Jump to content

Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Is this the best article link for "country" references?

I am conscious of POV issues surrounding the name "Palestine", so I'm not trying to stir anything up here, but I would like to know what the best article link is for Wikipedia lists of nations etc. I am asking here purely from an implementation perspective, as I have been doing a lot of work recently for Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template. There are a lot of articles that contain lists of nations, dependencies, etc. List of countries is perhaps the best example. On those lists, there are flag icons followed by a wikilink to the main article for the nation. (e.g.  France). What is the most appropriate article link to be used in conjunction with this region? Is it this article (e.g. Palestinian territories)? I have seen several instances where Palestinian National Authority is the wikilinked article, but that seems a bit odd to me, as it refers to the governing organization rather than the region, but perhaps for some NPOV reason, maybe it is the best choice. I don't know - that's why I'm asking here. Is there any consensus on what we should standardize upon for Wikipedia? Andrwsc 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a mess no matter what we do. There are things that don't sit easily with much of the world's (and Wikipedia's) tendency to think in terms of legally constituted states, and this is one of them. 250 years ago, there would have been many such problems with this perspective; now there are comparatively few, but this is one of them. I'm not thrilled with the tendency to want to stick flags next to things that don't necessarily relate to a state, but it seems to be a decision we've made.
In this case, my view is that this is the best link for cultural matters, and Palestinian National Authority for governmental matters. If it isn't clear which of those one is dealing with, then it gets particularly tricky. For example, it is the Authority that has at the UN, but Ibrahim Abu-Lughod taught at the tail end of his life in the Territories, not (in any meaningful sense) in the Authority. There may be contexts where the choice is not obvious, just as there are contexts where it is not obvious whether something pertains to the UK or one of its three-and-a-quarter constituent nations. - Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your response - I was wondering if my request for comments would get any response! It sounds like your answer is "both", and actually, that's the current situation to some extent. We currently have templates set up to use {{flag|Palestinian territories}} to display  Palestinian territories and {{flag|Palestinian Authority}} to display  Palestinian Authority. I had been thinking we should "consolidate" upon one single usage, but if that is a bad idea, I guess there is no harm in continuing the current situation. The only wrinkle is that we also have "aliases" that use the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code, so that an editor could use {{flagcountry|PSE}} to display  Palestine. It is necessary to pick one or the other for PSE to refer to, and as you can see, the current redirect is to "Palestinian territories". I think that's probably the best choice, given that the nomenclature in the ISO standard is for the PSE entry is "Palestinian Territory, Occupied".
Also note that we have {{fb|PLE}} for  Palestine, and we have {{flagIOC|PLE|2004 Summer}} for  Palestine. Note that both FIFA and the IOC use PLE as the country code (despite the template name for the football template), and both use "Palestine" as the designation for these teams. I think the respective wikilinked page names are reasonable, given the naming adopted by FIFA and the IOC.
Thanks again for your response. Andrwsc 06:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

LAND QUESTION IN PALESTINE: 1917-1939

I just stumbled on references to Kenneth W. Stein's book LAND QUESTION IN PALESTINE: 1917-1939. I haven't seen the book, but he has his final chapter "conclusions" online: http://www.ismi.emory.edu/Books/LQPConclusion.html and his bio, cv, pubs, etc are at http://www.ismi.emory.edu/Stein/cvpres.html. This final chapter, sans details, makes far more sense than the zionist mythology of a vacant land... And it provides hints of key British and other documents on Palestine land law during that era that might be online and original source material. As this paints a different picture than is found scattered in various articles, and that are totally unsatisfactory using limited census and land ownership snapshots, this seems to point to some significant research and editing. I trust that one of the projects has the perspective needed. Mulp 09:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Another deletion attempt concerning various "Palestinian territories" categories

Please see Category:Palestinian territories and:

Attempt to rewrite

I am following the request to "Go to talk, and explain why UN documentation and ICJ terms are POV." The 1947 UN Partition Plan does not mention the term "Palestinian territories". Instead, it says about "Arab State" and "Samaria and Judea" [1]. The rest of the rewrite seems to be of the same quality. Please walk us through your changes here at talk if you insist, but do not rewrite a stable article that was a subject of many compromises. As for the UN, since 1950s-60s it has been a part of the conflict, and therefore its terminology is partisan and its neutrality is questionable. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect in making a complete revert if you have just one specific objection. Your objection is not quite clear, so I will analyse it.

It is not sufficient to have an 'impression'(seems to be of the same quality). The fact is that the rest of the rewrite documents quite closely that in UN documentation and the International Court of Justice document of 2004, which fully reviews the various issues from 1947 to 2003 and lays down a 14 to 1 judgement in favour of that territory being Occupied Palestinian Territory. The wording 'Palestinian territories' is a term widely used in the Israeli media: it is not a word that is accepted in serious internatinal forums. That was not clear, indeed it was obfuscated in the original article, which was almost wholly an Israeli POV for the first part. You may detect a POV in my alterations, and I would be glad if you show me where it subsists. But you damage the page by reverting it to a state whose POV is conspicuous for its lack of proper documentation on agreed international usage. This is not a page to put forth Israel's unique interpretation of the status of the Occupied Palestinian territories. It is a page devoted to the meaning of that term, which has currency only in Israeli usage.

I'd be glad to walk you through my changes. But I worked slowly waiting for someone to come in and challenge this, and no one seems to have looked. If you wish, I will answer any particular question, beginning with the original point you raised. Until tomorrow Nishidani 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


You remark as an objection as follows:-

'The 1947 UN Partition Plan does not mention the term "Palestinian territories". Instead, it says about "Arab State" and "Samaria and Judea" '

Quite right. It says (in Part II. - Boundaries A. THE ARAB STATE) that Samaria and Judea will form part of the territory of the future Arab State. Those terms are used because in the territorial split up, the area assigned to Arabs was only readily understood by terms familiar to Western readers of the Bible, i.e. everyone.
I never asserted, at least in English usage the words I wrote cannot be misconstrued as meaning, that the UN Partition plan used the term 'Palestinian Territories'. What I wrote, and to which you take objection to, was as follows:-
'The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which under the UN Partition Plan of 1947 were designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine, as that was readjusted by territorial gains by Israel in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, which left one part of the designated Palestinian area, Gaza, under Egyptian Occupation and administration, and the other part, the West Bank, including Jerusalem, under Jordanian occupation and administration.'

In correct English, for one thing, that should be 'The term/phrase Palestinian territories . .btw) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishidani (talk • contribs).

To parse this, the meaning is. The phrase 'Palestinian Territories' is (now) one of the names for part of the land in British Mandate Palestine designated for a future Arab State by the UN Partition Plan. I add that this term refers not to the UN Partition Map, but to the land as readjusted by Israel in 1948, which limited what is now designated as Palestinian territories to 'Gaza' and the 'West Bank', (areas conquered, obviously, in 1967). I am not saying, therefore, what you argue I am saying, i.e. that 'Palestinian Territories' is used in the UN plan. I am saying the very opposite.
In the earlier text you have the remark:-
'The United Nations generally uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory", with the "Palestinian" label having gained use since the 1970s. Previous UNSC resolutions (such as 242 and 338) use the term "Territories occupied by Israel", whereas in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 passed on November 29, 1947, the term "Samaria and Judea" was used.
Indeed, and if you read the document, you will see that Judea and Samaria are defined as an integral part of the future 'Arab state'.
I don't know how familiar you are with international legal usage. But international legal usage does not employ the term 'Palestinian territories'. It is an Israeli phrase, and I appreciate you hear it often. But outside of Israel, it is not accepted as a meaningful term. So the obvious solution is to clarify the legal status of the territory, in international law, to which the Israeli term refers. Then clarify Israel does not accept those determinations and phrases like 'Occupied Palestinian Land', give the reasons, so that the reader understands quite clearly what on earth a non-Israeli native speaker of English is supposed to understand by that word. I can't even recall encountering it until I saw a link to the page, and I do read widely. This fact, that it is an odd phrase to a non-Israeli native speaker of English (we say 'West Bank' 'Palestine/Palestinian territory' Cisjordan etc) seems to be lost on people who have grown up in that area. And I say that without offence. It is an exquisitely linguistic problem, above all. Regards Nishidani 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. if you see the earlier article to which you reverted, the article is implying, against UN deliberations and the UN Partition Plan, that 'Palestinian territories' refers to Jordanian and Egyptian territories conquered by Israel in 1967. In the UN Partition Plan of 1947, the Arab State prefigured was neither Jordanian nor Egyptian, and to use that phrasing is to argue that there was no project for a future Arab state, distinct from Jordan and Egypt, in the 1947 plan, which is patently untrue. That was my primary objection, and I have hewed strictly to the legal documentation of the UN in successive deliberations, and to the judgement of the International Court of Justice in 2004 to clarify the dangerous and misleading statements in that earlier version. I did not substantially alter the remaining text which presents the reasons for Israel's refusal to accept both the UN and the ICJ's judgements. Israel's POV is thus retained, but it is preceded by not a POV, but a statement of the legal situation in terms of international law, which is not a POV, but has the authority of law.Nishidani 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another revert, which is, allow my personal judgement to intrude, a lazy way to reply to an edit or series of edits one dislikes. The reverts, first two by Humus Sapiens and now one by Tickleme, are poorly motivated, and restore a text that was primitive, confused and misleading, and certainly wholly POV, as the heading of the article indicates. The heading is quite explicit. The article before I touched it was disputed as to its neutrality. My intervention attempts to remove that injurious label, and is not definitive, of course, but consists of a series of rephrasings and contributions, all documented by UN or International Court Sources, which reframe the unsatisfactory introductory remarks to the article both Humus Sapiens and Tickleme prefer, in terms of international usage. It is still open to modification, but the grounds used to revert are specious and reinstate a poorer text.
There is nothing 'salient' about Humus Sapiens's remark, which consist of a badly phrased judgement that shows a lack of understanding of English usage, and a general personal 'impression' of the rest of the text. On being challenged, Humus Sapiens did not reply. Instead Tickleme replies, backing his/her arbitrary (to me) judgement up, but without anything more than a repetition of what Human Sapiens quipped. Tickleme does not do this editor the simple courtesy of outlining why the substantial use of UN and IJC documents in my edits is 'POV'. I'm quite willing to listen. I'm not interested in revert wars. I simply wish to get that 'neutrality disputed' tag eliminated, and it hangs in there because the text you both restore is subject to conflicting POV claims. That, gentleman, means that we are all obliged to work on it and get the text into an acceptible state of neutrality which exhibits respect for the facts, as the text you both restore does not. Neither of you have the right you arrogate to ask me to unilaterally rewrite the section under your supervision (for that is what you both are saying). Since the text is regarded as not 'neutral' by those who composed it, and since you both object to attempts to modify that POV-compromised text along the lines I suggested, obviously you should both pitch in, with me, and improve it.
I shall give you one example of why the introductory paragraph is a disgrace.
(1) The article opens thus:
The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and militarily occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and later, in the Six-Day War, by Israel.
(That is poor English for one thing. It should read, The term/phrase Palestinian territories etc.btw)
I.e. the blatant POV here is that Gaza and the West Bank (in the language universally accepted in international law and discussions) 'Occupied Palestinian territory', do not have a juridical status independent of that they acquired by the successive powers that conquered those areas manu militari. This is false, and should not be in a serious encyclopedia. Let me cite to you the International Court of Justice's ruling on this dispute about the juridical status:
'Israel, contrary to the great majority of the other participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In particular, in paragraph 3 of Annex I to the report of the Secretary-General, entitled “Summary Legal Position of the Government of Israel”, it is stated that Israel does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention “is applicable to the occupied Palestinian Territory”, citing the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt and inferring that it is “not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention”.
'91. The Court would recall that the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951 and that Israel is a party to that Convention. Jordan has also been a party thereto since 29 May 1951. Neither of the two States has made any reservation that would be pertinent to the present proceedings. (ICJ ruling July 2004,para 90.)
In simple language, the POV of the Wiki article's leading parapraph is astutely framed in order to pass off as a general judgement what is however only Israel's unique perspective, in contrast to ICJ rulings, on the ostensible lack of a legal status for the (Palestinian Occupied) territory prior to its occupation by Jordan and Egypt, a position which the ICJ rules as immaterial. This is not an encyclopedia for one nation's POV.
The 'portions of the British Mandate' refers to areas which form part of the territory that the UN Partition Plan of 1947 set aside for an autonomous Arab state.
'The Rhodes agreement (3 April 1949) between Israel and Jordan establishes the Green Line, and Article III, para 2 provides that No element of the . . . military or para-military forces of either Party . . . shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose

whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Lines . . . ,

and these lines remain valid until the parties arrive at a political settlement on what the UN Partition Plan termed a future 'Arab State'.
In 1967 Israel conquered this land, and Security Resolution 242 of Nov 22, 1967 called for it to withdraw, since acquiring land by military means is illegal, and gives the conqueror no right of title.
Neither Jordan, nor Egypt, nor Israel have a right of title over the 'Palestinian territories'. Jordan's annexation, which only Britain recognized, has been regarded in the same way as Israel's annexations, i.e. in contravention of International Law.
The POV charged article you both restore says in para 1, further:-
'Note: Israel does not consider East Jerusalem (annexed in 1980) nor the former Israeli - Jordanian no man's land (annexed in 1967) to be parts of the West Bank. Both in fact fall under full Israeli law and jurisdiction as opposed to the 58% of the Israeli-defined West Bank which is ruled by the Israeli 'Judea and Samaria Civil Administration'.'
This is noteworthy as a statement of Israel's unique perspective. It however is not noted, as NPOV rules require, in the same passage, that both numerous UN Resolutions and the ICJ's 2004 ruling deny the legality and therefore truth of the claim asserted. Secondly, the phrase 'Israeli-Jordian no man's land' is a misnomer, since the territory it refers to obliquely is not a 'no man's land', and the 'West Bank' excorporated, once you deduct this area, is not the West Bank as that is defined in UN Resolutions and International Law. The passage therefore is a blatant distortion of the legal status of the Occupied territories, and the second part.
'Both in fact fall under full Israeli law and jurisdiction' cites a de facto state resulting from illegally acquired land not recognized in world forums, and law, and more saliently, the remainder is a nonsense. Nota bene
'58% of the Israeli-defined West Bank which is ruled by the Israeli 'Judea and Samaria Civil Administration'.'
What does this all mean, gentlemen? It means that what the UN and the ICJ defines as the West Bank, is not considered commensurate with what Israel alone defines as the West Bank, and what Israel defines as the residual West Bank is 'ruled' by an administrative organ which does not refer to even that as 'the West Bank' but as 'Judea and Samaria', which are exactly the terms used in the 1947 Plan designating a large portion of the area marked out for a future 'Arab State'. No mention of the crucial judgement laid down by the ICJ in 2004, or the fact that, in international law, all Israeli claims and annexations are, null and void.
The text then is totally confused and confusing. No average reader coming to this page for enlightenment will leave it with a clear, limpid understanding of the juridical state of those territories.
You both ask me to go step by step through the original text with suggested modifications, and obtain consensus. What however you are both doing is reinstating a disgracefully misleading article, on the basis of mere impressionistic assertions, while not contributing to the improvement of the article as it stands. You both say I should begin to rewrite more or less under your supervision, emending the earlier text point by point, so that you can vet each point I suggest, and we can have a consensual text. Fine, only, what this means is that neither of you, so far, shows any willingness to admit the problematical, POV charged nature of the text you reverted to. You haven't protested, intervened, or contributed anything as yet to the improvement of that text as it stood some weeks ago. Therefore, since you ask me to redo the work, which I will be happy to do, I suggest that parity of rights requires you both to begin to collaborate by making your own respective suggestions as well. In that case the 'master-slave' relationship you implicitly require is dissolved, and a collaborative rewriting by equal parties will be able to proceed to iron out the inept, awkward and textually opaque and POV-charged character of the text as it was before I intervened. I will await your contributions befor proceeding. Editorial kibitzing without concrete contributions wastes time, yours and mine Nishidani 09:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I undid Tiamut's changes, which still are WP:POV, WP:OR, and unsourced.
Where is the source for this:
"According to this principle, the Bible's designation of lands under Jewish control constitutes a permanent title, in that it was given by God to the Jews, and this act of donation overrules all historical changes in possession and secular international law governing states."
re:
"Ironically, if such claims are indeed made, then they coincide with the same territorial boundaries that many Jewish fundamentalists assert to be the natural biblical boundaries which must be restored to Israel's sovereignty, from Lebanon to Cairo and Iraq"
We don't use irony in an encyclopaedia, it can't get possibly more POV than that.
re:
"The term "Palestinian Territories" is controversial only in Israel"
Only in Israel? According to whom?
Please discuss changes item per item, so we don't have to exchange lengthy essays. --tickle me 12:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't even finished editing the whole text added by Nishdani. You could have fact tagged those sentences or removed them instead of doing a wholesale revert. Tiamat 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

tickle You ask

Where is the source for this:
According to this principle, the Bible's designation of lands under Jewish control constitutes a permanent title, in that it was given by God to the Jews, and this act of donation overrules all historical changes in possession and secular international law governing states.'

The source, if one is needed (all you need do is ask, without erasing everything. It's quicker.

'Zahal's (Israel Defense Force's) victory in the Six Day War placed the people and the state within a new and fateful period. The whole of Eretz Yisrael is now in the hands of the Jewish people, and just as we are not allowed to give up the State of Israel, so we are ordered to keep what we received there from Eretz Yisrael. We are bound to be loyal to the entirety of the country-for the sake of the people's past as well as its future, and no government in Israel is entitled to give up this entirety, which represents the inherent and in-alienable right of our people from the beginnings of its history n 2 cited Ian S.Lustik, chapter 3 ‘The Evolution of Gush Emunim’ in his ‘’For the Land and the Lordf (1988) Council on Foreign Relations, Washington 2nd ed.1994

'those who even discuss territorial concessions are committing the sin of "profanation of the Name of God." 10 Portions of the Land of Israel not yet ruled by Jews must, he writes, be acquired at any cost: We must settle the whole Land of Israel, and over all of it establish our rule. In the words of [Nachmanides]: "Do not abandon the land to any other nation." If that is possible by peaceful means, wonderful, and if not, we are commanded to make war to accomplish it.n 11'

, the Six Day War gave impetus to radical changes within this movement. Incubated within its schools, youth movement, and seminaries, and within the National Religious Party, was the Young Guard, which expressed disgust with the machine-style, status quo politics of the older generation. Instead, the tzeirim (youth) advanced a political program focusing on establishment of Jewish sovereignty over the whole Land of Israel as a decisive step toward hastening a divinely ordained process of redemption, which they believed had already begun. This leadership cadre, and the national religious subcultural cohort it represented, formed the basis of Israel's Jewish fundamentalist movement-dedicated to the uncompromising implementation of transcendental imperatives through political action.

Nishidani 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several dozen passages from historians and settlers documents that I can provide you at request. They all underline what the phrase you questioned doubts. Therefore, the passage you have elided is perfectly justifiable. All one need do is add the above source (Lustik has a chair at Philadelphia University)

You question, legitimately the phrasing of the following passage.

Ironically, if such claims are indeed made, then they coincide with the same territorial boundaries that many Jewish fundamentalists assert to be the natural biblical boundaries which must be restored to Israel's sovereignty, from Lebanon to Cairo and Iraq'

That was written when I read this remark, which was in the text you keep reverting to:-

Some advocates have claimed that maps used in schools under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority depict this state as consisting of all the territory between the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, the Jordan River and Egypt — including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [citation needed]

What was wrong with this? (1) It is unsourced. No one has protested that such an unsourced statement be removed. You appear not to be troubled by it, since you haven't touched it. But you do object to my balacing statement. Well that statement I can source:-

i.e.again from Lustik:

'One of the most respected scholars in Gush Emunim, Yehuda Elitzur, has outlined several more or less concentric territorial shapes for the Jewish state on the basis of biblical sources. He considers the "promised," or "patriarchal," boundaries-extending to the Euphrates River, southern Turkey, Transjordan, and the Nile Delta-"the ideal borders." The borders as reflected in the lands conquered by the "generation that left Egypt"-including northeastern Sinai, Lebanon and western Syria, the Golan Heights, and much of Transjordan-are the lands Israel is required eventually to conquer and settle.'

I put the word 'ironically' in, because that is exactly what it is. You don't like it? Well, we'll take it out. And leave the passage from Lustik above, sourcing it. Thus the emended text will run:-

Some advocates have claimed that maps used in schools under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority depict this state as consisting of all the territory between the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, the Jordan River and Egypt — including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [citation needed]. These maps coincide with the same territorial boundaries that many Jewish fundamentalists assert to be the natural biblical boundaries which must be restored to Israel's sovereignty, from Lebanon to Cairo and Iraq'(Source. Ian Lustik, For the Lord and the Land' (1988) 2nd ed.1994 ch.3

I hope this rephrasing satisfies your concerns.

"The term "Palestinian Territories" is controversial only in Israel"
Only in Israel? According to whom?

On that I agree thoroughly. The term 'Palestinian territories' is not controversial perhaps in Israel, it is controversial outside of Israel where universal usage refers to 'Cisjordan/Palestine/Palestinian Occupied Territories'. The phrase is current in Israeli usage.

So one could rewrite: 'The term 'Palestinian territories' is mainly one of Israeli usage, to denote what in International law, UN deliberations and general Western usage is referred to as 'The West Bank and Gaza', 'Occupied Palestinian territories' or 'Palestine'.

P.s. you are not exchanging lengthy essays: I am writing lengthy essays to reply minutely to every brief and to me incomprehensible objection you make in phrases or two or three words. I am justifying my choices, you are simply asserting your judgements by what strikes me as a vague and arbitrary claim of POV. So, please answer my earlier remarks and tell me why UN Documentation and ICJ rulings cannot be used, as I used them, to define the word 'Palestinian Territories'? You have asked Tiamut (sp?) and myself you explain ourselves here. All you have done is to revert and make a few quips. Nishidani 13:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ps.The text you keep reverting to is POV-challenged, as the heading notes. You take my revision as POV (arguable. Let's argue it), but show a preference for the earlier text, which is labelled as 'neutrality disputed' and therefore subject to POV doubts. In reverting you are confirming an unreliable text against a text whose unreliability has yet to be formally challenged (except by these recent undocumented charges behind your reversions) This is not good Wiki practice, and you have interrupted another editor's attempt to mediate on the two. My revised text may be objectionable, but it is just as valid as the earlier one, and you show a bias in preferring the former one. These are texts that are under constant revision, and therefore this reverting practice is simply damaging to the collaborative work required. Regards Nishidani 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


POV rewrite

Nishidani - you have made extensive changes to a contentious topic, changes which were viewed by several editors as POV. It was sugegsted to you, and I repeat this suggestion, that you discuss the changes you wnat to intorduce, one by one, here on Talk, so we can evaluate their mertis.

I'll start with the very first sentence you wnat to include, which states:

The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestinewhich under the UN Partition Plan of 1947 were designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine,

This is simply false. As te harticle later describes, the term Palestinian territories is used to describe the Eastern parts of Jerusalem, but that territory was never 'designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine' by the UN partition plan. Th ecurrent article phrasing, which says 'The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and militarily occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and later, in the Six-Day War, by Israel.' is more accurate , and fully NPOV. Yours is not. Isarig 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig Two of your colleagues gave, as the reason for reverting my own contributions, the justification that I had not discussed my edits collegially beforehand (sure. No one seemed to be interested in the page). You now have several people willing to work on the page, collegially, and yet you have gone and made several quick edits, and reverts, and have only alluded to an explanation after several hours. What is good for the goose is good for the gander as Immanuel Kant once said. The two earlier editors (two is not 'several' in English, for your information) gave no adequate reason for their objections and have deserted the page. Reverting while refusing to work (i.e. study closely and in depth what you are objecting to at a glance) is extremely bad practice.
You misrepresent the record. From what little I could gather of the nature of their objections, I wrote extensively in reply. To my replies there was no answer forthcoming, simply further reverts. This again is abusive editing, since it lacks the courtesy of a proper dialogue. You reverted within 8 minutes of our disagreement on RS, that is not sufficient time to familiarize yourself with my extensive discussion of both Humus Sapiens's remark and RTickle Me's remarks. Therefore, you reverted without examining the evidence, but took their judgements (which they will no longere defend) at face value. That is lamentable practice. I suggest then that you do as you and the other two advise, i.e. practice what you preach to others, and before editing, justify your edits. Otherwise you are claiming prior rights to the text as it stood over later editors. Fourthly, you have not edited the many assertions in that text that are unfounded, or confusedly phrased.
To the meat of your objection to para 1. You say
Palestinian territories is used to describe the Eastern parts of Jerusalem, but that territory was never 'designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine' by the UN partition plan.
I can see the problem, now. If I had written, as I will now do, a 'future Arab state in Palestine', you'd have had no excuse for objecting. The 1947 Partition Plan does not speak of an Arab State of Palestine, but an Arab State in portions of the former Palestine. It left it to the inhabitants as to how they would call that state.
Evidently you haven't read the relevant documents, since you evidently haven't read them, you shouldn't be editing posts by people who have.
Secondly you are not familiar with English. The terms Palestinian territories' you say, describes 'the Eastern parts of (the city of? region?) Jerusalem' (I'd like you to document that. It is the first time in 40 years of reading that I have encountered this amazing idea). Note: I do not mention Jerusalem, East of Jerusalem or anything else in my phrasing.
Here is the original passage in the UN Partition Plan document of 1947:-
Part II. - Boundaries
A. THE ARAB STATE(for the map see

http://www.mideastweb.org/UNpartition.htm)

(Omitting the para 1 coordinates for the area of the Arab State in Western Galilee et al ) The following outlines the Boundaries of the Arab State in that document, :-
The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the Sub-Districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin.
(From that point it follows the Nablus-Jenin sub-District boundary westwards for a distance of about three kilometres and then turns north-westwards, passing to the east of the built-up areas of the villages of Jalbun and Faqqu'a, to the boundary of the Sub-Districts of Jenin and Beisan at a point northeast of Nuris. Thence it proceeds first northwestwards to a point due north of the built-up area of Zie'in and then westwards to the Afula-Jenin railway, thence north-westwards along the District boundary line to the point of intersection on the Hejaz railway.
From here the boundary runs southwestwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh. Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El- Mansi. It follows this boundary to the southernmost point of the village of El-Buteimat. From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi 'Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village. From here it runs along the railway line some distance to the east of it to a point just east of the Tulkarm railway station. Thence the boundary follows a line half-way between the railway and the Tulkarm-Qalqiliya-Jaljuliya and Ras El-Ein road to a point just east of Ras El-Ein station, whence it proceeds along the railway some distance to the east of it to the point on the railway line south of the junction of the Haifa-Lydda and Beit Nabala lines, whence it proceeds along the southern border of Lydda airport to its south-west corner, thence in a south-westerly direction to a point just west of the built-up area of Sarafand El 'Amar, whence it turns south, passing just to the west of the built-up area of Abu El-Fadil to the north-east corner of the lands of Beer Ya'aqov. (The boundary line should be so demarcated as to allow direct access from the Arab State to the airport.) Thence the boundary line follows the western and southern boundaries of Ramle village, to the north-east corner of El Na'ana village, thence in a straight line to the southernmost point of El Barriya, along the eastern boundary of that village and the southern boundary of 'Innaba village. Thence it turns north to follow the southern side of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road until El-Qubab, whence it follows the road to the boundary of Abu-Shusha. It runs along the eastern boundaries of Abu Shusha, Seidun, Hulda to the southernmost point of Hulda, thence westwards in a straight line to the north-eastern corner of Umm Kalkha, thence following the northern boundaries of Umm Kalkha, Qazaza and the northern and western boundaries of Mukhezin to the Gaza District boundary and thence runs across the village lands of El-Mismiya El-Kabira, and Yasur to the southern point of intersection, which is midway between the built-up areas of Yasur and Batani Sharqi.
From the southern point of intersection the boundary lines run north-westwards between the villages of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the sea at a point half way between Nabi Yunis and Minat El-Qila, and south-eastwards to a point west of Qastina, whence it turns in a south-westerly direction, passing to the east of the built-up areas of Es Sawafir Esh Sharqiya and 'Ibdis. From the south-east corner of 'Ibdis village it runs to a point southwest of the built-up area of Beit 'Affa, crossing the Hebron-El-Majdal road just to the west of the built-up area of 'Iraq Suweidan. Thence it proceeds southward along the western village boundary of El-Faluja to the Beersheba Sub-District boundary. It then runs across the tribal lands of 'Arab El-Jubarat to a point on the boundary between the Sub-Districts of Beersheba and Hebron north of Kh. Khuweilifa, whence it proceeds in a south-westerly direction to a point on the Beersheba-Gaza main road two kilometres to the north-west of the town. It then turns south-eastwards to reach Wadi Sab' at a point situated one kilometer to the west of it. From here it turns north-eastwards and proceeds along Wadi Sab' and along the Beersheba-Hebron road for a distance of one kilometer, whence it turns eastwards and runs in a straight line to Kh. Kuseifa to join the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary. It then follows the Beersheba-Hebron boundary eastwards to a point north of Ras Ez-Zuweira, only departing from it so as to cut across the base of the indentation between vertical grid lines 150 and 160.
About five kilometres north-east of Ras Ez-Zuweira it turns north, excluding from the Arab State a strip along the coast of the Dead Sea not more than seven kilometres in depth, as far as 'Ein Geddi, whence it turns due east to join the Transjordan frontier in the Dead Sea.
The northern boundary of the Arab section of the coastal plain runs from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis, passing between the built-up areas of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the point of intersection. From here it turns south-westwards, running across the lands of Batani Sharqi, along the eastern boundary of the lands of Beit Daras and across the lands of Julis, leaving the built-up areas of Batani Sharqi and Julis to the westwards, as far as the north-west corner of the lands of Beit-Tima. Thence it runs east of El-Jiya across the village lands of El-Barbara along the eastern boundaries of the villages of Beit Jirja, Deir Suneid and Dimra. From the south-east corner of Dimra the boundary passes across the lands of Beit Hanun, leaving the Jewish lands of Nir-Am to the eastwards. From the south-east corner of Beit Hanun the line runs south-west to a point south of the parallel grid line 100, then turns north-west for two kilometres, turning again in a southwesterly direction and continuing in an almost straight line to the north-west corner of the village lands of Kirbet Ikhza'a. From there it follows the boundary line of this village to its southernmost point. It then runs in a southerly direction along the vertical grid line 90 to its junction with the horizontal grid line 70. It then turns south-eastwards to Kh. El-Ruheiba and then proceeds in a southerly direction to a point known as El-Baha, beyond which it crosses the Beersheba-EI 'Auja main road to the west of Kh. El-Mushrifa. From there it joins Wadi El-Zaiyatin just to the west of El-Subeita. From there it turns to the north-east and then to the south-east following this Wadi and passes to the east of 'Abda to join Wadi Nafkh. It then bulges to the south-west along Wadi Nafkh, Wadi 'Ajrim and Wadi Lassan to the point where Wadi Lassan crosses the Egyptian frontier.'
But, if reading this is confusing (there's a map attached), look at the Map. What you say is wrong because (excuse the capital letters) THE UN PARTITION MAP ONLINE IN ANY SOURCE YOU CARE TO CONSULT GIVES A CLEAR MAP OF THE AREA WEST, NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH of Jerusalem as denoting the future 'Arab State' in portions of the former Palestine.
You have challenged the veracity of my original statement, and made a confused alternative assertion which belies what the documents I source assert. So, I and others await your explanation of why your 'improved version' which denies that fact should not be dismissed as POV?Nishidani 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


If you wish to have a civil discussion about your edits here, you will cease using your condescending and presumptious tone. I have read the relevant documents, and understand English at least as well as you. Now, to the item at hand: Your proposed solution of using "in" rather than "of" does not adress my issue at all. The issue is that as the artcile makes clear, when people use the term Palestinain territories", they include East Jerusalem in that definition. However, EJ is not a territory that was designated to be part of the Arab state, which is what your misleading and POV rewrite implies. Isarig 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which under the UN Partition Plan of 1947 were designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine
I'm sorry, but you really do not understand, and if my correcting your misunderstandings is condescending in tone, that owes much to the fact that you do not appear to understand straightforward English, and your patent misrepresentations of what I clearly say are the proof, and are causing a serious disruption to an article that must be written in clear unambiguous English. If you did understand English as well as you say, you would have altered the obviously unidiomatic and ungrammatical 'The Palestinian territories is.' to 'The term the Palestinian Territories is. In English, a plural subject cannot normally take a verb in the singular. That has been sitting there for ages, and no one corrects it. You haven't and you argue your knowledge of English is on a par with mine. It isn't.
I'm sorry to say but you do not understand the phrasing of the passage you object to. I did not write that EJ was designated to be part of the Arab State. In repeating this ad nauseam you are creating a straw man and saying it's me. I said, The (term) Palestinian territories refers to those portions of Mandate Palestine marked out for a future Arab State. Since the Mandate Document says Jerusalem has a special status independent of both Israel and the future Arab State, your attempt to pass off the notion I am referring to Jerusalem is inexplicable to me, except in terms of your incapacity to parse English. If you think that it implies this, then show me where I mention the word '(East) Jerusalem'.
Your objection is specious, the word 'Arab State' in Palestine refers to an area circumscribing the internationally-controlled area of jerusalem in that document. And this, young man, is, for the enth time, exactly what I wrote in the paragraph you object to. If you can't understand simple English, get a couple of extra hands in here, native speakers, to support your quixotic construction of my words. If you can't come up with a better pretext for what you have rejected, I'll be forced to revert and then go to an adjudication. The issue is simple. English and what clear wording means to native speakers Nishidani 20:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you want to continue to condescend, and argue about who's understanding of English is better, See how far that gets you. Isarig 20:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you write 'who's' for 'whose'. You won't correct an obvious grammatical error, which I have remarked on a day ago. You keep reverting to a text which contains it. What am I to conclude? That you don't have a native grasp of English. That is the gentlest construction politeness can put on what strikes me as an inability to understand the meaning of what you otherwise object to. Your objections do not make sense.
But since I refuse to take a refusal to persist in dialogue until clarification is obtained. I'll try another rephrasing and see how you read it:
Suggestion 1.
'The term Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for a portion of that part of the British Mandate of Palestine which under the UN Partition Plan of 1947 was designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine.' Nishidani 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion 2.
'The term Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which, under the UN Partition Plan of 1947, were to be included as integral parts of the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine.'
Remember, part of civility means endeavouring to understand what your interlocutor is saying, instead of objecting to him before you have given due thought to what he is saying Nishidani 20:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion 3.'The term Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for a portion of the British Mandate of Palestine which, under the UN Partition Plan of 1947, was to be included as an integral part of the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine, but which in current usage includes East Jerusalem, though in the Mandate Plan that city was to be under International Administration.'
That seems a decent compromise? It is certainly better than the falsehood you keep reverting to, whose wording is mischievous since it hides the fact that the UN Partition Plan of 1947 designated a territory, north south east and west of jerusalem (hence Samaria and Judea, which constitute part of the 'Palestinian territories') as an autonomous Arab State independent of both Jordan and Egypt. To keep that phrasing is to be guilty of historical misrepresentation and an extreme form of POV Nishidani 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither suggestion 1 nor 2 addresses my problem regarding East Jerusalem. Suggestion 3 syas , in a very long winded and cumbersome way, what the current version says succinctly - which is that what we're talking about are the areas occupied by Jordan and Egypt from 1949 to 1967. If you'd like to add a sentence that says that most of these areas (with the notable exception of Jerusalem and its surrounding areas) were designated as part of the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine, I will not object to that. Isarig 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

@nishidani

  • The re-write of the first paragraph merely uses extra words to say the exact same thing in even a more POV way.
  • The views of "Yehuda Elitzur" of "Gush Emunim" are the views of one individual, cf WP:UNDUE, and certainly not "many Jewish fundamentalists" or even "many Jews". In addition, the argument that their territorial ambitions are the same as any Muslim ones is WP:OR.
  • The claims about "international law" are pure invented and unsourced original research, too.
  • Any claims or wordings you use that refer to "Israeli usage" are both original research and baseless; Israelis speak Hebrew.
  • The opinions of the ICJ are the opinions of the ICJ, nothing more; advisory opinions that do not create international law, cf WP:UNDUE.

--tickle me 08:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

point 1. I use more words, because the statement you prefer is POV, and ignores the juridical status of the 'Palestinian Territories' in International Law. That has to be in the lead para. To avoid mentioning it is to erase a fundamental fact.
point 2.You asked me to provide a quote to substantiate my adjustment of a 'point of view' unsourced, about Arab claims to much larger territories as 'Palestinian'. My edit paralleled this unsourced claim with a suggestion that the same claim is made by Jewish fundamentalists. You charged this required a source. I provided the source (unlike you and others who have no yet sourced the other claim) and now you say you don't think the source is representative. Well (a) The passage lacking a citation which precedes it is wholly arbitrary, and, (b) there is a whole chapter in the book ch.3. written by a senior American academic which documents precisely why what I added is quite true. You can't allow the unsourced claim to stand, and at the same time refuse the sourced counterclaim to stand. That is blatant POV. Read Lustik.
You write:'The views of "Yehuda Elitzur" of "Gush Emunim" are the views of one individual, cf WP:UNDUE, and certainly not "many Jewish fundamentalists".'
You asked me for a source, I gave one, and three excerpts. Now you reply re one, and the objections are specious. Elitzur's views are commonplace, see Lustik ch.3 (or any biography of Ben Gurion). It is not a violation of WP:UNDUE - to argue so is hypocritical because the rest of the text gives ample space to Shmuel Katz's personal opinions even though they have no standing in Internatioonal Law, neither do those of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. You haven't clearly read the source I directed you to. When you have get back to me.
(point 3) You write:'The claims about "international law" are pure invented and unsourced original research. Don't cite 'original search'.
Read the ICJ verdict (INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2004, 9 July 2004) a document freely available in any number of online sites. Quotation or paraphrase of such documents is what writing Wiki articles is about. Please do not raise time-wasting objections that are patently untrue in future.
(point 4) You write: 'Any claims or wordings you use that refer to "Israeli usage" are both original research and baseless; Israelis speak Hebrew.' Rubbish. Israeli usage does not refer to usage of Hebrew. It refers to Israelis' use of the English phrase 'Palestinian Territories'. Unless you haven't noticed, we are dealing with an English page, and English expressions current in Israeli expositions in English of 'Palestinian Territories'.
(point 5) You write: 'The opinions of the ICJ are the opinions of the ICJ, nothing more; advisory opinions that do not create international law, cf WP:UNDUE.'
Again, please use correct language. A judgement rendered down by the International Court of Justice is not simply 'an opinion'. Called on to adjudicate a legal claim, by a near unanimous verdict, the ICJ reviewed all legal documentation relevant to the dispute, and gave its verdict. That verdict is not binding, but it does state the Court's judgement of the legal status quo in terms of international law, as also underwritten by treaties and agreements to which Israel is a signatory. Again, if I cite a document, I expect that those who oppose my use of that document read it before replying. You haven't done that, evidently. When (para 120) the Court rendered the verdict that:-
'The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.'
It is not stating an opinion, which I or you can, with our own opinions (and Shmuel Katz with his) contest as 'just an opinion I disagree with'. It is a formal judgement on a breach of international law, and the function of that Court is to deliberate on International Law. Its verdict has therefore weight as a precedent in future discussions of the status of the Palestinian territories in International Law. That states defy International Law is commonplace, that does not mean those laws are thereby mere opinions or invalid.
FInally, instead of worrying about the two or three documented remarks I made, could you perhaps deign to look at the many parts of this slipshod article which require to be rewritten because they are full of untenable and rule-violating arbitrary remarks like
'Additionally, UN resolutions that characterize these territories as "Palestinian" clearly undermine the foundations of the peace process for the future.'
That is hyperPOV propaganda for one party to the dispute and, like many other passages, has no place in an encuyclopedia, Wiki or otherwise. I note for the record that no one objecting to my own minor and nuanced posts regards this extremely partisan tripe as a violation of Wikipedia rules. It is a sign of bad faith to let it stand, and I am waiting, as a test of good will, for one of those now editing this page to erase it. I won't. Regards Nishidani 09:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Nishidani, P.T. is a controversial term not in Israel only - try google. Their boundaries are still to be defined/negotiated. If the maps of P.T. are already drawn, then why the negotiations, peace process, land for peace, etc.? The 1947 UN Partition Plan did not mention the term P.T., see WP:SYNTH. Regarding "international law", see International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Humus sapiens
(a) I did not say the term 'Palestinian territories' was in the UN Partition Plan, as you imply.
(b)You write. 'Nishidani, P.T. is a controversial term not in Israel only - try google.'
All Google tells me is that the Israeli usage is often repeated by POV sources abroad. My point, I repeat is that, this language has no juridical status. As Moshe Dayan says in his memoirs, parts of 'the territories' are called by Israelis 'SDamaria and Judea' but the correct term for those two districts is 'the West Bank', to give but one example. I have great difficulty in making you all appreciate that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between local idiomatic and in this case customary Israeli usage in English, and standard international language based on the textual history of intgernational law and bilateral negotiations.
You ask: 'If the maps of P.T. are already drawn, then why the negotiations, peace process, land for peace, etc.?'
You are, pardon me, confusing the original map in 1947 designating a future Arab state, with the future Arab state as that is to be determined through negotations, simply because Israel, in law, is an Occupying Power which does not accept that International law and Conventions apply to military occupation. Having 78% of the Partition Land, it wants to negotiate further parts of the 22% remaining, gained through military conquest and imposed settlements on land that often has legal Palestinian title, not through negotation, and now through unilateral decisions (like the Wall outside the Green Line, which appear to constitute an annexation policy. All of these actions are, please read the ICJ verdict, technically violations of the relevant international laws governing territory taken and possessed by manu militari. Regarding International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is merely another controversial Wiki article, like the one we are writing here: it has no standing as a source. I only regard as a relevant source extra-wiki legal documents, drafted by legal experts, not partial summaries made by amateurs trying to find a compromise between opposed POVs. One cannot resolve disputes on a contested page in Wiki by sourcing as ostensible 'objective' accounts other Wiki pages that are equally controversial. RS, so far, does not allow Wiki to be a source for reliable sources. If it did, this would be a meaningless exercise in ouroboric feed back. RegardsNishidani 09:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig My apologies for using this hysteron-proteron priority. I meant to reply to your post first, but found edit conflicts, and thus addressed the last two editors' remarks first. I will address your serious point presently. regards Nishidani 10:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig
I came to this page, which I am personally not interested in, for a simple reason. A poster cited it, the section of Shmuel Katz (who is misleadingly described as a writer and the fact that he has had a stronger career in politics as co-founder with Begin of the Herut Party should be mentioned if that quote is to be retained) to protest the usage by another poster of the phrase ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’. The poster who challenged this is a responsible editor, took vehement exception to another editor's use of this phrase simply on the strength of what Katz remarked here. What Katz remarked here is pure mischief, since he tries to pass off as Arab propaganda a phrase which has accepted currency in UN debates and Resolutions. Once I’d examined this page, to which a link was made, and replied with Un-sourced documentation to show that Katz’s remark was POV and false, the poster seems to have accepted my intervention on this issue. He did not know that ‘’Occupied Palestinian Territory’’ was NPOV in international discussions, i.e. an objective designation of what is the case. And the fault for his misapprehension was this page’s highly dubious inclusion of a tendentious assertion by Katz. If Wikipedia editors were more scrupulous in choosing objective statements of the situation instead of cramming numerous personal opinions which are neither here nor there and immaterial to encyclopaedic articles, these misunderstandings would not occur.
Now, to the meat of your position. Overnight I reflected at length and noted that there was indeed substance to your objection, and that I had misunderstood it. That is therefore a free admission of a fault, but, I must add, my misapprehension relates to careless (excuse me) phrasing on your part.
What generated our intensive discussion was the following remark:-
'Palestinian territories is used to describe the Eastern parts of Jerusalem, but that territory was never 'designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine' by the UN partition plan.’
Had you written (also) or something like:
The phrase/term Palestinian territories now covers, in Israeli usage, the eastern parts of Jerusalem, as well as the West Bank territory and Gaza. In that sense, the term as used does not refer to that part of the land which, in the UN Partition Plan of 1947, was designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab State in Palestine, for in that Plan, Jerusalem had a special status as an internationally administered city distinct from both Israel and the intended Arab state.’
then I would not have written what I wrote. Technically, ‘Palestinian territories’ is not used to describe ‘the eastern parts of Jerusalem’: It includes ‘the eastern parts of Jerusalem’ in a more general description of the West Bank and Gaza.
I know this looks pedantic, but language is a minefield, and what I most protest about in these particular pages is the indifference to precise language. We are, I remind myself every day, editing articles that refer to realities with intricate legal histories behind them, and this legal framework is all too often ignored in favour of journalistic snippets which care little for the niceties that are characteristic of negotiations for the political determination of states in conflict.
Notwithstanding the impression your text gave me, duly interpreted as above, the substance of your objection to my phrasing is valid.
Let’s look at the compromise I suggested, and modify it along the lines you now say you would have no objections to. The prior version was succinct, which is a virtue. It is also faulty, in that it gives the juridically incorrect impression that the ‘Palestinian Territories’ have no legal status in international law.
Suggestion 3b = 4.'The term Palestinian territories refers collectively to lands now known as the West Bank, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem. Excluding Jerusalem, which was to have an autonomous status under International Administration, these territories were designated in the UN Partition Plan of 1947 as constituting the area for a future Arab State.’
That is simple, succinct, correct and NPOV. It is better, in my view, to the earlier formulation which makes the ‘Palestinian Territories’ extraterritorial to any known legal status, being in that text, merely areas of ill-defined nature successively conquered and occupied by Jordan, Egypt and Israel.
My reasons for 3b are as stated above. In International Law, governing the terms and limits of authority of a military occupation, all three phases of occupation of those lands were achieved manu militari, and the acquisition of territory by war, unless legitimated by a political settlement between the respective parties, i.e. the occupying power and the representatives of the occupied people, is ruled out as a grave contravention of standing conventions of International Law.
p.s. On a personal note,I am leaving this evening for some weeks abroad and may not be able to reply to any responses. These pages are not to be hurried. I hope in the meantime that my comppromise suggestion, which is along the lines you say are acceptable to you, finds general favour. I would also appreciate it, if some thought were given to the several remarks I made on other passages in the text, which are blatantly POV.
(1) Katz should be mentioned as also an Israeli politician (I.e. he has a vested interest in the personal position he avows).
(2) The remark, unsourced, on Palestinian maps which claim much larger territory should be sourced, and if retained, should include my parallel, which I have sourced to Ian S. Lustik, for similar maps and designs in Jewish fundamentalist groups. It would be simpler, of course, simply to elide the unsourced remark which generated my addition.
(3) The passage -'Additionally, UN resolutions that characterize these territories as "Palestinian" clearly undermine the foundations of the peace process for the future.'
Should be erased. It is indefensible, and hyperPOV. Wikipedia simply does not allow partisan political statements of this kind on its pages. I do not think these suggestions controversial, and hope you can collectively edit them to remove the POV.Regards Nishidani 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Your lates suggetsion implie tah the 'Palestinian territories' is a legal term with some legal standing in international law, based on the partition plan. That is an opinion, not fact, and does not belong in the lead. Isarig 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You've changed the grounds of your objection. What I write:i.e.
'The term Palestinian territories refers collectively to lands now known as the West Bank, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem. Excluding Jerusalem, which was to have an autonomous status under International Administration, these territories were designated in the UN Partition Plan of 1947 as constituting the area for a future Arab State.’
does not imply anything about legality, and is not an 'opinion' (unless what you wrote is an 'opinion' because my phrasing has borrowed extensively from your comments). You are confusing my contextual explanations with what I have actually written here. There is no implication. The phrasing is a succinct definition of the historical derivation of the 'Palestinian territories' influenced in two points by your own suggestions. You offered a compromise, and now refused it pretextually.
The words 'Palestinian territories' is not a legal term, I repeat, it is, a popular Israel expression, and as such, has no echo in legal debates, is not the term customarily used in International Arbitration, UN deliberations or the ICJ ruling, deliberations where the issue of legality is discussed. I'm still holding out for a rational response, and am still waiting for a sign of editorial good faith by someone of the several here who will apply Wiki rules to the passages I have indicated to be in violation of them.Nishidani 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
ps. can someone point me to a wiki rule which outlaws wasting serious work with an infinite sequence of pretextual objections in a war of attrition?Nishidani 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Jews

Please discuss any changes here. Further reverts will be reported as WP:3RR violations. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't say what documents are in the UN archives, but my parents own many records of "Palestinian folk songs" (i.e., pre-1948 Zionist folk songs).

Arise and Build, a 1960 history of the Labor Zionist youth movement Habonim, refers to "the Palestinian terrorist organization Irgun Zvai Leumi" (Irgun). The publication of Arise and Build was 8 or 9 years before Golda Meir's "There were no such thing as Palestinians" comment.

If necessary, I will find dozens of references to the Jews of pre-1948 Palestine as Palestinians. There was never any question that they were Palestinians. The word sabra didn't come into use until the 1930s, and it was a Hebrew word. In English, the Jews of Palestine were Palestinians. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I can say what documents are in the UN archives. All the British Mandate reports all the white papers all the Royal Commissions as well as sundry telegrams. I've spent 18 months going through them looking for references to jews as Palestinians. The only description is to Jews in Palestine, and to Arabs. No Palestinian Post articles refer to Jews as Palestinians just again to Jews and Arabs the term Palestinian does not seem to have been used by any person prior to 1948. And that applies to both Jews and Arabs.
As to Golda's comment it is principally correct in that no body seems to have used the term.
Please find a reference because at the moment it looks to be a bogus claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious: what records does the UN (1945-present) have concerning the British Mandate (1920-1948)? Did the UN inherit the records of the League of Nations? If not, do the UN archives related to Mandatory Palestine relate to any period beside 1945-1948? (I'm not trying to be nasty, I'm just curious.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: The appropriate way to deal with a "bogus claim" is to add a {{fact}} tag to it. Writing a paragraph speculating on what is "likely" or "unlikely" is considered original research and contrary to Wikipedia policy. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The UN has all the League of Nation documents in its archives. The term Palestinian was not used the phrase Jews in Palestine and Jews of Palestine, Arabs in Palestine and Arab of Palestine are the terms used repeatedly. I've gone from the Fisal letters to 1960 and there is no use of the term Palestinian for either Jews or Arabs in the UN docs. All the Palestine Post copies that are available on the net none again refer to Palestinians again in either context. The first use of the term Palestinian seems to have come in the early 60's and then when its use started to gain ground in use to refer to Arab refugees Golda then gave her quote about how she was a Palestinian. it is very difficult to prove a negative hence using "Bogus claim". nowhere have I every seen the claim substantiated.

If you do have any reference to its usage in the early 60's I would be very pleased to hear about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC) PS how do I sign properly??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The UN archives also has pre League of Nation Docs, principally McMahon-Hussein Correspondenceand Balfour Declaration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To sign (& date) your posts on talk pages, simply type four of these tildes (~) at the conclusion. Speaking of conclusions, what I object to most is the (il)logical leap characterizing some of your edits. You may have found no suitable reference at the UN, but the conclusion does not follow that "there is no evidence" or that "no document has ever referred to Jews in Palestine as Palestinian". It can be very difficult to prove absence, but the most we can say is that we have been unable to find any - and even that statement is unencyclopedic "OR". As Malik Shabazz mentions above, the need for a citation can be expressed by {{fact}}. Similarly, doubt can be noted by adding the template {{dubious}}, among others. I hope we will soon have one or more solid citations and be able to put this discussion to rest. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The earliest use of the term Palestinian that I have found is 18 July 1966 used by Syrian Delegate to the UN. "Syria emphasized that its Government could not be held responsible for the activities of El-Fatah and El-Asefa, nor for the rise of Palestinian Arab organizations." Prior to that it is as with the Christian Science Monitor of 28 October 1966 they all say "Palestine Arab."

The link with Palestinian in referring to Jews in Palestine I believe has only come about from the Golda quote. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the records of Palestinian music at my fingertips, but above I linked to a 1960 book — 8 or 9 years before Golda Meir's statement about Palestinians — that refers to Jews as Palestinians. Here are more references from the book:
Again, keep in mind that this book was published in 1960 and the second reference ("The Palestinian and Yiddish folk songs and the labor melodies") is reprinted from a 1935 document. Your claim that references to Jews as Palestinians began with Golda Meir is demonstrably untrue. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
To add to Malik's list, look at the 1922 Churchill White Paper, which contains the phrase "Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status." If I recall correctly, the official announcement of the Balfour Declaration in Palestine in 1920 has some phrase like 'Palestinians, Jews and Arabs alike'. (Again, iirc, should be at the end of Stein's book on the BD, or the beginning of Christopher Sykes' book on the mandate.) This english word was used back then for both Jews and Arabs, there is no doubt of that.John Z (talk) ~05:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


There reference to the Churchill white paper is to all the Citizens of Palestine not to one or other group but to the collective of both Arab and Jewish populations, it also occurs in one of the Royal Commissions as a collective for describing both groups together. When Arabs or Jews were mentioned as separate groups it was as Jews, Arabs, Jews of Palestine or Arabs of Palestine but never as Palestinians.

The cultural reference in "THE FOUNDING OF HABONIM (1930-1935") "It was decided to follow the Palestinian pattern and have a semi-formal gathering called pegisha". and your examples again refer to the practices found in the land of Palestine rather than to people. The Arabs had the semi-informal gatherings long before the Mandate period. Thanks for the sources, I shall go through them for provenance and context. 86.162.157.2 (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry I hadn't logged in, does anyone know what language the original was in?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a sort of anecdote to add here. I have a reprint of a letter by Chaim Weizmann concerning a relative of mine, Prof. Yehuda Hirshberg. The letter is dated 20th January 1930, and is addressed to Professor Speyer at the University of Brussels, where Hirshberg was doing his PhD work, and in it Weizmann asks Speyer if he can do something to help Hirshberg financially. The letter begins with this: "I understand that at the university of Brussels there is a Palestinian boy, a Mr. Yehuda Hirshberg, who is supposed to be a brilliant chemist."

When I first read this it seemed quite amusing to me, the use of "Palestinian boy", but this was not unusual for that time. okedem (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Y'all might want to check out Palestinian people#Etymology. Based on a 1930 report from the UK to the League of Nations (available here) it says: During the British Mandate of Palestine, the term "Palestinian" was used to refer to all people residing there, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and those granted citizenship by the Mandatory authorities were granted "Palestinian citizenship".[1] Following the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people, the use and application of the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" by and to Palestinian Jews largely dropped from use. The English-language newspaper The Palestine Post for example — which, since 1932, primarily served the Jewish community in the British Mandate of Palestine — changed its name in 1950 to The Jerusalem Post. Jews in Israel and the West Bank today generally identify as Israelis. Arab citizens of Israel identify themselves as Israeli and/or Palestinian and/or Arab.[2]

Hope that helps. Tiamuttalk 13:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's more or less what I find. The Yishuv didn't seem to use the term Palestinian to refer to themselves and the term Palestinian was only used when referring to the whole population collectively.

On the "HaBonim Arise and Build" one of the articles is said to be dated 1946 yet I have it down as being written in 1985.

Engee Caller, “From Brooklyn to Palestine in 1939 (Kibbutz Kfar Blum, 1985) as quoted by David B. Ruderman and Guiseppe Veltri, eds. Cultural Intermediaries: Jewish Intellectuals in Early Modern Italy. Jewish Culture and Contexts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. 293 pp.

So I'm a bit dubious about the provenance of the "HaBonim Arise and Build"

The SHIMON KAUFMAN, Los Angeles, 1958 can also be found at http://www.dpcamps.org/illegalimmigration.html So the claim rests on one article by Shimon Kaufman an American writing in 1958 about his experiences in 1947. No much to base a generalisation on?

The other articles had the context of borrowing from Arab culture and should be dismissed as references to Geographical location rather than to people.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Habonim Arise and Build shows up some funny pieces:

in “Builders and dreamers: Habonim Labor Zionist youth in North America” By J. J. Goldberg, Elliot King Illegal Immigration SHIMON KAUFMAN, Los Angeles, 1958 becomes: Cyprus 1947 “The British scarcely provided the Red Carpet Treatment SHIMON KAUFMAN, Los Angeles, 1958 And “Illegal Immigration” Laying the groundwork Akiva Skidell, Kfar Blum 1985

Looks like "HaBonim Arise and Build" has been tampered with. This should make for an interesting chapter. Thanks for the heads up on the "Habonim Arise and Build"Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In HaBonim Arise and Build THE FOUNDING OF HABONIM SAADIA GELB, Kfar Blum. 1959

Becomes in “Builders and dreamers: Habonim Labor Zionist youth in North America” By J. J. Goldberg, Elliot King THE FOUNDING OF HABONIM Into the whirlwind of History SAADIA GELB, Kfar Blum. 1985

For HaBonim Arise and Build 1960 to have articles written in 1985 makes it well ahead of its time. I don't think HaBonim Arise and Build has a very good provenance.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Churchill White Paper says that every individual citizen in Palestine has the legal status "Palestinian". Every Palestinian Arab is Palestinian. Every Palestinian Jew is Palestinian. So there is no doubt that "the term 'Palestinian' had also been applied for many years to Palestinian Jews" (and Arabs too). Of course when someone writes about things that differentiate between two groups, he will use words that differentiate between them instead of using the same word, because to do otherwise would be incomprehensible. Humans are not Marklars. But all this disputation has nothing to do with this article at all, which supposedly is about Palestinian territories - about land, not people. Citations linking this statement to the article topic, not just citations for the statement itself are necessary. So in fact the earlier version, before Ashley's edits, with "Additionally, the term 'Palestinian' had also been applied for many years to Palestinian Jews in the same region" always was OR in this context itself, and we owe Ashley thanks for starting this debate, which highlighted this little piece of OR cruft.
The sentence that was above it, about Jewish objections, may need a cite too - it shouldn't be hard to find, but would probably help improve that sentence. So in light of this, I will remove the whole entirely misplaced discussion from the article.John Z (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Arise and Build is a history of the first 25 years of Habonim, and it was published in 1960, the 25th anniversary of the founding. Perhaps Kfar Blum, a kibbutz largely established by Habonim members, reprinted the book in 1985, the 50th anniversary of Habonim's founding.

Builders and Dreamers is a different book that was written for the movement's 50th anniversary. It may have reprinted some of the essays from the older book.

Re: the publication of Arise and Build, see this citation in Essays in Modern Jewish History: A Tribute to Ben Halpern (note 5, page 307), this citation in Envisioning Israel: The Changing Ideals and Images of North American Jews (note 42, page 102), and this citation in American Jewish Women and the Zionist Enterprise (note 2, page 217). The book was brought out in 1961, one year following the 25th anniversary, not 1960. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What was the original language of the "haBonim Arise and Build"?

Because in "Dreamers and Builders" it gives the essays as dated 1985, is this date of translation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.157.2 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to log in.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This article still has problems

The lead needs to be rewritten. In contemporary usage, Palestinian Territories means the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That should be stated clearly right in the first sentence. No one uses the term to mean Areas A and B of the Oslo accords, as the second paragraph of the lead currently misleadingly suggests (Today, the designation typically refers to the territories governed in varying degrees by the Palestinian Authority (42% of the West Bank plus all of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip)). It should be noted that in the Declaration of Principles of the Oslo accords, it was agreed by both sides that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip consititute a "single territorial unit". It is true that Israel and the Palestinians disagree on exactly what territory is spanned by the West Bank. That should be mentioned also (and is).

Here are some sources that clearly use the term Palestinian Territories to mean the West Bank and Gaza:

The careful wording of the BBC profile (Palestinian Ministry of Information cites 5,970 sq km (2,305 sq miles) for West Bank territories and 365 sq km (141 sq miles) for Gaza) may be recommended as appropriate neutral wording for this article.

The whole bit in the article which claims that the term Palestinian Territories is used by "journalists to indicate lands where Palestinian people dwell" and "some Arab nationalists" is original research and plainly wrong, as the examples I've given above indicate.

Judea and Samaria does not have the same geographical meaning as Palestinian Territories. Judea and Samaria refers to the West Bank. Yesha does refer to the same geographical region as Palestinian Territories. A case can be made for merging that article into this one.

It needs to be mentioned, in the lead, that these territories are officially referred to as the Occupied Palestinian Territories by the United Nations. We can also mention in the lead that Israeli officials usually use the term "the territories", although as far as I'm aware the Israeli government has never made a formal objection to the term Palestinian Territories without Occupied in front.Sanguinalis 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

All true, but you'll never get it past the hasbara line touted by those who habitually edit here and control the page. The article is a confused midden of ill-digested POVs, which try to muddle the clarity of international law on these lands. THe best one can do is maintain the dispute flag on top. The bias is far too important to vested interests for them to allow a clear exposition of the subject matter. They even have an ex-terrorist like Katz cited as an authority on international law, though it violates undue weight for a fringe and eccentric opinion Nishidani 07:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following passage.

The term 'Palestinian' has its roots in the name of the ancient Philistines, a sea-faring people who settled in the Gaza area, adjacent to the Israelites. The Philistines were not Semites, did not speak a Semitic languague and were instead most likely of Mycenaean origin. Susequent to the full Roman conquest of ancient Israel and Judea, along with the Romans' 70 C.E. destruction of the Hebrew temple and capital in Jerusalem, and the expulsion of large numbers of the Jewish population, the Romans applied the Latin word "Palestine" to the entire area. This term was then periodically used in the Common Era to refer to the lands of Israel, Judea and Samaria, Gaza and the southern part of what was loosely termed Greater Syria. With the exception many smaller ethnic groups, including the indigenous Christians and Jews who continued to speak Aramean and Hebrew, respectively, Arabic became one of the dominant languages of the Greater Palestinian region after the Arabian Muslim conquests beginning in the 600-700s C.E.

I.e. the only other inhabitants were 'foreigners'. None of the identifications made are historically secure. Cf. Philistines as Greek speakers. The foremost scholar of classical Greek MR West says 'Philistine names contradict the notion that they were Greek speakers' (The East Face of Helicon , Oxford 1997 p.38 n.148). 'Palaistina' is furthermore not a Latin word introduced by Romans after Bar Kochba's revolt: it is attested as the ancient Greek term for the area in Herodotus, writing around 440 BCE. Palestine/Israel was an immensely rich mix of peoples and cultures, and to simplify it as a face-off between intruding Greeks and Hebrews is POV. Besides all this, the ethnic constitution of this part of the ancient Levant has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. Nishidani 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph provides the needed insight to demonstrate that the Palestinians aren't the descendants of the Philistines a common misconception.--Saxophonemn (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This section and the one after it seem way too critical and biased against Israel. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Israel has NO legal claim to the land. Mnmazur (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


Israel is the only sovereign nation to have a claim to the territories. Recall Israel was made out of the mandate, so all of the land would have been Israel. Secondly UN resolution 242 states that Israel has to give back some, not all of the territories liberated/captured in the 6 Day War. Thus they are allowed to keep as much as they need for a secure border. The entire green line border is merely an armistice line. People are merely miffed that Israel won the war that they can't stand the idea of Jews having more of their homeland. In a nutshell, "NO" is flat out wrong! -- Saxophonemn (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
1. Israel has been the only sovereign nation-state to have a claim to the territories since Jordan gave up its claim, albeit to get rid of the matter and "make room" for Palestinian state, and not Israeli annexations. Moreover, Israel does have de facto sovereignty over these lands. However, this is not automatically de iure sovereignty, nor does it cancel the right of self-determination of the inhabitants. If it did, gaining independence and creating a new nation-state would be legally impossible in contemporary world.
2. According to what principle being made out of mandate gives Israel right to claim all of it? If we were to accept such a principle, wouldn't it give Jordan the right to claim all of the pre-1922 mandate, North Korean govt to South Korea, Serbia to all of former Yugoslavia?
3. What you claim according to UN 242 is false, just read it[2]: there is a call for "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", which, due to a missing 'the' in front of territories, has been the basis of a disputed interpretation leading to land claims. Emphasizing both the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force and the right for peace and secure borders can hardly be considered as a statement calling for return of "some" territory. And really, liberated were the territories and their inhabitants, and for the last 40 years the level of freedom they enjoy is breathtaking :-/
4. Security reasons - if you think Israel has right to all of the former mandate, why even mention security reasons? Once you're a rightful owner of sth, you don't have to give further reasons for claiming it, do you? And, does one's right to security stand above others' right to self-determination?
5. Speaking of either former mandate or Palestinian territories as exclusively Jewish homeland is, to say the least, slightly inconsistent with the fact that other ethnicities have been living there as well: Bedouins, Druze, Palestinians and Samaritans (Source: Middleton J., Rassam A. (Ed.). (1995). Encyclopedia of World Cultures Vol. 9 - Africa & the Middle East. G.K. Hall & Company, New York). Psychopathologist (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong about number 3 (242) - there was explicit discussion of this point between the drafters of the proposal, and the word "the" was left out intentionally, with some powers pushing for it, and others against. This was explained by the very people involved. The drafters specifically explained the pre-1967 borders were not considered defendable, and they did not call for a return to them. okedem (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right, there is no call to withdrawal to the 1948 armistice line - but I have not claimed otherwise. My point is, the resolution cannot be interpreted as just letting Israel retain some of the territory. The principle of inadmissibility of land conquest and the call to withdraw the army combined with such an interpretation would make UN 242 self-contradictory. As the very people involved have explained, the reason for the lack of the definite article is to allow for redrawing the border, but never as a result of conquest and annexation (the resolution points to recognized boundaries). Technically speaking, this makes a possibility of Israel actually keeping some of the territories (as well as giving up some of its pre-1967 land, or even returning to the armistice line), but never through unilateral decision founded upon military victory. Psychopathologist (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Then we are in agreement. The point is - the resolution doesn't call on Israel to unilaterally return the land, nor does it say the final situation should be a full return to 1967 borders for peace. Instead it says that the conflict should be resolved by discussion and agreement between the sides, based upon recognition and peace from Arab states, and return of land by Israel. The resolution doesn't specify the extent of land return, leaving that up to the two sides. Just wanted to make that clear, mainly for the readers of the talk page, who might not be well versed in this matter. okedem (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Captured/Liberated

Why was my edit rolled back? The current wording in the beginning is a biased POV as to what happened with the land. A Jew will say the 6 day war liberated Judea/Samaria and Gaza, while an Arab would say they captured those places. The only people who technically captured them were Egypt and Jordan. No sovereign country was ever conquered/captured. Relinquish is a word that plainly means let go of. The idea being that it's a neutral word for Egypt and Jordan no longer controlled the territories, and Israel now does. Further disputed territories makes most sense because if one group says one thing and another something else in which there is a dispute then they are disputed. Just because the whole world believes in one thing doesn't matter, the world isn't a democracy. --Saxophonemn (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Relinquish means willingly. If a country gains control of a territory by war, the territory was captured. While "liberated" is POV, as it expresses an opinion about the legal owner of the land, "captured" simply explains the facts. A POV phrasing from the other side would be, perhaps, "illegally captured", "stolen", or some such crap. okedem (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Relinquish does not mean willingly it's a very parev word for not theirs anymore. As a native English speaker and frequent user of a dictionary to verify definitions I feel this is the most appropriate word choice. The wiktionary is not the best dictionary in the world. Also for the first line there was a subject-verb disagreement 'are' not 'is' is the proper verb. - Perhaps a clarification is needed, to state:
"The Palestinian territories [are] one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and occupied by Jordan and by Egypt in the late 1940s, and [unwillingly obtained] by Israel in [defense during] the 1967 Six-Day War."
Logistically the Israeli acquisition of the territories was the first time they were actually captured by a party that had a legitimate claim to them, though be it a 2000 year old claim. --Saxophonemn (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it means willingly. All dictionaries I consulted seem to support that. Oh, and your use of "Logistically" is, of course, wrong. okedem (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"Of all these verbs meaning to let go or give up, relinquish is the most general. It can imply anything from simply releasing one's grasp (: she relinquished the wheel) to giving up control or possession reluctantly (: after the defeat, he was forced to relinquish his command)." --My apple dictionary's right word choice. The second definition of relinquish is "to give up"! Yielded would also be appropriate as well as surrendered. However all of those words throw in POV, after all they lost them to Israel in the most simplest terms. Yet, that wasn't stated either. Captured is probably the most poor word choice to describe what happened. They essentially willingly gave up the territories as well if you were to go that far as they wanted a cease fire to end the war instead of trying to get them back. Presently Egypt and Jordan no longer want them.
Um, yes with logistically it works how many people were involved involved it was a complex operation, despite Jordan doing its best to hand over Yehuda and the Shomron to Israel. Besides the point that's a non-issue, you seem offended, no offense was meant. My concern from a POV standpoint is that captured is not the most appropriate word. --Saxophonemn (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Much as I sympathize with your desire to make articles less anti-Israel (this article seems pretty much okay to me), relinquish typically, unless modified, implies giving something up voluntarily. Regardless of whether or not Jordan and Egypt had a legitmate right to the, what became, the Israeli Occupied Territories, Egypt and Jordan controlled them, and Israel captured them during the Six Day war. If you are implying that Jordan did truly voluntarily give up their lands, then I apologize, since this is something I am not aware of and I do not think is the consensus opinion of what happened. Sposer (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I ultimately figured yield works best, since it more strongly demonstrates unwillingness. Since yield is a milder form of surrender it works. The connotation of capture is negative in this sense because it equates the capture of Egypt and Jordan with the capture of the territories by Israel which should more aptly be captured back. The instance is ridiculous because of all of the area of Israel the region of Ju-dea has the highest connection to the Jews, with two of Judaism's holiest cities, Jerusalem and Hebron. --Saxophonemn (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the language is fine as it is. If anything, it's biased toward Israel. The Territories are described as "captured and occupied by Jordan and by Egypt", and then "captured by Israel". If I were you, I would leave well enough alone, before somebody adds that they were "captured and occupied by Israel". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's biased towards Israel, the Israeli bias would be that they were liberated. Recall that the lands were promised to the Jews in the White Paper and further back. Things essentially fell a part when 80% of the mandate became Jordan. Hebron a city in a the West Bank is the second holiest city in Judaism, an often ignored fact, yet taking it back, ie liberating it is what happened. You're ignoring the equivocation of captured. That creates a serious ethical miscalculation. That is the issue!--Saxophonemn (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You're reading equivocation where none exists. Capture simply means taking by force, which is what happened. Past promises are not the point here, nor is the holiness of certain cities. okedem (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It's the same word, thus an equivocation. The problem I see is that the Israeli acquisition of parts of Israel would need to say captured back. That is what is wrong with captured simply put. --19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxophonemn (talk • contribs)
When exactly, before 1967, were the West Bank and Gaza part of the State of Israel? In order to say that Israel "captured back" the Territories, one would have to demonstrate that they were Israel's in the first place. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The first charter for Israel was written down 3500 years ago in the Torah. If you think that is a bad comparison then think about how the France today is a different France from the first one. In that right we're in the post commonwealth/republic of Israel preceded the Temple Era governments. If you peel back the layers of History Israel was the only place to have owned that land before that "owns" it now.--Saxophonemn (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

'The first charter for Israel was written down 3500 years ago in the Torah.'

I.e.1500 BCE. It's what philologists envy God for. That he could write down a charter in the Torah six centuries before the creation of Hebrew script, and a thousand years before serious recensions of the Torah began. Retroactive titles for landtheft smack inevitably of miracles. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Listen even 1000 years ago it was known people would dispute Jewish sovereignty. Your damning argument falls apart rather easily. For starters we would need intact parchments from that era, engraving typically uses a different font for example like cursive writing as opposed to print. Land theft, how do you steal land, (true colors of a bias)? On the national level that's called losing a war.--Saxophonemn (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8
  1. ^ Government of the United Kingdom (December 31, 1930). "REPORT by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN FOR THE YEAR 1930". League of Nations. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Isabel Kershner (8 February 2007). "Noted Arab citizens call on Israel to shed Jewish identity". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2007-01-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupied_Palestinian_territories/Archive_4&oldid=1245326369"