Jump to content

Talk:Israel/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

"Longest military occupation in modern times"

First session

I suggest adding reference to the "Longest military occupation in modern times", as sourced at Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza, page 96. Any objections? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The status of the territories is disputed, so any reference has to be properly balanced. What do you intent to write ? “WarKosign” 08:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I am fine to add balance if it can be sourced and it is appropriately weighted. Note that those who deny use of the term "occupation" represent a very small proportion of world opinion, close to WP:FRINGE, as the article you linked to explains. Anyway, this article already uses the term occupied, so we have little to debate here.
I simply propose to write that "the occupation by Israel of certain neighbouring territories is the world's longest military occupation in modern times". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
We could write "According to Lisa Hajjar, as of 2005 ..." since this book proves that this is what she wrote. There are other authors, such as this that disagree with her. There is a whole article dedicated to the status of the disputed territories, so I see no reason to add this specific opinion in the article on Israel. “WarKosign” 12:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I oppose Oncenawhile proposal. Ykantor (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That opinion piece in the Boston Globe isn't the kind of high-quality source we'd like to use here. Here is a better source, which states "This is probably the longest occupation in modern international relations, and it holds a central place in all literature on the law of belligerent occupation since the early 1970s." FWIW, Opposing without reasons has the same effect as not opposing. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is a better source: 'But these territories are not "occupied" in the sense meant by the Geneva Convention' There are many sources for both points of view. Do we really need to represent them in the article on Israel ? Alleged occupation should be mentioned, with a link to its dedicated article.
BTW, isn't Tibet (arguably) occupied by china since 1949, by far longer than the disputed territories ? “WarKosign” 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Melanie Philips as a reliable source? We should cancel the whole project if that one gets accepted. Zerotalk 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
No, Tibetans are Chinese citizens, so annexation may be a better description. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, Melanie Phillips is definitely not an appropriate WP:RS for this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
These four books explain that the only people who argue that "occupied" is not applicable are Israeli government officials and some US government officials, whose original motive was an attempt to reset the starting point for the negotiations at Camp David. [1][2][3][4]. These politicized manipulations have not been accepted by mainstream international scholars, so we should not let them affect our description of the territorial status either. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the predominant view (most scholars, governments, the UN, ICJ, ICRC etc), according to which Israel occupies the territories, shouldn't be presented in the same way as the fringe view that there is no occupation. Especially, the fringe view shouldn't be mentioned on an article about Israel, the country. There are other articles where its inclusion might be considered. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Oncenawhile and Dailycare that reference to the longest military occupation in modern times should be included in this article. The POV of this article is currently WP:FRINGE and needs to be moved to a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with the other concerned editors that a reference should be made regarding the longest military occupation in modern times. This article does indeed suffer from WP:FRINGE. There is also the lead with the reference to the israeli political system that is incredibly fringe status and pushing a POV. Mbcap (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks all. I propose to add that "the occupation by Israel of certain neighbouring territories is the world's longest military occupation in modern times". Any remaining concerns from anyone else here? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

At very least, some of this phrase should wikilink to Status of territories captured by Israel where the status of the "occupied" territories is discussed in a neutral manner. “WarKosign” 07:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose this phrase which is incorrect. As said, Tibet is occupied from the mid 20th century. the question whether it is annexed does not dependent in the question of occupation. Other examples: Operation Trikora, Papua conflict, Azad Kashmir, Jebel Akhdar War, Vietnam War, Ifni War, Indian annexation of Goa,Sino-Indian War, Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation (??),
-A What is the definition of modern times? is it the 21 century only? from the 1st world war? from Napoleonic wars? Ykantor (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor, your examples are WP:OR, whereas the proposed statement is sourced. Your examples are also wrong, because they are all annexations. You are wrong that the difference is not relevant. For example, see [5]:
"The difference between effective military occupation (or conquest) and annexation involves a profound difference in the rights conferred by each"
Another relevant discussion of occupation vs annexation is here.
Do you have any further objections?
Happy new year. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
If Israel had annexed the West Bank, you wouldn't recognize it anyway. You would still call it "occupation" like you do with the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (which Israel did annexed). Happy new year.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
If sources say it's the longest occupation, then saying that is ok and, in fact, mandatory regardless of how logical editors feel that opinion is. In other words, any objections to the suggested text (I certainly have none) should be based on wikipedia policy, not on editors' opinions in the matter. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Focus on the sources. Perhaps use wording such as "has been described as the longest military occupation in modern times" to try to deflect claims of editorial bias one way or the other. Put more than one inline citation and a hefty quotation in each of them. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Most reliable sources regard the territories, including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to be occupied Palestinian lands. This fact has been discussed countless times. The territories are not "disputed". Moreover, this occupation is the longest in modern history. I don't see a problem with noting that. This article has a pro-Zionist POV[ex. portrayal of almost every war as "defensive"; no discussion of the nakba], this would help balance it. JDiala (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Oncenawhile.

  • Will you please refer to issue A as well? (see above)
  • Your assertion, that a territory "occupied" status expires when it is annexed to the occupying power, is a wp:or. Note that if and when you support this assertion, one implication is an expiry of the Golan Heights "occupied" status as well.
  • Please read the Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II. Poland annexed territories where a lot of Germans flew or were expelled. According to your view, this annexation act, changed (?) the territories status from "occupied" to "annexed". What an idyllic situation. `Ykantor (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This rather long discussion is not going anywhere, as both sides cling to their own views. As an uninvolved user, can I point out that there is very little to discuss here and that most of the comments violate WP:OR. Whereas I disagree with the claim of "longest occupation" on a personal level, it's a sourced statement. That some users WP:DONTLIKEIT or put forward their own interpretations (in violation of WP:OR) is rather irrelevant. Please keep in mind that at Wikipedia, we will always go for a sourced error rather than an unsourced truth. Wikipedia is about sources (satisfying WP:RS) and that applies to this article as well. So even though I agree with the claim in the title, it's well-sourced and no valid objections (under Wikipedia policies) have been made for several weeks. It follows that the statement should go into the article.Jeppiz (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Jeppiz. Stop the silliness about "what is an occupation?" and "what is the modern era?" We summarize what reliable sources say, giving appropriate weight in accordance with WP:UNDUE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
-@ Malik Shabazz: You are an administrator. It does not suit you to use offending terms like "Stop the silliness".
- In my opinion, this statement is factually wrong. The situation is similar to a "sniper" who is shooting a blank target and later draw the concentric circles to fit the hole in the center. i.e starting the "modern times" to fit the 1967 war and occupation. Some editors agree that it is wrong and some are opposed. But in my opinion we should improve this encyclopedia by a process of verification so that the inserted text is correct. If eventually it is indeed a mistaken text, then we may ask for advice how to avoid insertion of errors into Wikipedia.
- As a compromise, the statement may be modified to " a long occupation" and not "the longest occupation". Ykantor (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Ykantor, if the sources say "a long occupation", we use that. If the source says "the longest occupation" we use that. And to be blunt, your personal opinion about whether the statement is right or wrong is entirely irrelevant. Once again, Wikipedia is about sources, not truths.Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The following searches are:
I think you will find plenty of sources to say this is the longest military occupation in modern times. As one user has recently pointed out, this is an encyclopedia where we use sourced information. Our aim is to collate the information that already exists. If reliable sources say longest military occupation then even if wrong (by some people's views aka fringe views), it must still go in. Wikipedia is not the place for incorporating editors views. Mbcap (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap thank-you for the invitation to this discussion. Within the realisation that WP only needs a basic level of citation perhaps I can start by reinterpreting your worthwhile searches above in the following form:
Potential citations seem to be flowing in abundance and that's before considering phrasing variants. GregKaye 14:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: The very first of the results you found says: "Other occupations, such as the Chinese occupation of Tibet, have been longer and less justified, and Israel ended its occupation in 1995". This is only one source that shows how your method of WP:GOOGLETEST is flawed - you are counting all the works that deal with the subject of the alleged occupation, whether supporting or contradicting it, as evidence of its correctness. 15:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
My point precisely. If you or WarKosign want to add it, just go ahead. There seems to be a clear consensus that that is a sourced claim. (I'd say Tibet myself, but as I told Ykantor above, our personal opinions are irrelevant). The one question mark that remains is the definition of "in modern times", what exact timespan is intended?Jeppiz (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jeppiz, I stumbled on this page a few days ago and read the discussion. I did a search and found that it was well sourced. If there is consensus then yes, I think it is sensible to include the statement. However this is not a democracy so we cannot just all decide to do something that is against Wikipedia policy. If you still have contentions regarding the aforementioned statement about the longest military occupation, please feel free to discuss them. Mbcap (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap, I'm not sure I follow. I've never suggested we go against any Wikipedia policy. Quite the opposite, I've suggested we'd report what the sources say rather than interpreting the sources as it suits us. That is the basic policy of WP:OR.Jeppiz (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making it clear. I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to your comment about how there seems to be consensus. I was not saying you were going against policy. Rather I was saying, even if there is consensus but we are going against policy, it does not mean the statement "longest military occupation" should be included. That is why I said feel free to discuss your contentions. The encyclopaedia only gets better if people disagree, it keeps us on our toes to put in information that accurately reflects the sum of human knowledge. Secondly the reason I made the strongly worded comment about editors personal views was because it does not deliver much information, thus making it difficult to discern whether your view is reflected in line with wiki policy or something else entirely. It is unnecessary for editors to express their personal views. If you do so, you should say why your opinion deserves to be considered. This would really help other editors. Nevertheless I will look into the Tibet situation. In the meantime I suggest the original editor Oncenawhile who proposed the addition of the aforementioned statement, to incorporate the statement into the article. Any other additions or clarifications for the statement should always follow WP:UNDUE. Mbcap (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: Since it does not seem right to continue this discussion in the help desk, I would like to ask you here, concerning the difference between a fact and an opinion. My English is not that good, but I still can not understand why do you think that " In my opinion, the Chinese occupation of Tibet is the longest military occupation...in this case we're not talking about an obvious factual error, we're talking about different interpretations." The following text is factual in my opinion: Tibet was occupied by a Chinese army and the Chinese authorities are still ruling there, with their military might, although the Tibetian would like to have an independent state.

Where is the opinion / interpretation here? Ykantor (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

:

Tibet has no bearing on the question of whether the statement we're discussing is sourced reliably. My suggestion is to go ahead with the edit, since there don't seem to be any policy-based objections under discussion and this discussion has been open for a while now. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

is an opinion / interpretation rather than a factual sentence.


Jeppiz I had a look into the Tibet situation and found them not to be under military occupation or any sort of occupation for that matter. It is a recognised territory of the PRC and no country disputes this (at least not officially). If others want to dispute similarly please cite sources. One could claim USA is the longest militar occupation or that South Korea is and the list goes on. One could even say that Jews lived in Palestine for thousands of years and that palestinian arabs are the ones who are doing the occupying so really there is no occupation. However it all comes down to sources and due weight. If there are no sources or there is no due weight, then the claim is rejected with haste. Since a majority agree for inclusion of the statement, could we discuss where to put the statement? It is not immediately clear from reading the talk page, where in the article the inclusion of the statement would be deemed most appropriate. Mbcap (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The proper place to add this statement is at Status of territories captured by Israel#Occupied or Israeli-occupied territories#Applicability of the term "occupied" or International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict#Legal issues related to occupation, any of the multiple articles dedicated to discussion of the alleged occupation. This article deals with Israel within its internationally recognized borders which nobody calls occupied territory, so this description simply does not belong here. “WarKosign” 16:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Reading this article carefully, the reference could fit well in three places:
  • In the lead: Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states,[19] in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (1956–57, 1967–82), part of South Lebanon (1982–2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. It extended its laws to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the West Bank.[20][21][22][23] Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, but efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have so far not resulted in peace.
  • Israel#Administrative divisions
  • Israel#Israeli-occupied territories
It should also go in the other articles you mention. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Occupied Tibet: The Case in International Law by Eva Herzer. Ykantor (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
...states clearly that Tibet has been annexed by China. Please read the sources I posted above which explain the difference between "military occupation" and "annexation". They are different terms, hence why numerous sources more reputable than me or you have concluded that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the world's longest ongoing military occupation. The only credible way you can dispute this would be to find an WP:RS which concludes a different situation represents the longest, but when I search "longest military occupation" in google it only comes up with Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I was invited to join the discussion by Mbcap but am still unsure of definitions. My first thought is that I would tend to regard annexations and military occupations (which might be better regarded as militarily supported occupations) as, at the very least, having a great deal of overlap. I did some searches:

Also I think that it is notable that the Wikipedia article on annexation has sections on the "West Bank", "East Jerusalem" and the "Golan Heights". I don't know why Gaza does not have section. In each case of annexation the governing power has a military and other resources used to maintain control and in each case these resources will be tactically dispatched. For instance, in recent times Israel's resources have been poured into building what I have translated into Wikipedia as being "(the) fence, one that caused separation" but this is a relatively new development. For most of the history of the occupation/annexation there has been no physical partition but this is within a political situation that is very well defined as an apartheid. Identity cards are marked with religion and the approach of Israeli security forces with me changed to a remarkably more positive disposition once it was discovered that I had UK nationality. (I'm and Anglo-Euro-Japanese mutt that looks a bit middle eastern). There is disparity there but for most of the history this was without partition. Even when the barrier was being built it was possible to clamber through or around less built sections when travelling with Palestinian friends and, in these cases, I rarely saw a military presence although there was plenty of evidence of destruction which was reportedly by things like the movement of military vehicles. I think that I saw more military presence when with Jewish friends travelling to places like the Dead Sea and Masada when visiting Samaritan villages or passing through checkpoints. Again, inequalities are evident in that the queues for Jews and tourists move much more quickly than the long lines for local Arabs, Armenians etc. However I have no certainty as to how this compares to other annexations. I spent time, with Israeli friends, in Nepal but never made it to Tibet. Speaking to Chinese, Chinese-Tibetan and other tourists I would say that Tibet is certainly under control and I think that China's willingness to use military force when it desires is clear. Also, as long as religious Jews can buy up west bank land and get on with what they want to do, Israel largely leaves the Palestinians to get on with things under their own governance.

I am unsure as to how to define military occupation as distinct from annexation? 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


If I understand corectly, the purpose of adding this remark regarding the occupation is to offer some counter balance to the mostly pro-zionist attitude of the article. Wouldnt there be less contraversial changes which could serve this goal? Such as, remarking that the population census excludes non-Jewish population in the occupied and non-annexed areas, as these do not have citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.225.2.2 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on actual wording

Yes I agree partly with your suggestion WarKosign; "The proper place to add this statement is at Status of territories captured by Israel#Occupied or Israeli-occupied territories#Applicability of the term "occupied" or International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict#Legal issues related to occupation, any of the multiple articles dedicated to discussion of the alleged occupation."
Regarding the alleged occupation which you mention, I would say it is very clear that this is no allegation but rather, it is a statement of fact that Israel has occupied said territories. This is a Fact because it has been asserted as such by so many reliable sources, and not to mention bodies such as the UN, and amnesty internation. The territories are occupied, this is a fact and once in the article it will read as a statement of fact because we have WP:RS compliant sources which stipulate such.
Ykantor, Tibet is not under occupation, never mind a military one. It is part of PRC which no country disputes.
Going back to the issue of where to put the statement, yes I agree Oncenawhile, we should place it in the above mentioned articles but most important of all, it needs to be placed in this page first. My proposed wording for inclusion in the lead is in the second paragraph;
  • Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (1956–57, 1967–82), part of South Lebanon (1982–2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Israel's continued occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the longest military occupation in modern times. It has extended its laws to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the west Bank. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, but efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have so far not resulted in peace.
As this is the lead and the statement to be included is a statement of fact, no Fringe views should go into this paragraph or anywhere else on this article for that matter. It would be akin to mentioning flat earth societies on the [Earth] page. I welcome any policy based objections otherwise we should move to incorporate this in the main article after someone copy edits it. The word occupation is said twice in the sentence and I could not figure out a way to make it single whilst maintaining its meaning. Any help would be appreciated. Mbcap (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It is a very obvious fact that Israel captured these territories forcefully (either for very good reasons or not, not going into it now). Military occupation "is effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign". Due to the history of the disputed territories they did not have an "actual sovereign" when Israel invaded, so by this (and several other) definition what is going on on the territories can't be called a military occupation. In practice there is little difference between whatever it should be called and a real military occupation - people are under military rule against their will, this is not a good thing and that it should come to an end some way of another, but calling it an occupation is simply factually incorrect.“WarKosign” 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with Mbcap's proposed drafting. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses WarKosign and Oncenawhile. As I have mentioned before personal opinions are not useful here (especially if they are WP:FRINGE) if not backed up by policy. Everyone here would welcome and appreciate policy based objections. The aforementioned territories are occupied, this is fact. WarKosign this is not a place for fringe theories. Let me clarify what you are saying because reading what you have written forces ones mind to question ones faculties, so it is not an occupation because; the people we occupied never had a head of state before we came to occupy them. Please could I request that no more Fringe theories such as this should be mentioned and the same goes for the other thousand fringe theories explaining why the the UN, numerous governmental bodies and other groups are wrong as they all suffered a collective incompetency that resulted in a semantic misunderstanding. It is laughable and is not worth its weight in photons. I will wait for a further day to allow any other editors to raise policy based objections. Mbcap (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
If the sentence: “Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has become the longest military occupation in modern times.” was added to the end of the second paragraph of the introduction, it would help move this towards a NPOV article. Both the Lisa Hajjar book and the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/opinion/the-justice-of-occupation.html?_r=0 )would be good citations. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Calling something WP:FRINGE doesn't make it so. "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view", but there are scholarly opinions that go both ways on this subject. There is a dispute over the status of the territories, one side calls it "occupied" while another calls it "disputed". There are arguments for both sides. Taking a definition favoring one POV and disregarding the other creates a biased an unbalanced article. It is OK to say something like "this and that scholar referred to the situation in the disputed territories as the longest military occupation in the modern history", since it is a verifiable fact that these people said so. It is not ok repeat the scholar's opinion in Wikipedia voice as a fact, since it's not a fact that it's correct to call the situation occupation and that it's longer[peacock prose] than anything in the modern times[when?] that could be called occupation. “WarKosign” 07:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing Theatre of the Absurd here. A factual error is about to be included in Wikipedia, despite that the mistakes are highlighted. If one reads Operation Trikora, Papua conflict, Azad Kashmir, Jebel Akhdar War, Vietnam War, Ifni War, Indian annexation of Goa,Sino-Indian War, Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, he realizs that there are older military occupations, with oppressed locals, and no solution yet. E.g. Brad Adams the Asia director at Human Rights Watch has said in 2006: "Although ‘azad’ means ‘free,’ the residents of Azad Kashmir are anything but, The Pakistani authorities govern Azad Kashmir with strict controls on basic freedoms".[18 The Government of Azad Kashmir has very little control over its' territory, with its' politicians mainly spending their time in Islamabad". pity. Ykantor (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not think so WarKosign. I do not appreciate your comment on the edit summary. If you wish to state what you said in your edit summary you should also post it here. My response to the summary would be, explaining that the sun is up at this moment in Amsterdam is not an opinion. In fact, it would be silly of me not to take issue with someone who denies that statement of fact. As other editors have mentioned and also for the reasons I highlighted this statement of fact will be put into the page sometime this evening to allow any remaining authors to provide their insight. Your disputes are groundless and without due weight as elucidated by the total lack of reference to sources in the previous posts for the claims which are being made. Could I ask any future posts with objections to reference policy and also to support their claim with sources. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mbcap: If you mean this edit, I took back a part of my statement (that I do not wish to express an opinion) after I understood that it's silly of me to try to avoid expressing an opinion that I have already expressed, I do not see why it should offend you or anyone else. I reserve the right to call myself stupid at any time.
I agree that your or mine personal opinions are irrelevant. Each of the 3 articles that I linked to above lists its sources for both POVs, including one that the territories should not be called occupied. It is not WP:FRINGE to represent one of the two sides in a conflict whether you agree with it or not, doing anything else is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. As I wrote above, I am fine with including the statement about the longest occupation as long as it's presented as one point of view and not an objective fact, same as the POV that it is not an occupation is not presented as an indisputable fact.“WarKosign” 09:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello WarKosign I apologise as I think I have misunderstood what you were doing. You should also revert your change of the talk page since your post was replied to by the time you changed. This is to maintain context and I am sure I read somewhere that it is a serious thing to alter your talk page post after it has been replied to. It seems 2 editors are insistant on putting both sides where I am able to side only one side when it comes to the question of occupation. Even so, I will assume I am ignorant of the issue and invite those editors to provide references from reliable sources that stipulate it is not an occupation.

I have also requested for an editor to help with this dispute, whom I think has expertise on Israel. I will wait for the other editors to respond. Mbcap (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, Tibet is not occupied. It is not a valid comparison to Palestinian held territories;
  • Palestinian territories - internationallay recognised to be under occupation and also plenty of reliable sources which elaborate on this face therefore they are supported by two bodies of evidence
  • Tibet - this is the fringe view which has no international recognition as being under occupation (it does not even have some recognition as no country dispute the PRC's sovereignty of Tibet) To give weight to something which has none would not be sensible. Unlike Palestinian territories it has no body of support from nation states and very negligible mention by sources.
Mbcap (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Tibet is occupied according to this source [Dawa Norbu (6 December 2012). China's Tibet Policy. Routledge. p. 250. ISBN 978-1-136-79793-4.] Ykantor (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Gregkaye. Since it has been shown that there is scholarly weight to the Tibetan claim we should move to incorporate it into the lead when mentioning the longest military occupation in modern history. An altered proposed draft for the consideration of editors;
The international community consisting of the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the international criminal court as well as human rights organisations, consider Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel however disputes the position of the international community. The occupation of the Palestinian territories is also considered to be the longest military occupation in modern times but this is disputed by some scholars who say Tibet's alleged occupation by China (No Nation State disputes China's sovereignty over Tibet), dates further back than the occupation of the Palestinian territories. Mbcap (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm reading this whole discussion, and you actually showed one of the arguments for those who disagree with the longest occupation claim, simply by writing "Palestinian territories". Technically only since Oslo Accords parts of them became Palestinian territories. When they were captured in 1967 they were not considered or called like that, as there was no such sovereignty. Yuvn86 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok so we just reword it from the original source at the start of this discussion as
  • The international community consisting of the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the international criminal court as well as human rights organisations, consider Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel however disputes the position of the international community. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are also considered to be the longest military occupation in modern times but this is disputed by some scholars who say Tibet's alleged occupation by China (No Nation State disputes China's sovereignty over Tibet), dates further back than the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Mbcap (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Gaza is not occupied by Israel. Ykantor (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is a statement by Hamas co-founder that Gaza is not occupied. “WarKosign” 12:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, this draft doesn't make sense: it says that the international community considers Israel to be occupying Gaza, but Israel disputes it because China allegedly occupies Tibet for a longer time. Israel doesn't recognize the occupation itself, regardless of its length. “WarKosign” 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Who are the "some scholars" who say Tibet is currently under military occupation? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't, IMO, discuss Tibet here at all, or define what the international community is. Why not just say "is considered to be the longest military occupation in modern times"? This in a minor point in the article, so it shouldn't be presented in detail. The article has a lot of detail already and we don't intend to start describing Israel as an "alleged" country in every instance (several countries don't recognize Israel). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
As I see it this is purely and simply an NPOV issue. I've inserted the image here in an attempt to illustrate the point. The different sources that express opinions about the occupation or not are include governmental and academic sources and both have weight in regard to Wikipedia discussion. Several sources regard a recently recognised State of Palestine as being occupied while fewer sources regard Tibet as being occupied. There is no black and white here. We cannot pick and choose sources and draw some arbitrary and subjective line in the sand to say this is the point to which we accept what sources say and this is when we don't.
If a view is to be considered to indicates that Palestine is occupied then (if we are to have neutrality) the view must also be considered that indicates that Tibet is occupied. If it is then proposed the we consider Palestine to be occupied at the same time that we consider Tibet not to be occupied then it would need to argued that relevant sources provide acceptable arguments to say that Palestine is occupies while indicating that relevant sources provide unacceptable arguments in their presentation of an occupied Tibet. I don't think that this can be done. At each point NPOV requires us to consider both sides of the story and, at each point there are two sides. Various academics may take their individual views but, as an encyclopaedia, we cannot take sides. NPOV must either cause us to describe neither to be occupied or both to be occupied. We cannot pick sides with subjective judgements. Relevant questions are not being asked.
Relevant question Which is the longest Military occupation of a population that wanted independence? Arguably the answer here is Palestine. We can look back at history but one current survey that I referenced seemed to indicate that Tibetans, while having a general antipathy for the Chinese, were not seeking independence. I don't know if this means that they wouldn't choose independence if it was offered on a plate but if clear and reliable survey information was available then this may provide a let out. Failing this I think that NPOV is best applied as presented above. GregKaye 17:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
late comment on above strike, This is in response to comment by Oncenawhile below. The case re Palestine-Israel is different in that Israel presents a democracy in which Arabs are not allowed to vote by the Tibet-China situation is different in that China does not allow any general member of the population to vote. GregKaye 09:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
There are millions of people around the world who want independence but do not meet the definition of Military occupation (Irish in Northern Ireland, Native Americans in the USA, Tibetans in Tibet, etc.). This key issue is if all the people are given "formal sovereignty" and allowed to become full citizens. Israel does not allow the Arabs in the occupied territories to become citizens because they don't want them voting in their elections. That is why this continues to be a military occupation, while Tibet, Northern Ireland and the USA are not.
A good example where this issue has already been beaten to death is Wikipedia's List of military occupations. Note that Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights are the only occupations on the "current" list that have been going on since the 1960s. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Point well made Gouncbeatduke. My two cents here is that since noone has provided any sources suggesting that Tibet represents the worlds longest military occupation, then there really is no debate. If an editor is determined to perform his/her own WP:OR to try to disprove a well sourced statement, they are welcome to do so as thoughtful testing is always helpful. But a very high bar should be set when balancing the talk page OR of wikipedia editors vs. sourced scholarly statements, and since a reasonable explanation has been provided (the well attested difference between military occupation and annexation), there really is nothing to discuss any more. As I mentioned above, unless Ykantor can find an WP:RS which concludes directly that a different situation represents the longest military occupation, then the Tibet point should be treated as WP:HORSEMEAT. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Gregkaye, I just read your comment in the previous thread as well - the difference between occupation and annexation are explained for example in [6], [7], and [8]. The third one explains this in its most simplest form:
  • "The significance of the temporary nature of military occupation is that it brings about no change of allegiance. Military government remains an alien government whether of short or long duration, though prolonged occupation may encourage the occupying power to change military occupation into something else, namely annexation" (page 44)
The reason that Israel sits at the top of this prestigious list of longest occupations is because the West Bank has remained in a state of political limbo under a supposedly "temporary" arrangement for almost half a century. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Just found another great source [9]:
  • "Although the basic philosophy behind the law of military occupation is that it is a temporary situation modem occupations have well demonstrated that rien ne dure comme le provisoire A significant number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than two decades such as the occupations of Namibia by South Africa and of East Timor by Indonesia as well as the ongoing occupations of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the longest in all occupation's history has already entered its fifth decade."
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The Kuril Islands dispute is still not resolved: "The San Francisco Peace Treaty [1] with Japan from 1951 states that Japan must give up all claims to the Kuril islands,[2] but it also does not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over the Kuril Islands.[3] Furthermore, Japan currently claims that at least some of the disputed islands are not a part of the Kuril Islands, and thus are not covered by the treaty." Ykantor (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sources that discuss the Kurils probably don't discuss the occupation of Palestine, so the Kurils are irrelevant here. Most sources that discuss Tibet probably don't discuss the occupation of Palestine either, so Tibet is likewise irrelevant here. Most sources seem to simply say this is the longest occupation. By saying "is considered to be" we leave open that it may not be so considered by everyone, and do it in a compact way that doesn't include excessive trivia about this minor point. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Ykantor, please could you respond directly to three points you keep avoiding: (1) none of the situations you have raised are under military occupation - the word "military" is crucial here, (2) the populations of all of the examples you raise are citizens of the controlling power (Tibetans are Chinese citizens and Kuriles are Russian citizens), and (3) the credentials of the sources brought to support the proposal here are all high quality. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
More sources: (1) Perry Anderson: [10] "longest official military occupation of modern history—currently entering its thirty-fifth year" (in 2001); (2) Saree Makdisi: [11] "longest-lasting military occupation of the modern age"; (3) Lisa Hajjar: [12] "longest in modern history"; (4) Edward Said: [13] "These are settlements and a military occupation that is the longest in the twentieth and twenty-first century, the longest formerly being the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945. So this is thirty-three years old, pushing the record." Oncenawhile (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
to Oncenawhile: Your points 1,2,3 are correct. How can we convey the right information into the article? I am not sure that the "occupied" status of an occupied territory is canceled at the moment of annexing it by the occupying power. E.g. China annexed Tibet, but on 1961, the U.N resolution 1723 said "this events violates...the principle of self determination of people and nations' [14]. That means that after the Chinese occupation and annexation, The U.N indicated that the Tibetian people are occupied.
-In my opinion, the article should state that there are other occupied populations and for longer terms, but those other cases are "enjoying" "ordinary occupation" rather than military occupation.
- Territory: Gaza is not occupied. The west bank population is under partial autonomy. Ykantor (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose comment with footnote

In view of comments by Oncenawhile I propose the use of a simple comment as proposed above but with the addition of an explanatory Template:Efn footnote. The case re Palestine-Israel is different in that Israel presents a democracy in which Arabs are not allowed to vote by the Tibet-China situation is different in that China does not allow any general member of the population to vote. I think that NPOV can be satisfied in the inclusion of the comment based on sources but that comment is best qualified with additional information to provide context. GregKaye 09:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that the assertion that "Arabs are not allowed to vote" in Israel is downright wrong. All citizens can vote. There are Arab political parties and Arab MPs. I think what Greg meant above is that most Arabs in the occupied territories cannot vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli citizens. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure the Arabs in the disputed territories can vote, in 2006 they even gave a terror organization a majority in their parliament. Could such a thing happen under military occupation ?“WarKosign” 12:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding GregKaye's original statement at the top, please note all citizens can vote in Israel. Inside the 1967 Israeli borders, both Jewish and Arab residents are allowed to become citizens. In the Israeli-occupied territories, Jewish residents ARE allowed to become citizens of Israel, and Arab residents are NOT allowed to become citizens of Israel. All residents in Tibet are allowed to become citizens of China, and all citizens of China can vote, but China's elections leave a lot to be desired in terms of democratic freedom. While I think you are misstating the problem a bit, the explanatory Template:Efn footnote sounds workable to me. The footnote might say something like “The international community (including the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the International Criminal Court, and the vast majority of international human rights organizations) consider Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The government of Israel and some of its supporters have, at times, disputed this position of the international community. See Wikipedia’s details on International views on the Israeli-occupied territories for more information.”Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you consider the disputed territories part of Israel ? You can claim that either the territories are under Israel's occupation or that they are part of Israel; don't use both contradictory claims in the same argument. If the territories are a part of Israel there can be no occupation (maybe there is discrimination, but it's a different issue). If the territories are not a part of Israel, obviously the residents are not allowed to vote in Israel's election; they can (and occasionally do) hold elections of their own.“WarKosign” 17:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign To clarify what has been said by Gouncbeatduke, so that the issue is not riddled with confusion:

  • Comments above which are using Tibet's situation as comparison are not aware of the difference in situation between the two. That is what is being highlighted here.
  • Tibetan are allowed to become citizens of china and all citizens of China can vote
  • The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not afforded the same privilege. This point was not made to highlight any point other than to say a comparison is not possible.
  • No country in the world disputes the sovereignty of China over Tibet, as opposed to;
  • Countries, international bodies (UN), human rights organisations, regional bodies (EU) and the international criminal court consider Israel to be occupying.
  • Points above which may have attempted to link the ability of jewish residents to seek citizenship, and the inability of the occupied people to do the same, to discrimination are not valid.
  • This is not an issue of discrimination. Jewish residents living is settlements within occupied territories are allowed citizenship. These settlements are built against international law anyway so the issue is more complex than the one being suggested of discrimination.

In light of this could I request another proposed wording to be made. Mbcap (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said Mbcap. I suggest the following sentence be added to end of the second intro paragraph.
"Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times." [“The majority of the international community (including the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the International Criminal Court, and the vast majority of human rights organizations) considers Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The government of Israel and some supporters have, at times, disputed this position of the international community. See Wikipedia’s details on Israeli-occupied_territories#International_views for more information.”]
The note would include: “The majority of the international community (including the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the International Criminal Court, and the vast majority of human rights organizations) considers Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The government of Israel and some supporters have, at times, disputed this position of the international community. See Wikipedia’s details at International views on the Israeli-occupied territories for more information.”
Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That is acceptable and also well balanced with the note. Does anyone have any objections? Mbcap (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I support that as well. --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I would support this solution. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke: There is agreement from 3 other editors and no objections have been raised so far. Please feel free to edit the lead in line with what we have discussed. Mbcap (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Make that four also adding my support. There is ambiguity in the claim regarding occupation and I think that the footnote clarifies this well. GregKaye 11:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Do you have reliable sources that say that this is the longest military occupation in modern times or are you just looking at the date and declaring other long standing Military occupations before modern times? Seems like synth and undue weight. Wikipedia isn't here to lobby against Israel for the Palestinians or Vice versa.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello -Serialjoepsycho-, this reply is out of order. My apologies. Just wanted to say that you should really take head and follow your own advice. Also I think you may need to test out your faculties, especially memory, vision and frontaspatial function. For us to discuss this issue at such a length and for you to come and make an off the cuff remark about just looking at the date is honestly deserving of disgust. Please read the discussion before making ignorant comments. Mbcap (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

:No need for a test of my faculties. They are working just fine. I did not read half of the above when it started to seem like a partisan pissing contest.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap The above discussion has been largely WP:CIVIL. There is no need to comment on your judgements regarding another editor's cognitive abilities. I would further like to remind you that you had previously agreed to argue the argument and not the person.
-Serialjoepsycho- If you want to accuse Wikipedia editors of adopting partisan views then you should substantiate your claim. GregKaye 11:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of deference for you GregKaye, I will withdraw my comment. Mbcap (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
[Comment above moved from within my edit. Its a minor point here but my edits are mine. GregKaye 19:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)]

-Serialjoepsycho- Yes, the reference has now been added. These are some among others:

Mbcap (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

reference list

Undoing no consensus editing

How come that a discussed sentence with no consensus is inserted into the article? were is the supposed good faith editing?

- this text has a factual mistake - Gaza is not occupied.

- East Jerusalem is annexed to Israel. You can not claim that Tibet Military occupation expired when annexed , but did not expired for east Jerusalem. You can't agree and disagree in the same time.

- The West bank is occupied, but there is a partial autonomy. Ignoring the autonomy is a clear wp:pov.

- note 2 has unsupported claims that should be supported or being erased.

- source no. 25 - Alexandrowicz, Ra'anan is not a source, since this is an opinion and not a newspaper report.

-I am not sure that the "occupied" status of an occupied territory is canceled at the moment of annexing it by the occupying power. E.g. China annexed Tibet, but on 1961, the U.N resolution 1723 said "this events violates...the principle of self determination of people and nations' [15]. That means that after the Chinese occupation and annexation, The U.N indicated that the Tibetian people are still occupied.

-In my opinion, the article should state that there are other occupied populations and for longer terms, but those other cases are "enjoying" "ordinary occupation" rather than military occupation.

- I revert this bad edit. Ykantor (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, I have reverted your edit. The statement was well sourced and deliberated over since the 18th of December. We finally reached concensus and the sources were so strong you would have to have an above average disposition towards psychosis to object. That is just an example to demonstrate how far your statement "factual mistake" is to reality. If an editor makes a contribution in good faith and with credible sources, you discuss first then edit. The above editors spent a long time collecting sources and editing them in appropriatley, together with the footnote. They also spent a considerable amount of time discussing the issue with you despite there being enough evidence to merit inclusion. Your revert shows the utter disregard you have for the hard work that was done. If this is repeated again despite concensus on the issue, I will personally take you to ANI. A point to take not of is, everyone is aware of your circular arguments. I hope you are able to entertain yourself as I will certainly not be giving any consideration to the above points. We have covered them in exeptional detail. Which is why I mentioned, I think you are either possibly psychotic or a paid pro-zionist pusher. Definatley one or the other. Mbcap (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

: to Mbcap:You are encouraged to complain since it seems that you do not bother to refer to this edit problems, e.g Gaza is not occupied. Ykantor (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

- Gaza is not occupied. sources:
  1. "Is Gaza Occupied?- Redefining the Legal Status of Gaza", by Elizabeth Samson: " Although Israel’s loss of “effective control” over Gaza is legally sufficient to indicate that the occupation of the territory has ended, there has been a reluctance on the part of the international community to accept the change in status. While it is not legally necessary to obtain international recognition of Israel’s position, it is politically important for the absence of occupation to be acknowledged by international legal experts so that Israel would not be held to the more stringent legal requirements of an occupier and to lend greater legitimacy to Israel’s acts of self-defense". Also [16]
  2. Tel Aviv University, [TAU, Law] Eyal Benvenisti: "the so called "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip in 2005", in his article:"[id=174 The Law on the Unilateral Termination of Occupation]"
  3. Solon Solomon, winter 2011 issue of the Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law
  4. Peter Berkowitz,"Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War[Peter Berkowitz (9 April 2012). Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War. Hoover Press. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-0-8179-1436-3.] Ykantor (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ykantor, the article by Elizabeth Samson (who is a lawyer, not an academic) is, as you said of another article above, merely an opinion. Further, as she notes repeatedly in the article, international law still recognises Gaza as being occupied; she is trying to change that: "It is, therefore, imperative that the official legal status of Gaza be changed." This therefore proves exactly the opposite of what you contend; it establishes that, even in the view of someone who does not believe that Gaza is occupied, the international legal status is that it is indeed occupied. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of your second link. This is not, as you imply, by Eyal Benvenisti, but rather an attack on him by a non-reliable advocacy site, and carries no weight at all. I can't open your third link, which is behind a paywall. But it too seems to be an opinion piece, by a former legal adviser to the Knesset Foreign Affairs committee, arguing why international consensus is wrong and should change. And your fourth link is again to an argument, this time by political scientist and Republican politician Peter Berkowitz, that international consensus is wrong and should be changed. The conclusion from all of these links is that, much as you and some commentators may not like it, the consensus under international law is that Gaza is still under Israeli occupation. Unless and until you find a reference in a reliable source asserting that this is not the international legal consensus (not simply one which argues that it should not be the international legal consensus), ythen you cannot assert this in the article. RolandR (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Here are three clear sources confirming the consensus re Gaza:
  • Sanger, Andrew (2011). "The Contemporary Law of Blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla". Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2010. 13. Springer Science & Business Media: 429. ISBN 9789067048118. Israel claims it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip, maintaining that it is neither a Stale nor a territory occupied or controlled by Israel, but rather it has 'sui generis' status. Pursuant to the Disengagement Plan, Israel dismantled all military institutions and settlements in Gaza and there is no longer a permanent Israeli military or civilian presence in the territory. However the Plan also provided that Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip as well as maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border. and reserving the right to reenter Gaza at will.
    Israel continues to control six of Gaza's seven land crossings, its maritime borders and airspace and the movement of goods and persons in and out of the territory. Troops from the Israeli Defence Force regularly enter pans of the territory and/or deploy missile attacks, drones and sonic bombs into Gaza. Israel has declared a no-go buffer zone that stretches deep into Gaza: if Gazans enter this zone they are shot on sight. Gaza is also dependent on israel for inter alia electricity, currency, telephone networks, issuing IDs, and permits to enter and leave the territory. Israel also has sole control of the Palestinian Population Registry through which the Israeli Army regulates who is classified as a Palestinian and who is a Gazan or West Banker. Since 2000 aside from a limited number of exceptions Israel has refused to add people to the Palestinian Population Registry.
    It is this direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza that has led the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, International human rights organisations, US Government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a significant number of legal commentators, to reject the argument that Gaza is no longer occupied.     {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
  • Scobbie, Iain (2012). Elizabeth Wilmshurst (ed.). International Law and the Classification of Conflicts. Oxford University Press. p. 295. ISBN 9780199657759. Even after the accession to power of Hamas, Israel's claim that it no longer occupies Gaza has not been accepted by UN bodies, most States, nor the majority of academic commentators because of its exclusive control of its border with Gaza and crossing points including the effective control it exerted over the Rafah crossing until at least May 2011, its control of Gaza's maritime zones and airspace which constitute what Aronson terms the 'security envelope' around Gaza, as well as its ability to intervene forcibly at will in Gaza.
  • Gawerc, Michelle (2012). Prefiguring Peace: Israeli-Palestinian Peacebuilding Partnerships. Lexington Books. p. 44. ISBN 9780739166109. While Israel withdrew from the immediate territory, Israel still controlled all access to and from Gaza through the border crossings, as well as through the coastline and the airspace. ln addition, Gaza was dependent upon Israel for water electricity sewage communication networks and for its trade (Gisha 2007. Dowty 2008). ln other words, while Israel maintained that its occupation of Gaza ended with its unilateral disengagement Palestinians - as well as many human right organizations and international bodies - argued that Gaza was by all intents and purposes still occupied.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth confining the statement re: occupation to the west bank and golan heights? Perhaps a further note of clarification can be given to the historic situation in Gaza. Before Israeli "withdrawl", was Gaza amongst areas that had been occupied for the longest timespan in midern history? I am dubious about the validity of inclusion of Gaza as an occupied territory on the grounds of NPOV. There seem to be different academic opinions as just being previously mentioned that are brought to bear. GregKaye 12:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

-Sanger says: "maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border. and reserving the right to reenter Gaza at will.", which is a factual lie.

- Scobbie, Iain :" because of its exclusive control of its border with Gaza and crossing points". , which is a factual lie.

- Gawerc, Michelle : "Israel still controlled all access to and from Gaza through the border crossings"., which is a factual lie. also: "Gaza was dependent upon Israel for water electricity sewage communication networks and for its trade" - Instead of thanking Israel that supply electricity to Gaza, although they try to kill us with rockets, he use it as a tool to demonize Israel. Are there some honest people around? Ykantor (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if you think the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005, which is a small minority view and probably WP:FRINGE, the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem is still the longest military occupation in modern times. The sentence is factual and accurate. The occupation of the Golan Heights should probably be added to the sentence for completeness, but then we are likely to get entangled in the whole annexation vs. military occupation argument all over again. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_43&oldid=852835769"