Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank

Media coverage as first section?

Does it make sense to have "media coverage" be the first section in this article? It seems awkward. I'd propose to move this section to the bottom, unless someone has a better suggestion. DMH43 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the section seems to be about media coverage of the conflict, rather than specifically about the occupation. The only part that seems directly related to the occupation is:

Bias in coverage of the conflict has been debated from multiple sides, with Peter Beinart criticizing an "Orwellian" usage of euphemisms, and others have decried the use of "sanitized terminology".

Each party has its preferred set of descriptive words. International usage speaks of the West Bank, whereas Israeli usage prefers "Judea and Samaria", evoking the Biblical names for much of the territory, and governs it, excepting East Jerusalem, under the Israeli district name of Judea and Samaria Area; Israeli settlements are called "colonies" or "neighbourhoods" depending on the viewpoint. Violence by Palestinians is regularly labeled terrorism by Israel, whereas Israeli military actions are reported as "retaliation" for Palestinian attacks, and the context for those attacks is often disregarded, lending credence to the idea Israel never initiates violence.

I propose we remove the rest of the text in this section. DMH43 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This is also now done DMH43 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This is now done DMH43 (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of sections

Rename “state of assymmetric war” to “methods of enforcing and resisting the occupation”

Rename “wider implications” to “exporting methods of enforcing the occupation” and possibly adding a discussion on the occupation setting a precedant in international law. DMH43 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Rename "Conquest" to "Beginning of the Occupation", since the territory has not been formally annexed into Israel and even the Israeli Supreme Court recognizes it as occupied territory. Also, other articles about the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank do not use the morally loaded/antiquated word "Conquest", and they legally annexed it (a step that Israel has not taken). --Tobyw87 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

80% of the section is not about the occupation, but plans to conquer the West Bank. read it.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I did, again the section listed as Conquest is about the occupation not future plans for annexation, which would be actual conquest. It is inconsistent with the article on Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, which does not mention the word conquest even one time. If we are to be consistent, both articles should use similar verbiage. Israel hasn't annexed the territory yet, so it is not correct to say it has been conquered when that is an event that may or may occur in the future. If we do not change this article, we should add the word conquest to Jordan's article. Tobyw87 (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively the section could be titled "Plans for Occupation", since a lot of the section is about figures like Ben-Gurion and others about future intentions. Conquest isn't specific enough and it is also inconsistent with other articles about territory changes during this time. Tobyw87 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The conquest section seems to be mostly about administration, not plans. We should be wary of making long and inaccessible section titles, but the current "Conquest" does feel misnamed. Pulling "Military-Civil Administration" and "Israeli security concerns" out would be a start. CMD (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There is something called the Egg of Columbus. All these concerns arise from the use of two '--' instead of three. Adjusted since your only concern was making 'conquest' a section head with following subsections. 'Conquest' is now part 1 of three subsections, the other being the military administrative character set up in 1967, and the security and territory issue that arose fromn that date onwards. All three are concerned with the inchoate patterns established in 1967, which the rest of the text then explains successively by theme.

More generally, The word ‘occupation’ refers to the state of Israeli activities from 1967-2024 onwards. The word ’conquest’ refers to the single event 1967. The former is ambiguous, the latter accurate.

The conquest subsection, as it now stands, refers to the planning and execution that led to Israel's military acquisition of those territories, i.e., via conquest, the default term in the literature.

• Ervin Birnbaum, In the Shadow of the Struggle:: Israel's Bumpy Road to Independence Gefen Publishing House 1980 ISBN 978-9-652-29037-3 p.296
• Shaul Mishal, ‎Avraham Sela, The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence, and Coexistence Columbia University Press 2006 ISBN 978-0-231-14006-5 p.18
• Ami Gluska,The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War: Government, Armed Forces and Defence Policy 1963–67 Routledge 2007 ISBN 9781134163779, p.219
• Martin Gilbert,The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 10th edition Routledge 2012 ISBN 978-0-415-69975-4 p.74

• Yifat Holzman-Gazit,Land Expropriation in Israel:Law, Culture and Society Taylor & Francis 2016 978-1-138-24927-1 p.130

• Avshalom Rubin, The Limits of the Land: How the Struggle for the West Bank Shapes the Arab-Israeli Conflict Indiana University Press 2017 ISBN 978-0-253-02897-6 p.187

• Moshe Shemesh,The Palestinian National Revival: In the Shadow of the Leadership Crisis, 1937–1967 Indiana University Press 2018 ISBN 978-0-253-03660-5 p.290

• Dov Waxman,The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What Everyone Needs to Know Oxford University Press 2019 ISBN 978-0-190-62534-4 p.157

• Gilad Ben-Nun,The Fourth Geneva Convention for Civilians: The History of International Humanitarian Law Bloomsbury Publishing 2020 ISBN 978-1-838-60431-8 p.146

• Noam Shoked, In the Land of the Patriarchs:Design and Contestation in West Bank Settlements University of Texas Press 2023 ISBN 978-1-477-32854-5 p.14

The whole thrust of these three subsections is to provide an overview of the events leading up to the conquest, the conquest itself, and the various options vetted about how to administer the land, what land might lend itself to colonization, and what security concerns would entail, how the options would inflect Israel's approach to these territories. All three factors crystallized in 1967, and that focus is what drove the original drafting.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This is all very good and nice, I never really contested that conquest cannot be used as a term to describe what Israel has done to the West Bank. What I contest is that this is the BEST subheading for this section. I think additional words like "Plans for occupation", would serve this section better. Conquest alone in isolation does very little to explain what is in the section and it is non-informative. At the very least, it should be more than one word. As you hint, there's a difference between the words occupation, conquest, and annexation. The title of the article is "Israeli Occupation of the West Bank", not "Israeli Conquest of the West Bank.", therefore subheadings should reflect the title, even if literature mentions the word conquest. Conquest is not just the act of taking over a place with military force, it is also the act of subjugation. I contest this is not actually descriptive of the '67 change in territory since it wasn't a full conquest---there was never annexation, and military subjugation was only ever partial at most. The literature uses this term, and that's fine---I am merely pointing out that it is not actually that descriptive in and of itself, especially in isolation as the sole word for this subheading.

Furthermore, it is rather odd and curious that conquest does not exist in the article about Jordan conquering/occupying/annexing the West Bank as I have previously said. And, just for consistencies sake conquest appears frequently in describing what Jordan did after '48, here, here, here, here, and here. Do you propose that we add conquest to Jordan for consistencies sake? Or by what measure is Israel's occupation different from Jordan's occupation/annexation?

The elucidation of these terms can be present in either or just one of these articles, that would be fine (but of course it isn't at all and should probably be added). What I have an issue with is a term that is clearly different from the one used in the title being used in isolation and in a novel way independent of other articles similar to this one. I think Wikipedia should try its best to treat the Israeli/Palestinian conflict fairly, and by the looks of this verbiage it seems like editors here want to vilify Israel using a different lexicon than it wants to use to describe similar actions taken by other states in the region. Tobyw87 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

How much experience do you have in writing complex articles that must cover a massive range of information? That is a fair riposte to your paternalistically condescending opening remark,'This is all very good and nice,' coming from someone with some 646 edits in 18 years. The above is just a set of opinions. I have difficulty responding to them. For example:

The title of the article is "Israeli Occupation of the West Bank", not "Israeli Conquest of the West Bank

Raul Hilberg's classic The Destruction of the European Jews runs to 765 pages. The incipit is 174 pages, and doesn't deal with the actual 'destruction' but the prelude to it, how the definitions of the victims were made earlier, what laws arose to discriminate against Jews, how the infrasstructure for the transport of uprooted people and their concentration in camps were set up, how they were exploited, all lengthy subsections without any dwelling on the industrial murder process that then ensued. So let's change all the subsection titles because they don't deal explicitly with the actual event announced in the title. Huh!?

The only other thing is the dead give-away of

it seems like editors here want to 'vilify Israel using a different lexicon than it wants to use to describe similar actions taken by other states in the region

That contradicts your own earlier point.The article title says this is about the Israeli occupation, not about parallels (the Japanese Occupation of China with its 35 million victims, or the Spanish Occupation of the Americas with its 25 million dead, or the British Occupation of Australia with its decimation of the 670 indigenous tribes, etc.etc. - all events which began with a 'conquest'). The term conquest is in hundreds of academic sources (I gave a mere snippet of 10 examples) which describe the occupation. It's not a 'different lexicon'. In short, you appear to think that when describing what the state of Israel does, its history must be manicured so that absolutely no implication of violence must emerge that implies it is exceptional, because other states have done similar things. A paradoxical set of assumptions: Israel is 'exceptional' (above 'vilification', i.e. writing up the tragic narrative of what it did to a people it occupied must not suggest in a damaging way that Israel harmed them). But also Israel is 'normal' because what it did is typical of conquering states. Go figure.

History doesn't have pets. The record is set forth without fear or favour, whatever wokist proponents of political correct reading curricula may think. Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Legal status: What's contested by Yoram Dinstein

The "Legal status" section claims that Yoram Dinstein contests two claims:

1. The Geneva Conventions do not apply;
2. The transfer of people into the West Bank is voluntary.

However, the source cited (Galchinsky, 2004) only supports his contesting of the first claim. I've added a Failed verification template. Dotyoyo (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Which UNGA resolution?

The article currently says "The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 established that force may not be used to deny self-determination, and that recourse to force to resist colonial or alien domination is legitimate." And then gives this quote by renowned scholar Richard Falk:

Without entering into the substantive details, the main relevant point is that the historic 1960 UN General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples establishes four important propositions. First, force to deny self-determination is prohibited under international law. Second, and conversely, 'forcible resistance to forcible denial of self-determination—by imposing or maintaining colonial or alien domination—is legitimate according to the Declaration.' Third, movements to achieve self-determination, although not qualifying as states, have standing in international law, including the right to receive support from outside actors. Finally, third-party governments can treat such movements as legitimate without encroaching on the rights of the state exercising control over the territory and its inhabitants." (Falk 2002, p. 26)

Falk gives the following reference: Abi-Saab, “Wars of National Liberation", p 416.

I think that's an error. On page 415-416 Abi-Saab quotes

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

That quote comes from United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970), not United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960), as can be seen here. Abi-Saad mentions the 1960 and 1970 resolutions in quick succession (on page 414) so I can see why it may have been easy to make that error. I think it should be corrected in the article, given that 1514 doesn't talk about using force to achieve self-determination.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There is an immense confusion or lack of clarity on the law applying to resistance, as one would expect since whatever provisions and protocols have been made, are fine-tuned by the competing interests of the former colonial powers who are still major actors geopolitically, and don't want their freedom to defend their interests in the world order hedged overly, and the pressures of relatively recently independant third world countries to find legitimacy for their own dynamics of liberation. It's pointless citing one historical resolution for 'armed struggle' when, for example, that 1974 language was dropped for 'all available means' in 1991, etc.etc.etc. The simplest solution is to paraphrase the whole of what Falk wrote in the source we have, and leave it at that, otherwise the qualifying details (which are absent also in the linked wikipedia articles), would require an extended footnote if not indeed a whole article to clarify. Falk wrote

International law is silent on the rights of an occupied people to resist an occupation that flagrantly and persistently violates their most fundamental rights Such rights do seem to flow directly, however, from the general support given to the dynam ics of decolonization and from the related legitimacy of efforts by a colonized or oppressed people to engage in struggle, including armed struggle.

'According to Richard Falk, international law is reticent regarding the rights to resistance of an occupied people, but that a right to resist an occupying power's flagrant violations of their rights does exist would appear to follow from the legitimacy accorded colonized peoples to resort to struggle, including armed struggle, against the colonizing power.' Something like that. Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"would require an extended footnote if not indeed a whole article to clarify": @Nishidani, I'm trying to do exactly that here. Any feedback is appreciated. I can also move this to mainspace and you can then edit directly.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Well done! But take your time. I've bookmarked it and, whenever I get some free time, will certainly help. This kind of thing is not only intrinsically commendable but very promising for wiki. It's 4 am here, and I'm reading Christopher Ricks. It's hard to get some shuteye with prose like that, but sleep I must. Nishidani (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

One could also add an efn note reporting the text

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970 determined that: 'Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.'

Abi-Saab, Georges (1985). "Wars of National Liberation and the Laws of War". In Falk, Richard; Kratochwil, Friedrich; Mendlovitz, Saul H. (eds.). International Law: A Contemporary Perspective. Westview Press. pp. 410–436. ISBN 978-0-865-31241-8.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

The article has major POV issues. For example, it continues to treat the issue as part of a dispute, when in reality the issue was settled by the ICJ and every other human rights organization. It treats the Israeli POV as being a valid one despite having been refuted by the ICJ. It also mentions a lot of things that are less relevant to the body; for example, elaborations on the settlements like the number of settlers and units is not mentioned, while there is an entire paragraph on the Israeli government's views. These are some of the actionable issues to be addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Why the tag? One is free to edit to correct perceived éPV errors, and you have done so.

• Per NPOV, even if the legality issue is now settled, the fringe Israeli position, being one of the two parties involved, has to be duly noted, and this was done. I can't see any evidence that the earlier text treated that viewpoint as 'valid'. In context, we stated that Israel's POV is just that, and we are obliged to do so.

So I would suggest you state in bulleted order your disagreements with the text as now revised. Presumably

• 'elaborations on the settlements like the number of settlers and units is not mentioned.'

An easy fix. Like casualties in the Israel-Gaza war, one can just update, with an RS on the total after the blitz on new settlements and outposts after 7 Oct.

• 'there is an entire paragraph on the Israeli government's views.'

Per NPOV that is obligatory.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Still more errors are present and the tag was added until this is fixed by myself or others. The text still currently treats the Israeli government's perspective as valid by not refuting it; it should be briefly mentioned that Israel considers the territory to be disputed, and then should be immediately countered by the ICJ's opinion that refuted (or demolished in the words of Haaretz [1]) these arguments. Israel's positions should not be given a paragraph in the lede and use this much space as this would be giving WP:FALSEBALANCE. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, while the previous opening sentence was not ideal, I think the current one is confusing because it places the focus of the sentence on the Jordanian administration, rather than the Israeli occupation. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Now look, stating a required POV per NPOV is in no (bloody) way an insinuation that this POV is 'valid'. You asserted that, I reminded you of the error, and now you walk right past the objection to repeat yourself. Indeed I have adjusted the text because over time it has become thematically mangled, and that was the problem, not POV.

And regarding your second point, there is nothing 'confusing' about stating the bare facts of an historical transition. You are being insensitive to the careful use of terms: Jordan 'administered' (it did not settle or transfer its population, it didn't even 'conquer' it technically) whereas Israel conquered it, placed it under belligerent occupation, settled and annexed parts of it. We are not here to celebrate some polemical victory in a partisan screed. Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Stating a required POV without immediately countering that it was refuted is indeed an insinuation that this POV is valid.

As for the terms of Jordan "ruled" vs "administered" I think they are the same; and it was not my point actually. My point was on how the sentence was structured; it should first mention the occupation and then who it belonged to prior. Also I am not sure "conquered" is a good term to use, occupy is also a verb and not just a system. "Israel has occupied X since 1967" is better than saying "Israel conquered X and then placed it under occupation regime, which still exists to this day;" because also the former version is the more frequently used one in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope. 'rule' is decidedly different from 'administer'. Rule implies political and military prerogatives, whereas 'adm,inister' does not (that is why the Israeli adopted 'civil administration' as a euphemistic camoflage for what was and remains a brutal exercise of military rule. I've accommodated your point re 'conquering'. If you read the whole lead carefully, you cannot but notice that, as per sources and juridical precedents and judgments, it is absolutely plain that Israel is alone in challenging, and on very feeble grounds, the verdicts of international law. Not for this reason do we elide that POV, and hurry a snippety bit about Jordan's prior administration down the corridor to make it less visible. This is oversensitivity, and misplaced, in my view.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I usually prefer the term "under Jordanian sovereignty" as the annexation made the West Bank fully a part of the Jordanian state, rather than having been ruled or administered by it. But factually it was an annexation, although a mostly consented one. So perhaps a middle ground would be to just say "controlled by Jordan"?

As for the points about Jordan, there is no hypersensitivity, or sensitivity at all. The point is that the focus of an article is framed in the opening sentence. For an apple, the sentence would be "an apple is a fruit....The tree originated in Central Asia" Similarly, for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the sentence would be "Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967...which had been under Jordan's rule." The title of the article designates the scope of the article and is explained in the very few first words of the opening sentence.

As for replacing "conquered" with "took possession;" that was not my point. My point was that again occupation is a verb rather than a regime. Occupy should be the verb used not conquered nor took possession, per RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Although Israel's historical disputation of settlement illegality is a fact, we do need to reflect the changed reality that there is now an authoritative statement from the court that says that's wrong and in no uncertain terms, no caveats, no ifs and no buts. Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added that. But I will certainly oppose on NPOV grounds any attempts to expunge the Israeli POV. Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And sticking or defending a POV tag, applying to the whole laborious article, with only these equivocations and objections about a few words and their order in the lead, is improper. I never POV tag. If I see something requiring fixing, I fix it. Tags are laziness, unless they are accompanied immediately by a bulleted list of objections on the talk page that can be immediately addressed.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried to fix as much as possible until I realized it was too much to be done in one go, and that is when I decided to list the issues on the talk page, which I have done already; namely the lack of refutation of Israel's POV, and the oversized nature of Israel's POV in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, now the POV tag is in its perfect place. @O.maximov: why did you reinsert the disputed content you recently tried to add without engaging in the talk page? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani is correct that the Israeli POV must be present. We can say, with sources, that the Israeli POV has been refuted by all the major adjudicators of international law, and that should be enough. The POV tag should go, as you have not made a good case for it. Zero^talk 14:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I moved the claims by Israel (and shortened them) so as to connect it with the fact that these claims, although historically made, are essentially worthless now. We don't really need the tag, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not disputing it should be present, and that's not why I added the POV tag. I am arguing it should not be left alone as a legitimate POV as it was refuted and that this should be noted immediately after; also it should not take a paragraph of the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh, so do you agree with my amendment? Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand in its persistent irrationality. The second para has 131 words, of which 47, a third, explain Israel's POV, while two-thirds give the state of international law (POV versus the factual reality). And I am still being told that the Israeli POV 'should not take a para in the lead'. It doesn't. Please drop it for a while, take a deep breath, and then, after a cuppa of whatever, calmly review the lead. It is not what you repeatedly assert it is, and the POV tag should be removed, as based on a misprision. This is not an efficient way to pass one's time.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani and with Zero. Even with the ICJ ruling, the Israeli view remains a significant view with vast coverage in reliable sources. We are not here to say "This is the truth of the matter", we are here to describe who holds what views. The tag is completely unjustified here. nableezy - 15:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I also think this rewriting of the lead is making a mess of things. Why are the settlements the second sentence here? Yes it is an important subtopic, but introducing the topic comes first. The material on Israel's view on it not being occupied also belongs in the first paragraph, along with who says that view is wrong. Makeandtoss, Im asking you to restore the lead as it was and then propose changes here, not just rush in and make a series of changes that by all appearances lack consensus here for. nableezy - 15:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I made a trip down memory lane to look at how I first drafted the lead. I.e.

The Israeli Occupation of the West Bank refers to the Belligerent Occupation and the impact of the ongoing process of colonization/settlement of that territory undertaken by the state of Israel from 1967 to the present day. The status of being an occupied territory, has been affirmed by both the International Court of Justice and by the Israeli Supreme Court, though the official Israel government view is that the law of occupation does not apply. The United Nations Security Council likewise has consistently reaffirmed that settlements in that territory are void of legality and a 'flagrant violation of international law'. Military occupations of this kind continue on the premise that a state of cease-fire exists, in theory temporary, which maintains the status of a conflictual arrangement denying the Palestinians, technically Protected persons under the First Geneva Convention, the right to self-determination.

It is reputed to be perhaps 'the most closely studied conflict on earth', and controversies abound even to what terminology is appropriate to narrate the realities, pro-Israeli sources favouring one set of terms and the Palestinian Authority advocating a different nomenclature. Observers have dedicated much analysis of the implications of keywords that tend to dominate the respective discourses. This dissension extends to the issue of the way the media, both traditional and social, portray the conflict, with arguments protesting either a systematic pro-Israeli bias or prejudice against Israel. The domain of public discussion is also subject to intense contestation: some organizations claims pro-Israeli Jewish students are subject to vilification and harassment on campus. Others note that proposed talks on campus can be rescinded for fears that audiences might not be sufficiently prepared to evaluate objectively the material to be presented. Attempts have been made to silence several high-profile critics of Israeli policies in the territories, among them Tony Judt, Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad, Nadia Abu El-Haj and William I. Robinson. Such difficulties have given rise to anxieties that the topic itself is at risk, and that the political pressures and taboos circumscribing research and discussion undermine Academic freedom itself.

The length of Israel’s prolonged occupation was already regarded as 'exceptional' after two decades and is now deemed to be the longest in modern history,suggesting that, rather than a temporary occupation, it is an extension of a colonial project outlined as early as Theodor Herzl which is how Palestinians view it. Generally international jurists affirm that, the longer the occupation, the greater must be the weight of the occupied people's humanitarian needs in any assessment of the occupying power's security measures. It is widely considered to be a classic example of an 'intractable' conflict.

On the 50th anniversary of the Occupation, Human Rights Watch stated that Israel’s methods of control consist of 'repression, institutionalized discrimination, and systematic abuses of the Palestinian population’s rights', and involve five types of major violations of International human rights law. The system developed has often been likened to that of apartheid. The broad thrust of Israeli ethnic and geopolitical policies since the foundation of the state, following Mandatory tactics, has been perceived as one intent on Divide and rule (hafrayd umshol) and, in the case of West Bank Palestinians, given their ethnic unity, to exploit class and village/urban differences, and to splinter them into different factions in order to undermine their collective bargaining power, and then negotiate with the weakest actor.

The occupation has numerous critics in Israel, and some, among them Jeff Halpern, argue that the technologies Israel has developed to contain Palestinian national aspirations have been widely adopted and now play a pivotal role in the broader sphere of global pacification.

Overlong, yes. But it does what this endlessly revised lead has failed to do, i.e. sum up the article content, as required by lead policy.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That first para is great, just needs ICJ (2004 and 2024) and maybe Geneva IV. That's more than long enough for Israeli objection, was then and definitely is now. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could update it, excorporating para one and tweaking it experimentally below this. My general point is that a large amount of conflictual editing just looks at leads, and tweaks, reverts and battles there, without regard to WP:LEDE, i.e., to the whole text below which it is supposed to summarize. In fact I've long had the impression that editwarriors embrace the premise that no one ever reads beyonmd the first four paras in the lead, and therefore that becomes the battleground. The result is, in this case, that almost everything in the lead tends to stress beyond measure, the issue of legitimacy, at the expense of summing up the article itself. That lead was the last thing I wrote after finishing the article draft itself which covered all the bases.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph is terrible now. And since it isn't being self-reverted I'm going to revert it back to a more reasonable introduction of the topic. nableezy - 19:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

All this hoohah caused by an editor going around inserting Israeli POV into West Bank articles (3 of them). Selfstudier (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I dont know what has been retained from that. The line Israel has cited several reasons for retaining the West Bank within its ambit: a claim based on the notion of historic rights to this as a homeland as claimed in the Balfour Declaration of 1917; security grounds, both internal and external; and the deep symbolic value for Jews of the area occupied. was first introduced in this article by Nishidani if I recall correctly. nableezy - 20:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

1. O-maximov erased that text here

2. I reverted this switch as expanding what was succinct, the aim of WP:Lede, and now he then restored my earlier version ‘for neutral coverage’.

If it was neutral in the first place (it was) there was no reason for O.maximov to remove it and replace it with a much expanded rewrite. Go figure. Well, actually no. That's what editwarring does.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I’m saying in my revert I don’t see what has been retained of some added POV. But I don’t think the changes made in response were good either. If somebody disagrees with my additions I can self revert, but we have an existing consensual text that should be revised through consensus here. Not just instituting wholesale changes without any agreement. nableezy - 21:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede

I edited too many similar articles today, cannot remember which one lede paragraph highlighting Israeli government's position I was referring to, and unable to follow up on who inserted what anywhere. I have removed the POV tag. But I disagree with the current state of the lede. The opening paragraph must be kept general, neutral and brief; which it currently certainly isn't. The second lede paragraph should expand on how Israel moved in illegal settlers and how these settlers came to live under civilian rule thus solidifying Israel's institutionalized system of discrimination against the Palestinians under its occupation; checkpoints; etc. Third paragraph should be about Palestinian and Israeli politics and the debate which was settled by the ICJ (and had already been settled by other RS). Fourth paragraph should be about international repercussions. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course the lead as restored needs work. The revert occurred because of a flurry of editing, a lot careless and a fair bit reasonable. Let's simply avoid the curse of edit-warring and disputable tweaking by, as we so with regular efficiency, ironing out the paras one by one per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

Para 1 introduces the topic ergo what is 'the Israeli occupation of the West bank'

The other 3/4 paras should sum up the sections that constitute the main body of the article.

So let's roll out sleeves up and do this systematically here, and when there's a consensus for each para, proceed to revise the whole lead.Nishidani (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The lede is in really bad shape currently, so starting with the first lede paragraph:

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has been under an Israeli occupation since 1967, making it the longest military occupation in modern history. Israel's protracted occupation of the territory in which it has continued to expand settlements are both illegal under international law. Separation between the Palestinian and Israeli settler population of the West Bank has come to be considered Israeli apartheid. The occupation of the West Bank is a central aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as it affects Palestinians aspirations for self-determination within the framework of the two-state solution. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Bias in economic benefits and costs system

I noticed that one sentence within the section ends with "making the world complicit in the settlement project." This seems more like an opinion, or at the very least unnecessary information, and I propose it be removed.

Additionally, the media section ends a little abruptly. Maybe add a more general statement towards the end?

I'm not experienced in talk page usage, especially for controversial subjects, so forgive me if this isn't formatted/written properly. TimeMerchant (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I attributed that view to the cited source, that being Human Rights Watch. nableezy - 02:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Great! Much improved. TimeMerchant (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)