Jump to content

Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Error and confusing wording

"The term 'Palestinian Territory, Occupied' was used by the United Nations (UN) and other international organizations between 1998 to 2013 in order to refer to the Palestinian National Authority."

The Palestinian National Authority is a government body, not a territory.

Israeli sovereignty, however, has not been recognized by any country...

This should say "Israeli sovereignty over the Palestinian territories...". Kaldari (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Rather than "occupied territories" or "territories occupied" phrasing used in the past, UNSC2334 now refers to the "Palestinian territory occupied" at Clause 1 and "the occupied Palestinian territory" at Clause 2 (referring to the WB and EJerusalem in this context, ie taking Gaza out of it at least directly) . I think some reference ought to be made to this, perhaps (roughly) along these lines:
"Palestinian territories" and "occupied Palestinian territories" (OPT or oPt) are descriptions often used to describe the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, which are occupied or otherwise under the control of Israel.[7][8][9].Since then, UNSC Res 2334 of 2016 refers to "the Palestinian territory occupied" in its Clause 1 and to "occupied Palestinian territory" in its Clause 2 (referring to the WB and EJerusalem in this context).

I qualify by time but not by count I think so any comments about this?Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hah, it seems I do qualify by number of edits as well so if nothing on this in a few days, I will have a go at making a proper edit.12Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Title

Having mulled over the edit as discussed above, it would seem that the article title is in question.

The most current high level UN sources covering the situation appear to be UNSC 2334(2016) and UNSC 1860(2009). Are there others?

"Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state" (second line of UNSC 1860 re Gaza) and

"establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem" (in clause 1 of UNSC 2334) and

"cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem" (in Clause 2 of UNSC 2334)

I suppose here that "Palestinian territory occupied" has the same meaning as "occupied Palestinian territory" and the wording is just for convenience.

My take from this is the the official line now is that there is ONE occupied territory comprising Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank (although the latter is not specifically mentioned other than by reference to settlements).

The standalone name would seem to be "Occupied Palestinian territory" (as an aside , this would also appear to deal with the "occupation" of Gaza by defining Gaza as an integral part of THE territory even though it is geographically separated)

So it seems that the article should be retitled from "Palestinian territories" to either of "Occupied Palestinian territory" or "Palestinian territory" (I suppose either would do, the first might be better in view of the implied Gaza occupation).

Of course, what seems clear to me might not be so clear to others, so if there are no comments over next few days I am going to go ahead with an edit based on the above.Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I oppose you change because of WP:RECENTISM and anyhow the UNSC decisions are WP:Primary we should look if the following years if WP:RS change their terminology so we should too till that its premature. --Shrike (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I will continue to wait for more comments in view of your objection.I will however say at this point that I do not agree with your assertions, we are not talking about newspaper articles here but UNSC resolutions and I have directly quoted from them precisely so as to avoid a charge of original research. I am not sure of what your definitions of primary and secondary are in the context of a title change, if you are saying that UNSC resolutions are primary, then what do you consider to be secondary? Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Please read what is WP:RS secondary sources.In general it should be scholarly books and articles or newspapers.--Shrike (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I have already read that, note that I have not yet accepted that UNSC Resolutions are primary for the purpose of a title change.I already have one "secondary", how many will satisfy you?.Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME most of the sources should use it.--Shrike (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Shrike. COMMONNAME applies. One or two UN resolutions don't outweigh the thousands of reliable sources that refer to the territories in the plural. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I also recommend following the procedures laid out at WP:Requested moves. They will help publicize this request and draw input from a larger pool of editors. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It's OK, I am not that bothered about it, I just think it is more accurate and I have already verified to my own satisfaction that the distinction is intentional. So I am happy just to leave this here on the talk page and allow users to make up their own minds about it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Below a copy of the discussion on the talk page of Political status of the Palestinian territories where merger to here was suggested originally:-

Quote

This is almost a stub, its content can easily go in State of Palestine or in Legal status of the State of Palestine or even split between the two and delete this.Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Since this article deals with the Palestinian Territories and not State of Palestine, it can be merged into Palestinian territories. You may have noticed above that a proposal to merge this into Legal status of the State of Palestine was rejected previously. Has anything changed since ? It seems like you are WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since you began this discussion here in parallel to Talk:Legal_status_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Merge, without mentioning either on the other venue. “WarKosign” 20:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I looked up forumshopping, I am not doing that, I gave my reason on this page about this article ie it's virtually a stub sitting in space doing nothing and ought to be somewhere else, I don't really care where. If moved to Palestinian Territories then that solves the other problem as well (where I supported the merge for the same reason, to get rid of this page), 2 for price of 1.Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Does absence of comment equate to agreement? How would one go about merging here with Palestinian territories?Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Unquote

Anyone object? Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the merge as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Support Seraphim System (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected minor edit request on 2 November 2017

In the final sentence of the second paragraph in the lead section of the article, "...as a non-sovereign entity;[14] This prevents its admission..." please change 'This' to 'this'. ebbillings (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for noticing the error and pointing it out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename

'Palestinian territories' is not really used by anyone to refer to the oPt; the term 'occupied Palestine territories' in the first sentence of the lead, although still used from time to time, has been largely superseded by the phrase 'occupied Palestinian territory'.(the disambiguation page lists a set of possibilities that no-one uses Palestinian territories to refer to)

I would propose to amend the page title to reflect the current mainstream usage. It is also the usage preferred by the UN at the highest levels, in the ICJ and in UNSC documents generally, as well as OHCR and UNWRA.

Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the first sentence of the lead gives 3 references, two refer to the "occupied Palestinian territory" / "oPt" (a 2008 Routledge report and a UN OCHA link from 2009) while the third is a US Department of State link "being updated" (the Palestinian Territories Fact Sheet) so is no longer valid. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
US State now does not appear to make use of any designation as such for the area and in the main body of its https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?dynamic_load_id=277247&year=2017#wrapper 2017 HR report mentions only "the 1967 occupation" under the heading "West Bank and Gaza", which is rather unhelpful in terms of the name question. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There are two issues at hand, the "occupied" descriptor and the territory(ies) question. Regarding the latter, the use of the word territory appears to have begun life in 1999 (Naftali, [7]), reaffirmed later in such as UNSC 1860 of 2009 "Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state" and "Stressing the need for respect and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" (GA 65/179 of 2010)and finally "Cease all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" (UNSC 2334 of 2016). Some bodies and agencies have followed the lead given, the ICJ (Wall, 2004), the EU and Oxfam for example while some have not, continuing to use the term "territories", notably the UK and Amnesty. Nevertheless, the weight of usage rests with the use of "territory" rather than "territories" at the current time.Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As to the former, elsewhere in Wikipedia we have Israeli-occupied_territories that includes a lengthy section on the terminology used; notwithstanding objections to "occupied" from some Israeli sources (not including the Israeli judiciary) and recent US resistance to usage of the term (per above note), it is clear everywhere else that the proper designation is indeed "occupied".Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

To conclude, while the phrase "Palestinian territories" is used by many sources, notably by the press, it is clear from the above that it should in any case be territory and not territories. It is also the case that though many press sources try to avoid "headline" arguments by omitting the "occupied" descriptor, their articles invariably mention the occupation.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Most sources use territories, as while East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank are all considered as occupied (the current status of Gaza in this regard somewhat contested) - the legal situation of each is different - e.g. Gaza was Egyptian controlled territory in 1967 and the West Bank was Jordanian. Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Many edits have been reverted all at once, including added sources. This is in breach of the 1 revert per 24 hours rule and the global edit has been undone. Please address each edit one by one, not all at once. Apart from this, it is not true that most sources (unless the press is meant?) use "territories", what is the evidence for this assertion? The legal situation is also not different, all the areas are classed as occupied by the UN and in the ICJ Wall judgement, it was expressly stated that there is no need for any inquiry into their prior status.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You've been reverted once - which is a single revert. Please note the "original author" provision in ARBPIA. Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There are UN documents that use "territories", but the great majority of UN documents use "territory". In non-UN sources, I see both versions plenty of times. Zerotalk 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Although merely persuasive, the Google test yields 2.28 million results for "occupied Palestinian territory" and only 0.84 million results for "occupied Palestinian territories". The process of moving from one phrasing to the other has been going on essentially since 1999 (I added a source for this) when the UN recognized "the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" as being the territory claimed for the State of Palestine.Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Beware of raw google hit counts. Most news orgs use "Palestinian territories" (with or without occupied) with exceptions mainly referring to a singular location (e.g. just Gaza). A Google NGRAM clearly shows that "Palestinian territories" is far ahead (more than x3) that other permutations - since the mid-90s. Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, searching on "Palestinian territories" alone will pick up all the press usage as well as those pages and all derivatives of pages that included occupied in addition, I would not dispute that. It does not change the fact that the official usage is as has been outlined and to make a case for the contrary based on usage by the press is not appropriate. Please do note that I have not amended the page title, I would prefer first to have the content as accurate as is possible, it may be that we can dispense with an actual rename provided that the content of the article is itself correct.Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no binding official verbiage here. As for usage in the press - well - that would be a rather strong source for the WP:COMMONNAME here. In any case - as can been seen in the NGRAM results (which is a rather strong source) - usage of all of the different forms here pre-dates 1999 - as has been added by @Selfstudier: - revert (The term occupied Palestinian territory (OPT or oPt) is used since 1999 by the United Nations (UN) - any sources to back up this usage beginning in 1999 by the UN (a rather diffuse body I might add, different parts of the UN actually use different verbiage in this subject area)? None of the sources cited at the end of sentence seem to back up this assertion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The source which was added by myself as the first of the multiple edits that I made is the first one (it is also also mentioned above in my initial talk comments), the Naftali source, the journal article is publicly available at the url given and on page 552, the relevant portion reads as follows : "Note further, that since 1999, the term "occupied Palestinian territory" (hereinafter OPT), is gradually substituting the terms "the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem" and "Palestinian occupied territories" in the terminology of the United Nations referring to the areas occupied by Israel since 1967....". If you check various UN organs for yourself, you can trace the changeover in terminology from the one phrase to the other over time (while it is a continuing process, the major arms have made the change). I am not clear what you mean by "binding" in this context, it is more a matter of what is customary and the UN/ISO would be the usual parties involved in naming a state or geographical entity, certainly it is not for the press or individual countries to decide such matters.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
At the very least the citation needs to be clearer (e.g. placing this next to 1999). A 2005 source claiming this for the 1999-2005 time period would be rather dated. It is also claiming this is "gradually substituting" (as opposed to "since 1999) and does not make the distinction between "Occupied Palestinian territories" and "Occupied Palestinian territory" (both of which are OPT). This is a rather weak source. As you might see in the Google NGRAM - usage well pre-dates 1999, and actual usage date does not corroborate this footnote. Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I have made an edit to the introductory sentences of the lead to partially address your concerns, is it suitable? Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your assertion of formal vs. informal use is WP:OR - and can be easily refuted (e.g. UN security council resolutions or other formal settings in which occupied Palestinian territory/ies was used). The sole thing you can source from Naftali is a "as of 2005, there is a gradual shift from 1999 towards using OPT".Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Years in the Israeli Civil Administration Area

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 13#Years in the Israeli Civil Administration Area. Should the categories for 1967–1993 use "Israeli Military Governorate"/"Israeli Civil Administration area", "Palestinian territories", "Israeli-occupied territories", "occupied Palestinian territories", "occupied Arab territories" or something else? – Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

For my edification, is this seeking to know how these areas were usually referred to in the years 1967 to 1993? Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
That is correct, see the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I have had a look at the discussion. I suppose 67 is chosen because that is when certain "territories" were occupied after 6 day war. And I guess 93 is chosen because of Oslo, the latter being only applicable to Palestine "territories". Is the purpose of categories to enable users to locate stuff or is there some other purpose? Or is this a silly question? Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I am making a mountain out of a molehill here. To me, the defining features of these territories is that they were all part of the British Mandate for Palestine and from the end of it in 1948 to the present, they have all been occupied, not only by Israel. This probably explains the still frequently used "occupied Palestinian territories" so I would likely go with that for a category even though the current official usage is territory rather than territories.Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

history of region

David, I didnt want to just revert the addition outright, but there are a bunch of problems with it. The very first of which is the material added is very much not a history of the region. The second is the essayish character of the writing. For example, but not annexed by Israel, pending negotiations regarding its status. On the one hand, the territory is also part of historic Israel, the borders of ancient Israel overlapping those of Galilee and the modern West Bank. What exactly does the second sentence have to do with the first? And the source for that is what, a travel guide? Then you follow that with a fact which leads to politically contentious issues. What contentious issues? Then you continue with it is currently not recognised by the UN and most nations as part of the modern State of Israel, but is also not yet autonomous, although the Israeli government views the same lands as "disputed territories,". A, that kind of understates the issue, as not even Israel considers any part of the Palestinian territories to be part of Israel, excepting East Jerusalem, and you are putting forward only one, minority, view (disputed territories) and leaving unsaid the super-majority one (occupied territory). The tone of the entire addition is that of a personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 02:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

So, if the problem is with its style, or with its title, we can rewrite it. My objective was to show how the country is historically connected to its indigenous peoples, to the end that we might give greater balance to this article. I welcome your insights on how to do that. Obviously, User:Zero0000 thought differently than you when he improved the edit. Perhaps a better sub-title would be "Historical connections". Davidbena (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
David, I don't approve edits. Actually I was hoping someone like Nab would take up the discussion as their were clear problems. Zerotalk 03:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so I will try to work on the edit to improve its style (along with a different heading) and reinstate it. This will give a strongly needed balance to this article.Davidbena (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If an unbalanced tag (and it is repeated above that the article is "unbalanced") then the onus is on the tagger to explain precisely how/why the article is unbalanced, not merely assert that it is. If it is simply one section or some sentence, why not ask for those to be improved rather than tagging the entire article? Better still, add appropriately sourced material if that's what is needed.Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Clearly the pre-20th century history of the region - Jewish, Christian, and Muslim - is relevant to the current status, and should be included here in some form. Icewhiz (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I can see how it would have been missed out to begin with because the "Palestinian territories" has no real history as such in much the same way that "Israel" pre-1948 does not, they are terms that are recent in the overall history of the area. The history of Palestine (the Palestinian Territories and Israel together) is well covered elsewhere. If a copy edit of some of the material from articles such as History_of_Palestine is all that is needed for "balance" I would not object to that. In any case, if the history section is all that we are discussing I can see no reason for tagging the whole article and I have removed it in favor of the same tag just for the section (although I am not really convinced that this is the appropriate tag, tbh).Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes sure, but that isnt what the section was. nableezy - 15:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
David the problem is with the content and the tone. The specific examples I gave are about both. nableezy - 15:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Since "Palestinian territories" refer specifically to the lines of demarcation given to describe "autonomous or semi-autonomous rule" given by Israel to the Palestinian Authority, and since the territory in question is still rich in ancient Jewish, Muslim and Christian history, to wit, its indigenous peoples have a long history of connection to that territory, it is imperative that we have a section treating on that history. It puts everything else in context. We'll work together on its content and tone so that we'll all be satisfied.Davidbena (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
While we are waiting on this contribution I changed the template to the more appropriate "missing information" using the info above and put it in the right place.Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
No David, that is not what "Palestinian territories" refer to. "Palestinian territories" refer to the entirety of the territory in what had been Mandatory Palestine that Israel captured and has occupied since the 1967 war. It is not "autonomous or semi-autonomous rule" given by Israel to the Palestinian Authority. The term pre-dates the Palestinian Authority, it includes territory that the PA has no control over (Area C and East Jerusalem), and it was not given to them by Israel. nableezy - 17:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
We'll hammer-out the fine details, and we'll append reliable sources to all claims. Mandatory Palestine was, as you know, a country undivided. The "Palestinian territories" proposes, unlike Mandatory Palestine, a country divided between two separate entities - Jewish and Arab. I'm not saying this is wrong or bad, but only stating the obvious. Meanwhile, you are right, Israel controls these territories, but a certain amount of authority has been relegated to the Palestinian Authority in these same territories. It is important to mention in this regard that all the parties to this dispute have a historical connection to the land, and the country as a whole is holy to the three monotheistic religions.Davidbena (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
By all means add to the ancient history which is of no practical or legal consequence other than perhaps, the Status Quo. I wouldn't bother making a meal out of Oslo if I were you, nothing to see there. And "Palestine territories" proposes nothing, it is simply the result of international actions since the time of Balfour, then in 1947 and 8 and since.Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
What I meant to say is that the "Palestinian territories" is the sum of many actions and reactions, all resulting from various proposals that started with the British colonials in Mandatory Palestine. The history is well-known. And, yes, there is no need to rehash the Oslo Accords here. The main emphasis will be on the historic connections of the peoples of this great land (wishing that we could all get along). As for "International actions," some are binding, some are not. We are not arguing the rights and wrongs of "international opinion," although we can collect this data if needed. Rather, as cognizant adults with rational minds we all know that the world community has many opinions (whether touching on the legal age of marriage [consent], or who can or cannot be considered "married" in the legal sense, and a host of other issues that differ between countries). To use the example of a religious teaching to bring across my point, religious Jews say that we who are Jews cannot eat certain foods, but other nations are permitted to eat them. So, in the case of those other nations, being a majority, or having a majority, it does not mean that one group is right and the other group is wrong. It only means that for each group they have their own laws and standards. The dictates of "International law" are only binding to the point where there is mutual agreement. A case in point, the US is not a signatory to UNCLOS (the UN convention on the Law of the Seas) and therefore does not feel that it is obligated to follow the guidelines in that treaty which clearly regulates foreign Naval vessels from sailing within the 12-nautical mile limit of sovereign islands or territory, such as in the South China Sea.
I'll try making a draft of the material before including it in this article, so that we can have a general agreement on what is acceptable and what is not.Davidbena (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I made no claims about any particular action being binding or otherwise. I do not see that as having any relevance for the history that you will add.I look forward to your contribution.Selfstudier (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts

@Malik Shabazz: I decided to go through this article because it is a bit of a mess, tbh. I agree that the problem is that "someone" objected and I added an additional objector to the references for that para.I think two objectors is sufficient,is it not? This issue is also addressed later in the article, I might add them together later on. As for the redlink, if you do not believe that it was a redlink please go back and check, it was (a mistyping, I think). In addition, I amended what was there because the whole point of many of my edits (first para of lead refers) is to show that the name Israeli-occupied territories (to which you have now linked) is NOT the correct name for these territories. Please consider restoring my changes.Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No reason to reconsider. There are some situations in which the passive voice should be used instead of the active voice, but this isn't one of them. And if "territories" is good enough for the title of the article, it's good enough to use here. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Linking to Hamas Wiki

I've noticed that there is no link to the Wikipedia entry on the organization Hamas, despite the fact that the Hamas page declares that, "[Hamas] has been the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip since its takeover of that area in 2007."

Surely the group that is considered the de facto governing authority of the Palestinian territories should have a link to their Wiki when mentioned here. If I could add the link myself I would, but I am unable to due to this page's protected status. Timgrubermiller (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Should have been wikilinked anyway regardless of the governance thing, just overlooked I guess.Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


Palestinian territories → Palestinian territory – Before 1999, the UN and the majority of international organizations frequently referred to the Palestinian territories but this has changed over time as described (with sources) in the article lead, the customary usage now being "Occupied Palestine Territory" (OPT or oPt in short form). A current example of this usage is given in this 2016 UN document, "United Nations Country Team Occupied Palestinian Territory" which includes the following definition at page 9:

“Palestine”, “State of Palestine”, “occupied Palestinian territory”: In this report the terms “Palestine”, the “State of Palestine” and “occupied Palestinian Territory” have been used interchangeably depending on context. Specifically the term “occupied Palestinian territory” refers as a whole to the geographical area of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967.

Apart from the usage by the UN, the EU and the ICJ already mentioned in the lead, the term is also used, for example, by Oxfam, WHO and Amnesty. A google search on the term will reveal multiple primary and secondary usage. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)—Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - It is called Palestinian territories in reliable sources. Interstellarity (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

There is more current census data. Please change Population

From:• Palestinians (2014) 4,550,000[3]

to: • Palestinians (2016) 4,816,503[3]

Source is the same, they added the later years to the table.

Thank you :) Amerckado (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Terasail[✉] 22:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Egyptian “occupation” Jordanian “rule”

In the lead it says: The Gaza Strip and the West Bank had been occupied by Egypt and Jordan, respectively, since the 1948 war until 1967. Can anyone think of a way to phrase this (without being too wordy for a lead) that can encapsulate Jordanian governance as rule and not occupation? Previously it said the territory’s had been “ruled” by Jordan and Egypt....I changed to “occupy to get rid of hypocrisy in regards to Egyptian “rule” vs Israeli “occupation”..,I didn’t want to change lead and make too wordy is why I did not act “boldly” here. Any recommendations appreciated. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fair to describe the previous situation as 'rule' and the current situation as 'occupied'. The distinction is that Israel does not consider the territories as part of Israel and the people who reside there are neither citizens nor permanent residents of Israel, and they cannot travel freely into Israel. LK (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the difference between Egypt/Jordan, it should be noted that Egyptian authorities themselves described their presence in Gaza 1948 as 'occupation'. The postal address used for the Gaza during the Egyptian occupation was "Gaza, Palestine". As such the label 'occupation' should be considered uncontroversial to refer to the Gaza under Egyptian control 1948-1967. Jordan on the other hand annexed the West Bank and treated it as integral part of its national territory. --Soman (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
LMAO. Whatever Jordan called it, it was an illegal invasion and occupation.

In 1948 Jordan invaded and occupied Judea and Samaria contrary to international law and UN charter article 80. In 1967, Israel liberated Judea and Samaria. There are no 'Palestinian Territories' other than those occupied by Jordan east of the Jordan river.

Spot on.

"Disputed territories (Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Disputed territories (Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 9#Disputed territories (Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. nableezy - 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC) 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Israel does not take taxes from Gaza - please correct this — Preceding unsigned comment added by In10ct2 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Article says Israel maintains control over, which is correct (and sourced).Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Henryasulin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2022

The source http://www.thetruthaboutisrael.org.il ,judea and Samaria are part of israel the jordan river is in israel to the left side and the other side another area 79.70.175.205 (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct. But don't expect the antisemitic Wikipedia to be concerned with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Not done, please specify what edit you wish to be made. Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

Israel has been illegally occupying the Palestinian Territories. Rm2ss (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Better sources needed

There appears to be a sizeable volume of content sourced solely to either or both of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and opinion pieces self-published by Dore Gold, a former MFA director-general, through his own think tank. This is of course atrocious sourcing, and needs replacing with reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza governance

The map should be updated to show that the Gaza Strip is not governed by the Palestinian government Shaked13 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Himma (al Hamma) region

It seems that al Hamma was a Palestinian territory under Syrian military occupation till 1967. It's mentionned together with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the Palestinian covenant of 1964 (art. 24 of the covenant). Hence this area should technically be included in the "occupied territories" considered by resolution 242 of UN Security council. Unlike West Bank and Gaza strip, it's not included in the Arab state according to the Palestine plan of partition dated 1947, but UN SC resolution 242 does not refer to this previous plan of partition. Today is called hamat Gader. Pinji (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Views on whether Gaza Strip is occupied

The statement that "according to the international community, the Gaza Strip is still considered to be occupied by Israel" is unhelpfully vague (the "international community" by which definition?), and the section ignores the view of international law scholars who dispute that Gaza remains occupied. These include, e.g., Marko Milanovic, Hanne Cuyckens, Yuval Shany, Ruth Lapidoth, Eyal Benvenisti, Eugene Kontorovich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.237.210 (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Please could you provide links to each of these so we can see their stated positions? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you 2600:1700:9830:37C0:3CE7:6091:33FB:6854 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
We can always use the language used at the Gaza Strip article, "the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel". and here's some refs:

[1][2]

CNN

"The U.N. position
In February 2008, Secretary-General Ban was asked at a media availability whether Gaza is occupied territory. "I am not in a position to say on these legal matters," he responded.
The next day, at a press briefing, a reporter pointed out to a U.N. spokesman that the secretary-general had told Arab League representatives that Gaza was still considered occupied.
"Yes, the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory. No, that definition hasn't changed," the spokesman replied.
Farhan Haq, spokesman for the secretary-general, told CNN Monday that the official status of Gaza would change only through a decision of the U.N. Security Council."

Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There has been no on-the-ground Israeli military presence in Gaza since the pull out in 2005. 2600:8803:C7DC:2100:19C4:7134:CB66:BE64 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There have been a range of incursions actually, including 2006 Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun and March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes, but that somewhat besides the point. Gazans do not control their land borders, their territorial waters or their airspace. A prison is still a prison even if the guards aren't patrolling the yard. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the above, though the OP is correct the language is a bit vague. "Majority of governments" would indicate all governments expressed an opinion, and the majority said it is occupied. So I agree with Iskandar323 that the outside control is so tight as to make it, in effect, an occupied area. No dispute from me there. We could be a bit clearer on who says so. Jeppiz (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but why have the Israelis been monitoring the airspace and conducting military operations in the region? You think it might have something to do with the fact that rockets and mortars are frequently launched from Gaza into civilian territories in Israel? Nothing to do with anything?
I honestly do not believe much of this article is neutral but I do not have the time or interest to try and propose any changes. But just in terms of common sense, responding to missile/mortar attacks and terrorist attacks is not generally what comes to mind when one hears the word "occupied". Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Reasons why it is occupied do not alter its state of being occupied. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
These territories are widely referred to as the Occupied Palestinian territory (OPT or oPt) and which is defined as the West Bank including EJ and Gaza. I will check to see whether that is commonname in recent times or whether the anachronistic Palestinian territories still holds. Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you 2600:1700:9830:37C0:3CE7:6091:33FB:6854 (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you to Jonathan 2600:1700:9830:37C0:3CE7:6091:33FB:6854 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29 October 2004. Archived from the original on 1 November 2008. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  2. ^ Sanger, Andrew (2011). M.N. Schmitt; Louise Arimatsu; Tim McCormack (eds.). "The Contemporary Law of Blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla". Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2010. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law. 13. Springer Science & Business Media: 429. doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-811-8_14. ISBN 978-90-6704-811-8. It is this direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza that has led the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, International human rights organisations, US Government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a significant number of legal commentators, to reject the argument that Gaza is no longer occupied.
    * Scobbie, Iain (2012). Elizabeth Wilmshurst (ed.). International Law and the Classification of Conflicts. Oxford University Press. p. 295. ISBN 978-0-19-965775-9. Even after the accession to power of Hamas, Israel's claim that it no longer occupies Gaza has not been accepted by UN bodies, most States, nor the majority of academic commentators because of its exclusive control of its border with Gaza and crossing points including the effective control it exerted over the Rafah crossing until at least May 2011, its control of Gaza's maritime zones and airspace which constitute what Aronson terms the 'security envelope' around Gaza, as well as its ability to intervene forcibly at will in Gaza.
    * Gawerc, Michelle (2012). Prefiguring Peace: Israeli-Palestinian Peacebuilding Partnerships. Lexington Books. p. 44. ISBN 9780739166109. In other words, while Israel maintained that its occupation of Gaza ended with its unilateral disengagement Palestinians – as well as many human right organizations and international bodies – argued that Gaza was by all intents and purposes still occupied.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

Change Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 and has since maintained control to The Gaza Strip has been under the de facto governing authority of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) since 2007 Aicnem.4202 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops! -- Terminology used in the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 2004

I've just noticed that the lede states that "The International Court of Justice has referred to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as the Occupied Palestinian Territory, adopting this term as the legal definition in its advisory opinions of July 2004". Earlier today, I appended "and July 2024", but have only just noticed that the statement is incorrect at least as far as today's ICJ Advisory Opinion is concerned as the latter explicitly includes Gaza in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. I've tried checking the 2004 Advisory Opinion to see what it means by Occupied Palestinian Territory but am having trouble finding a definition. Please could someone else check. As things stand, the statement in the second para of the lede is incorrect, at least as far as the July 2024 Advisory Opinion is concerned. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added a Clarify template to that sentence. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The wall did not affect Gaza (this point was also mentioned again in today's opinion) so the 2004 opinion didn't specifically address Gaza because the wall didn't go there. so it isn't precisely wrong as the WB/EJ are "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The OPT is "defined" (referred to might be better) as 67 borders in lots of places but let me see if I can find an initial determination, it's possible it might have evolved by way of UN resolutions, I'll look. Selfstudier (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, the article currently states clearly that "The International Court of Justice has referred to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as the Occupied Palestinian Territory, adopting this term as the legal definition in its advisory opinions of July 2004". I'm not questioning the origin of the term, I'm questioning the statement in the article. I've just searched the 2004 advisory opinion again and found no evidence for the claim made in the article. While I haven't found a statement including Gaza explicitly in the OPT, I have found a statement which indicates that, within the context of the 2004 proceedings, Gaza was considered to be part of the OPT. Paragraph 90 states:

Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the other participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In particuilar, in paragraph 3 of Annex 1 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".

It is my understanding that the mention of Egypt demonstrates that Gaza was within the scope of the ICJ's deliberations as it was Egypt that controlled Gaza prior to 1967 and Egypt did not control the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The High Contracting Party business was about refuting Israel's contention that there was no prior sovereign/the so called missing reversioner (see Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967#Range of Israeli legal and political views.
I still think we need founding statement(s) if we are going to look at a page move, so I will keep looking. Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The ISO source takes us back to 1999 for "Occupied Palestinian territory", that might be enough but just to satisfy my curiosity, I will look some more. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Re the High Contracting Party stuff, I agree, but consider that the mention of Egypt indicates that Gaza was seen as within the scope of the OPT.
Re a page move, I see that as a separate matter from (correcting) the text of the article. The statement "adopting this term as the legal definition" is a very strong one. If it is untrue (or if there is no evidence for it being true), it should be removed. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It is misleading to the extent that it was "defined" before that, in 1999 and a little earlier, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It should just say referred to or some such language. Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Selfstudier, I have not found any evidence that the ICJ's 2004 advisory opinion said anything explicit about Gaza being part of, or not being part of, the OPT. So the statement should be removed (unless such evidence can be found). Misha Wolf (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I edited it, it's not necessary anyway, there are plenty of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, we don't seem to be understanding each other. You've written something along the lines of:
[Body][Verb][List of areas][Name]
where [Body] is "ICJ", [Verb] is "referred to", [List of areas] is "West Bank, including East Jerusalem" and [Name] is "Occupied Palestinian Territory".
I dispute that expansion of the term [List of areas] as no-one has provided any clear evidence for the exclusion (or inclusion) of Gaza by the ICJ in its 2004 opinion. I am not (in this thread) concerned with the [Verb], eg whether it should be "defined" or "referred to". I very much am concerned with the [List of areas]. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Just edit it as you like, I am not really interested in this article at all, other than moving it to a more sensible title. Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Done! Misha Wolf (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Some progress elsewhere, one can now write Palestine and it will redirect to SoP (before it threw an error for ambiguity). Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
That's good but we now have a circular reference as the "About" template contains "For other uses of Palestine, see Palestine." Misha Wolf (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Yep, there needs to be consequent change around the place. That should be Palestine (disambiguation). Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
And then there is Palestinian territories (disambiguation) /: Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I have the phrase going back to 1990 at the UN and in books, the problem is that its just a phrase rather than OPT, think people would just use it instead of Israeli occupied territories, which was the more common usage back then and included the Golan. It says there "The first conjoined usage of the terms "occupied" and "territories" with regard to Israel was in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242,..." so I am still thinking it was more of an evolution rather than someone sitting down one day and saying I hereby define... Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupied_Palestinian_territories/Archive_8&oldid=1246351807"