Talk:Israeli law in the West Bank settlements

Quoting Rubenshtein

@Onceinawhile: Did you have access the Rubinshtein article that you cite in the article?-Shrike (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the Hebrew one, rather than the English Hein Online one, sorry but it’s physical only so I can’t send you a link. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:Could you please scan are relevant page also if you cite from foreign source you need to provide a quote and translation.--Shrike (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in the article is cited from that source. The sentence it is hooked to is cited by Sfard. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Found it for you. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: - you modified Rubenstein to 1988 - it should be 1986 (October). Icewhiz (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

1988 is when he published in English (it's what Sfard states). In 1986 Rubinstein wrote "משפט המובלעות". Onceinawhile (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Area A and Area B

What about those who live under Jurisdiction of PA?What laws apply to them?--Shrike (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Israeli military laws and some Palestinians civil laws based on Jordanian laws. Perhaps you can make that the subject of a separate article. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Article title

"Enclave law" is an informal term - always or nearly always scare quoted by sources - as there is no single law but rather a large collection of different measures that apply, extend, or copy portions of Israeli law to apply to areas under the control of the military commander or to place obligations on Israeli residents in the Area.Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See article 11 of Eliezer Rivlin's judgement at [1] - the term is used in judgements of the Supreme Court. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but he uses scare quotes as well.Icewhiz (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The English translation of that judgement is here. "The law is different for Israeli inhabitants of the occupied territories. They are subject to a different legislative element, which is known as ‘the enclave law’ and includes Israeli internal legislation that was applied on a personal basis solely to persons living in the territories that are Israeli citizens or entitled to become Israeli citizens." There are no scare quotes here, but just normal emphasis of the topic under discussion. Incidentally, the part "or entitled to become Israeli citizens" is missing from the article. It is a formula meaning "Jews" often used in military orders (many settlers, especially from the USA, don't take up Israeli citizenship and some are even opposed to the secular Israeli state). Zero^talk 11:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Whomever translated that used 's instead of "s in some places - in a manner different from the original, and was imprecise in other regards - this is a non-legally binding translation. The original quite clearly uses quotes:

1. כאשר מקום העבודה הוא "המובלעות הישראליות" בשטחים.
2. שונה הדין באשר לתושבים הישראלים בשטחים המוחזקים. לגביהם, מתקיים רובד חקיקתי נפרד, המוכר בכינוי "משפט המובלעות", ואשר כולל חקיקה ישראלית פנימית שהוחלה באופן אישי על אזרחים ישראלים או על מי שזכאים להיות אזרחים ישראלים ומתגוררים בשטחים בלבד (ראו שם).

Not only is this scare quoted, the judge saw fit to prefix this with "המוכר בכינוי" - known by כינוי - which isn't quite a nickname (which is the direct Hebrew to English translation for this) - it is somewhat "softer" than a nickname - but it is a substitute name based on characteristics which is not the original name. Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no difference between the two types of quotation marks. Whether quotes are "scare quotes" depends on the context of their usage, not on the choice of lexical element. Actually your comment confirms that there are no scare quotes here and that the judges are telling us that they are discussing a system of law called "enclave law". (That's not a use of scare quotes either.) If it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. Zero^talk 00:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not judges in plural, one judge - Rivlin. The Hebrew is quite clear that this is an informal nickname - scare quoted - as it is in other sources.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Nobody ever said it was a formal name (whatever that would mean), and I don't think you understand the concept of scare quotes. Zero^talk 10:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Original Research

Per WP:OR the source should explicitly mention the enclave law i.e "directly related to the topic of the article".--Shrike (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike: the source uses the term - its usage is quoted word-for-word in the article already, with the term "enclave law" just 20 words prior to the tag you just added! Onceinawhile (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't found this in the SA source.Please point where it is and I remove the tag.--Shrike (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

page 108. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I cannot access this document now but WP:AGF that what you say is true. --Shrike (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE sources

These sources are clearly WP:UNDUE there written by non-academics in not academic publishing house.And if Gorali not notable enough it should be removed. Till those problems are resolved pov tag should stay. --Shrike (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Halper and Cook are definitely UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This makes no sense. @Shrike: your first sentence is an argument for WP:RSN. Feel free to take it there, if you think these are non-reliable sources. I assume you will not, because they obviously are.

As to “undue”, this apartheid comparison was made by a respected analyst in a respected newspaper, and then repeated in two widely published books. Please can you explain how exactly you consider “undue” applies to this? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Again not every opinion published in the book should be included --Shrike (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. But one in three separate WP:RS on what is itself a niche subject, obviously should be. If you can’t mount a serious argument, you are wasting your time here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

When these sources are published by "Pluto Press - Independent, Radical Publishing" and "Zed Books is a platform for marginalised voices" - one has a rather clear WP:BIASED issue. These wouldn't be considered anything close to academic level sourcing. You actually do have some good sources (e.g. the ACRI report (a tad of advocacy and primaryishness - but still a notable organization) and some academic sources) - there's no need to introduce some polemics. Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

They are there simply to show that Gorali’s usage became notable enough to be published in two WP:RS. If you think they are not WP:RS, please provide your analysis or take it or RSN.

Since you have avoided this so far, I assume you concur that they are WP:RS, at least for the sentence they are being used to cite. So the aspersions you are casting are irrelevant.

I get that you “don’t like” the apartheid reference (you said as much at the DYK), but not liking something is not a reason to hide sources from a reader. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

They WP:RS for what Gorali said i.e they not falsified his words.But being published in some fringe publishing house doesn't give them enough WP:DUE weight to be used in the article. --Shrike (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither source is remotely a RS for law or geopolitics. They are RSes for their opinions and possibly for quoting Gorali. Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So we are agreed. So what is the objection to keeping them in when they are simply attached to the Gorali statement? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Because there are bad sources as it was prooven and they add nothing so they should be removed --Shrike (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

”Bad sources” is not a policy-based argument. Without a clear policy-argument, your comment will be ignored. Wikipedia is not about votes. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, please explain how the existance of these two sources – which you have accepted are WP:RS for the statement they are supporting – purportedly makes the entire article POV, per your tag addition at [2]. In the absence of this, the tag will be removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It was already explained to you why the problem with the sources. Shrike (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not recollect any points being made which have not already been disproven. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No support has been provided in this thread for the article POV tag. No claim has been made that the article is POV. I will wait a little longer, and in the absence of any evidence I will remove the tag. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources is not WP:RS for geopalitics and law if there are gain consensus for it per WP:ONUS --Shrike (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

So what? That’s not relevant as it’s not being used in that way. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Benvenisti

@Icewhiz: re [3], ACRI are clear that this is the same subject. The text itself is clear that this is the same subject. SYNTH requires a different conclusion, but there is nothing different about Benvenisti’s position. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, this article is not just about Rubinstein’s term, but the concept which has been used in multiple Israeli court cases and legal papers. Benvenisti is a key scholar in this field, as Michael Karayanni’s paper shows:[4]

In terms of their legal identity, the settlements were excluded from the rest of the territories,72 [Source Benvenisti] and today are generally considered to be "Israeli enclaves" for choice of law purposes.73 This was facilitated by piecemeal military orders under which the law of the State of Israel either applied with respect to the territorial jurisdiction, which designated the settlements as local Israeli municipal authorities, or by having Israeli law apply on a personal basis to Israeli citizens whose regular place of residence is in the PT. So, without changing the legal status of the PT or that of the indigenous Palestinian population, the status of Israeli settlers in the PT was, in effect, equalized with that of other Israelis, while not formally annexing the settlements to Israel.74

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yet Benvenisti does not use the term, nor does ACRI (or Karayanni above) clearly tie him in. I actually agree Benvenisti's and Rubenstein's positions are similar, however that could be better explored in a wider article on Law in the West Bank (or parts thereof - e.g. Israeli settlements, or perhaps area C) - as opposed to this article which is specific to a very specific term that most sources scare quote (including Karayanni above) - which is a rather big red flag (showing this to be perhaps catchy jargon - but not precise terminology).Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have a strange idea of what scare quotes are. Karayanni uses quotation marks to indicate that he is following a common usage, which is the opposite of what scare quotes are used for. Zero^talk 11:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The topic of the article should be mentioned explicitly per WP:OR --Shrike (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing the topic of the article with the name of the article. Zero^talk 11:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not confusing anything.We can't says that sources discussing the enclave law without mentioned the term because it would constitute WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How can it be OR if all the sources explicitly discuss them as the same topic?! Either your understanding of OR is incorrect, or you are filibustering. Or both. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Do they use the term "enclave law"?--06:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz and Shrike: now that we have established that the topic of this article is the concept, not the terminology, do you propose to continue to object to including Benvenisti's views on the topic? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike: please could you respond to the above – now that the topic of the article has been clarified, do you continue to object to the inclusion of Benvenisti’s views? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If the topic is law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank, thwn the title should change. The scope of this article is currently ill defined.Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The topic, in long form, is "Israeli civil law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank". If you have a better title than the current, please propose it. I believe "Enclave law" is the common name for this relatively niche topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It is wider than just civil (and regardless most recent Israeli civil law is uncivil in that there is criminal liability (and penalties - e.g. X years in jail for failing to comply with Y)). I would suggest Law in Israeli settlements which would allow us to introduce any source covering law in Israeli settlements.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to create an article with the wider scope you describe. This article has a narrower scope. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

US origin?

US law journals, especially old ones, have lots of articles about "enclave law" as a mechanism by which US federal law was (is?) applied in Indian reservations, rather than the law of the state the reservation is within. It isn't exactly the same, but very similar. So I wonder if the principle, or even just the name, was borrowed into the Israeli context. Zero^talk 11:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the topic you are referring to Federal enclave? Interesting, may well be connected. The difference here is that the Israeli laws effectively translate state laws from one to another, rather than a central framework. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I added a disambig at the top of the article to Federal enclave due to this use (in English - most "enclave law" hits (e.g. google books) go to the US context). The evolution of Israeli legislation (and copy pastes by military commanders) is actually quite different in terms of the mechanism and evolution - however Rubenstein may have been drawing on previous US nomenclature (or not).Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright and court decisions

Following the addition of the court quotes, @Shrike: added a tag with the edit note "There is a lot of quotes right now also this could be potentially a copyvio violation".[5]

I am pleased to confirm that Israeli court records are public domain:[6]

copyright shall not subsist in statutes, regulations, Knesset Protocols and judicial decisions of the courts or of any other government entities having judicial authority according to law.

I will remove the tag.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The quotes are excessive in length.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now cut them down, to just one or two sentences each. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please be specific. Or better, be bold, and cut them down as you see fit so we can discuss. I cannot do anything to fix hand waving. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on you I think this material should be removed entirely.I don't agree with ICEWIZ that ACRI is home how good source.--Shrike (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. WP:ONUS applies to WP:V only, and no one has claimed a WP:V issue here.

Your second sentence doesn’t make sense. Please rewrite it. And remember, if you don’t explain your rationale with policy-based argument, your view will be ignored. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Again if you want to retain the information its your responsibility to conform it to our policies. --Shrike (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct - I have done exactly that. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. Unless you do so, there is no reason for the tag to stay. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I will wait a little longer. If no policy-based evidence is presented to support the quotes tag, I will remove it. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You did not cut down enough you should summarize what secondary sources write not quote primary sources per WP:NPOV and WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't understand those policies. The court quotes I have put in are all published in secondary sources; they are entirely within policy. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

There were but it doesn't mean we should include so many quotes--Shrike (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. I don’t think the number we have is unreasonable for the size of this article. What do you have in mind? The tag you added links to WP:LONGQUOTE. It suggests putting some quotes into the footnote to make the article more readable. I will do that. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This issue seems to be solved.--Shrike (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ageel, Ghada book

I didn't found the term "enclave law" appears in the book [7] if it really doesn't appear the source should be removed --Shrike (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This source has already been discussed above. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please point me to relevant discussion --Shrike (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Look at page 236 of Ageel's book. Immediately after the words "legal analyst for Haaretz" she quotes Gorali. This quote is exactly the same Haaretz quote being referenced in the sentence to which the ref is hooked to. You can see that quote in footnote 17 in our article. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Page 236 is omitted from book preview could you please send me a screenshot. --Shrike (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That would infringe copyright. Try googling "Gorali, the legal analyst for Haaretz: Chief" in inverted commas - it should come up. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This would not See WP:RX.Anyhow I found the relevant page via amazon preview the encalve law doesn't appear in the book.So the source is WP:OR --Shrike (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That line argument is the opposite of what policy requires us to do (see below).

Not only is the topic the exact same one, but, as you have now seen, even the particular Haaretz article paragraph being commented on is the same!

Even if we put all that aside, the source is being used to state that Gorali is a “Haaretz legal analyst”. In what universe is that “original research”?

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In the world of Wikipedia that WP:OR policy per" that are directly related to the topic of the article," as the topic of the article is not even mentioned that is WP:OR.Also see recently closed RFC on this matter Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_62#Rfc_on_How_we_interpret_"published_sources_that_are_directly_related_to_the_topic_of_the_article" --Shrike (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. So, to demonstrate that this is directly related, note that Ageel quotes Gorali in the source as follows: “To describe a situation where two populations, in this case one Jewish and the other Arab, share the same territory but are governed by two separate legal systems, the international community customarily uses the term "apartheid.""

The underlined clause is the exact topic of this article.

If you aren’t convinced, you just have to go to the underlying reference in Ageel’s book (i.e. Gorali’s original article), where Gorali’s next sentence, explaining the previous, is: “Prof. Amnon Rubinstein has coined an alternative phrase, "enclave-based justice.””

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Israel does not claim these territories. Your analogy is simply polemics with no legal theory behind it.

The Israeli settlements are legally more similar to American overseas military bases which often house civilians.

Note that depending on the Status of forces agreement an American overseas military bases may fall under American law.

In the case of Israel the Oslo Accords act as a Status of forces agreement.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The topic here pretty narrow one a enclave law neologism if the topic is not mention the source should be removed.Also its incorrect as if Israeli Arab that learns in Ariel University violating speed limit for example, the law still applies to him so its the same law for Jews and Arabs --Shrike (talk)

@Shrike: our policy on this says the exact opposite (see thread below). Policy states that we MUST use sources that do not use the term, so as to maintain an article that gives a balanced view on the concept. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

No, policy says we must (if we actually do not delete the article) use sources that mention the term - as opposed to sources who use the term. It does not mean we do OR and guess that what someone is discussing somehow falls under the purview of the NEO.Icewhiz (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You should have discussed here before attacking the article. If you wish to propose deleting this article, please do so. You will be wasting everyone's time. As to sources that mention the term enclave, let's centralize this discussion in the new thread below. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

IDF journal

The terminology is even found in the IDF’s military journals, see for example:[8][9]

בכך הרחיב המחוקק בצורה עקיפה את תחולת האיסור הקבוע בחוק על האזורים. זאת ועוד, בעבר הוחלו הוראות חוק ישראליות שונות, דרכה של תחיקת הביטחון החלה באזורים, בשטחן של הרשויות המקומיות הישראליות באזורים )החלה זו יצרה את התופעה המכונה "משפט המובלעות"(. יודגש כי החוקים הישראליים שהוחלו בדרך זו הינם בעלי צביון פרסונלי מובהק )דוגמת נושאי חינוך, רווחה, בריאות, עבודה, מעמד אישי וכיו"ב

עניינים( ולא בעלי צביון טריטוריאלי-קרקעי.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a journal that's mostly independent - and the topic is right up its alley. Never the less, it is a brief mention in parenthesis, saying this is a phenomena that is called "enclave law". Icewhiz (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Aren’t some of the editorial board in the military?

I liked the use of the description of the topic as a “phenomenon” – it’s consistent with the fact that this article is about the phenomenon, not its specific name or terminology. I hope we can now do away with the notion that every source must have the word “enclave” in it in order for it to qualify for use in this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

They have an advisory board mainly composed of academia and senior civilian judiciary. Many of the writers are JAG. Many writer(s in other journals are employed by other employers as well. The "enclave X" is an informal nickname for aspects of a wider phenomenon - sure - though varying a bit by writer/user (e.g. inclusion of criminal and other personal legislation (e.g. tax code applicability to Israeli citizens/residents if they reside in the Area)). As this is informal and varying per user, as long as we don't have a closed form technical name - requiring enclave to appear in the source should not be dropped. Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "varying per user... we don't have a closed form technical name" and under what Wikipedia policy that is relevant? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Differing users of the WP:NEOlogism include different elements. It seems, per my reading of the sources, that the minimal included set is copy-pasted laws to military ordinances that were applied to certain territories (settlements) under the jurisdiction of the military commander. Wider sets include laws that are applied on a personal basis (not territorial) to Israeli citizens (and (usually/always) residents) in the Area. As for policy - if the article is on a WP:NEOlogism, it would be SYNTH/OR to consider sources that do not address the neologism.Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you raised that policy. Please note that it states: “To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction).”

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You are misreading the policy. Please read Use–mention distinction referred to in what you are citing. On articles on WP:NEOs - we also use sources that do not use the term themselves, but mention the term in some context. (note the policy also says we also typically delete or merge articles on NEOs - which may be where this article ends up if it continues to be on a NEO).Icewhiz (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

To summarize, your argument seems to be "we must delete all sources about the concept, so that the article becomes just about a specific term, and articles about terms should be deleted." Wow. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As long as this article is about "Enclave Law", sources used should be clearly tied to "enclave law" - this is really basic policy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This article has never been about the terminology. As previously stated in the first sentence, prior to your removal of it, it is about "Israeli civil law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank", for which "Enclave law" is an exact (and more concise) synonym. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Concept vs terminology - source dispute

I created this article two weeks ago to focus on the interesting concept of the application of Israeli civil law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank. It is a topic which has found significant scholarly coverage, but is politically sensitive so needs careful treatment.

I chose the name "Enclave law" for the article, because per WP:TITLE, it is precise, concise, and I believe the most common name. However, not all scholars who have written on this subject use the term.

Two editors, in the discussions above, have taken the view that this article can ONLY contain sources which use the word "enclave" (see the full version of the article here before this morning's removal of all sources excluding the word enclave.) These editors appear to want this article to be about terminology, rather than about the concept, which is explicitly discouraged by WP:NAD: "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by."

There is of course no policy which says that sources in an article must include the exact terms used in the title of the article. WP:NAD says the opposite. Numerous concepts are known by different terms.

One solution is to change the name of the article from "Enclave law" to "Israeli civil law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank", which would remove any concept vs terminology confusion.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This is only a useful article if it is about the concept. The concept is clearly enough defined that no original research is needed to identify sources that discuss the concept without using the same title that we do. There is not a single syllable of policy which specifies that our title must also be used by a source. Change the title if you like, but stop flogging this dead horse. It has gotten beyond ridiculous. Zero^talk 09:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Zero0000: thank you. Would you mind clarifying what you agree with / disagree with in my post? I worry that the aim of your post may not be clear to previously uninvolved editors (I have invited editors on numerous Wikiproject boards). Onceinawhile (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the application of Israeli domestic law to the West Bank settlements (and more generally to Israelis and Jews in the West Bank, where that is done). The phrase "enclave law" is relevant to the article but not the topic of the article. It is simply absurd and not based on any policy or guideline to assert that a source which doesn't contain the phrase "enclave law" is off-topic. Zero^talk 04:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That exactly what Icewiz propose to re-scope the article and Onceinawhile oppose --Shrike (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Re-titling to Law in Israeli settlements (or similar) would make the title of the article match what some editors propose to be the subject of the article. "Enclave law" (or "law of the Enclaves") -- a WP:NEO - has a much more limited scope, and does not refer to all applications of Israeli law to the settlements (e.g. recent proposals that amount to a de-facto annexation (copying all domestic law) are not "enclave law" - as from an Israeli legal standpoint they would create a legal equivalence between the settlements and Israel. The current situation is described by some (but not all) as "enclave law" since the law in the settlements in unique - different from the rest of the West Bank - but also different from Israel - requiring separate legal analysis and precedents).Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

How can the horse be dead if the article is only two weeks old? :) I think the topic of the article, the complex and interesting legal status of the Israeli settlements, is worth a detailed exposition. For example, the "Plastic bag law" brought on a legal conundrum in Israel on whether this law would apply to the settlements or not. But the article name isn't clear imo. "Israeli settlement law", "Law in the Israeli settlements" or something like that would be more accurate. I also think Shrike and Icewhiz need to stop removing large swaths of text from the page and instead discuss it on this talk page... ImTheIP (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. One quick correction - the topic of the article is not as broad as “Law in the Israeli settlements”. It is just one specific component of that, the application of Israeli-domestic law into the settlements. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Renaming the article to Law in Israeli settlements - a topic presently missing on Wikipedia - would rectify much of the rather serious OR/SYNTH issues - and allow us to use wider sources. Regardless, introducing Haaretz opinion pieces (who do not mention the term, and who advocate against legislation) is a no go.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Then start that article or propose a rename. Your argument is confused and nonsensical. By suggesting that a rename would remove OR, you are admitting that there is no OR here. Because OR simply isn’t directly impacted by the name of an article. The scope of this article was clear from the old first sentence, which you mutilated in your deletions today.

As to Haaretz, that ref is a lead editorial, and was in line attributed. A major newspaper’s lead editorial is highly notable and clearly RS for itself. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"Annexation" or "creeping annexation" of settlements is a distinct and separate topic from "enclave law". The forner would apply all (or essentially all) Israeli law in settlements while the latter is a rather extraordinary mixed legal system of Jordanian, Israeli military, and Israeli law. Both could be discussed in an article on law in the settlements - but in the present article - using sources on annexation is beyond just OR/SYNTH simply factually incorrect and highly misleading - and much of the removals were these.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources you removed were all discussing Israeli civil law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank. Israeli civil law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank is the topic of this article. We follow the sources, full stop. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Please also avoid blanket reverts - I provided a very detailed rationale for each of my edits - reverting all of them with the 4 word rationale "revert undiscussed major changes" is rather rude, a WP:OWN issue (did Onceinawhile discuss each of their own "major changes" - e.g. offtopic editorials and stating in an unsourced (or miscited) manner that the term was used numerous times by thd courts), and beyond that simply not conductive to reaching a compromise here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This comment is deeply misleading. I made talk page comments on these issues a week ago. You did not respond, leaving the comments unanswered for a week, before swooping in here to delete huge swathes of text with rationales which had already been refuted. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been off wiki. I did respond. You did not acheive consensus and have refuted nothing. If this article is kb "enclave law" - stick to sources that use or mention the term. Introducing misrepresentations (e.g. numerous court rulings using enclave - not present in the ACRI report it was citing). Please refrain from reintroducing disputed content until there is consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

All the more reason why you should have come to the talk page first. Your behavior has been tendentious - trying to change the scope of the article and then advocating for its deletion because of the reduced scope. I am minded to take your behavior to the admins. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

While I do think scope should be wider, removing additions that fail verification and misrepresent the sources they miscite is not tendentious - introducing such content - is in fact a serious issue. Please achieve consensus prior to reintroducing material - addressing challenged material item by item would be a good start - e.g. present a quote from the ACRI report for diff - I did not see this in the report, and my OR on court rulings would be a handful of clerks for a handful of judges mentioning this mainly in the background section of a handful of judgements.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

With every post you propose to move the goalposts. With big words about verification and misrepresentation, you can only come up with one possible example, which is then easily disproven (see new thread below).

As to the rest of your deletions, your admission that in your mind they would be fine if the article title was different negates their removal. The right process is to add them back and then have a page move discussion (please do not change the page name without consensus, and do not propose a move without returning the scope to its previous form). Onceinawhile (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

What is on topic in one article is off topic in another. And no - promoting an Haaretz editorial (not mentioned by others) is scraping the bottom of the barrel - and should not be in regardless.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I see your previous argument of WP:OR has been replaced by "off-topic". That is very different. Either way, all the text you removed is directly on topic, because this article is about a concept, not about terminology. See WP:NAD. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

How is annexation even the same concept as this? Why is it necessary to deliberately confuse readers. Who cares about something that never passed the Knesset two weeks ago?Jonney2000 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Jonney, you just embarrassed yourself. The answer to your question is plainly visible in many of the sources that you personally edit warred out of the article earlier today. To pick just one example, a quote from Haaretz “Alongside attempts at annexation, the cabinet and the Knesset have taken steps to apply Israeli law to the settlements and to improve the settlers’ living conditions. The opposition calls this “creeping annexation.””

You’ll note this term wasn’t used in Wikipedia’s voice in what you deleted. It was used only once, and only in a quote. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Although far from an expert in this area, I agree with Icewhiz that it would be best to avoid citing editorials, per WP:RSOPINION; surely there must be better sources for fact. Also, I would support rescoping the article to Law in Israeli settlements as proposed above, to avoid any confusion about OR and terminology. Catrìona (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Catrìona:, please note that this was a quote, not a statement of fact. The article text in question begins "In June 2018, Israeli newspaper Haaretz described the continued application of Knesset laws to West Bank settlements...". Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

I propose the article is renamed to "Israeli law in the West Bank settlements" Would such a renaming be satisfactory to everyone involved and would it put the content disputes to rest? ImTheIP (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC) @Onceinawhile: Can you list what your objections to a proposed rename are? I've read the discussion above and I don't see it.. ImTheIP (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I do think Law in Israeli settlements is more concise and precise (in respect to non-Israeli laws, e.g. Jordanian, also in effect).Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Icewhiz. Catrìona (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support: It is more descriptive. I have to apologize in advance if my support will attract users that are harassing me with WP:AE reports and following me around to vote the opposite just because I went in that direction. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as an accurate description of this article, although I think the current title "Enclave law" is more concise and precise with respect to the scope of this article. Since there are no objectors in the two weeks since this thread was begun, I am going to move the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Court references

@Icewhiz: The text you removed said “The concept has been described numerous times in Israeli courts.”

The ACRI report citation which you removed covers this in detail in the sourced pages. See excerpts below:

The courts in Israel preserve the separation between the legal systems in the West Bank by applying Israeli law to settlers whenever they deem it possible. They do so not only when the law requires it, but even when the law grants them discretion, and sometimes even extend the applicability of Israeli law to settlers on their own initiative. The courts regard the settlements in the territories as an “Israeli island,” to which Israeli law must be applied. The courts' position on this matter is also manifested in the words of Justice Elyakim Rubinstein... With regards to labor disputes between Israelis and Palestinians, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the applying law is Israeli law.... The extended application of Israeli law to settlers and the increased separation between them and the Palestinians living in the occupied territories were further manifested in the Supreme Court's ruling... In a long line of rulings in recent years, the Supreme Court reiterated the rule regarding the application of the Basic Laws to Israelis living in the territories... In conclusion [Note: the section is titled “The Application of Israeli Law to Israelis through Israeli Court Rulings”], over the years a clear distinction has been created between the law applying to Israeli settlers in the West Bank and the Law applying to the Palestinian residents of the area. This was done through the personal application of various provisions of Israeli law to the residents of the settlements.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Does not support the text. You could say based on ACRI, that Israeli courts have chosen frequently to apply Israeli law to Israelis (possibly off topic in present title) - but not that they described "enclave law" in numerous rulings.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what the text says. If I replace the word "concept" with the topic of this article, we get "The application of Israeli law to Israeli settlements in the West Bank has been described numerous times in Israeli courts", which is exactly the same as your proposed text. I await your apology for your nonsense rhetoric about failing verification and misrepresentation. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not say that. I did say the courts have decided (when within their discretion) numerous times to apply Israeli law to Israeli citizens - ACRI supports that (and this is done, BTW, by courts in other countries regarding their nationals). ACRI does not in any way support "the concept has been described numerous times in Israeli courts." - a court decision is not a description of a concept nor grounded legally in this NEO (which has no codified legal basis) - nor have they addressed "enclave law" in most of them. Nor does ACRI say "numerous". Please stick to what the source actually says.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, so this dispute is about semantics. Please propose revised text. The paragraph no longer makes grammatical sense after your edit this morning, so it needs urgent fixing. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Gorali opinion

I suggest removing it.As it factually not true as the law applies to Israeli Arabs as well -- Shrike (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Gorali is UNDUE and is attempting to push a word here - all these laws do indeed apply to Israeli Arabs as well, though my understanding was that Gorali was referring to Palestinian Arabs.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

But he says that Jews and Arabs have different laws which of course it false --Shrike (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In what way is a one-line sentence of 20 words deep in the middle of the article a case of WP:UNDUE ? More like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Shrike's reason is invalid for the reason Icewhiz stated. Shrike knows what Gorali means and if the article doesn't make clear the difference between Arabs who are Israeli citizens and those who are not, that calls for an insertion to make it clear. It doesn't call for a deletion on a pretext. Zero^talk 02:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

One should note that, on a strictly de jure basis, since the criminal equalization of non-Israelis (extending rights under Israeli criminal law to non-Israelis charged in the area - adding additional rights to the rather basic ones in the underlying Jordanian law), that Israelis in the area are (in a strictly de jure basis) discriminated against - being subject to additional taxation and obligations (via Israeli civil law applications) that do not apply to other residents of the Area (and there have been a few attempts by residents of the Area, considered to be Israeli nationals, to claim that such legislation should not apply to them - usually this is rejected by Israeli courts, however in some cases - e.g. this one - this legal claim has met with partial success). Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, what you are saying is not factually correct. According to the Human Rights Watch, Israel applies Israeli civil law to settlers, affording them legal protections, rights, and benefits that are not extended to Palestinians living in the same territory who are subjected to Israeli military law. Israel provides settlers with infrastructure, services, and subsidies that it denies to Palestinians, creating and sustaining a separate and unequal system of law, rules, and services. As an experienced editor, it may have been that you have not read some sources which you may find beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobulls (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement help

Can someone please help me out? I'm trying to report 1l2l3k for violation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction. He undid my edits and then claimed (wrongly) I wasn't involved in the talk page. Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Gobulls (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward

@Icewhiz: now that we have reached an agreement on the name of the article, we should get on with progressing it into full coverage of the topic. If you have time, perhaps you could also create the Law in Israeli settlements article as a "parent article" to this one - your knowledge there would be valuable.

As to the content of the disputed 5kb edit, I believe that your prior objections related to the name of the article. Could you confirm if you object to any of that text under the renamed article title? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is still use of WP:UNDUE sources that I explained in previous discussion.Sources by not academics printed in various fringe publishing houses can't be included in the article --Shrike (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike: please be specific. There are a lot of sources in the 5kb edit. Please state explicitly which ones you dispute. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I am talking about the sources we discussed before namely Cook and Halper ---Shrike (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike: Those sources are not in the 5kb edit. They are still in the article. There are two discussion threads above still open on that topic - #WP:UNDUE_sources and #Gorali_opinion - please comment there. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I actually did make individual edits. Addressing them one at a time -

1. No strong objection - [10] (well - needs to be re-crafted as a title), [11], [12], [13] (though it does need to be updated with the results of the initiative (which did not really progress - IIRC - failed legislation bids in the Knesset are a dime a dozen I'm afraid), [14].
2. Objection - [15] - undue - Haaretz's opinion on the matter really has not place here - there's plenty of higher quality sources on the topic. [16] - This is OR. The section also has to be reworded to reflect that we're no longer describing Enclave law (I think that it should be rewritten in form - this section was an attempt to show "enclave law" use as a term by the supreme court - I think what's really relevant is the judicial decisions themselves - e.g. the Labor law ruling was a landmark cases, the others - not so sure to put it mildly...

I don't know if we need or want two articles here (lets get this one hammered out first... and we'll see. My view of the matter is that the underlying Jordanian strata and the gradual application of Israeli law to persons/territory (e.g the legal situation circa 1970 was very different than what's in place now in 2018) is a gradual on-going process with plenty of grey zones - it's not a binary state (not now, not in 1970)) - non-Israeli law in the West Bank settlements in intertwined in the issue) - but with the re-titling we definitely can introduce a wider array of sources. Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. I have added back the sources to which no strong objection remains. As you say, a little reworking is needed for the new title. On update "with the results of the initiative", do you have a source we can use? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem with sourcing these is that while these legislation attempts (on any subject matter in Israel) are introduced with much fanfare (lots of PR crud from the MKs/ministers promoting them - lots of copy-paste news items from the PR (journalists are lazy) and sometimes bona-fida journalist analysis of the crud) - they tend to (95% of the time) to die quietly in committee or more often on the shelf after the pre-call (טרומי) / gvmt legislation committee / first call (קריאה ראשונה) - and no one bothers to report on this (you can dig up the status on Open Knesset or the Knesset web site - but that's PRIMARY). I would argue that if all we have is media sources from around the legislation initiative (and not those who declare it passed) - then it isn't LASTING. But I'll see what I can do - I would prefer to find an academic source on annexation or quasi-annexation proposals. Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Haaretz and Haaretz

There are just two remaining disagreements, both regarding Haaretz:

• The Gorali "apartheid" quote (still in the article) from a few years ago, referenced by at least two other secondary sources
• The “laundering Israeli reality”[17] Lead Editorial quote from earlier this year

I propose to take these to WP:RSN to decide whether the sources are appropriate, RS or OR.

Would that address the objections which have been raised? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It should be taken to WP:NPOV/N board as those are due issues --Shrike (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Criticism_within_Israeli_law_in_the_West_Bank_settlements. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

In the first case, Moshe Gorali is cited by several secondary sources making his opinion relevant. The second case is just a run-of-the-mill op-ed and not very interesting, imho. But fwiw, extending domestic law to occupied territory is ipso facto a de jure annexation. ImTheIP (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. What do you think of each of the below sources?

• Amir Paz Fuchs; Yael Ronen (9 January 2017). "Integrated or Segregated?". Normalizing Occupation: The Politics of Everyday Life in the West Bank Settlements. Indiana University Press. pp. 177–. ISBN 978-0-253-02505-0. {{cite book}}: External link in |ps= (help); Unknown parameter |ps= ignored (|postscript= suggested) (help)
• UN Special Rapporteur, Report 22 October 2018 page 20
• Jerusalem Post, July 2018, Israeli Gov’t: Knesset purview over West Bank not akin to annexation: “Right-wing politicians have increasingly pushed to apply Israeli law to the West Bank, in what left-wing politicians and the international community has warned is a form of “creeping annexation.””
• Michael Sfard, April 2018, Israel and Annexation by Lawfare, “What the government is embarking on amounts to both de jure annexation and the crime of apartheid. In recent months, the expansion of de jure annexation has been staggering. Lawyers for the Ministry of Justice recently drafted a bill to give the Jerusalem district court, rather than the High Court of Justice (which is a bench of the Supreme Court), the power of judicial review over the military government in the Occupied Territories. This shift away from the High Court represents a move to designate the West Bank as a district within Israel. In addition, the attorney general has directed the government’s legal advisers that when drafting bills, they should take into account the need to find a legal mechanism to apply those bills to Israeli settlers as well.” (note this article is also referenced and quoted in the UN report above)

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't looked on other sources but Sfard source prove once again that he can't be trusted not for facts not for analysis.Someone who read Hebrew could say right away that there is no racist slogan on the car. Also the car is not Palestinian but Israeli according to the color of the license plate .If he can't get this straight , how can we trust him on more important things like interpretation of international and Israeli law? --Shrike (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Apperently Michael Sfard can read Hebrew so the only conclusion that his materials are not trustworthy --Shrike (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The conclusion are (1) that you may not understand how publishing works – illustrating that article was likely the responsibility of an NYB office junior who went to Getty Images as a usually trustworthy source [18]; and (2) that you were not aware of the context – whilst it’s definitely an Israeli number plate (see more photos at [19]) it is likely Palestinian owned (many East Jerusalem Palestinians have Israeli plates) and the “smile, it’s all good” tag is almost certainly meant sarcastically when spraypainted on a car, and the attack was definitely racist, since neighboring cars said “death to arabs”.[20][21] Onceinawhile (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Even if your assume you theory are true(and there is no good reason to do it) he didn't bothered to see his own article and issue a correction so it tells us a lot about trustworthiness of his material --Shrike (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I edited my last post when you posted. I added two right-wing Israeli news sources which confirm the attack was racist. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I see nothing wrong with any of those sources. My main objection was the usage of an op-ed, but there are certainly many scholarly sources that label Israel's extension of its law into the West Bank as a "creeping legal annexation". In fact, it is hard to argue otherwise since previously Israel has declared occupied territory annexed by declaring that it has jurisdiction over that territory. ImTheIP (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to see published academic work - and not op-eds by activist lawyers (when such lawyers publish academically - it is a different matter). The problem with many in the batch above (opinions and new roundups) and that they refer (and rail against) to particular legislation/regulations - and use hyperbolic terms to refer to the consequences (let put it this way.... If every law declared tantamount to annexation by a heated oped (at the time) was factually so - we wouldn't be talking about "enclave law" but simply normal Israeli law in the West Bank, and the West Bank would've been de-facto annexed multiple times over - but we're not there - we're still warning of future dangers), as well as framing the arguments/situation in regards to the pressing issue de-jure as opposed to the overall situation. Op-eds (and even serious position papers) dealing with a hypothetical future situation under proposed (or in-process) legislation/regulation are much weaker than sources written on the situation overall after these have passed. Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think there is much in the way of scholarly research on this yet, as the most significant changes took place at the beginning of this year.

If we were only allowed to use scholarly sources, two thirds of wikipedia would need to be deleted overnight. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

One more source:

• Omar Dajani, Israel's Creeping Annexation, AJIL Unbound; Washington Vol. 111, (2017): 51-56. DOI:10.1017/aju.2017.21

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed this undiscussed removal from a few days ago.

Rather than having individual quotes, I will redraft in a more general manner incorporating the highest quality of the sources above, and a number of additional ones. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest to present it in talk first so we could check it for WP:NPOV concern--Shrike (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The "undiscussed" removal had an undue weight tag which seemed appropriate. So the reworking of that material would need to address that concern. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 15:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

It says " Area C of the West Bank, a Palestinian territory " which is false. Palestine claims Area C as theirs, but they have never held sovereignty over it, it should say disputed territory. More Israeli Jews live in Area C than Arabs.

As per Oslo Accords Area A and B are part of the Palestinian Authority, but not Area C. First palestinian rule over any land.

For example Gush Etzion was built before 1948, and is in Area C, always owned by Jews even before the illegal Jordanian Occupation. Israel was established without borders, and a war was made at independence by Arab nations, therefore Israel never had a chance to impose sovereignty. If not for the Jordanian illegal occupation and annexation, Israel would have inherited the borders of the British Mandate as per international law.

The 1949 Armistice lines explicitly stated that they are not political borders.

Since Palestine only claims it but has never owned it, it shall say disputed, just as if Palestine claimed the part of Jordan that was ceded to Saudi it would be disputed, not said as theirs. As Jordan has taken back all claims to their West Bank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei The page for Taipei, Taiwan does not say it is PROC territory. Even though the International community recognizes the entirety of Taiwan as PROC territory. Mohamed Taqi (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Not an edit request, please read the template. Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)