn't change reality. Whether Israel is in lawful possession of the territory, whether the United States is in lawful possession of Washington, D.C., or whether they were stolen from their previous inhabitants, doesn't change the fact that they are the custodians of the land." We have showed you why Israel's hold of the country is NOT illegal, but you have failed to show why you think that it is, other than the fact that the "international community" doesn't like it. The UN and most of the international community have sought to divide our country, rather than work to improve relations between Jews and Arabs.Davidbena (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

David, I say this with all due respect as I feel that in certain areas related to Jewish history in the region you are a real asset to the project, but when discussing modern politics in this area you tend to stray from solid source based editing and instead engage in advocacy for a minority position. The topic of this article is the legal status of the territory, your position that it should belong to Israel is not in any way relevant to that. You are introducing theories that are so far outside the bounds of the mainstream that you speak in the first person "our nation ..." when doing so. This article is specifically a list of military occupations, and reliable sources say that these territories are occupied. NPOV requires they be included. Where there is a dispute that dispute should be spelled out. But it does not mean it is removed on the basis of your personal opinions and beliefs. nableezy - 21:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If we go down this road there are things other editors want to add also-one editor may think citizenship is very important, another may argue that citizenship is available, a third may say not enough is being done to make Hebrew language education accessible. How do we decide which of these viewpoints is represented in the article? Shades of gray are as numerous as grains of sand. It doesn't mean your viewpoint isn't valid-it's just not more inherently valid than anyone else's. We have to follow NPOV and reliable sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe you two summed that up very well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that all that is submitted in this article must conform to WP:NPOV and be supported by reliable sources (WP:RS). I assure my fellow co-editors that everything stated privately by me above can be supported by reliable sources, and that the viewpoints herein advanced are those of a significant sector of the Israeli population who controls the country, and that both conflicting opinions ought to be mentioned as viable opinions held in dispute by the parties concerned, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. This, too, is in keeping with Wikipedia policies, as you can see here. This is particularly applicable today in view of recent developments, in which the Israeli Parliament has passed into law a Basic law which gives Jews a unique right to national self-determination, and views the developing of Jewish settlement in the country as "a national interest," empowering the government to "take steps to encourage, advance and implement this interest." At the same time, the new law does not detract from minority citizens’ human rights and democratic liberties. Make no mistake about it. What Israel does in this country is largely unaffected by the "international community," while decisions made in Israel's Parliament affects the lives of all Jews and Arabs living in the country - whether we prefer to call it by the name Israel or Palestine.Davidbena (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Davidbena (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Weighted proportionally very little weight would be given to the Israeli position that the Palestinian territories are not occupied. I say this due to the Israeli opinion that the West Bank is occupied. The international community including Israel view the West Bank as Occupied while Israel views the West Bank as not occupied. And no the new Israel basic law wouldn't be relevant here. Outside of Golan and East Jerusalem it has no application.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

My impression, based on your response, is that you are not familiar with Israeli customs. Israelis do not refer to the "West Bank" as the West Bank, but rather simply think of the country as entirely one, with different administrative districts. A Jew will not say that he's travelling to the "West Bank," but rather to "Samaria," or else to a specific locale in "Gush Etzion." The words "West Bank" are rarely used in the Hebrew vocabulary (Ha-gada ha-ma'aravit), and when they are used, it is usually only in a technical sense, when discussing the region primarily with outsiders. As for the new Basic law, it clearly refers to encouraging settlement anywhere in the country, but especially in those places captured by Israel in the Six Day War. Today, this region is filled with Israeli settlements, towns and cities.Davidbena (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I do impression of Elvis myself. Here Israeli customs are not Relevant. Whether you eat Babka and how you eat it doesn't matter. The majority of the English speak world call it the west bank. But If I ever visit I'll take part in the customs. The illegal settlements are beholden to the Israeli Civil Administration which is a part of COGAT a unit of Israels Ministry of Defense. They chose not to illegally annex the west bank settlements back in 2012 so that they could apply Israels basic law. The Israel Supreme court has ruled multiple times these areas are under military occupation. But hey maybe I should learn the proper temperature to serve malabi.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right about there being also a dispute amongst Jews about the country's (Israel's) status, but in the larger sense, there is a consensus that the entire country is called Israel. The 1947 UN Partition plan proposal is not binding. What outsiders think about the country, however, is a different issue altogether, based on the different resolutions passed by the UN, although (in our view) unjustly. The reasons for this I have already shown above. As per WP:WEIGHT, both positions ought to be represented here.Davidbena (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a fringe position not even held by the government of Israel. Not Jews. I didn't mention Jews. While I'm sure that many of the Government is made up of Jews, it's government that made the case before the Israeli supreme court that these are occupied territories. Your position, that the West Bank is Israel has not been legitimized. It is not wikipedias place to legitimize it. Your position or any other nationalist. Be it those for Tibetan independence, Hawaiian Independence, Taiwanese independence, or insert any other similar case. It has no place here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, mostly in the western or liberal media and among Palestinian Arabs is it considered a "fringe view," but not so in Israel among Israelis, where the view as stated above is espoused by the Israeli majority. In fact, even Wikipedia's policy is to permit our mentioning that, while the international community views Israeli settlements in the territories captured by Israel in 1967 as illegal, the government of Israel disputes this. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive._Legality_of_Israeli_settlements#Settlement_illegality_text. Fringe or not fringe, it is a view to be given its due place, as per WP:WEIGHT.Davidbena (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Your position: the West Bank is a part of Israel. My position: That's fringe. Your position: look at this consensus. My position: That consensus is not that that Israel views the west bank as a part of it's sovereign territory or that the settlements are a part of its sovereign territory, just that the settlements and the settlement activity is not illegal. I do not find any argument you have made here persuasive but that is perhaps your most biased one in this conversation. But perhaps the uninvolved closer will be moved by your passion and ingnore your flips and flops along the way. And perhaps they will apply this consensus. But Alas, as it seems this conversation may continue ad naseum with out anything bordering a persuasive point from you but an ever moving goal post, I bid you good day and good bye.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither you, nor I, should be interested in advancing his own POV, per WP:NPOV. Rather, we should be interested in fully implementing Wikipedia's policies. Consensus has already been reached with respect to mentioning Israel's view along with that of the international community.Davidbena (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thus the goal post moves again. Before the limited consensus meant that we have to list the west bank as sovereign Israeli territory. Now we have to list any opposing Israeli opinion against the position of the international community. That consensus doesn't not support that position. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If you have any doubts about WP:ARBPIA specific rulings, you may consult an active administrator who has worked in that field of expertise, and put your question to him.Davidbena (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Noone in Israel considers Nablus, Jenin or Ramallah part of Israel - as you know the IDF (the occupying army) forbids Israeli civilians entering there without their permission. What you are arguing is simply that the settlements are de facto annexed to Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't help but be surprised at your conclusion. Of course these places are in Israel proper! The problem, however, as far as travel to these restricted areas is concerned, is that they are places prone for disturbances. The Israeli law wishes to prevent bloodshed on both sides. As for whether or not these places are, in fact, de facto annexed to Israel (as opposed to de jure annexation), that is to say, territories now thought of as an integral part of Israel as a whole, but without the necessity of having to formally declare so (for definition see de facto - Oxford Dictionary), you may wish to see Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statement on these areas here and here. His position is that his country would have to maintain security control in the Palestinian territories under any peace arrangement. In other words, de facto annexation applies here. As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to take a stand on the issue, but we are obligated to remain neutral about the issue, in accordance with WP policies outlined in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_reminded. I hope this will be useful to all in future edits.Davidbena (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Now ARBPIA says the West Bank is Israeli Sovereign territory? It doesn't. This is an RFC which is a form of dispute resolution. Either this one can be used or a new can be made on the subject.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

David, not even the state of Israel claims the West Bank to be within Israel's territory. You are making wild assertions without any basis in fact. Im sorry, but nearly everything you have written here is wrong as a matter of undisputed fact. nableezy - 17:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Has the Government of Israel denied that the so-called "West Bank" (a name only applied to the region after Jordan captured it in 1948) is an integral part of Israel? Of course not. It has not formerly spoken about the matter of de facto applicability, since there is no reason to do so. Besides, the Government of Israel wishes to handle the issue by way of quiet public diplomacy, and to avoid a public backlash, owing to the sensitivities over the matter. Remember, the area was taken from Jordan by war and restored to its pre-1948 borders. With that said, special Israeli laws apply to this region (some of which laws having been agreed upon by the Palestinian Authority in conjunction with the Government of Israel). These laws have universal recognition. Other laws (such as the "Land Tenure laws") do not have international recognition, but are nonetheless enacted by a legitimate government (Israel) and affect what is done in that area of our country. A case in point is the relatively newly-built Havat Gilad settlement in Samaria (i.e. "West Bank") which the Israeli Government has recently legally recognized (see article). The majority of the land formerly held by Arabs was confiscated on the basis of the 1949 Absentees' Property Law, a law that deals with land formerly belonging to refugees who fled during the war, and which, for security reasons, they were not permitted to retrieve and eventually despaired of ever retrieving such lands, while the remainder confiscated for "public purposes" or on the basis of lacking formal title (communal land as designated by Ottoman-era land laws). For all practical purposes, Israel continued the Land Tenure laws implemented by the British under Mandate Palestine and which they, in turn, inherited from Ottoman Turks. Davidbena (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

David, again, you are making extreme minority, bordering on fringe, arguments here. The Israeli Civil Administration remains under the Israeli Ministry of Defense, and Israel has never once claimed any part of the West Bank, excepting East Jerusalem, as part of its territory. The entirety of your comment is original research, and beyond that it is factually wrong. You are free to continue believing that the West Bank is part of Israel, however on Wikipedia that remains a fringe view without any support in reliable sources. nableezy - 20:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the Israeli Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria are under the Israeli Ministry of Defense. I never insinuated otherwise. In fact, I cited PM Benjamin Netanyahu earlier about the need for a military presence in those areas even when full peace is finally achieved between the Palestinian Arabs and Israelis. This, without question, is due to Israel's special security needs and its historical connection with the land. Again, de facto annexation precludes the need for any formal declarations. As for whether or not my statements made above (with cited sources) are an infringement of WP:OR, that is for non-involved editors to decide, those that are not pro-Israel (like me), nor pro-Palestinian (like you), but rather those who, with perfectly neutral backgrounds, can judge the import of these statements by their own merit, if they be true or not, and if they are, in fact, supported by reliable sources.Davidbena (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the positions you dropped are not backed by the sources you drop. The only thing of note here is that is simply tiring to talk to you. This consensus means this you say, when it's pointed out that is a bullshit interpretation of what seems to be a local consensus you move the goal post and then it's arbpia that says it, which doesn't. The reason it's went quite is because you go on ad naseum with out making a compelling point. If you respond to this it will be more of the same.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully respect your desire to understand the truth about these issues, and that you've approached this subject with a critical demeanor. And since we have an old adage that says, "He that is tacit to the charges laid against him, admits to those charges laid against him," let me now avail myself of the opportunity to sincerely ask you what, exactly, have you read in my posts that lacks a sufficient source that would make it veritable? If I have missed something, I will provide you with the source. Otherwise, I'll take it to mean that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, without showing any valid counter arguments. Let's remain civil in our debate, without resorting to expletives.Davidbena (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh the ball is in my court. So I can either continue debating with you ad naseum, and provide you with the multiple points of were you argument is deficient or you will take it to mean I am arguing to be arguing? Well, I have already done so. This conversation is tiresome and I don't actually care what you would assume but that assumption on your part ends the conversation so that works for me. Good day.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Mamluks? I don't even understand why you would bring this up here. The applicability of some rule is a question that will be decided by an authorized body in the appropriate circumstances. That the Israeli court has declined to apply the convention is their problem, but crimes against humanity are unlike other crimes in how they are prosecuted. It is not something to be absolved on a procedural technicality - that is, if the issue ever does come before a court. This is because the institutions operate very differently then the Federal Courts of the United States (for example). If that Court convenes, you can bet someone is going to get in trouble (probably a lot of someones). But until then, I don't know what it has to do with whether East Jerusalem and Golan can be removed from this list - I didn't mean to start a whole debate about why the sources say what they do, only to say that I have tried and been unable to verify that East Jerusalem is no longer occupied. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: - there is a legal claim, with some legs (all be it much opposed), that the former mandate areas (Gaza and the West Bank, Golan is irrelevant) are not occupied as they were never held by a sovereign entity prior to 1967 (Egypt never annexing, and Jordna's annexation seen as illegal) - Terra nullius.... This would be relevant to address if we were discussing the West Bank, however since East Jerusalem was annexed (illegally per most of the world) - this is less relevant. In Gaza - it is a question of military control (following the disengagement) - as issue on which scholars are split.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The Israeli Court is applying Geneva, but ICC will use the Rome Statute anyway.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

To my understanding Rome doesn't define occupation or occupying power - it refers back to Geneva which itself refers back to Hague 1907.Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The distinction is between whether it's an international conflict or a non-international conflict. They can also just remove the distinction. I think Nuremberg still exerts an influence. Theoretically, there are multiple courts and none of them are binding on each other. I think you guys are getting way ahead of yourselves. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I can not see how the position that Gaza is not occupied would clear to anyone. Another thing that is not clear is whether this is the majority point of view or whether the majority point of view is that Gaza is occupied. What is clear is that both positions are supported by reliable sources and either position would be a significant majority point of view if it is not particularly the majority point of view. Due weight would for the purposes of NPOV would call for the inclusion of both positions and not the removal of Gaza. on a side note I never expected God to pop up in this discussion. It's a bit problematic to suggest the divine right of any men or groups of men when you can not prove the existence of the divine.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We have numerous sources stating that the majority position is that Gaza remains occupied. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The position above was that it is not and that is clear to everyone. As a majority position its fit for inclusion and as a significant minority position it is as well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh???? Did you read what BBC says about Gaza (sited above): "Israel continues to control Gaza's air space and coastal approaches, on the basis of which the international community considers Gaza still to be occupied territory." Huldra (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Either way, as I was saying, NPOV would require it listed as occupied on this list.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Although the international community has its own opinion as to how to define "occupation," I personally would think that, in the case of Gaza, it would be better to describe it as an independent, self-governing enclave under a limited siege because of certain infractions (but not "occupation" in the traditional sense). Israel does permit a certain amount of traffic to enter into Gaza. Since Gaza shares a border with Israel, it is Israel's prerogative to close her border with Gaza if threatened by militants within Gaza. This, however, has more to do with the changing security situation, than it does with any long-standing ambitions by Israel to gain full-control of the country. Sometimes the way a country is portrayed by us here, on Wikipedia, and especially by the world press and media, can have far-reaching implications - some which are meant to mislead the public or to vilify a certain side in a conflict situation. Our job as impartial editors is to remain neutral.Davidbena (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

David your personal opinion on the matter is not relevant. Neutral on Wikipedia means faithfully portraying what reliable sources say. You are continuing to respond to sources with personal opinions and views, views that are far from the mainstream I might add. How any of this makes Israel or any other country looks is likewise irrelevant. Your position is, once again, directly contradicted by reliable sources and your argument is directly in conflict with Wikipedia policy on original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. nableezy - 01:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

True, my personal opinion can be of the least importance here, and of no consequence whatsoever. However, if what I say is also backed-up by reliable sources, it becomes a different issue altogether. Reliable sources paint Israel in two different lights; the one positive and the other negative. Still, it is without question that Israel still plays an important humanitarian role towards Gaza, by giving to it electricity and water, as also basic food supplies. Do not forget also that Israel expressed its willingness in 1993 to give autonomy to the people of Gaza, and Israel duly disengaged from Gaza in 2005, when the Gazans were then given full-autonomy. But, as I've often said, the militant sort in Gaza sought innovations against Israel by importing lethal weapons to be used as part of their "armed resistance" against Israel. This led to Israel putting a naval and land blockade on Gaza in 2007. This, however, did not prevent the militant sort in Gaza from making home-made rockets which they indiscriminately used against Israel. Tunnels were also made for smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and also to wage attacks against Israeli positions in Israel. What does a country like Israel do under such circumstances? This is not an "occupation" in the traditional sense of the word, but rather punitive measures taken against a regime whose charter sees Israel as its enemy. There is not a country on earth who would act differently under the same circumstances, if not even more stringently than what Israel has done, all in order to ensure public safety.Davidbena (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hats off, Sir Once!

David, do you remember the Fritzl case, where a family were kept locked in a basement for 24 years? His family had “autonomy” in the basement, just like the Gazans have in their strip of land. I could take everything you wrote above and apply it equally to that situation: “Still, it is without question that [Fritzl] played an important humanitarian role towards [his family], by giving to [them] electricity and water, as also basic food supplies.... the militant sort in [the basement] sought innovations against [Fritzl] by importing lethal weapons to be used as part of their "armed resistance" against [Fritzl]. This led to [Fritzl] putting a blockade on [his family]. This, however, did not prevent the militant sort in [the basement] from making home-made weapons which they indiscriminately used against [Fritzl]. Tunnels were also made for smuggling weapons into the [basement] from [outside], and also to wage attacks against [Fritzl]. What does a [person like Fritzl] do under such circumstances? This is not an "occupation" in the traditional sense of the word, but rather punitive measures taken against a [family] who sees [Fritzl] as its enemy.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I usually hold creative analogies in low regard, but your comparison of the Gaza situation to the Fritzl case is stunning. Hats off! Still not convinced it should be called an ongoing military occupation, though, a blockade definitely. For the purposes of this article, the best course of action after this extended discussion seems to be keeping it on the list while providing copious explanations in a footnote. — JFG ^talk 12:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder what the sources call it? Oh yeah, A military occupation. We should from David's perspective legitimize the fringe POV that the West Bank is a part of Israel but we should remove the widely held view that Gaza is occupied. I guess the relevant policy would be wp:stump for israel.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely, include it in the list but also specify who disputes that and why. nableezy - 15:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources

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

The lede contradicts the article

The lede states that Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by (1) its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by (2) its military nature, and by (3) citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.
Yet the article lists East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as "occupied", despite the fact that not even one of the lede's three conditions is met – according to the Jerusalem Law, the Golan Heights Law, and Basic Law: Referendum, (1) these areas are permanently claimed by Israel; (2) the Israel Defense Forces lack jurisdiction; and (3) the residents are eligible for Israeli citizenship. These are serious contradictions. Either the lede, or the article, must be changed.

Sidenote: The UN considers the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip to be "both legal and appropriate". That's got nothing to do with Israel's former military occupation, which ended in 2005. 13zmz13 (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I share your view on EJ and GH. Others (see archives) do not.

Alternatively “occupation” can be definied more practically as “a situation in which the Geneva protocols apply” since that is why the term was created.

As to Gaza, you are wrong. You are linking to the Palmer inquiry, who made a narrower statement than the media suggested and nor was it mandated to make the kind of judgement you suggest.[9][10] Onceinawhile (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Most occupying powers (i.e. Russia, Turkey, etc.) do not comply with the Geneva Conventions, so I doubt that would be a very good description. Anyway, the article and the lede can't keep contradicting each other. Either we need to change the stated definitions of "occupation" vis a vis "annexation", or we need to remove EJ & GH, despite what other editors may think of it. The readers must be our first priority, and right now, I bet they're confused as fuck.

Amnesty's headline from your link: "Palmer Report did not find Gaza blockade legal, despite media headlines". So you do acknowledge that it's a blockade and not an occupation? 13zmz13 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I will not dignify your last sentence with an explanation, other than to point you to the sources at Gaza_Strip#cite_note-occ-22. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You did not reply to the first subject this time. I presume that means you not only agree with my take on EJ & GH (as you confirmed earlier), but also that the #1 priority is the reader, not other editors.

It's hard for me to take that report seriously because of the sentence Gaza is also dependent on Israel for water, electricity, telecommunications and other utilities, currency, issuing IDs, and permits to enter and leave the territory. Lots of countries are dependent on each other for such resources, does that mean they are occupied? I think not. Also, the last claim is simply false since Egypt—not Israel—decides who gets to enter and leave through their border crossing with Gaza. 13zmz13 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead notes doesn't really contradict the article at all. Annexation, as the lead refers to de jure annexation or annexation as defined under international law. In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law the position is under present international law, annexation no longer constitutes a legally admissible mode of acquisition of territory as it violates the prohibition of the threat or use of force. Therefore annexations must not be recognized as legal. This is one of many sources that highlight this and is the majority position under international law. To put in plainly, no legal annexation has taken place. You find a contradiction yet the text you find contradictory calls for a legal annexation which is not the case here. Further as it's been discussed ad naseum, the majority POV of the international community including the UN is that Gaza is still under military occupation. The minority pov that it is not under military occupation is also included.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Most annexations are de facto, including the latest one (annexation of Crimea) since there was no treaty between Ukraine and Russia. Why single out only Israel? Even more laughable is the fact that a picture of the Jerusalem Law appears at the top of Wikipedia's annexation article, yet it's listed here as being "occupied".

And no, the lede's definition is not de jure, since it does not include the condition of a multilateral treaty. 13zmz13 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If you personally find that *insert occupation here* belongs in the article WP:BEBOLD. I think everything will be added before the Wikipedia deadline. And yes the lead article mentions that annexation refers to de jure annexation but it requires that you review the source note List of military occupations#cite_note-5. Now I'm sure you have a very interesting and unique response to this, but as mentioned in the multiple other discussions on this, the majority pov of the international community is there's military occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, according to your definition, almost all annexations are actually "occupations", due to the lack of multilateral treaties. Let's start with the Russian "occupation" of Crimea, the Turkish "occupation" of Hatay, and the Chinese "occupation" of Tibet. One note though: All the above were annexed after offensive wars, whereas the Israeli annexations were made after defensive wars, like the British "occupation" of Gibraltar and the Spanish "occupation" of Ceuta, Melilla, and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera.

I wasn't referring to Gaza in my latest reply. Can you provide sources for your claim that there is a "military occupation" of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights? Must be some weird-ass occupation where the territory is permanently claimed, the military has no jurisdiction, and the residents are eligible for citizenship...13zmz13 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Neither Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla, nor Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera are not considered under occupation and their annexations took place before modern international law. Their circumstances took place during a different time with a different set of rules. If there is any other location you wish to propose for inclusion here start a new topic or add them yourself. Be bold as I said, we'll get the article completed before the dead line. There are sources thru the discussion in the archives and on the EJ and Golan articles. It's also the Majority POV and anyone can find one easily, even the most ardent partisan.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Let's focus on the modern examples. Why are EJ & GH "occupied", but not (for starters) Crimea, Hatay, or Tibet? What's the difference (except for the fact that the latter three were conquered in aggressive warfare)? Do you object to adding them to the list of current occupations with notes of "de facto annexed"? 13zmz13 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Crimea is occupied for sure, plus War of aggression is a war crime so doubly bad. The problem is finding sources which state that fact. The simple fact is Jews are news, while no one really cares about the other cases. Maybe that is not fair you can find sources saying that Kashmir is occupied, however they tend to be written by Muslim activists and that whole situation is too confusing for me.

I really doubt that it is possible for a military occupation to ever end unilaterally under current International Law. Except in cases where there is no government in exile and people just accept that outcome. So Tibet is also likely occupied, but who cares so maybe not hard to say.Jonney2000 (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Review the cherry picked occupations yourself and then start a conversation on them. Hatay is a pre-4th Geneva convention example that hasn't been regarded as an occupation by anyone but Syria and doesn't seem to be regarded as such any longer. A government in exile doesn't make a country occupied. The Qajar dynasty still maintains a Government in exile and have done so since 1925. While Tibet has a government in exile there is a East Turkistan Government in Exile. Tibet is not regarded to be as an occupation by the international community. It is regarded as a territory of China. I responded to you about Crimea already. To do so a third time, BE BOLD. I'm sure this article will reach it's completed state by the deadline. An argument that something should be added is not actually an argument for something else to be removed. At such time as these territories are no longer considered occupied is when they will be removed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you just said. I would think that you would not want Tibet on this list at all but now you re-added as former occupation can you find a source which states when the occupation ended or do you simply agree with China that Tibet was always part of China? Many scholars and other do not agree with China see Tibetan sovereignty debate.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the list contradicts the lead but unfortunately you noticed there is a double standard here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a source where the international community views Tibet under military occupation? Can you show that even a notable minority of the international community? Do I agree with China? No. I think they are an occupying force and they have abused international politics to commit numerous atrocities. Haven't thought about it while editing though. Not a very important question here. The question here is, "Is *insert state here* considered to be occupied?" If the answer is yes the question then becomes, "By whom?" Hawaii is considered to be under military occupation by the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement. Should it be included? No. While a partisan might see a double standard, there is no double standard. Where is the source that shows the international community views Tibet as occupied? You got scholars? Great, do any of those scholars point out which international body or actor views Tibet as under occupation? I haven't found this. You will find in the the article annexations that Annexations can be legitimized by international bodies. For it to even be a notable minority POV (WP:BALANCE) it would require that source. There is no actual reason to give equal validity (WP:GEVAL) as is being argued.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: You're missing the point. Tibet is recognized by the international community as being de facto annexed by China. And you're the one who argued that de facto annexation is actually a form of military occupation. So you have to make up your mind: Either all de facto annexations are occupations, or none of them are. Period. 13zmz13 (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether Tibet was an annexation is unclear - this is discussed at Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China. I would like to see sources providing international law analysis of the situation. Either way, there is no occupation - no RS, such as international law commentators, use that term. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

All or none? Wow you have convinced yourself of that false dichotomy. My understanding of the limited research I've done on Tibet is that it is either a De Jure Annexation or there was legally no annexation as defined by international law as the territory was already a part of China. In either case the international community does not view Tibet as occupied.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you are going too far. The international community has been mostly silent on Tibet. What you have is a few heads of state, who want to trade with China, saying that Tibet is part of China. Hardly much international support.

You do realize that China has veto power?Jonney2000 (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I do realize that China has veto power. And since that's not relevant I'm not sure why you are mentioning it. China also has the color red in it's flag and Mar's has been called the red planet. These details are not relevant either and I am mentioning them for no reason what so ever. A few heads of state? VS what exactly? Who are the heads of state or specifically governments that recognize Tibet's GIE claims? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

De facto annexations

I and Jonney2000 have added Crimea, Tibet, Hatay, and parts of Kashmir to the list of ongoing military occupations as "de facto annexed". I do not object to removing all of them if East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are also removed or if any significant difference is noted here in accordance with the definitions in the lede. I should also note that many of the territories above were conquered in wars of aggression, unlike EJ & GH. 13zmz13 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Crimea for sure is occupied. I don't know about Tibet but I've seen some sources claiming that it is, so maybe. East Jerusalem is listed as occupied and I don't understand why that is controversial? Territory can be both occupied and annexed at the same time. The only thing wrong about the EJ listing is that it was de facto annexed in 1967 and de jure annexed in 1980. De jure here of course refers to Israeli municipal law as international law contains a blanket ban on territorial conquest by force. What we can talk about is whether other parts of the West Bank are de facto annexed. They sure might be, but that does not mean that they aren't at the same time occupied! ImTheIP (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Furthermore, afaict, you don't have 500 edits to your name which (unfortunately I might say) is a prerequisite to edit IP article. ImTheIP (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I've seen that assertion before – hence the problem. If we go by the definition in the lede, none of these territories (Crimea, EJ, GH, Tibet, etc.) are occupied since they all fullfill the charachteristics of an annexation. And it clearly states that military occupation is distinguished from annexation.

Note: The Judea and Samaria Area is not annexed because it does not fullfill the conditions in the lede (not permanently claimed by Israel, IDF has jurisdiction, and not all residents are eligible for Israeli citizenship). That's the difference. 13zmz13 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatever we do here, we need sources. 13zmz13 - please do not make changes to the article unless you have clear and high quality WP:RS which explicitly support the characterization as ongoing occupations. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead also mentions in the source note "Annexation refers to de jure annexation or annexation as defined under international law." As Pål Wrange has put it illegal annexation is military occupation under international law. Chistine Chinkin offers a very similar rationale when discussing Western Sahara and the illegal annexation of it by Morocco. Any de facto annexation would meet the generic definition of Annexation but the question is if it meets the definition of a de jure annexation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: It shows you are the author of the map, would you mind updating it when you have the time?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not the original author - all I did was crop it. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck sake! If "illegal annexation" is a form of "military occupation", then why did you remove Tibet and Hatay? Both of them were annexed illegally because there were no treaties between the relevant parties (Tibet+China / Ukraine+Russia). I'm getting really sick of your double standards. 13zmz13 (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you actually bother reading about Hatay? Did you actually bother reading about Annexation? Hatay, the first thing to mention and this is the most important, Reliable sources do not show that the international community views it as occupied or an illegal annexation. However if you have a reliable source for this please share it. The French, the administrators of Syria at the time, made what became "Republic of Hatay" separate and independent from the French Mandate of Syria. While referendum was controversial, Turkey annexed it thru Referendum. This was also prior to the 4th Geneva convention. Tibet, where is your source that this is an illegal annexation and that shows the international community views this as an illegal annexation? Did you bother reading about the Tibetan situation? That the international community regards it as a part of China? Anything about de facto but not de jure independence? Tibet as a part of China can not be occupied by it's self. Annexation can be legitimized via recognition . So, an illegal annexation is an occupation but it can become a De Jure annexation. for fuck sake, for real. While both of them in your personal heart felt opinion are an illegal annexation, it would save alot more time if you provide a reliable source for the position of the international community that they constitute an illegal annexation. That is what's needed to place it in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm just being consistent. According to your own standard for EJ & GH, they should be regarded as occupied by default due to the lack of treaties between the relevant parties, which doesn't even apply to EJ as it's no longer claimed by Jordan. And if territorial claims can be based on the status of old mandates (as you seem to be arguing vis a vis Hatay), then Israel should be able to claim all of Jordan and part of Golan since they were originally included in the British Mandate, which was granted as the Jewish national homeland by the League of Nations. 13zmz13 (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You can be consistent all you wish but as I pointed out above, international law isn't consistent. Illegal annexations are occupations. These illegal annexation can become legal via recognition. This is not consistent. I'm sorry this isn't Doctor Seuss enough for you. You keep talking about "my standard" and I keep asking you to provide a source. Provide a source that shows the view in the international community that Hatay was illegally annexed or that its under military occupation and provide one for Tibet. The EU considers EJ to be occupied. The UN's position remains unchanged that Easy Jerusalem is occupied. The Majority point of view is that East Jerusalem is occupied. You say it's not. The people with the ability to legitimize this annexation say it is. You say because of this Tibet is and you don't provide a source for that, you provide your own personal opinion with a meaningless basis, "I'm just being consistent." -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Territories based on mandates? I'll try to dumb it down a bit more for you. During the Era of the French Mandate of Syria. France was in charge of Syria. It took Alexandretta and formed the Republic of Hatay. That republic was Annexed via referendum by Turkey. They also made the state of State of Greater Lebanon, State of Alawites, and several other states. Lebanon still exists seperately and the other territory excluding Hatay became Syria. Syria did not exist when Hatay was annexed and Hatay was independent from Syria. Unless I've missed something (that source you continue to not provide, perhaps.) Hatay is not considered under military occupation and it's annexation is considered legal/de jure.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Where in the Geneva Conventions or any other international treaty does it say that territories internationally recognized as "de facto annexed" are actually under military occupation? You keep asking me for sources, yet you provide none yourself. I'd figure the burden of proof is on you, since you're the one who's making the active claims here. Furthermore, how can you make the logical argument that a territory can be under "military occupation" even when it's not under any military's jurisdiction? 13zmz13 (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I've already provided with the sources above that East Jerusalem is considered to be under military occupation by Israel by the international community just above. Further above I provided a source that states that illegal annexations are occupations under international law. I believe it discusses the 4th Geneva convention, the fourth Hague convention, and the first additional protocol to the Geneva convention. The onus is on me to prove that East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied which the sources show. You keep personalizing this, offering your heart felt opinion, anything but something relevant such as a source that says Tibet or Hatay are occupied, but then of course if given your way they can be removed. How can I logically say, etc etc etc? There's these things called sources. Reliable sources show the international community views East Jerusalem to be under Military occupation. Again, above.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

13zmz13, as others have already said, explicit sources are needed to support your edits here. If you are unable or unwilling to provide, your edits will not remain here and you will have wasted your time.

Also, please stop edit warring. If you can’t gain consensus here on the talk page, the only thing edit warring will achieve is to get you sanctioned again. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Which edits? I'm not the one who added Crimea or Tibet, nobody objected to me adding parts of Kashmir, and I didn't restore Hatay or Tibet after they were removed. 13zmz13 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Just because many countries don't recognize annexation X, Y or Z doesn't mean they're also delusional. Describing them as "(largely unrecognized) annexations" is fine, but "military occupations" is just idiotic, and nobody has provided any sources for it. This applies to EJ, GH, Crimea, Tibet, Kashmir, Hatay, and all other de facto annexations. 13zmz13 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources say Military occupation. Tibet was not a de facto annexation as far as I can tell. It was a De Jure Annexation or it wasn't an annexation at all because it was already a part of China. Hatay was a De Jure Annexation. What's idiotic is you keep this conversation going and without providing any sources for your claims or actually reading anything about the claims you make.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@13zmz13: for Kashmir to be included you will need to find sources and bring them here. It has been discussed before - see Talk:List of military occupations/Archive 4#Pakistani Kashmir. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources can be found inside the articles, just like for the other territories. 13zmz13 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@13zmz13: Where exactly? If you want to add this in the WP:ONUS is on you to bring the sources here. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe the removal has been discussed elsewhere in the archives as well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I just realized that they are saying Jammu and Kashmir are under military occupation by both India and Pakistan. There is no source for this in any article attached to it. This is original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It is OR. @13zmz13: please bring a source to support your inclusion of Kashmir. If you do not attempt to provide evidence, it will be reverted again; if you then try to edit war it back in once more you leave us no choice but to go to request admin action. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Proposal

I suggest we maintain two separate lists:

1) Military occupation (occupied but unannexed, such that military law applies and no citizenship)

2) De facto but unrecognized annexations (in which citizenship and full equal law is provided but the Geneva Conventions are still considered to apply)

These are different situations, and mixing them up is unhelpful.

In terms of what goes where, we must follow only what sources explicitly state.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support, with the addition of the word "largely unrecognized annexations" as East Jerusalem and Crimea are recognized by a few countries. 13zmz13 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• oppose as it's original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: There seems to be no objections to adding Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, part of Donetsk region, part of Luhansk region, part of Aleppo Governorate, Northern Cyprus, West Bank, and Nagorno-Karabakh to the first list, and Crimea, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights, and Southern Provinces to the second list. Though I think you should create them, since I can't edit Arab-Israeli conflict-related stuff quite yet. We'll handle Tibet, Hatay, parts of Kashmir, etc. later. 13zmz13 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Tibet, Hatay, and Kashmir are already handled. They have already appropriately been removed. You will need to provide sources if want to try to put them back in. I'll see you then.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We would then be making the distinction. That is a whole can of worms that would be better not to open.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I wondered about that too.

I think there are three possibilities - the two above plus:

3) De jure recognized annexation (i.e. considered legal)

It is easy to define which fall into option 1, as which law is applied to the population is an entirely objective question.

The problem is deciding which falls into 2 vs. 3.

Currently our list includes all situations which fall into 1 and some which fall into 2.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

We aren't mixing them at all as you suggested above. It is the sources that say these places are occupied. While partisans can pick apart reasons why they think this location isn't occupied because of those reasons, there are peculiarities in other occupations as well. None of this changes that these locations are regarded to be occupations. We are making this distinction here but the international community doesn't make this distinction. This is a can of worms that we shouldn't open as it is original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that whatever is done here must be clearly supported by the sources.

I also have sympathy with 13’s point that our definition of occupation doesn’t seem to fit the (illegally) annexed territories.

We need to solve this issue. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The definition note "Annexation refers to de jure annexation or annexation as defined under international law." Which is in line with . As another matter the definition isn't actually inclusion criteria beyond the year of 1907. Instead it's simply a succinct definition military occupation. While we should endeavor to better the definition if that is a possibility, it would be a fools errand to try to force listings to meet the definition. Wikipedia policy already governs that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

References

European Parliament report

The 2015 DG-EXPO report which SJP links to above is excellent. For the purposes of this debate (re ongoing occupations), pages 14 and 15 are particularly good, because they explain the various different forms of occupation, and provide examples of each. In summary it says:

• Occupation by a foreign power without annexation - West Bank and Gaza
• Occupation by a foreign power with illegal annexation - Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, Crimea
• Occupation by an armed group under the influence of a foreign power - Northern Cyprus, Donetsk, Lugansk

This matches very neatly with our existing list. The only ones missing are Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, the two Georgian provinces and Northern Syria (the latter taking place after the report was published).

I propose we reduce some of the detail in the "status" column, and add reference to these categories.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

While it highlights unique situations that are military occupations, it doesn't suggest that there are any types of military occupations under international law. The essence of the article is that illegal annexations are occupations. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Current version

As written most of my concerns of original research have been avoided. However a few issues. The Without annexation text isn't needed at all. As written it's in wikipedia voice. Calling it an illegal annexation should be sourced. While you added Wrange's paper, does it discuss EJ and Golan as such?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi SJP, I have added quotes to the sources to address all these points, and removed the “without annexation”. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Presentation wise I think this works. You are not actually adding categorizations specifically. These are all unique facts about these occupations. It's succinct while the foot notes provide expanded information..-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I did not consent to this. "Illegal" annexations needs to be changed to "largely unrecognized" (some countries have recognized them [11] [12]), and there needs to be two separate lists for ongoing military occupations and ongoing de facto annexations. 13zmz13 (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi 13zmz13, thanks for your post. Please remember that every change in Wikipedia needs to be sourced.

Your argument regarding legality contradicts the source, which says “Under current international law, annexation can only be carried out after a peace treaty, and preferably after a referendum. Annexations which do not correspond to this requirement - like those just mentioned - are illegal.” So recognition by a few countries is not relevant to its “legality”.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No there doesn't need to be a separate list for "De Facto/illegal" annexations that are military occupations. Under international law there's one type of military occupation. While in the case of Israel there may be an illegal/de facto annexation, it's still simply a military occupation. Adding a separate category stands to do nothing more than put undue emphasis on these details violating WP:Weight. Further it wouldn't be proper to put it as "largely unrecognized", while as a pointed above with a source that an illegal/de facto annexation can be legitimized, there's nothing showing that it has been legitimized in this situation. UN Security council resolution 478 was brought under article 24 which ICJ Reports, 1971, page 16 clearly shows that article 24 general powers to the UNSC to act on behalf of the UN. This UNSC resolution is legally binding. Further your links above do not link to anything. If your speaking of the Russian recognition of Jerusalem it was actually a recognition of West Jerusalem not East Jerusalem. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: There is no peace treaty where Hatay is ceded from Syria to Turkey. There is no peace treaty where Kashmir is ceded to India and Pakistan. There is no peace treaty where Tibet is ceded to China. According to your definition, how are they not "illegally annexed"? 13zmz13 (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, provide sources. Further, read about these topics. Read about Hatay. Read about Tibet. Read about Kashmir. While you actually read about them for the first time you might actually learn about them. You might learn that Hatay was an independent republic before it was annexed via referendum. You might learn that 29 June 1939 was 6 years before 24 October 1945 when Syria became legally independent. Provide sources, provide sources, provide sources, provide sources or stop beating a dead horse.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: No, I was referring to the notes Jerusalem (partial recognition)[fn 1] Recognition by other UN member states: the United States,[1] the Czech Republic,[2] Guatemala,[3] and Vanuatu[4] and The Crimean Peninsula, claimed and de facto administered by Russia, is recognized as territory of Ukraine by a majority of UN member nations.[1] in the infoboxes of Israel and Russia, respectively. "Largely unrecognized annexation" is the only appropriate term for East Jerusalem and Crimea. If we're gonna use the term "illegal annexation", we'll have to use in every case where a territory is not officially ceded in a peace treaty (see my reply to Onceinawhile above). 13zmz13 (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Crimea you are probably right. There a different set of facts there. They should all be reviewed to keep that listing in line with wikipedia policy. In the case of Israel as it is an illegal annexation (UNSC 478).(Period. Fullstop.) We could mention the partial recognition of East Jerusalem (It seems you suggest we already do.) Regarding your original research, Per WP:OR. we can't use it. If you would like to provide sources please do.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is a distinction between a "military occupation" and an "illegal occupation" that is perhaps lost here. For instance, per Portugal, Spain illegally occupies Olivenza. However, Olivenza is admistered by the normal civilian authorities in Spain. In the situation of Olivenza, most of the world accepts Spain's position (or doesn't care). In the case of less accepted annexation - e.g. Crimea or the Golan - very few (or even no) countries accept the legality of the annexation - and therefore see them as "illegally occupied". However, both Crimea and the Golan are administrated by the normal civilian authorities of Russian and Israel. The question for "military occupation" should not be whether there is international recognition (as that is a question of "illegal occupation") - but how the territory is administered. Having separate lists for unrecognized (or disputed) annexations makes sense - and would allow differentiation between the territory being under actual military rule (a different type of regime from normal civil law - the military commander acting as government, the legislator, the courts, etc.) and the territory being under civilian rule but contested (even universally) as illegal. Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything except for the implication that all occupations are seen as illegal. For instance, Russia's occupation of South Osettia is generally seen as illegal since it was conquered in a war of aggression, whereas Israel's occupation of Judea and Samaria is generally seen as legal since it was conquered in a defensive war after Israel was attacked by Jordan. 13zmz13 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of actual legal arguments (int. law being mainly the law of pretexts) - it is clear that many in the international community consider both to be illegal occupations.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The international community is quite fickle. I would almost suggest the most resounding political hypocrisy comes from the international community. In fact if you review this list you will find plenty of WTF moments (IE. the Indian annexations of Portuguese India. This could be discussed endlessly. However this not a forum, while it's interesting, lets not.) The salient point would be the international community can take action and/or have legal consequences. IE per the act of recognition could make an annexation legal. There would be the ban on settlement goods made in the settlements marked and sold as made in Israel in the EU. We could discuss the effects of the international community endlessly. For a discussion on breaking it up into, Illegal occupations vs military occupations I'd ask about the specific legal distinctions. Correct me if I'm wrong but an illegal occupation vs a military occupation have the same legal requirements other than the requirement that the occupation end where it is illegal? My other question would be one of weight. Separating the two (illegal vs military occupations) would place added emphasis on them being illegal occupations. Per policy would that be appropriate? With out the added emphasis could be put in the article with sources in a variety of ways, such as a source note for example. There is by the way a separate list of annexations contained on the annexation article. It is maintained separately. The question here, importantly, is whether these listings are considered military occupations. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The article criteria\question\distinction for us is how/if we distinguish between the int. law of belligerent occupation applying or claimed to be applying (which is basically international recognition - and is non-binary for partial recognotion) and the actual administration de-facto in the territory (due typically an annexation - possibly an unrecognized one) - the distinction being between a civilian adminstration incorporated into the controlling/occupying country - or a Civil-military operations with a military commander running a military government in the occupied territory. Giving concrete examples - the West Bank has a (putting Enclave law in settlements aside) military commander, military government in practice - not only is it claimed to be occupied (by essentially the entore world) - it is run as such. In contrast - the Golan and Crimea would be examples in which almost all (or all) of the world claims they are occupied, but the adminstration on the ground is civilian in both. I think it makes sense to split the two (actual territories run per military occupation vs. territories that should be such - but aren't in practice). Int. Law is indeed of interest to readers - but so is the question whether they will meet soldiers policing or actual civilian police in the territory, whether they will be tried in a military tribunal/court or a civilian court...Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd say specifically we have to represent the sources based on weight. We can not say that, for instance, Gaza is not occupied. We instead list Gaza as an occupation and provide details on the two opposing views. Splitting the list to have a separate list for those under civilian/military/other administration is an action that will provide prominence/weight to these scenarios. Such an action would provide greater weight than putting the related information in the article in a similar way to how we have long and currently place information in the article. Information that can be sourced belongs here if it represents either a majority or minority POV. Let's call the next part the Tibet factor. To say it plainly, my understanding of the sources is simply that, the international community views Tibet as a part of China and not under Military occupation. As I am sure you are aware, there are those that do view it as an occupation. Per WP:GEVAL including Tibet could unduly legitimize the views of those that advocate Tibetan independence (and related movements). With the lack of international support they lack that legitimacy. We need to go that extra mile so that the potential reader as all the appropriate and relevant information. At one point in the past military occupations section some of the listings had no link to any related wikipedia article In addition there was no organization to some of the listings. Now they are ordered by date and they are linked to the relevant articles. The article has changed for the better. Perhaps one day it will be a featured list.Any way TLDR: We need to be careful with every action that can effect weight here. While we need to avoid delegitimizing a prominent position when the effort is overt, we also have to take care not to do so accidentally.

I've not seen the end result of your proposition. Sometimes you got to dip your hand in water to see that you can describe it as wet. From what I get from your proposition I fell it will be undue. Seeing an example it may not be. However there are ways to place that info in the article without creating undue weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Tibet - depends on degree of international recognition - not sure I have an opinion. Gaza is "special" in that the form of military occupation is non-standard (those seeing it as occupied - are claiming it is occupied by external control) - as this is a significant view, it belongs in military administration (noting the special situation here, and counter claims). As a concrete suggestion, I would split the Ongoing military occupations into two sections - Territories under occupation, administered by the military (in which the West Bank, for instance, would belong as well as probably Gaza) and Territories under occupation, civilian administration (illegally annexed) (where Crimea and the Golan would go - basically most of those listed as "with illegal annexation", and possibly also many of "occupation by an armed group under the influence of a foreign power" (or maybe these are a class unto their own - unrecognized states)). Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I forget where on this page at this point, I am concerned about the weight a presentation as such would bring. And in the end it will depend specifically on the presentation of how much weight in confers. But to clarify, I am not saying this information should be excluded. In fact well sourced I think it should be in the article, the matter is how. Such a change will confer weight. Based on your description I lean more towards it being undue. Based in part on the much debated ICJ wall case and other long winded positions. But placing it in the article in a manner similar to the current format as a foot note or in a manner to the longer term consensus version (please review [13]) would not confer undue weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Definition of occupation

What matters is whether the territory is under "belligerent occupation" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Belligerent occupation is a well-defined binary state and there almost no room for arguing edge cases. The Convention defines a state of affairs and says nothing about the occupations (il)legality. ImTheIP (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the definition I wanted to go with from the start. Thus, we must remove all de facto annexations (i.e. EJ, GH, Crimea, Western Sahara) from the list. 13zmz13 (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Belligerent occupation is non-binary - it is the same (more or less) as "illegal occupation". Whether country X sees country Y as "belligerently occupying" country Z depends on whether Y views the annexation of Z as legal or illegal. Different countries (Y1, Y2, ... Yn) can and will disagree on this.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Belligerence merely describes the fact that an occupation is military by its nature. Regarding the Judea and Samaria Area, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica) (see West Bank#Legal status). That doesn't mean the justices in any way considered the occupation itself to be illegal. 13zmz13 (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In the West Bank Israel announced application of many of the provisions of occupatio bellica (without admitting this was indeed the legal case), which the Supreme court agreeing that the applied framework (whether required or voluntary - the court did not have to decide whether it should apply, as the state conceeded in any event that the relevant provisions apply (by the state's actions)) applies - there are all sorts of complexities there. However, if you were to take the Golan for instance - Israel (and its Supreme Court - attempts to wiggle out of civilian law (by Jews and Druze) have been shot down by the court) argues that occupatio bellica does not apply, however most countries consider the annexation illegal and thus argue that occupatio bellica applies.Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In context, the Supreme Court ruled that The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica). That has nothing to do with the legality of the occupation or which laws the State must/must not apply to the occupied territory. It is simply a recognition of the fact that a temporary occupation and administration of the territory of a sovereign by a power hostile to that sovereign is occurring. 13zmz13 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please look at the slides from ICRC: [14]. Belligerent occupation is a technical term and synonymous with military occupation or just occupation. The occupying power can not, short of evacuating the territory, end the state of occupation. Hence the status remains. That Israel claims it has annexed portions of occupied territory is interesting information, but not at all relevant in relation to international law. ImTheIP (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

like Gaza? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Now you're kind of arguing against yourself. Where excactly in the Fourth Geneva Convention is that stated? Also, your latest edit to the article indicates the excact opposite: "the article is about occupations, not annexations". 13zmz13 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

International law, in this regard may stipulate that the regime in place should be a military occupation. However, in many cases (e.g. the Golan or the Crimea would be good examples), the legal and administrative regime in place is not a military one - this being contrary to a widespread view in international law (or - more relevant - of other countries) - this makes state of affairs illegal, but does not change the facts on the ground in terms of type of administration (which is not military) - the administration on the ground in the Republic of Crimea is the same as in Krasnodar Krai (with federal subject differences) - and is not similar in form or substance to a military administration. Icewhiz (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Some scholars have argued that Gaza is not occupied. Most disagree though and claims that it is due to the principle of effective control.

The question of when the occupation ends has been debated ad nauseam. See for example the section "When does occupation come to an end?" here It suffices to note that a unilaterally declared annexation does not end the occupation.

Neither does the military or civilian nature of the occupation change its status. Furthermore, this whole discussion is moot because it is not up to us to decide. There are many, many scholarly sources that designates Gaza, the (whole) West Bank, the Golan Heights, Crimea etc as "occupied" and therefore those territories should be listed. ImTheIP (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

All arguments that are of the form X, Y, and Z are true or not true for A, B, and C territories and therefore A, B, and C are or are not occupied are blatant examples of WP:OR. On Wikipedia, Gaza is occupied territory because sources say so. On Wikipedia, the West Bank (including EJ) is occupied because sources say so. This sustained effort to remove the entries based wholly on OR while ignoring the sources violates several Wikipedia policies, among them WP:OR and WP:NPOV (all significant views should be included, and the view that Gaza and/or the WB is occupied is indeed significant). nableezy - 17:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What sources? Jerusalem/Crimea are recognized as Israeli/Russian sovereign territories by several UN member countries. And even when an annexation is not recognized by countries X, Y, and Z doesn't mean they see it as still being under occupation. 13zmz13 (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You really want sources for East Jerusalem as being occupied territory? Sure, fine, here

• ICJ advisory opinion in the Wall case:

  The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter "the Hague Regulations of 1907"), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

• Eyal Benvenisti (23 February 2012). The International Law of Occupation. OUP Oxford. pp. 204–206. ISBN 978-0-19-163957-9.

  For the purposes of the law of occupation, it is sufficient to note, without getting into the details of the arguments that have been presented concerning the weight of Israel's claim to East Jerusalem, that under Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (GCIV), the law of occupation continues to apply even if the annexation was legally effective. Even if an occupant asserts a reasonable-albeit contested-claim for sovereignty, it is not allowed to use its effective control for its claim to prevail.

If you would like more I can oblige. Let me know in advance how many you would like though if you dont mind. nableezy - 23:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Both of them are WP:UNDUE. The ICJ case was merely an advisory opinion, and the opinion of an individual legal scholar has no real weight vis a vis the status of territories in international relations. What matters is what sovereign states have to say about it. I've already provided sources for several countries (including the US) that recognize Jerusalem as being Israeli. Also, the EU has not officially recognized East Jerusalem as occupied due to the veto right system. 13zmz13 (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Your argument has now become "it shouldn't be called an illegal annexation because the United States and a tiny minority of other countries recognize the annexation". And want you to know that's making me laugh my ass off. It is the Majority opinion that this annexation is illegal. Per WP:Weight as the majority POV it as an illegal occupation would be included. I'm not even sure if the United States recognizes East Jerusalem as a part of Israel. Proclamation 9683 I assume is what you are discussing. But it only recognizes Jerusalem as the capital. Have they came out on what the United States see as Jerusalem? Last I looked that proclamation avoided that issue entirely. Good job at moving on beyond your confusion about the word de facto, but with your new recognition argument can you show that the United States recognizes East Jerusalem as Israel's? Have they moved beyond their issue of whether the Western wall is in Israel or not?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You know what, there's all this concern today about fake news. So here's a briefing from the president. What do you think he means by In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved. Would you care to either provide a source where this has changed or hastily reformat your argument?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all, please stop adding sources with the ref format, it screws up the discussion. The [ ] format is much better. And congratulations for missing the point once again. I'm still arguing that we should differentiate between occupation and annexation based on de facto characteristics, as are the majority of editors on this talk page. I'm just pointing out the fact that nableezy's sources don't even qualify for de jure statuses.

Regarding your Trump quote, this proves my point excactly. The US, along with the EU, etc., does not take any final status positions before a bilateral peace treaty is signed between Israel and the Palestinian representatives. Therefore, East Jerusalem is by default not regarded as occupied until you prove otherwise. 13zmz13 (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all, since there no way in hell I'm going to listen your demands and since I really don't give a damn about your preferences I'll continue to post reference in this manner. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Regarding your second attempt at trying to make a point, you have only indicated WP:IDHT behavior. It's been shown thru out this conversation that the prevailing position of the international community is that East Jerusalem is occupied. At this point you are either being intellectually dishonest or this is a case of WP:CIR. I don't actually care which. What Donald Trumps comments highlight is that you are wrong and The United States has done nothing to recognize the Israeli claim to East Jerusalem.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Further, Nableezy's source "The International Law of Occupation" references UNSC 478 and UNSC 497 when discussing both EJ and Golan as military occupations.This is not the legal position of an individual scholar but the recognition of the pervasive international view by a scholar.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Um, an advisory opinion by the ICJ is them advising the UN General Assembly on what international law says about something. That is, the ICJ found that EJ is occupied by Israel. As far as the view of sovereign states, see for example this which passed 151 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, United States), with 9 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Honduras, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Togo) (that's every single EU member state voting for it FYI). See how it repeatedly refers to EJ as part of the occupied Palestinian territories? How many sources would you like? In anticipation of the next objection I will provide a few more:

• Jerry W. Wright (1999). The Political Economy of Middle East Peace: The Impact of Competing Trade Agendas. Psychology Press. pp. 148–. ISBN 978-0-415-18395-6. The territory known as the West Bank includes East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel in 1967. This annexation has not been recognized by the international community, which considers East Jerusalem to be occupied territory under international law.
• Orna Ben-Naftali (13 January 2011). International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. OUP Oxford. p. 137. ISBN 978-0-19-100160-4. Another conclusion is that the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem-gradually expanding its boundaries from 6.5 to 71 square kilometers-is illegal. This illegality was affirmed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly, with the consequence that under international law the area is still considered occupied. The ICJ's Construction of the Wall Advisory Opinion confirms this conclusion.

And I havent even started with the peer-reviewed journal articles on this. nableezy - 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, as far as the silly the EU does not take a position, not even a little true. See for example Six-Month Report on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem or In line with international law, the European Union does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, including East Jerusalem, and does not consider them to be part of Israel’s territory, irrespective of their legal status under domestic Israeli law. nableezy - 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, there was an RFC that found specific consensus not to remove East Jerusalem. Given the established consensus on this talk page for inclusion, that makes the NPOV tag inapplicable. nableezy - 19:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

References

RE:not really true and the article is about occupations, not annexations

@ImTheIP: Can you expand upon [15]? What are you saying is untrue and that the sources did not cover? Further, nothing in the removed text made the article about annexation. while arguably that information is less important in a more modern context (illegal annexations being occupations), certainly in a more historical context it would be worth mentioning. PreWWII?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In common parlance "annexation" means "the occupying state declared the territory as its own." Western Sahara was annexed by Morocco in 1975, East Jerusalem by Israel in 1980 and so on. These annexations are unlawful, illegal and invalid and not of the "legal under IL" kind that the sentence I removed discusses. One can try and distinguish between these two kinds of annexation types, but why bother? No purported annexations in modern times that I know of have been legal under IL.

As was brought up by another editor, the sentence made the article internally inconsistent. If annexation is distinguished from occupation and Israel successfully (whether by legal or illegal means) has annexed territory then that territory cannot be occupied. So I thought the sentence made the article more confusing but restore it if you want. ImTheIP (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In common parlance certainly you are correct. However we aren't discussing common parlance, we are discussing international law. In international law there is a distinction between the two. If people would stop trying to distinguish between the two WP:OR that issue would go away. Anyway, the reason I ask is because this has been the long term consensus version since at least 2015. It merits discussion. Anyway lets see if anyone else ways in.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

International acceptance is different from the situation on the ground, and we should distinguish between the two. As for success of annexation in modern times, well - Tibet, Annexation of Goa, Western New Guinea, South Vietnam, South Yemen (well - in as much as anything in Yemen can be called a success) - There have also been several smaller transfers of territory, by treaty, between states - e.g. India–Bangladesh enclaves. If and when the international community accepts a move (with or without a bilateral agreement) - what was commonly called illegal under international law becomes legal. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Annexation is a defined legal concept. Crucially it is "a unilateral act". New Guinea was ceded not annexed, Vietnam and Yemen were bilateral unifications. Tibet was similar, with a legitimacy dispute similar to the New Guinea one. These were not annexations, and legal sources do not refer to them as such. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

To SJP's original question, I think the "Military occupation is distinguished from annexation..." piece should not have been removed (it's crucial for readers of this article, given the annexation column in the tables). However, it could and should be improved to reflect the point now sourced to DG-EXPO re occupations ongoing. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I slightly disagree. But if it has to remain, it should be rewritten so that it is clear that occupation is distinguished from legal "recognized" annexation. ImTheIP (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

A rewrite for clarity and that is in line with the sources would be good. The over all effort, represented elsewhere, to make everything fit in a little box for the sake of consistency is however foolish. Many come here with two eyes and they see their special interest listed and then they don't see anything else. There are inconsistencies thru out this article. The type of annexations used by Nazi Germany would have been legal during the time. In fact many of the international laws regarding annexations directly after WWII were codified in response to that. Should we remove the Occupation of Polish territory then? No. Because this is original research. The sources say Poland was occupied from etc to etc. Clarity, I support it. Original research, no thanks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to follow historical precedent, we should not consider whether an annexation is legal according to the international norms of the day, but merely whether it is effective, demilitarized, and locally legal. De facto trumps de jure for the purposes of documenting what really happened. When a territory is no longer forcibly occupied, and a civilian administration is in place, it has been effectively annexed. Certainly many countries and observers will not recognize the annexation: we should explain who recognizes it or not, but per the article's title we should not call "military occupation" any functioning regime that is no longer militarily dominated. — JFG ^talk 18:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to follow Wikipedia precedent we should base it on what the sources say and avoid original research. What you are proposing is original research. And offtopic, is anyone experiencing any type of bug when clicking the Tildes below for signing your posts in the editing window?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We can describe the status of affected territories without resorting to original research: how we choose to represent the situation on the ground is a matter of editorial judgment. There are sources for every conceivable POV, so that we must pick a reasonable stance and explain any deviations from it due to particular circumstances. Given the article title, I believe we should use as a baseline the military nature of any occupation. — JFG ^talk 02:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with that line of thinking Im sorry to say. NPOV requires to represent POVs proportionally, not according to some ill-defined "editorial judgment". If the preponderance of the best quality sources say something, then we are required to include it with its due weight. Re "De facto trumps de jure for the purposes of documenting what really happened", maybe if you are writing a travel guide, but not an encyclopedia article on an international law topic. Editorial judgment does not in any way allow us to skip around WP:NPOV. Your argument that per the article's title we should not call "military occupation" any functioning regime that is no longer militarily dominated does just that. It imposes your own view over what the majority of reliable sources say. And beyond that, it distorts the meaning of the title of the article. "Military occupation" is not dependent on a functioning regime that is militarily dominated. Military occupation is dependent on a. a state having effective military control over a territory b. the territory is outside that states sovereign territory. The end. It does not matter if it is civilian police forces or uniformed military patrolling the streets. nableezy - 05:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with providing more information. Editorial discretion, in the frame work of wikipedia policy, is also important and I would suggest has long been practiced here. However removing territory because some one wants to argue historical precedent, when the sources suggest that in the view the international community there is an occupation is not editorial discretion. Editorial discretion is removing Kashmir because collectively we have been unable to paint a clear picture with the sources of what the situation is, much less an occupation. The arguments for inclusion of Kashmir are generally that by not including it is unfair to Israel. With little actual discussion of Kashmir, rarely any sources, and primarily discussion of Israel. WP:IDHT would perhaps describe such disccussions very well. In context both the Majority POV and the minority POV here are represented by the international community.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Crimea

Crimea was removed via a now archived talk page consensus by JFG towards the end of July. Consensus maintained since until added back about a week ago. Removed since multiple times to maintain the prior consensus by multiple users. In order to cease the slow motion edit war I'm opening this discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Related to the discussion above. Clearly under civilian administration (annexed/incorporated into Russia as Federal Subject) - however the vast majority (minor exceptions) does not recognize the annexation and sees the territory as illegally occupied (and part of the same position is that the rules of military occupation should apply to the territory). In my view, this should be (along with other annexations opposed by most of the world) in a separate sub-heading than "Ongoing military occupations". Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

To be clear I argued against the prior removal and I do think it should be in the article. I've reviewed (in the distant past) a number of sources that indicate the international position that it is an occupation. Here's a more recent one from the US . My understanding of the sources I've viewed is that the International community views Crimea as a Military Occupation. I'm not aware of where, even with swapping camo for police uniforms, the international community has changed its position.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

We are back to discussing whether a territory is more or less annexed depending on the level of international recognition of said annexation. The Crimea situation is similar to the Anschluss, in that the occupied territory has been formally incorporated into the occupying power's territory, legal and administrative structures, the local population welcomes the move, and nationality of the occupier is conferred upon them. Of course lots of nations did not recognize the Anschluss then, and lots of nations do not recognize Russian Crimea now, nevertheless Crimea is just as much annexed to Russia now as Austria was annexed to the German Reich in 1938. A war ensued, Germany lost, its territory was in turn occupied by the winning powers (from 1945 to 1949 for East and West Germany, until 1955 for Austria, until 1957 for Saar and until 1990 for West Berlin), and finally new independent states were created there, including the modern Austrian republic in 1955. Had Germany prevailed in World War II, there would be no discussion about Austria having been annexed and being an integral part of the German Reich since 1938. As post-war history unfolded, the territory of Austria remained under foreign occupation for longer under the Allies than under the Reich! With Crimea, nobody knows whether it will be eventually recognized (à la Tibet) or whether the opponents will go to war with Russia to restore prior Ukrainian territory. In the meantime, it is fully annexed to Russia, notwithstanding the protestations of Ukraine, EU, USA et al. In the immediate aftermath of the annexation, the UN General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution with 100 votes for, 11 against and 58 abstentions, so that is far from unanimous rejection. A 2016 vote on the "situation of human rights in Ukraine" gathered even less support, at 70 votes for, 26 against and 77 abstentions. In comparison, the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980 was rebuked quasi-unanimously by the UN Security Council in Resolution 478 with 14 votes for and 1 abstention. A UNSC resolution is legally binding. This state of affairs at the highest international body pleads for keeping East Jerusalem in the current occupations while leaving Crimea in the "occupied and subsequently annexed" table. — JFG ^talk 16:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Note also that international recognition can take decades, e.g. Tibet was only recognized in 2008 by the EU and 2014 by the US. Was it occupied or annexed before those external powers said so? We'll find myriads of well-sourced POVs for both sides, so that we are, as encyclopedists, compelled to reflect facts on the ground and disagreements among players. — JFG ^talk 16:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

And yes, we are discussing this again. Above there is yet another conversation on EJ. In light of the slow motion edit war it would seem advisable. Yes you are correct, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, that we can not divine if in the future events. Away from wikipedia policy, there is no scientific evidence of any psychic gift. We do lack unanimous rejection but we do have a majority POV and a minority POV. Based on which wikipedia policy do we ignore that? Or another wikiedpia policy that would over ride the NPOV policy? I do not oppose editorial desecration, but I do think such discretion should be based in wikipedia policy. Regarding Tibet, as I've said elsewhere, where as they lack international legitimacy, per WP:GEVAL we would stand to unduly legitimize them (Tibet GIE) here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

As the article stands it shows the bias, we have Crimea listed as past occupation, while Gaza which is under the control of Hamas is listed as a current occupation and the Golan which was annexed by Israel is listed as ongoing, even though it should be similar to Crimea, listed as past, with subsequent annexation of Yes. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sir Joseph, and this (or similar) position has been reiterated by the majority of editors on this talk page. I'm almost finished with my proposal for the makeup and definitions of the list, which I will add here. In the mean time, I urge Serialjoepsycho to stop removing the POV tag. 13zmz13 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(continued below at #Golan and Gaza, redux – let's keep this thread about Crimea please) — JFG ^talk 23:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Imo, Crimea definitely should be added back to the ongoing occupations list. Because that is in line with statements produced by the European Parliament, other EU organs and the UN. I can understand that some editors thinks it is hypocritical that EJ is in the ongoing list, but Crimea isn't. ImTheIP (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: I think that's the second best option. But there's still a significant fallacy in your reasoning; this question has not been adequately answered: What is the definition of military occupation, and who defines it? The only way to definitively answer that question in the article is to go by the definition of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as reiterated in the lede (de facto characteristics), and adjust the list accordingly. 13zmz13 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The answer is that we follow what reputable sources say. Reputable sources claim that GS, EJ, GH and Crimea are occupied, so we write that. Afaict, that is the consensus opinion here. ImTheIP (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The argument that it is hypocritical is a meaningless argument that amounts to WP:JDLI. "Reputable sources claim that Crimea are occupied." is an actual argument. The solitary source that I have offered really doesn't make the case here. People can continue to rant about their personal preferences but it would be quite helpful if at some point we could start discussing and reviewing the sources.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Golan and Gaza, redux

This nonsense about the Golan and Gaza ignore what the sources say, which is they continue to be occupied due to Israel exercising effective military control over them and they being outside of Israel's sovereign territory. We had an RFC over Gaza, no consensus to remove. We should of course include the Israeli position on both, but NPOV requires they be listed as currently occupied because the majority of reliable sources say as such. Yall can keep making OR arguments like its going to make a difference here, but the sources are what count. Not what you wish they said, but what they actually do. Crimea is a more complicated topic mostly due to Russia being a permanent member of the UNSC, so there is no resolution formally declaring that annexation null and void. nableezy - 21:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Israel could have easily gained UNSC veto rights in 1966 had it opened up its nuclear arsenal to inspections by the IAEA. But the determination was made that the UNSC wasn't relevant enough for such a relatively small sacrifice. The same holds true today. We can't base the status of territories merely on UNSC resolutions; they hold no weight in the real world. We must base it on the de facto characteristics per the sources' information, as it's by far the most objective & relevant measurement technique. Either the de facto status of a territory meets the definition of a military occupation by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, or it doesn't. 13zmz13 (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Lol, thats nice. Incredibly imaginative. Israel doesnt even garner enough support for a rotating seat on the security council, but easily could have become a permanent member you say. Anyway, your argument is entirely OR. Any argument based on "meeting the definition" is invalid on Wikipedia. We base our articles on what reliable sources say, and they say East Jerusalem is occupied territory. I provided 4 above. You continue to provide OR, that beyond being invalid as an argument here, is factually wrong anyway. Because EJ, and the Golan, meet the definition. Israel exercises effective military control over both. Both are located beyond Israel's soveriegn territory. So, by the definition, it is occupied territory. But, again, that being OR, we need sources. As have been provided. nableezy - 22:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. You have not provided one single WP:RS stating that the regime which applies in EJ & GH is that of a military nature, nor that Israel doesn't permanently claim those territories, not that their residents aren't eligible for Israeli citizenship. If you can provide me with another well-sourced definition of military occupation, I'll be happy to read it.

Well, Israel technically made it in time for the NPT, so it's not really that far off. :)

As for the "effective military control" argument: Canada exercises effective military control over Ontario. Does that mean it's under military occupation? 13zmz13 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Um, Ontario is within Canada's sovereign territory. East Jerusalem and the Golan are not in Israel's. And again, we do not do WP:OR here. I emphatically do not need to provide any reliable sources that say the regime which applies in EJ & GH is that of a military nature. I need to provide reliable sources that say both are held under military occupation. That has been done, in spades. You disliking what the sources say does not allow you to reject them. You may not, at least on Wikipedia, argue that the sources are wrong or that the definition you wish to apply is not met. That is, again OR, an invalid argument. You are free to make the argument on a blog if you wish. Here, if the preponderance of reliable sources say flat out East Jerusalem is occupied territory then on Wikipedia it is a fact that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. The end. nableezy - 23:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it's just the beginning. I know some countries that deny Tel Aviv is within Israel's sovereign territory, but that doesn't make it true, now does it? The fact is that excactly the same jurisdiction and laws that apply to Tel Aviv also apply to EJ & GH. You can't have one stated definition of military occupation, and then randomly add territories which do not fit that definition based on a small number of selected sources. And it's not the definition I "wish to apply". It's the definition which is currently applied to the ledes of both this article and the military occupation article, and perhaps more importantly, it's the only definition which is compatible with the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. 13zmz13 (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, none of what you wrote has anything to do with what our article should say. What matters is what do reliable sources say. They say Tel Aviv is in Israel. They do not say it is held under occupation. They however say EJ is not in Israel and is held under occupation. I gave you several such sources again. Nothing you have written has been backed up by any source. So, on Wikipedia, it is a worthless argument. Whereas my position is explicitly backed up by reliable sources. NPOV demands that EJ the rest of the West Bank and Gaza and the Golan be listed as occupied. nableezy - 02:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say more here but Nableezy seems to covered all of the bases, though I have only taken a cursory look at this conversation. And I've said alot of it elsewhere. Nonsensical arguments in the hypothetical about Canadian Occupation don't really change the fact that the sources show that EJ, Gaza, and Golan are under Military occupation. They also don't change the policy on original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Gaza is a special case. As for EJ and Golan - both have been effectively annexed and are adminstered by the Israeli civilian government, and not the military. Most of the world considers this illegal - but there is no actual military government in place. As Crimea, they should be listed separately.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, entirely OR and unsourced. Reliable sources say for both EJ and the Golan they are held under military occupation. So to then does Wikipedia. That trumps any OR argument you and anybody else wants to parrot. nableezy - 08:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy: This article is about military occupations. According to the WP:RS in the ledes of both this article and the military occupation article, the definition of military occupation is based on de facto characteristics. Thus, we can not add sources which merely claim that territories X, Y, and Z are under military occupation, unless they also fit the stated definition of such a regime. Anything else is contradictory, and the POV tag will stay for as long as this article remains in that condition. If you wish to create new article(s) about List of de jure military occupations and/or De jure military occupation, there is nobody standing in your way. 13zmz13 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:OR we can not use your original research. According to WP:OR we can not use your original research. And by the way, According to WP:OR we can not use your original research. What this means is we can't use your original research. Even if your original research actually had some merit (it doesn't by the way. It's of an extremely poor quality.) we couldn't use it because its original research. So to be clear, According to WP:OR we can not use your original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm just referring to the current sources (which btw someone else added before this discussion even started). 13zmz13 (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I am also referring the the current sources and mentioning that those sources don't actually say that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You have created here a new type of status. The Status of De facto occupations. And you want to continue pushing that utter nonsense. That is original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

If anyone is engaging in WP:OR, it's you who try to change the definitions without providing any WP:RS.
Wikipedia's definition of de facto: In law and government, de facto describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally recognised by official laws.
Wikipedia's definition of military occupation: Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.
You can thank me later. :) 13zmz13 (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Why would I thank you for continuing to argue from ignorance? I would actually thank you if you would stop. First East Jerusalem should be removed because it was a de facto annexation but now it should be removed because its not a de facto occupation. Hatay should be included because it's a de facto occupation yet you can't source that. You keep throwing bullshit at the wall and watching to see what sticks. Your original research doesn't even offer a level of quality. And as far as trying to change the definition without sources, wow.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The status of East Jerusalem meets the conditions of an annexation, not military occupation; that's why it should be removed. As for Hatay, that was just for the sake of consistency (had we gone with the "non-cession condition" as you first proposed but then selectively changed your mind about for certain territories).
Ah, so now you're a stalker, too? The definition is actually well-sourced, I'm just not finished with certain details of the list yet. 13zmz13 (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem meets the standard of an illegal annexation. The UNSC declared it null and void. The international community continue to regard it as as occupied. There have been multiple consensus discussions, one above and others in the archives to retain it. With Hatay you were arguing from ignorance as you continue to do. I never proposed a cession route. I've pointed out details about Hatay because you were to lazy to even bother reading about it. Those details are lost on you however. Most of this discussion is lost on you. Am I a stalker? Are you accusing me of a crime? Or do you mean WP:FOLLOWING? And no your version is poorly sourced original research that is pure POVpushing. So very likely, multiple people will have to once again point out WP:OR to you as multiple people already have.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if the Supreme Leader of Iran declares the laws of physics to be null and void. They are still very much active and in force. Of course we should include the international positions on annexed territories, but we can't call them militarily occupied when they're not. (Sidenote: The UNSC used the word "occupied" as in foreign control, but they never claimed it was militarily occupied after the 1967 de facto annexation. Aslo, this is a decades-old resolution, with several countries having changed their positions since then.)
Please stop obsessing over Hatay. It was nothing but a demonstration of how weak your definitions are.
Yes, I am accusing you of stalking me. Though you have not necessarily committed a criminal offence (or a civil wrong, for that matter). Of course, that depends on where you live. Perhaps North Korea will sentence you to life in gulag. 13zmz13 (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Benvenisti cite

The Benvenisti cite is to page xvi, which as far as I can tell is the "This page is intentionally left blank" page between the list of abbreviations page and the beginning of the Table of Cases. nableezy - 08:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)