Talk:Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967

Naming dispute?

I don't have a better title for this article off the top of my head, but it does seem wrong to call the arguments presented here a "naming dispute". There are very significant legal and humanitarian issues at stake. The real issue isn't what you call them, it's who they belong to and whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applies. Brian Tvedt 02:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The title was right off the top of my head; if anyone has ideas for a better one in mind, by all means. El_C 10:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How's "Legal status of the Palestinian territores"? While some may object to the term, its the best and only we have on those territories (excluding the Golan Heights), and corresponds well with the contents. Cybbe 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to higghlight: International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict#"Occupied" vs. "Disputed" territories. El_C 11:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

See also Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The name of this article is clearly wrong. I suggest moving it to Status of territories occupied by Israel, Huldra (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this name: all those territories were captured, not all of them remain occupied. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The naming in the international community is still occupied, though the word captured is the word the Israelis are pushing for. I would say we should follow what is international consensus, and not what one country wants, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, this article is not only about occupied territories, but includes also such territories as are not presently occupied by Israel. The word "occupied" would therefore simply be incorrect on this article. Debresser (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is so poor that it is hard to get excited about the name. Debresser's argument would make sense if the title said "now occupied", but it doesn't say that and there is no question that Gaza and Sinai were once occupied. The word "captured" seems a throwback to times when international law permitted states to expand their territories by war. I tend to think that its main purpose is to avoid the word "occupied" which Israel doesn't like, and I don't think that is sufficient reason. A title which uses the word occupied (the description favored by almost everyone except Israel) but makes clear we are including formerly occupied territories would be best. (South Lebanon should be included, btw.) Zero^talk 02:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Though I agree that this article is one of the worse ones, that doesn't excuse the name. However, we should probably look at all the overlapping articles in this area, take this article, and Israeli-occupied territories or International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Or Time periods in the Palestine region and Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine and History of Palestine Huldra (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Just that he Golan, Lebanon and Sinai are not really connected to Palestine... Debresser (talk)

Huh? I’m not sure what that is an argument for, or against?

Anyway, lets consecrate on the naming issue for now (and ignore overlapping content, or bad article content.) Debresser, I cannot see that you have come up with an argument against moving it, beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Huldra (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That is the problem with POV editors like you: I can give all the prove in the world, that it is simply incorrect, and you will claim I "don't like it". Sorry, but I won't stand for that. As far as I am concerned, it is you who doesn't like the present title, without a leg to stand on! Debresser (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It is rather boring, the way you accuse everyone who disagree with you as being a "POV editor", and that you, by implication, represent NPOV.

Except you don't. Unless you mean "Israels position=NPOV position". As it is only Israel who insists on the name "captured". Huldra (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, that you have a strong POV is not a secret, and stonewalling is a tactic you and others have used often before. So it is indeed becoming boring, even disruptive, to hear you deny again that no evidence has been presented to you, when clearly it has, just that you don't like it. Debresser (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Who is stonewalling? The only argument you have brought against a name change, is "Golan, Lebanon and Sinai are not really connected to Palestine", so what? The word "Palestine" is not in any proposed change. And Zero has already counted your argument about "not presently occupied": to repeat, the name of the article is not limited only to those areas presently occupied. Huldra (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean "So what?" Since this article is presently about i.a. Lebanon and Sinai, and they are not presently occupied, therefore the proposed title can simply not be used. Why would anybody disagree with that? Debresser (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

So the suggestion was to move this article to Status of territories presently occupied by Israel? Sorry, I didn't see that. I would suggest moving the article to Status of territories occupied by Israel, instead. That should take care of your concern, Huldra (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If we remove Lebanon and the Sinai from the article, I would definitely endorse that proposal. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The present article states that it is about the areas occupied in the 1967 war, i.e., not Lebanon, (which is not mentioned in the article). What about making that explicit, i.e. Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967? Huldra (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. Debresser (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Zero^talk 06:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, Huldra (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

missing option

For many Israelis the term used id 'The freed territories'. why is this option ommited ? Another term, more nutral is 'Judea & Samria'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.95.113 (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why that is more neutral? It is seems more neutral to go with what the majority (vast majority) of organizations have said rather than the minority. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The dispute in Israel over the term goes back to 1967. 'The freed territories' is not neutral. The popularly accepted compromise in Israel is the term 'The Territories'. This seems like a neutral suggestion, doesn't it? The term 'Judea & Samaria' is correct geographically and historically, and it had been used in international documents prior to 1967. The term 'Palestinian Territories' is not neutral, because it ignores the fact that an open dispute over it still exists. (People will probably object to this statement, but I will not start this argument here and now.)

IMHO, the term 'Palestinian Territories' cannot have been used prior to the 1970s. The reason for that is that until at least the early 1970s, 'The Palestinian People' of today was called 'The Arab-Palestinian People', apparently in order to distinguish it from the 'Palestinians' of the British Mandate, a term that used to refer to the Jews that lived there and then. So the term 'Palestinian Territories' would have been ambiguous.

The term 'Judea & Samaria' carries a political meaning, but so does the avoidance of this term. Let's face it, this is a political and national open dispute. Let us show ample respect for both sides. Tselly (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the Golan belongs here too

I don't know if Israel makes quasi-legalistic claims arguing that the Golan Heights are "disputed" and not "occupied" terrority, but: (1) The UN resolutions mentioned in the article do state very clearly that the Golan Heights is occupied; (2) Israel has contested that in its actions, if not its words, for example by passing the Golan Heights law. Brian Tvedt 23:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs, as I've never seen Israel or supporters claiming that the Golan Heights is not "occupied". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It would seem, however, to be well worthy of inclusion based on the current title of this article. Marsden 18:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

But not based on the opening sentence, as Israel's supporters do not seem to say it is "disputed", nor based on the contents, which present no arguments for it being "disputed". Perhaps this should be remerged, or renamed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

References?

There is something seriously wrong with the footnotes here... They need to be changed/fixed.

A student of history 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

New historical research: secret Israeli memos about legality of post Six Day War occupations

APF: Secret memo said to prove Israel knew occupation was illegal. --Abnn 05:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• See discussion here Talk:Israeli_settlement#New_historical_research:_secret_Israeli_memos_about_legality_of_post_Six_Day_War_occupations. --Abnn 07:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all quite old news - "The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

And the US knows the same thing, in 1978 it asked the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State and reported to Congress[1] that "While Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law." PR^talk 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The conquest of 'The Territories' took place in the course of a war waged against Israel, a defensive war. Since then, there seems to have been no real opportunity for a settlement. Therefore, the use of this legalistic argument would mean that since Israel had been attacked in 1967 but won the war and the territories, it had automatically lost legal title to them, title that it had according to the Rhodes 1949 Armistice Agreements. Woe to the winners, hurrah for the aggressors that had started that war. Tselly (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove Tag Citing Neutrality/Accuracy Dispute

The purpose of the two subsections, Occupied, and Disputed, is not to factually state the legal status of the Palestinian territories, but to accurately present two opposing sets of arguments and perspectives on the matter. Whether or not these arguments are "right" is irrelevant in this context. So long as the subsections in question describe said arguments as they exist in the public political discourse, they contribute to the encyclopedic accuracy of the article, regardless of whether said arguments are themselves factual or correct. On these grounds I am removing the tag. Please discuss here and provide reasons before reinserting.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the two opposing sets of arguments be presented fairly and accurately, but some of the wording, at least the formatting, is worrying. Particularly the italicized 'defensive war' and 'war imposed on Israel.' If that is the argument fine, but the italicization is OR at least and thoroughly non-NPOV at worst. Nableezy (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is hopelessly POV. International law governs the reciprocal relations between States. The JCPA is not a state or a branch of the Israeli government.

The article doesn't factually state the legal status of the territory or the position of the Israeli government. In the Israeli Supreme Court opinions on the West Bank Barrier, the court agreed with the plantiffs and the state's attorney that the West Bank was held by Israel in a state of belligerent occupation and that military administration, headed by the military commander, continues to apply flowing from the principles of the Israeli administrative law and provisions of public international law established in the Hague Conventions. The lead says that Israel's government calls all of the territories "disputed", and that simply isn't the case.

Statements such as: "Supporters of the view that the territories are not occupied argue that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history" do not reflect the actual legal positions taken by the government of Israel or its treaty obligations under the UN Charter. The fact is that government of Israel admits the territories are occupied and that they are under an Israeli state-run military administration which operates a Hague IV regime.

Many countries, like the United States and the former Soviet Union, stipulated that their recognition of Israel was based upon the borders contained in the UN partition plan. harlan (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand what the POV tag is for; it's not to be placed on an article because we disagree with the POV of those whose opinions are expressed in the article. So, to with the "fact" tags you've been placing in the article. Also, the Israeli Supreme Court is not the Israeli government. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither Israel's government nor its Supreme Court admit that the Territories are "Occupied". The term that they accept is "Belligerent Occupation", and it has a different meaning, apparently that of control in the context of a war. There is a language problem here because the English term sounds like "Occupation under aggravated circumstances", while the Hebrew term does not include reference to occupation at all. Tselly (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh nonsense. "Belligerent Occupation" is a defined phrase in international law and its meaning is much as it sounds. The phrase used by the High Court is בתפיסה לוחמתית which means "belligerent occupation" literally. Now, please stop using Wikipedia as a forum; this page is for discussing article improvement only. Zero^talk 05:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. "תפיסה" means "seizure". "לוחמתית" means "related to warfare" or "related to combat". Take this from a native speaker. There is no reference to "occupation" (the root כבש) in this term.

There is a related problem in English as well: if the territories were "captured" or "conquered" (verbs, events) in 1967, does it necessarily mean that they are "occupied" (a continuing state) since then? Some official documents (outside Wikipedia) seem to use inaccurate language in this regard. Perhaps this should be researched - this isn't for me to decide.

I would very much like to see a reference showing the defined meaning of "Belligerent Occupation" under International Law, plus a comparison to "Occupation". This issue does seem relevant to article improvement. The article assumes without proof that the two terms are one and the same. But why would there be two distinct terms for the same thing? This could be a case of inaccurate translation of legal documents from Hebrew into English. The references of the article here are in English and made by bodies that do not represent the Israeli Supreme Court.

Until we see the definitions, I see no point in arguing further. That would be using Wikipedia as a forum. Tselly (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think your problem is that you don't understand what "occupied" means. When a state sits on land outside its sovereign borders, that is occupation. If the land was seized by force, eg. as part of a war, that is belligerent occupation. It is defined in the Hague Conventions. Types of occupation other than belligerent occupation include trusteeships, which are assumed to be with the consent of the occupied population, and occupation of uninhabited land not claimed by a state (very rare now). Zero^talk 12:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. But I still require definitions. Is the Israeli army "hostile" (as per Hague 1907, article 42) when in the Jewish Quarter of The Old City of Jerusalem? Or in any other area designated under International Law to be part of "The National Home of the Jewish People" (as per San Remo 1920, and the resolutions of the League of Nations and the US Congress)? And there are other issues of law here. People that "cite" The Law should be able to show which law they refer to, what the text is and which legal procedure had been used. And in this case at least, which previous law is being ignored. As you say, I do have a huge problem in understanding what "occupied" means. Tselly (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

When discussing the status of the territories, the apartheid analogy should be mentioned.

Since this article is discussing the status of the territories, this article should mention and link to the Israel and the apartheid analogy. Thoughts? Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the status of the territories, not that of the people. So the analogy seems irrelevant here.

More generally, the analogies between the Israeli situation and other conflicts in history seem to me like attempts to accuse Israel of the wrongs committed in all those other cases, while hiding the dissimilarities between the other cases, and this one. One of the worst malignancies regarding this conflict is that people do not see it for what it really is. Instead they see images from other times and other places.

Those that want to discuss or solve the current conflict had better deal with the issues of the current conflict and try to understand the current situation, rather than pin unrelated images on an already very difficult problem. Tselly (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Status of territories captured by Israel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121210160010/http://unispal.un.org:80/unispal.nsf/0080ef30efce525585256c38006eacae/181c72112f4d0e0685257ac500515c6c?OpenDocument to http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0080ef30efce525585256c38006eacae/181c72112f4d0e0685257ac500515c6c?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131073609/http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/ to http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402070502/http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=5387 to http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=5387
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109001552/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/a39a906c89d3e98685256c29006d4014 to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/a39a906c89d3e98685256c29006d4014
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0080ef30efce525585256c38006eacae/181c72112f4d0e0685257ac500515c6c?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011202654/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/state-of-palestine_n_2425682.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/state-of-palestine_n_2425682.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130418225647/http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/magazines/32-political-platform/28464-palestine-threatens-to-sue-israel-at-icc.html to http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/magazines/32-political-platform/28464-palestine-threatens-to-sue-israel-at-icc.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/palestinians-un-upgrade-to-nonmember-observer-state-struggles-ahead-over-possible-powers/2012/11/29/8f3c3f78-3a59-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221203359/http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf to http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf

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) 23:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A new source

this looks like a good quality and relevant source... “WarKosign” 13:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good until you start reading. Then it is revealed as just another pro-Israel think tank. Not reliable for fact. Zero^talk 02:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Golan Heights

In the lead it says that the Israeli High Court refers to western Golan as being held in “belligerent occupation” as well...I don’t think that’s correct according to source... Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you are correct. I think that the HC only regards the West Bank (not including EJ) as being under belligerent occupation. But a good source is needed. Zero^talk 02:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Annexation

Initial thread

[Moved from User talk:Nableezy.] Onceinawhile (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Coming here from Talk:Israel. I was looking at some other comments as well and see you have strong views on the question of annexation (whether for East Jerusalem, Golan or the effectively-annexed settlements).

I did the legal research and wrote a big chunk of our article Annexation, so I feel I have a good sense of what it is. And in addition to what the sources say, I can also confirm that on the ground in Israel everything is made to feel like it is the one country. Drive down Highway 1 and see if it feels like a real border is being crossed. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Annexation is a topic of international law, and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force is likewise a matter of international law. For the Golan and EJ, Israel has yes effectively annexed those territories, but as a matter of international law they have not, as the acts that did so were ruled null and void and the international community continues to regard each as occupied Palestinian and Syrian territory, not Israeli territory. So saying EJ was annexed is toeing an Israeli POV that says East Jerusalem is in Israel, and it is not. As far as the settlements, Israel has never attempted to claim any of the settlements as its territory or that its civil law applies to the settlements. It applies its civil law to Israeli civilians in the West Bank regardless of where they are. Yes laws related to zoning and whatnot specifically apply to the jurisdiction of the local councils or whatever, but, as B'tselem notes, "the policy of the Israeli government to apply the Israeli Criminal Code to every Israeli citizen and to every Jew who is not an Israeli citizen has created a legal situation which distinguishes between populations according to national origin. Palestinians in the territories are subject to local or military law, and those who commit offenses are tried in local courts and more often in military courts." Further, military law applies to Palestinians within the settlements as well. So the argument that even if Israel has not formally claimed the territory of the settlements they effectively have is both irrelevant and flawed. What Israel does on the ground is one thing, and that should be documented, but how things stand as a matter of international law is another thing. nableezy - 00:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I believe your understanding of annexation is wrong, specifically the sentence: "Israel has yes effectively annexed those territories, but as a matter of international law they have not, as the acts that did so were ruled null and void"

My understanding is that "annexation" is a factual yet illegal event, like assassination. You would not write a sentence "John Wilkes Booth has yes effectively assassinated Lincoln, but as a matter of criminal law he has not, as the act that did so was ruled null and void".

The correct sentence would be "John Wilkes Booth has assassinated Lincoln, which is an illegal act as a matter of criminal law". And in our case: "Israel has annexed those territories, which is an illegal act as a matter of international law"

I base this understanding on all the research I have read on the topic of I/P, and also the generic International Law textbooks that I added to the Annexation article back in 2017, such as Hofmann in the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law and Rothwell et al in their International Law textbook (I added quotations in those footnotes which are worth reading). I suspect that your understanding is based on the various international declarations that the Israeli annexations are "null and void", e.g. as in UNSCR 497. The question then is what does "null and void" really mean. The wider relevant text of UNSCR 497 is: "Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect; Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision". The clauses I have underlined constitute annexation; that is how they are defined in the literature, and it matches with Hofmann's and Rothwell's definitions. The UN told Israel to rescind the annexation, but of course Israel did not. The UN couldn't force a reversal of the annexation, so instead they simply state that it is "null and void and without international legal effect", which means "yes you have annexed but it does not change your international legal obligations".

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to find ways of proving that "null and void" doesn't mean what you think it does. Our article on the topic states that null and void means simply "of no legal effect". Not "of no effect". In other words, it happened, but doesn't change anything legally-speaking. The Allies of World War II declared the Anschluss "null and void" too, but there is no doubt that Austria was annexed by Germany.

Perhaps the most convincing thing I can show you is from the International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine. See the 32-page pre-trial submission from the prosecutor here. It mentions "null and void" five times:

• Clause 40: (quotation from UNHCR)
• Clause 42: "Any act by Israel that would constitute de facto or de jure annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is null and void under international law and does not change the status of the occupied territory nor the protections afforded by IHL and international human rights law to the Palestinians living in it, including their right to self-determination."
• Clause 47: "...while Israel claims sovereignty over East Jerusalem and significant parts of West Bank, through its formal annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and 1980 and its de facto past and ongoing annexation of parts of the West Bank, such sovereignty claims are null and void and of no effect under international law, which prohibits the acquisition of territory through the use of military force."
• Clause 65: "Israel’s formal annexation of East Jerusalem, or de facto annexation of parts of West Bank, also does not alter the composition and integrity of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as they constitute unlawful acts that have been largely deemed null and void and of no legal effect under international law."
• Clause 79: "As explained above, Israel’s formal annexation of East Jerusalem, or de facto annexation of parts of West Bank, also does not alter the composition and integrity of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Such acts are null and void and of no legal effect under international law, and should in no way impede the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over the territory."

If you replace the words "null and void" with "of no legal effect" in each of the clauses above, it becomes clear.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest explanation for "null and void" is "as if it had not occurred". Of course, Israel may write in its laws that which pleases it and then their courts are stuck with implementing it, no matter how foolish it might be as a matter of international law, annexation not being the only area where such has been done. The use of the word "effectively" is only a description of the peculiar way in which Israel carried out the annex, which is the argument Lustick made, not correct, not proper, but effective all the same as a practical matter. You can't be nearly pregnant.Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The resolution denouncing the Golan Law said "Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction andadministration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;". That without international legal effect is the important bit. That the action by Israel did not change the status of the Golan as sovereign Syrian territory occupied by Israel. You make, in my view, a very basic own-goal in using "annexation", because what follows from that is that these places are "in Israel", and they are not. nableezy - 14:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

International law says Israeli actions will be treated as if they had not occurred or "without international legal effect" if you prefer. It doesn't matter what you call the Israeli actions, "Golan Law" or "Israeli annexation of the Golan". In the same way as we have Israeli occupation of the West Bank we could equally have Israeli occupation of the Golan for the internationally recognized position (we do have Israeli-occupied territories). I saw versions of this argument when we had that lengthy discussion (still unresolved) over the Jordanian annexation/occupation, the Israelis like to say they are only doing what Jordan did but the situation is quite different.Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course it matters, and I think Huldra and yall are also making an error with the Jordanian articles. Jordan did occupy the West Bank, the annexation was rejected by the Arab League and nearly every sovereign state on the planet. And I dont think we should be espousing a minority view, that the West Bank was in Jordan, or that EJ is in Israel, that sources largely reject. And I think that when you all start using terms like "annexed" you very much are promoting a minority view, a very pro-Israel one at that. nableezy - 15:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not often called pro Israeli :) In fact, that's a first, hah. Anyway, I don't agree that the mere use of the word annexation here means a territory is "in Israel" other than from the point of view of Israel, I certainly don't use the word in that way and I am a little bit surprised that you would. The principal difference with the Jordanian is that in some sense at least, the local population went along with the annex (called "unification" !) (obviously not the case with WB/Golan) and there is no UN resolution dispensing with the annex probably because the UK supported it and they had, still have, a veto. If one wants to take the position that the Jordanian (an Arab state?) annex was illegitimate, then to be consistent, one also has to take the position that the creation of Israel (a Jewish state?) was illegitimate, both being annexes of Palestine, lots of water under the bridge since then. Kattan (p14) is a good source Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Technically the creation of Israel on boundaries outside of the partition plan's boundaries was illegitimate, but it was accepted by the international community and as such all of the territory gained in 1948 by Israel was accepted as Israeli sovereign territory. Jordan's purported annexation of the West Bank into its territory was not afforded that recognition, so that illegitimacy was maintained. And I think you also allow for the whataboutism argument that the West Bank is not currently occupied because Israel and Jordan both had the same claim to the territory and if Jordan was not occupying it then neither is Israel. I dont understand why people are hesitant to call that a Jordanian occupation. It was, plainly. nableezy - 19:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two issues here:

(1) Whether an annexation is an objective fact or an annexation is a subjective judgement on which multiple views are possible. I painstakingly showed above that it is the former. Nableezy if you disagree with this, please could you explain. And if you agree with my analysis above, I would appreciate if you could confirm.

(2) Whether the primary focus across all these articles should be on the de facto situation or the de jure situation. I understand your view here, and it is worthy of debate.

These two issues are separate, so can we please try not to talk about them both at the same time.

Nableezy the way you reference minority view is talking at cross purposes. Describing the de facto situation is not a minority view; there is only one perspective on the de facto. On the de jure position, I am absolutely certain that you, Self and I all subscribe to the majority view. Highlighting the de facto position over the de jure position has nothing to do with minority/majority view or Israeli/Palestinian view. It comes down to whether you think de facto or de jure is more important to readers.

Onceinawhile (talk)

You quote from the Wall case: Any act by Israel that would constitute de facto or de jure annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is null and void under international law and does not change the status of the occupied territory nor the protections afforded by IHL and international human rights law to the Palestinians living in it, including their right to self-determination.

that would constitute ... is null and void ... does not change the status of the occupied territory. That is saying that acts that would otherwise be annexations are "null and void" (the plain meaning being vacated as though they never occurred) and that the status of the territories is as it was. It is either occupied territory or it is annexed to Israel, it cannot be both. And yes, of course describing what is disputed to be an annexation as an annexation is a POV. Because there are other POVs that dispute it. And the settlements bit is even more out there, Israel has not even purported to claim any of the settlements to be in its territory, but you would describe them as annexed. With no sourcing that Ive seen that supports that. If the Golan Heights are annexed to Israel then it is not sovereign Syrian territory, which the vast majority of sources describe it as. If EJ is annexed to Israel it is not occupied Palestinian territory, which the vast majority of sources refer to it as. And yes, claiming something that is disputed by sources is indeed a POV. nableezy - 22:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It is either occupied territory or it is annexed to Israel, it cannot be both. This is the point of difference, I think it can be both, depending on what legal regime pertains. It is annexed to Israel under Israeli law (Israeli courts recognize it) and remains occupied in international law (ICJ does not recognize it for WB and UNSC does not for Golan). I don't see that as a contradiction myself.

The non EJ settlements are a little bit different, these days often described as a "creeping annexation", in any case the settlements themselves are illegal and their commissioning at scale a likely war crime as well as being located in occupied territory. Here I do dislike the "pipelining" terminology, it is in fact similar to an annex but not all at once, thus "creeping", the territory is taken and Israeli law applied only to one specific group (not sure if it applies to any resident but there cannot be very many that are not Jewish). The settlements are "worse" than an annex in many ways.Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It is worth reading the whole of the resolution for the Golan:

"BEARING IN MIND General Assembly Resolution 36/226 B of 17 December 1981, RECALLING General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, which defines an act of aggression as the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a state of the territory of another state, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another state or part thereof,

DETERMINING that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights since June 1967 and its annexation by Israel on 14 December 1981 constitute a continuing threat to international peace and security,

So this even says "its annexation by Israel on 14 December 1981" before going on to discuss how member states should seek to nullify that and to say that it is of no legal effect. Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier is right. Nableezy I am sorry but you are mistaken. The cannot be both statement that Self highlighted in green is incorrect, as Self rightly points out. I also spent a lot of time researching and writing the military occupation article. Military occupation is something that comes with a lot of explicit rules under international law; when I/P legal commentators say that occupation is ongoing in EJ/Golan or Gaza for that matter, what they are saying is that the international legal requirements continue. It is legal jargon with a different meaning than a literal reading of the words "ongoing military occupation" might suggest. This is not the same with the term annexation; that is just a description of a factual action taken, and is usually considered illegal.

Look at the Status column (which I added a few years years ago) at List of military occupations#Contemporary occupations. See for example the quote in footnote 17: "An occupied territory may also be illegally annexed"

Another incorrect statement you made was That is saying that acts that would otherwise be annexations are "null and void" (the plain meaning being vacated as though they never occurred). As I wrote above, per the article "null and void", this is a legal term and we should not be making subjective interpretations of its plain meaning: "null and void" means "of no legal effect"; that is not the same as saying they never occurred.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If the above isn't convincing enough, consider your earlier statement that So saying EJ was annexed is toeing an Israeli POV. The status of Crimea is equivalent to the status of EJ (per footnote 17 of the list article I linked above). Please go find a selection of news sources who you consider to be anti-Russian in stance, and see how they describe Crimea.

I hope this is now enough confirmation that annexation is simply a fact on the ground, and not a matter of POV. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Crimea doesnt have a UN resolution specifically calling its annexation null and void. Of no international legal effect is the same as saying never occurred according to international law. Annexation and occupation being, again, matters of international law. And yes, I am aware of the changes you have made on this subject across a range of articles, and I disagree with them. You keep saying things like this is just a factual description as though you can decide what POVs are factual and what are not, but just to demonstrate that it is in fact a POV see for example these back to back articles: [2], [3]. See for example Lustick saying that EJ has not been annexed by Israel even by its own law ([4]). You are very much making POV statements and claiming them to be facts, and then determinin that anything that disagrees with your view is counterfactual. Sorry, but I disagree with both the action and the result here. And yes, by saying annexed, you are saying in Israel. There is no definition of annexed to Israel that does not mean within its sovereign territory. nableezy - 00:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

In order to help bring the conversation to landing, would you mind confirming what points I have made in this discussion that you do agree with? And ideally comment on the sources I have brought. It will help us narrow the divide and identify where the disagreement really lies. From my side, I am carefully reading the three sources you have brought and will comment (I need a bit of time to do them justice, so will not address them until I have done so).

Your statement about Crimea is wrong: See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262: ...the referendum... having no validity, cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea...; Calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on the basis of the above-mentioned referendum and to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status. This is saying null and void in a different form of words.

Re your statement Of no international legal effect is the same as saying never occurred according to international law. Annexation and occupation being, again, matters of international law. I believe this is where we are not seeing eye to eye. I have tried to explain this nuance above, so I will not repeat myself, but it would allow us to close the gap if you could engage with the points I have made above. In the meantime, let me try another way: whether a military occupation is ongoing is primarily a matter of International law, but whether an annexation has occurred is primarily a matter of national law. Can we agree on this statement?

Your final sentence is absolutely 100% wrong: (There is no definition of annexed to Israel that does not mean within its sovereign territory.) You and I have both now brought sources which prove that this sentence is incorrect. Under international law, annexation is illegal and does not confer sovereignty. In order to be illegal it has to first exist! You appear to believe that annexation doesn’t exist - there are no sources which state this.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No UNSC resolution, as those actually have legal effect. And I think you knew I meant that. Israel performed an act, purportedly annexing the Golan or EJ, and that act was ruled to have no international effect and vacated as a matter of international law. You are transforming the action in to a present status, when that status was explicitly rejected in UNSC resolutions and by an overwhelming number of sources. nableezy - 18:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the problem has been caused by Israel's deliberate policy of ambiguity whereby acts were carried out to give the Israeli government the rights of a sovereign according to Israeli law, while simultaneously allowing Israel to deny that annexation had taken place (as Israel declared to the UN in both 1967 and 1981). I don't agree that annexation is something to be written as a mere fact on the ground, and it isn't true that legal experts (all) treat it as such. Consider Eyal Benvenisti's description in "International Law of Occupation": As in the case of the 1967 application of the law to East Jerusalem, the text of the 1981 law was vague enough to permit the interpretation that the measure did not affect the formal annexation of the area into Israel. Nevertheless, the measure was internationally received as a purported annexation, and consequently was condemned by the UN Security Council as "null and void". Note, not "received as annexation" but "received as purported annexation". Benvenisti also uses the same phrase "purported annexation" in regard to Jordan and WB in 1950. Writing "Israel annexed the Golan" can be read as a charge against Israel (that it did more than it claims), but it can also be read as an acceptance of annexation as an Israeli POV. Have pity on our readers who don't understand the nuances and qualify the word "annexation" so that it can't be read as a fait accompli. In brief, I agree with Nableezy. Zero^talk 06:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Zero. I agree with everything you said except your final four words – your points are not what Nableezy is arguing. Your post says that Israel tries to be ambiguous about whether its actions have constituted annexation, which is absolutely correct. I can't remember whether Israel has ever formally denied that EJ and Golan underwent annexation, but they have held firm to a policy of not confirming it. Israel doesn't want to state that it has annexed anything, because they know annexation is illegal. The international community is clear that they have annexed it, and unilateral annexation can have no legal effect under international law. So in simple terms Israel's position is "no annexation" and the international community's position is "annexation". Nableezy has stated the opposite - that "saying EJ was annexed is toeing an Israeli POV". See below for a summary. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a part I have some trouble with, that just using the word annexation somehow means "Israeli POV", if anything, it's the opposite, using the expression "Golan Law" (or reunification/Jerusalem Law) is Israeli POV (ditto unification for the Jordanian). The expression "creeping annexation" might well be considered uncomplimentary by some yet according to the argument being made, suggesting that it is a creeping annex is Israeli POV.

An occupation is supposed to be temporary based on military exigencies but if there is no demonstrable intent to leave, then what is that? The Israelis may bob and weave, deny, dispute, dissemble and dissimulate but the fact cannot be avoided for ever. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

		Israel has annexed?
		Yes	No
Israel has successfully applied sovereignty	Yes	Noone	Israeli Government position
	No	International consensus	Nableezy (and possibly Ian Lustick)

Lustick (2020) "Either way, as long as the one-state reality that has already been created by 53 years of creeping annexation is not recognized..." I have taken this a little out of context, the article is interesting, he also refers to "Israel’s so-called "annexation" of East Jerusalem in 1967, the legislative decoration it added in 1980, and the construction of massive Israeli neighborhoods in the Eastern sections of the expanded municipality..." and speaks about "pseudo annexation" and "real annexation". Even if it is interesting, I don't think there is much in there by way of enlightenment and the entire thing reads like an argument for one state rather than two.Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Another decent ref p 52 "International law today has more to say about the legal consequences of an annexation than about what qualifies as one, but it was not always so..." Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

As to whether Israel has ever formally denied annexation, letter from Foreign Minister to UN Sec General quoted in S/8052 (10 July 1967): The term 'annexation' used by supporters of the resolution is out of place. The measures adopted relate to the integration of Jerusalem in the administrative and municipal spheres, and furnish a legal basis for the protection of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. I'm sure I've also seen a similar official claim re Golan. Anyway, I think this discussion misses the point, or what should be the point. Are we trying give an amateur masterclass on international law or are we trying to agree on wording that is the least confusing and misleading to readers? Zero^talk 10:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We cannot agree on wording until we agree what each individual word means. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should follow sources and explain those to the reader if needs be, what we usually do, right? We are speaking about 3 "effective annexes", Jordanian, EJ, Golan (leaving the non EJ settlements out of it) and two of them are called annexes in their titles and one is not. That could be considered misleading to readers unless there is some sourced explanation why that should be. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty report assumes 67 annex as a fact, frequently throughout, for example:

p 41 "In 1980, Israel unilaterally (and unlawfully under international law) formalized its 1967 annexation of East Jerusalem, including Palestinian parts of the city and a surrounding area of about 70km2 that belonged to about 28 Palestinian villages."

p 76 "Israel has administered these territories in different ways. It has unilaterally (and unlawfully under international law) annexed East Jerusalem, and the Israeli military has governed the rest of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as occupied territories"

Although the report does not cover the Golan, there is:

p37 (note 3) " 1981, Israel adopted the Golan Heights Law, which extends Israeli jurisdiction and law to the occupied Golan Heights. The international community has condemned this "annexation" and the Golan Heights is acknowledged to be occupied territory where international humanitarian law is applicable, with Israel recognized as the occupying power with responsibilities towards the Syrian population outlined under international humanitarian law and international human rights law".

Annexation in quotes there.

There are some mentions of Jordan but afaics only the expression Jordanian rule is used. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

When one expert carefully writes "purported annexation" where another writes "effective annexation" and yet another writes just "annexation", it is clear that agreeing on the meaning of individual words is not within our reach. I have to go back to the task of conveying information to ordinary readers. If we write "Israel annexed the Golan but the rest of the world considers that illegal" it will be understood as "the Golan is part of Israel but the rest of the world doesn't like it" (exactly how an Israeli nationalist would put it). Unless we really want readers to hear us as affirming that the Golan is part of Israel we must not write it like that. Technical meaning in international law be damned. Zero^talk 14:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why write "Israel annexed the Golan but the rest of the world considers that illegal". That's not the way I would write it, instead pinch Amnesty wording "Israel unilaterally and unlawfully under international law, annexed the Golan" Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

And then it was ruled null and void. Israel performed an action, it was judged illegal and as a matter of international law vacated, but you would still say that the territory is annexed. nableezy - 18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The Golan Law is Israeli law. You and I may not approve of it but is their law all the same and their judges act on it. The Amnesty sentence for the Golan continues "the Golan Heights is acknowledged to be occupied territory where international humanitarian law is applicable, with Israel recognized as the occupying power with responsibilities towards the Syrian population outlined under international humanitarian law and international human rights law". As usual, Israel disputes that, along with everything else.Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware it is Israeli law. And that law was ruled to have no international legal effect and the status of the Golan remained unchanged as sovereign Syrian territory held under belligerent occupation by Israel. Israel performed a verb. That verb was ruled to have no change on the adjective that applies to the Golan, those being occupied or annexed. nableezy - 18:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, the John Wilkes Booth example does not match the situation very well. Closer is "Once went through a marriage ceremony but it was ruled null and void because he was already married". Even a lawyer would say "the marriage is illegal", but really they mean that it was the act of trying to create the marriage that was illegal; the marriage itself was not actually created, as Once would find out if he tried to get divorced. If we conflate a state of being (a married state; a holding of sovereignty over a territory) with an act to create that state (a marriage ceremony; an annexation law), we get into logical confusion. I think this example is a perfect match to "Any act by Israel that would constitute de facto or de jure annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is null and void under international law and does not change the status of the occupied territory". It is the "act" not the "annexation" that is null and void by the plain meaning of this sentence; a change of sovereignty doesn't actually happen as is confirmed by "does not change the status". Good night, all. Zero^talk 14:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I had been expecting this argument, which I am sorry to say is incorrect. I had expected "the purchase is illegal", which would be the same.

In those two cases there is only one set of relevant laws; the law of the specific country. Here there are two.

The annexations took place under Israeli law. The illegality is a matter of international law.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

They were not simply illegal, they were vacated as a matter of international law. And when you write the Golan is annexed, as an adjective and not simply Israel purportedly annexed the Golan as a verb you are in fact saying the Golan is in Israel. And you again fail to acknowledge that there are in fact significant viewpoints that object to saying that any of these places are annexed, proclaiming your position as objective fact and all others as counterfactual. Yes, you can find sources that say EJ is annexed. And I can find sources that say it is not. That means you may not say on Wikipedia as a matter of fact that it is annexed. And I will object every time somebody, including you, does so. nableezy - 18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I hear you. Can you please confirm which of the various points made you do agree with? A lot of information has been provided and acknowledgement would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there are sources that say as a verb Israel annexed the Golan or EJ (do not for the settlements at all, that still is a non-starter entirely for me), but I think the correct phrasing would be purportedly annexed or effectively annexed. I do not agree that you can describe the Golan or EJ as annexed, you can describe the actions taken through the Golan Law and the Jerusalem Law as annexations, but that you cannot describe the territories as annexed. And given that both actions were ruled null and void and without international legal effect and that the status of the territories remained unchanged, being occupied Syrian and Palestinian territories respectively, you may not describe those territories as though their status has changed, eg as annexed. nableezy - 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Saying they were not annexed under Israeli law is a fringe position, mostly proposed by Israeli propagandists; the mainstream position holds that Israel annexed the territories under their laws. Saying that under international law such annexation has no legal effect, is also the mainstream position, and we agree here. Our debate is basically a conflict of laws question, re whether international law can “vacate” national law; you have made that suggestion but provided no proof. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Describing the status of a territory as annexed or occupied is a matter of international law, not Israeli law. nableezy - 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Source please. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

And for the record, why exactly do you object to effectively annexed or purportedly annexed? Why is that even a problem for you? nableezy - 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I object to lack of clarity. Our duty is to help our readers understand. The words effectively or purportedly are fine so long as we are able to then explain what this grey area looks like. At the moment we still seem to disagree on that.

I also think a word like purportedly is giving credence to the Israeli propagandist nonsense that it was not an annexation under Israeli law. It would help this conversation if you would clarify if you agree that under Israeli law these places are annexed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not propaganda to say that the laws were specifically crafted to allow for Israeli officials to deny an annexation took place, largely to avoid even stronger censure and possible sanctions. I think effectively annexed is correct in an Israeli specific context as well. And I do not see how there is a lack of clarity there, in fact I think you are introducing that by using "annexed" as though it does not have any meaning under international law and only Israeli law. nableezy - 23:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The only difference between us is that you may believe that International Law can override Israeli Law, i.e. if something is illegal in the former then it doesn’t exist in the latter. I believe that is incorrect. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not said anything of the sort. What I have said is describing the status of the territory as annexed or occupied is an international law topic, and that status was not changed by Israel's purported annexations. They remained occupied Syrian (Golan) and Palestinian (EJ) territory. nableezy - 23:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge you believe that describing the status of the territory as annexed… is an international law topic; I have tried above to show you where this is mistaken. Could you please show me a source which supports this position re annexation? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose one could phrase it like that but I would simply prefer to say that an occupier cannot legally annex under international law. Since Res 242, oft repeated, inadmissability of...by force, blah blah. Saying it can't stop it happening though (the annexor just says I don't care, I'm doing it anyway) and then it is a question of what happens next, is it a Kuwait or..what?23:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Crimea is the best analogy. Does Nableezy really think that Russia did not annex Crimea? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You are again missing the distinction between the action and the outcome. Does Russia assert Crimea is part of its sovereign territory, has it purportedly annexed Crimea? Yes. Is Crimea annexed to Russia and not widely regarded as occupied Ukrainian territory? No. And you are again missing the difference in a UNSC resolution declaring the status Crimea as unchanged prior to the acts of annexation. As in here, yes Israel effectively annexed, and some sources will just say annexed, as a verb EJ and the Golan. Are they annexed to Israel as a result? No. They remain occupied territory, not annexed to Israel (meaning Israeli territory). Which is why sources will say it has been de facto annexed to Israel or effectively annexed to Israel (eg Playfair, Internaitonal Law and the Administration of the Occupied territories pp 156-7). Do you really dispute that most sources describe these territories as effectively annexed or de facto annexed to Israel and not simply annexed to Israel? nableezy - 00:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Most sources say just “annexed” re EJ and Golan. The term “effectively annexed” is used more often for the (other) WB settlements. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither part of that is true. It is an oddity for a source to call the settlements annexed in any way whatsoever, they may say that things are headed that way, but no, that is not true. Neither is most sources just say annexed. nableezy - 01:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither of us have taken the time to prove whether we have “most” sources on our side yet. I will try to think of a way. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be interesting to try and do a count, my impression is that many modern sources would just say it was annexed and then point out the illegality. Qualifiers don't alter the facts in any meaningful way. The annexed can't tell the difference between being effectively annexed and annexed, they still have to deal with Israeli laws and courts either way.Selfstudier (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty again "In the context of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), "annexation" means extending Israeli law to areas which are recognized as occupied and treating them as part of the territory of Israel." Denying this is the case seems untenable (quacks like a duck), there are Israeli courts rendering judgements in the OPT, Sheikh Jarrah for instance. Yes, the international community has demanded that all these measures be rescinded but it hasn't happened so far. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with "effectively" because the sources differ on precisely what is needed for something to be an annex. These days people tend to be more concerned with substance over form so if it looks like an annex then it will probably get treated like one.Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this will help: Monism and dualism in international law. Israel is (of course) a dualist country (I can share sources confirming this if needed). Your contention that something being invalid in international law means it didn’t happen under Israeli law is provably wrong in this context. That is not how things work in a dualist system. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the second time youve attributed to me an argument I have not made, and this time it is after I specifically said I am not saying that. See where I said I have not said anything of the sort up above and kindly do not attribute to me arguments I have not made. nableezy - 01:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know how else to read statements like this: Is Crimea annexed to Russia and not widely regarded as occupied Ukrainian territory? No…… EJ and the Golan. Are they annexed to Israel as a result? No. They remain occupied territory, not annexed to Israel (meaning Israeli territory).

Crimea is annexed to Russia under Russian law.

Golan is annexed to Israel under Israeli law.

On the other hand, take settlements which have been built. They are illegal under international law. The settlements exist, despite being illegal under international law.

You are trying to say something about how International Law interacts with Russian or Israeli law but are avoiding being specific so please excuse me if I am struggling to understand.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course nobody doubts that Israel's actions were accomplished by means of laws and proclamations under Israeli domestic law. But that doesn't alter the fact that occupation and annexation are (also) issues under international law. At best there is a conflict between domestic and international law (which is a common situation in the Israeli context). You (Once) wish to favor the domestic aspect in your wording at the expense of the international aspect. Nobody will get it. Your explanation of "null and void" above, incidentally, is wrong. It does not mean "you did it but it does not change your international legal obligations". It is a formal legal concept that means roughly "what you attempted had no actual effect". ICJ was saying that under international law, no annexation took place despite Israeli actions. Zero^talk 01:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t wish to favor the domestic over the international. I wish to state both. I am very happy to emphasize international over domestic. I simply find it wrong to pretend to ourselves that the annexation didn’t happen under Israeli law on the basis of […I haven’t been given a source yet…]

Re ICJ, please could you bring a quote?

PS – we seem to have a different understanding of what annexation is and/or what international law is. I believe your final sentence is no different from saying "…under international law, no settlements were built despite Israeli actions." I hope this explains why this whole thing jars with me.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Your contention that something being invalid in international law means it didn’t happen under Israeli law is provably wrong in this context. That is not how things work in a dualist system.Once

It is a formal legal concept that means roughly "what you attempted had no actual effect". ICJ was saying that under international law, no annexation took place despite Israeli actions.Zero

I believe your final sentence is no different from saying "…under international law, no settlements were built despite Israeli actions." I hope this explains why this whole thing jars with me. Once

Once. The distinction others are making is elementary, and you consistently miss it. Annexation is a matter of local law, and has nothing to do with practices of rule and settlement except in retroactive vindications bvy Israel that it procedes according to its own laws (well it doesn't actually). International law states a principle, from which it follows that Israel's practices, unless they conform to the principle, have no legal basis. How you derive the idea that someone here is asserting settlements were not built because international law denies their legitimacy, in annexed territory or otherwise, is totally obscure and unusual. Stand back a few hours, and then read the thread slowly.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC).

Hi Nish, thank you – I was hoping you would come to help us out of this mess.

There is something missing in this conversation overall – we all don’t seem to be able to hear each other. Personally I think this is because legal language is being used too loosely, and perhaps we have different understandings of what international law is. I am certain that international law cannot annex or un-annex, just as it cannot build or un-build settlements. It simply is about recognition (and validity vis a vis other international treaties); international law simply says that neither the annexation nor the settlements are a recognized part of Israel.

The relevance of this all is that:

• Nabs believes that saying “Israel has annexed…” is unwittingly accepting propaganda, whereas I believe it is a simple fact just like “Israel has built settlements”. Both of which are illegal and have no validity in international law.
• I believe that saying it is “effectively” or “purportedly” annexed is unwittingly accepting propaganda, supporting spurious claims that Israel’s actions do not amount to illegal annexation.

All we need to resolve this is to use a more nuanced set of words.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We all agree that annex is illegal under international law even if Israel says it's legal under their law or makes some other minority argument to that effect.

We all agree that Israeli actions produce real effects on the ground, it is part of their intent but it is not taking Israeli POV to say so or describe these effects, if the word "annex" is the only problem (is it?) then we may use some long winded version, "extending Israeli law to areas which are recognized as occupied and treating them as part of the territory of Israel." (Amnesty) or "With Israeli “administration, law, and jurisdiction” applied to this area [EJ]" (Lustick) or one could refer to the "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory" by force (242 and through 2334).(lots of sources). While there may be minor points of difference these all amount to illegal annexation.

A part we have only touched on is intent to annex rather than annex, this is what "creeping annexation", establishing settlements, dispossession in general is all about, the argument being what can all those actions mean other than an intent to annex? The argument is nowadays made that this constitutes de facto annexation.

Any wording that covers these points is fine with me, I would rather use sources than make stuff up.Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Once, (1) you yourself brought the ICJ quotation. (2) Nobody here, and certainly not me, asserted that annexation didn't occur under Israeli law because the ICJ (and UNSC) ruled that the annexation was null and void under international law. "Illegal" and "null and void" are not the same legal concepts. "Illegal" means something is contrary to law, while "null and void" means that an action or thing intended to cause an effect either didn't cause that effect or now doesn't have that effect. (There are two versions, think of a contract that is null and void from the beginning because one of the signatories was unqualified to sign it, or a contract that becomes null and void when one of the signatories violates an essential clause.) In the case of settlements, the ICJ and the UNSC declared them illegal, not null and void, so that analogy is invalid. Zero^talk 12:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 How about we take up residence there? The current status section could be improved. For Golan it says "a move that has been described as an annexation." (unsourced). Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It's just a verbal problem. 'Israel has declared the territory annexed'/'Israel passed a law asserting the territory is annexed to that state' etc. By declare/assert etc., it is made clear this is a unilateral act whose status is 'subjective', i.e., (almost) uniquely peculiar to that state's position.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Continuation

Zero wrote: think of a contract that is null and void from the beginning because one of the signatories was unqualified to sign it, or a contract that becomes null and void when one of the signatories violates an essential clause. In order not to talk past each other it would help if we could use maintain the framework of the two separate bodies of law. The annexations were done under Israeli law and are not null and void under Israeli law. They are only null and void under International law. The distinction is critical to this discussion.

As an aside, the UN or ICJ declaring the annexations null and void is of limited consequence because International Law is clear that all unilateral annexations are illegal and null and void. The statements by the UN and ICJ are just automatic confirmation of something that is crystal clear.

Zero also wrote ICJ was saying that under international law, no annexation took place despite Israeli actions. I reread the relevant clauses in my edit above at 11:16, 25 February 2022, and confirm that I disagree with this summary. The wording is illogical, because there is no scenario in which such annexation could have taken place under international law. Annexation is not something which happens under international law.

In fact, the ICJ confirmed the opposite twice - their language is "Israel’s formal annexation [under Israeli law] of East Jerusalem, or de facto annexation [under Israeli law] of parts of West Bank".

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's partly a question of remedy (leaving aside enforcement). If something is illegal, there are various ways to remedy the defect. If something is declared null and void then the ideal remedy is they doing the something need to undo the something and make it as if it had not occurred. That has been demanded and to date, that demand has been ignored. The Israeli POV aspect comes in if one treats everything as negotiable when it's not in theory supposed to be negotiable.

Tend to agree on the need to be specific about the applicable legal regime particularly when using the expressions de facto/de jure.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

[Moved from Talk:Nableezy] I propose to go further and avoid the word "annex" in summary statements. We have found that sources can be found to assign "annexed" to either mean "brought under sovereignty" or "asserted to be under sovereignty". Instead, we can avoid that issue while adding precision by using the concept of sovereignty directly. For example (draft), "Israel extended its domestic law over the Golan Heights, an action which is usually considered an assertion of sovereignty. The international community holds Israel's actions to be illegal and considers that sovereignty remains with Syria." Zero^talk 08:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I recognize I am being stubborn here, but since the promulgation of modern international law, "annexed" never means "brought under sovereignty". It only means "unilaterally asserted to be under sovereignty". Onceinawhile (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where this expression "applying sovereignty" originated, it might have been with Netanyahu. I will look into it a bit.Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

https://israelpolicyforum.org/2020/10/26/annexation-whats-in-a-term/ Here is one discussion.

But is “annexing” (sipuach in Hebrew) the same thing as “applying sovereignty” (hachalat ribonut in Hebrew)? And what is the link between those two concepts and “applying Israeli law” to a territory? Also, what is the legal status of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which Israel also took control over following the 1967 Six-Day War?

Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Useful article, thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.jta.org/2020/01/30/israel/annexation-vs-applying-israeli-law-in-the-west-bank-why-people-are-using-different-terms

Usage appears to date to Netanyahu in 2018 when he was going on about annexing the WB. Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait, here is a Rivlin quote in 2017 Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It might well have started with Rivlin and a group of nascent one staters. This article is from 2013, the problem is the possibility that that phrase might well be used quite innocently, in this case I think not. 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This video lecture by Ian Lustick is worth watching. Not directly related to our discussion (he is focused on the (rest of the) West Bank, rather than EJ and Golan). But he himself appears confused by the terminology question re annexation. In the space of a few powerful sentences between 1 hour and 6 minutes and 1 hour and 9 minutes, he says he favors using the word annexation, but then says it would not be good if the world accepts annexation has happened, then says in his final point that if people pretend annexation has not "really" happened then it will just prolong the two-state-nonsense and delay the real struggle for equal rights.

He is trying to make a number of nuanced (and very important) points in there but ate his words a little with the use of this one word; shows how difficult this term is. I think it will be a very good thing if we can iron out some robust terminology here. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That's why I earlier said there is not much in the way of enlightenment in Lustick's missives, he sort of contradicts himself trying to make things fit (he was a two stater that became a one stater).Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Once, According to the official story, the absorption of the West Bank into Jordan was not unilateral, yet it is commonly called annexation even by legal writers. According to the official story (much of which is probably a lie but that is not the issue), Crimea overwhelmingly voted for union with Russia, so that wasn't unilateral but it is commonly called annexation. These examples show that, even if you are right about the legal meaning, you are not right about the common meaning.

But, suppose for the sake of argument that "annexed" never means anything other than "unilaterally asserted to be under sovereignty". Do our readers know that? Is our aim to convey the truth to the reader in words they understand, or is it to write something that is precise terminology in international law? These are not the same aim! If "unilateral" is an essential part of "annexed", it is our duty to tell that to the reader. Zero^talk 12:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. That is why I find this ongoing discussion valuable. The word is not well understood, even amongst experts. I think this is partly due to the evolution of international law – in the 19th century annexation was a very normal way to gain territory.

To return to the nitpicking (for the sake of establishing a firm foundation on which we can then build useable language), I don’t think your Crimea and Jordan examples work, because “unilateral” in this context doesn’t mean “ignoring the people” but rather “by force rather than by treaty with the previous sovereign”. The UK may have recognized Jordan’s annexation but they never gave them a treaty.

The best example of a legal situation under modern international law is Goa. That started as annexation (ie illegal) and then a few years later Portugal gave them a treaty. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the formal meeting of Palestinian notables that asked for union with Jordan. There was no previous sovereign. Never mind, I proposed a solution before and you didn't respond. If there is something wrong with it, please say what it is and propose how to fix it:

"Israel extended its domestic law over the Golan Heights, an action which is usually considered an assertion of sovereignty. The international community holds Israel's actions to be illegal and considers that sovereignty remains with Syria." Explanation: "usually considered" because Israel did not explicitly assert sovereignty though the majority opinion of expert sources is that sovereignty was the intention (to be sourced). As second best, "assertion of sovereignty" could be "unilateral annexation" but mere "annexation" without qualification is unacceptable for the reasons stated. Multiple wording variations are possible, but I maintain that this correct and understandable. Incidentally the phrase "unilaterally annexed" is commonplace in international law journals (I did a search). Whether or not "unilateral" is redundant, writers even for expert audiences thought it worthy of emphasis. I see "forcible annexation", too. Zero^talk 13:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you proposing that same language for EJ case? Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The last part has to be changed since the issue of who is the sovereign is problematic. Probably the details can't be properly expressed in the same sentence (it involves the status of the State of Palestine, for example). At 1:20am, replacing "considers that sovereignty remains with Syria" by "considers that Israel is only an occupying power" seems like a start. Zero^talk 14:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the hour. I was hoping we might be able to use the same wording everywhere. Of course neither of those really work in the Jordan case, which occurred in a time of transition, UN etc. Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to keep track:-

"Israel (Golan Heights Law/Jerusalem Law extended its domestic law) over the (Golan Heights/East Jerusalem), an action which is usually considered an assertion of sovereignty/unilateral annexation. The international community holds Israel's actions to be illegal and considers that Israel remains an occupying power" Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with the long-form wording proposed by Zero; it is accurate. We also need a solution for ledes, navboxes or titles though. And even in the long-form, a solution cannot just ignore the word annexation – it is the prevalent word in all sources describing the status of EJ and Golan. We need to address and explain it. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The titles are mixed now, Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem (67 cabinet decision) and Jerusalem Law (80 Knesset decision). Then Golan law (81 Knesset decision). However it is perhaps more important what it immediately says in the lead following.Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Towards a solution

Per List of military occupations#Contemporary occupations (right hand column), there are only four current illegal annexations anywhere in the world. Any solution we come up with should be applied to all four of these situations:

• Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem (overview at Status of Jerusalem, and at this article)
• Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (overview at Political status of Crimea)
• Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights (overview at Status of the Golan Heights, and at this article)
• Moroccan annexation of Western Sahara (overview at Political status of Western Sahara)

Zero has helpfully identified the heart of the issue – that annexation can be understood by readers to imply that sovereignty has passed, even though in modern international law it means exactly the opposite.

So we need to find a way of using the word annexation whilst (a) minimizing the risk of a reader thinking sovereignty has not passed; and (b) without giving credence to apologist arguments that these did not technically amount to annexations under modern international law and therefore were not illegal (such arguments have been proposed by the governments in at least three of the four cases listed). To achieve this we would need to add qualifiers or emphasizers before or after the all uses of the term annexation, in all relevant articles about these four cases.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a list of alternatives would help. Starter for 10 below, please comment:

Prefix qualifiers (e.g. in article titles):

• Purported
• Effective
• Unilateral
• Forcible
• Illegal
• Unrecognized

We have been making use of effective mainly but without really saying what we mean by that, that too seems capable of being misconstrued. Purported seems to me misleading, something has happened (used in the preamble to the Iraq Kuwait resolution, seems a rhetorical way of introducing illegal/null and void). Unilateral is correct, it just means without the agreement of anyone (other states usually), bit like a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (secession rather than annex). Forcible seems inappropriate for the legal act. Illegal is correct as a matter of IL, I prefer that or the last one if these are the choices, we have used this in articles as in "....an action not recognized by (someone/the international community)." In a way the last one is key, no recognition, then one is just wasting one's time...unless a Trump happens along.Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The term annexation might be misleading, so let's not use it. How about "Israel extended its civil law"? “WarKosign” 20:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You might want to take a look towards the end of the preceding section.Selfstudier (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Way too many preceding sections to follow. According to Israeli law and for any practical purpose EJ and Golan are now part of Israel, while formally according to international law they are not. It doesn't matter too much how to describe it as long as the discription does not mislead the reader. “WarKosign” 05:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The dichotomy (legal in Israel, null and void internationally) requires at least some explanation, a casual statement that the dichotomy exists or that it is just a formal or practical question, won't really do imo. Selfstudier (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Why won't it do? WP:NPOV requires us to just present each of the POVs and let the readers think whatever they want. “WarKosign” 14:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you find the navigation difficult, I will bring down to this section the form of words on which there is in principle agreement so far:-

Israel (Golan Heights Law/Jerusalem Law extended its domestic law) over the (Golan Heights/East Jerusalem), an action which is usually considered an assertion of sovereignty/unilateral annexation. The international community holds Israel's actions to be illegal and considers that Israel remains an occupying power.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Can use a few tweaks, but generally quite reasonable. So what's the problem? “WarKosign” 20:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, now you only need to read this section.Selfstudier (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

After a week's break

@Zero0000 and Nableezy: please could you share your views on two topics:

(1) Are we now agreed that it is correct to state that EJ and Golan have been annexed under Israeli law?

(2) For the explanatory sentence required to avoid misunderstanding, the language needs to be as simple as possible; personally I think the language proposed above could be simplified. What do you think of the two sentences at Political status of Western Sahara: The Annexation of Western Sahara by Morocco took place in two stages, in 1976 and 1979, and is considered illegal under international law... Under international law, Western Sahara is not a legal part of Morocco and it remains under the international laws of military occupation.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Or:

Illegally annexed territory is considered as still occupied under international law and the provisions of international humanitarian law continue to apply, for precision such territory may be referred to as "occupied and illegally annexed". Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

On 1, still no, there are disputes that even under Israeli law have the territories been formally annexed. Effectively annexed remains my view of the most well supported and neutral phrasing. 2. No view right now. nableezy - 14:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia argues that Crimea wasn’t an annexation because of the referendum, Morocco argues that Western Sahara wasn’t an annexation because they believe they had pre-existing sovereign ties, and Israel argues that EJ and Golan weren’t annexations because they believe 1967 was a defensive war and they claim EJ had no prior sovereign. All of these positions are considered fringe, tenuous arguments intended to obfuscate the illegality of their actions under international law. Your proposal to weaken the language incorrectly implies some credence to these arguments. I know from above you are trying to communicate something different, but it is far too subtle to be dealt with using this word, and is also technically incorrect per the structural separation of Israeli and International law. I suggest we move on, and agree to disagree on what is the “right answer”. To move forward I suggest we simply assess the frequency of use in high quality sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There are many sources stipulating that both EJ and Golan have been (illegally) annexed. There are few sources arguing that they have not been annexed and fewer still for "effectively" annexed (the meaning of which is unspecified and by which I appear to mean something different to what Nableezy means).Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Once, you seem to have gone back to your original position. Am I wrong? Your two examples show the problem. Russia passed a law of annexation of Crimea, and (if my limited understanding is correct) Morocco passed a law of annexation of Western Sahara. However, Israel has never passed a law of annexation of Golan. It passed a law but denied it was annexation. So to say that Israel annexed the Golan under Israeli law is problematic as some authors have pointed out. The very reason why experts often use expressions like "effective annexation" and "de-facto annexation" is to avoid the issue, which from an international law perspective is largely irrelevant. What nearly everyone agrees on is that Israel took unilateral actions that are considered illegal under international law since they are tantamount to annexation. We should just say what Israel did and how the international community judges it. Zero^talk 05:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zero, my proposal is acknowledging (a) the need for an explanatory sentence, and (b) the need to qualify that the annexations took place under Israeli law. As to whether the word annexation should be qualified further, I think it is now clear that it should not. I have read more on Western Sahara and Crimea and can confirm that the situations really are exactly analogous. Neither Russia nor Morocco used the word annexation in their laws. In fact what they did was exactly the same as Israel. Russia’s annexation took place via a simple law establishing Crimea as a new federal district (see here) and Morocco’s via a boundary agreement which extended their borders (see here). So the idea that something is not an annexation unless it is explicitly stated as such holds no water. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Dajani explains this quite well, I think.

Excessive formalism, accordingly, seems misplaced when assessing whether a state has manifested an intention to hold a territory “under its dominion” with sufficient clarity to constitute an unlawful annexation. Indeed, state practice offers no shortage of examples in which the international community has looked past a state’s formal characterization of its actions when evaluating their lawfulness for this purpose—most recently in relation to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Accordingly, while a formal act of annexation is powerful evidence of intent, the lack of one is by no means dispositive.

and

"When states could lawfully acquire territory through conquest, they had an incentive to declare their acquisition early and with maximal clarity....However, today’s legal prohibition of conquest creates an incentive for states to obfuscate the reality of annexation that did not exist when such actions were lawful." Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added this source to Annexation, along with a quote from Korman who says the same thing. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Self, good source. It nicely matches Hofmann's definition of annexation in the Max Planck encyclopedia. That is indeed how annexation seems to be viewed from the perspective of international law by most modern authorities. However, Once's "the annexations took place under Israeli law" is something else. The phrase "under Israeli law" implies that the Knesset passed a law declaring that the Golan was part of Israel, but it didn't. There is no such thing as "under Israeli law" without relevant laws. On the other hand, the Russian parliament passed a law declaring that Crimea is part of the Russian Federation. The Mauritania-Morocco treaty declared part of Western Sahara to be part of Morocco. In both cases the legal instruments explicitly asserted sovereignty over a territory. The Golan Law simply does not do that. We can get into that debate with reference to reliable sources in detailed article sections, but I think your (Self's) wording proposal for a summary is fine. I strongly disagree that "the annexations took place under Israeli law" should be in the summary. Zero^talk 12:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources

"The difference between a territory that is "occupied" by a State and one that is "annexed" by that State is a legal distinction." Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Nathaniel Berman also sees little difference between the Golan and EJ cases:

"Such an annexation proclamation would either consist of a declaration that part or all of the West Bank forms an integral part of Israel, as Israel did in relation to East Jerusalem in 1980, or that “Israeli law applies” to the area, as it did in relation to the Golan Heights in 1981." Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Of the encyclopedia type definitions, I prefer the ICRC Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 12 November 2022

Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 → Status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip – On the status of the Golan Heights, there is an article Status of the Golan Heights. Instead, this article may focus on the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Caenus (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

As per notification on your talk page, you may not participate in internal project discussions until you have 500 edits so I will remove the tags from this RFC and you can discuss with other editors informally. Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. What do you think about my proposal? Caenus (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You want to change the scope of the article so as to exclude Golan and Sinai. You mention that Golan is covered by another article as well, which is true but Sinai is not. There is a recent article Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine which I think covers the matters you are trying to cover? Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Disputed territories" list organization

I've just grouped the items in the "Disputed territories" section into three categories. This highlights that the items regarding "Qualification of occupation" have a great deal of overlap. Dotyoyo (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

@Dotyoyo: Could you explain this removal a bit more, please. The edit summary says that Bracka does not present an argument nor reference one but why is Bracka required to do that? (the relevant text in Bracka does it seems to me explain the situation and the text does actually say "Finally, the Palestinian right to self-determination1 (22) also discredits Israel’s claim of no prior sovereign..."). The rest of the edit summary is OR afaics (that takes no account of Jordan's trusteeship status for the territory, for example). Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Sure. The text in Bracka does indeed say "the Palestinian right to self-determination(22) also discredits Israel's claim to no prior sovereign", but I don't see the supporting logic behind that claim. The right to self-determination and the existence of a prior sovereign are two very different things, and Bracka doesn't explain the exact relationship he has in mind. Bracka's following text says "it is arguable", meaning that such an argument could be made, while the paragraph that I removed makes the stronger claim that "it is argued", suggesting that an argument has been made. Perhaps the argument is readily apparent to those well-versed in IHL.

If an argument of a prior sovereign matching the GCIV definition of occupation is added to the article (ideally in the Occupation or Criticism sections), the logic of the argument should be clear, even to those not well-versed in IHL, or at least discoverable through the references provided. (In practice, I believe the argument supporting the existence of occupation more commonly dismisses the requirement of prior sovereignty altogether---side-stepping Article 2's mention of High Contracting Parties---on the basis that that the intent of GCIV is to protect individuals regardless of title.)

(I'm not sure I understand what makes my edit description WP:OR, given that I only mentioned readily available information, and the term OR is usually only applied to article content. My intent was to show what common understanding the kind of argument alluded to in the removed paragraph might seek to counter.)

Dotyoyo (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If the author says it can be argued, not it is argued, then we can simply make that change, but I don't see grounds for complete removal here. Many authors have argued that (at least in the post WWII order) sovereignty belongs to the people and Bracka actually mentions that: "Imseis argues that sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government and thus it does not matter that the Palestinians did not have a government with official title to the territory in 1967". He then also goes onto quote another view by Orna Ben-Naftali, Aeyal Gross and Keren Michaeli that "There also exists the notion that the Palestinian people were the de facto sovereign of the land prior to occupation." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: You state: If the author says it can be argued, not it is argued, then we can simply make that change. I'm not that interested in dealing with speculative arguments that could be made. I prefer to deal with arguments actually are made, and made clearly and completely.

I'm of course aware of the post-WWII trends regarding changing interpretations of sovereignty. I'm also aware of the Intertemporal Principle, and their role in motivating the Additional Protocols to the Fourth Geneva Convention. (IMO, the relationship between sovereignty, self-determination, and intertemporality is underappreciated.)

Also, I suggest that arguments added to this article that promote the view that the territories are occupied go in the section set aside for such arguments. Adding paragraphs headed with "Counterpoint:" risk turning Wikipedia into a debate forum, which is not what it's meant to be. (I'm not suggesting that you were the author of the counterpoint---just saying.)

Dotyoyo (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the organization of the article, that's an important question we should tackle. I don't like the "point, counterpoint" format. But I also don't like the "section for POV A, section for POV B" format either. A better style is to have a single section with title like "Prior sovereign of West Bank and Gaza Strip" and then we can have all arguments there, because:

• In order to respond to an argument, one needs to quote an argument fully first. And sometimes the one making the original argument makes a counter-counter argument.
• The reader will appreciate not having to jump back between different sections to follow an argument.
• There are more than two positions. Majority position is that both WB and GS are occupied. But among those who disagree, there is the opinion that neither is occupied and there is the opinion that WB is occupied but GS is not.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: You wrote: But I also don't like the "section for POV A, section for POV B" format either. I think of the two sections ((a) Occupied territories, and (b) Disputed territories) as representing claims, rather than POVs. Each claim is a worthy Wikipedia topic, and should be represented in an WP:NPOV manner.

You wrote: The reader will appreciate not having to jump back between different sections to follow an argument. Agreed: I think the reader would appreciate accessing all the legal arguments (made by Israel or others) for "occupation" in one section, and all the arguments for the territories being "disputed" in another, rather than having these arguments being julienned across the page, requiring the reader to skip around.

You wrote: There are more than two positions [...] WB and GS [...]. Agreed. That's why there are geography-specific sections farther down in the article. I'm not proposing changing that.

Dotyoyo (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Each claim is a worthy Wikipedia topic, and should be represented in an WP:NPOV manner The Israeli claim is a minority position of 1 and not worth the effort of reading. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to be wanting to organize the article by POVs and I strongly think it should be organized by nature of argument. "Disputed" and "Occupied" are two contrasting POVs. Rebuttals of specific "disputed" arguments should go in the "disputed" section, not necessarily in the "occupation" section. The arguments regarding prior sovereignty shouldn't be scattered.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. Dotyoyo (talk)

@Vice regent: Speaking of counter-counterarguments, this edit introduced a re-interpretation of sovereignty based in the 1970s effort to weaken the GCIV requirement that the ousted sovereign be a High Contracting Party. This re-interpretation was incorporated into later legal instruments, such as GCIV AP1, but it doesn't change the wording of GCIV, or the legal interpretations of GCIV in effect in 1967. The foundational legal principle of tempus regit factum states that the legality of an act or legal consequences of an event can only be judged according to the law in effect at the time the act or event occurred. Since you mentioned counter-counterarguments earlier, should I add a one here (properly sourced, of course), since this is, after all, the section on "Disputed territories"? You were concerned about WP:UNDUE weight, and it looks like we might start gaining some. Dotyoyo (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, if you have relevant sources that challenge this, without WP:SYNTH, feel free to list them here or add them directly to the article. As for UNDUE weight, we can simply summarize the sentences to reduce weight accordingly.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Speaking of counter-counterarguments, this edit introduced an opinion claiming the persistence of occupation, but doesn't but doesn't actually counter the paragraph it's responding to. It doesn't disagree that the Oslo Accords were signed, nor that they permit Israel to control Area C, nor that it's broadly accepted outside of the context of Israel that a signed agreement between the parties allowing a presence of forces transitions an occupation into a negotiated situation. The April 1952 Treaty of San Francisco between the Allied nations and Japan ended the occupation of Japan, even though Allied troops remained. The General Treaty of 1955-05-05 ended the occupation of Germany (except for West Berlin), etc. Should I add another (properly sourced, of course) counter-counterargument, since this is the section on "Disputed territories"? Dotyoyo (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You may be misunderstanding Cuyckens (see if you can find the book and read it for yourself). It is not whether an agreement is signed, but the nature of it. The Treaty of San Francisco returned sovereignty to Japan. But the Oslo Accords did not give PA sovereignty, not even in Area A (eg airspace was under Israeli control). Just consider recently how an "Israeli court order"[5] was used to shut down AJ's office in Ramallah. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Regarding this edit, the cited reference points out that Israel's strike was indeed preemptive. It does not refute the claim in the article: that the preemptive strike was defensive. Also, I don't see the relevance of the second half of the sentence. Who has ever claimed that the Geneva Convention does not apply to defensive wars due to their being defensive, and how is this relevant to the preceding paragraph? Dotyoyo (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, that last paragraph isn't talking about disputed vs occupied at all. Its trying to determine whether Israel has a better title to WB than Jordan, whereas the international legal consensus doesn't favor Jordan at all, but instead argues Palestinians have title to WB. Also did you read Legal Experts Debunk Netanyahu’s Golan Heights Claim: Annexation Can’t Be Excused by Defensive War (source cited in that diff)? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material (part 2)

Dotyoyo Can you explain this removal? Certainly if there is a reliable source that argues Israel's silence did not mean lack of claim, you should present it. But you shouldn't remove reliably sourced material.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I already included a fair amount in my edit message, but I'll add two more points.

(1) This section covers a legal classification of territories. Without any statement that supports its legal relevance in this context, the removed text seems WP:IRRELEVANT, or perhaps just WP:UNDUE.

(2) The focus on the date range 1948-1967 seems to be WP:CHERRYPICKING. If the historical timeline is to be pushed back before 1967, completeness would suggest including mention of the Mandate for Palestine and its legal relevance, as mentioned in some of the references in the "Disputed territories" section. (For those who casually dismiss any possibility of continued relevance, an ICJ Advisory Opinion on the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia pointed out that, since each League of Nations Mandate was a "sacred trust of civilization", the rights they detailed did not simply lapse upon the departure of the Mandate supervisor.)

Dotyoyo (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I really don't see a possible evolution in Israeli positions on the status of WB/GS to be WP:IRRELEVANT. But your point about considering Israeli claims pre-1948 is valid. So I think it should be possible to state: "In the early 20th century Zionist leaders made X claim. After independence and until 1967, no Israeli government made claims to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Etc". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: You're twisting my words: I said this particular claim was irrelevant or undue in a legal context. You speak of claims, but I'm not nearly as interested in political claims as I am in the underlying laws and the legal arguments. This calls into question the proper focus/context of the article: is it (or should it be) human interest, political claims (including non-binding legal claims), or binding international laws? (This would have been clearer if the word "political" were still in the article name.) I've been focusing on binding international laws. Dotyoyo (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

So were the international law arguments made by Israeli gov lawyers post 1967 also made by them pre-1967? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Another issue

Can you explain this removal? Certainly, the Israeli government should be able to speak for itself, although we may also mention the JCPA argument later too.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: This is not "Another issue". This is the same edit covered in the section "Removal of sourced material". Dotyoyo (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The origin of Israeli legal argument

Dotyoyo can you also explain why you removed this sourced information? Your position seems to be that you think its incorrect, but that really is WP:OR. If you think its incorrect, then perhaps you can bring a source that disputes it and we can word it in an NPOV manner.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: As I mentioned above to User:Selfstudier, WP:OR is not a policy that restricts the communication in edit descriptions; rather, it is an editorial concept for the content of the articles.

By your use of the word "incorrect", I imagine you're referring to my phrase Removed the incorrect statement that he called the territories "disputed". More accurately, the article stated that Blum claimed that "Israel had a claim to the territories". Blum's paper did not directly promote an Israeli claim to the territories; instead, it dispelled notions of the superiority of Jordan's title to the West Bank. I reworded the text to portray his writing more accurately. Note that I did not remove mention of Blum, nor any reference works.

Blum's 1968 paper, The Missing Reversioner, was an early analysis of the legal condition of the West Bank, stemming from an immediate crisis concerning the staffing of courts in the West Bank. He criticized the strength of Jordan's legal claim to the West Bank, and concluded that Israel's strength of claim to title to the West Bank was at least as strong as Jordan's. As a result, the courts that Israel set up in the West Bank did not have to submit ruling on behalf of the ousted King of Jordan. (His paper did not mention any dispute with the PLO, which was not yet a contender for political control of the West Bank on the world stage.)

Is there anything in the current phrasing that you still question?

Dotyoyo (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I question the following:

• removing the sourced fact that this argument was first made by Blum post-1967. Kattan clearly uses the word "first" and, in the absence of any source that contradicts this view, we should state it.
• removing "The argument was fashioned by Israeli lawyers to provide a way to avoid the law of belligerent occupation"
• misrepresenting Quigley. Quigley doesn't talk about Israel's civil or military jurisdiction. Rather he says "Israel argues that the covenant applies only to the territory in which a state is sovereign. Israel says that the West Bank is not its territory. Israel does consider itself bound by the covenant with regard to its actions in east Jerusalem, thereby confirming its view that east Jerusalem, but not the remainder of the West Bank, falls under its sovereignty." Even if Israel made the argument you say it makes, the ICCPR itself only says "jurisdiction" and doesn't limit itself to "civil jurisdiction". But in the absence of a source, so far your writing is WP:SYNTH.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I've re-added that the argument was first made by Blum in 1968, and added the context sentence in the quote parameter.

Quigley (IIRC) didn't source his means of knowing the intent of the Israeli lawyers. His claim seemed to originate from cynicism rather than telepathy, which made it not a reliable source on that topic, so I used WP:COMMONSENSE to redact it.

I agree that the phrase "military rather than civil jurisdiction" that I added wasn't in Quigley. I added it to help inform the reader, thinking it was innocuous. In any case, it had already been removed it in a previous edit.

Dotyoyo (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE weight

My higher level concern is regarding the WP:UNDUE weight issue in the article due to significant amount of emphasis given to the view that the OPT are not "disputed" and not "occupied". There seems to be close to international consensus that these territories are occupied, including among American scholars. These arguments are closely related to the ones made at Legality of Israeli settlements. Don't get me wrong: I strongly believe Israeli views should be fairly represented in this article. But they really should be presented alongside majority views and not given higher, or even similar weight, as the mainstream view.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

+1, per my comment above. It's just the same as everybody considers the territories occupied but Israel disputes this. I lost count of how many times the Israeli POV on this has been debunked. Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: (I suspect you meant to type «are "disputed" and not "occupied"».)

I agree that the political opinion within the UN (and academic writings) strongly leans toward the territories being occupied, as reflected in numerous UN GA votes and ICJ advisory opinions, which have other political consequences. But that is international political opinion, not law. Law is based on jus cogens laws and Conventions/Declarations/Treaties that states have consented to. Throughout Wikipedia, this distinction is glossed over, echoing a quote by D.H.N. Johnson: "[T]he assault on international law generally takes the form of a gross exaggeration of the contention that resolutions of the General Assembly are legally binding.". On 2022-11-09, the article Political status of the Palestinian territories was moved to this article. Should this reflect a broadening of scope?

If this is an article solely for political claims, and "Occupied or Disputed" is a matter of political classification, and then your point is well-taken, and maybe some of the content should be moved, perhaps to International_law_and_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict, which is currently pretty weak, and in many places lists claims without their supporting legal arguments.

But if the scope of this article and its section "Occupied or Disputed" includes the legal classification according to binding international law, then I think all the points supporting "Disputed" are worthy of remaining here. Also, given that "Occupied or Disputed?" is of the form "A or B?", I think putting arguments for A into the section supporting B seems like an unnecessarily divisive approach that, in the long run, only serves to lengthen the section with "point, counterpoint" extensions, which you mentioned earlier that you don't like.

BTW, at least two endnotes are missing in the "Occupied territories" section. Endnotes [1] and [2] look like they'll be the place that explains the reasoning/rationale for the conclusion of occupation, but those endnotes don't exist.

Dotyoyo (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree this article's scope is international law. What I meant is that the majority of scholars of international law consider the territories occupied. Do you disagree? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I included "academic writings" in my edit that you responded to. Dotyoyo (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)