Talk:Israel/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Official languages

As far as I know, there are 3 official languages in Israel: Hebrew, Arabic and English. According to the material which I've found in PC program "35 languages of the world (Berlitz): Hebrew is official language of Israel. Arabic is the second official language, English is also very common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 231013-a (talk • contribs) 06:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it says "official", and not just talking about most common languages in order? JayKeaton (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a complicated situation. During the British Mandate, they declared that all official orders will be published in English, Hebrew and Arabic. When the state was established, it was decided that English would no longer be used in this manner, though there was no real decision on Israel's official languages. All Israeli laws etc. are published in Hebrew and Arabic (but not in English), so those two are understood to be the official languages. okedem (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is indeed a complicated situation, because there is no one law which defines the official languages. There was an appeal to the supreme court requesting it to order authorities to use the Arabic language consistently on street signs (until then, Arabic was used only occasionally, especially when the sign directed to a town or neighborhood with Arab majority). The supreme court decided that Arabic is indeed an official language that should be used consistently on street signs, but precedence should be given to the Hebrew language which is the first official language. There is no court ruling about the status of the English language, so it remains vague. There are many immigrants and tourists in Israel (not to mention foreign journalists, diplomats and UN officials who are interested in the Israeli-Arab conflict), so English is used extensively anyway, but it is unclear when its use is obligatory if at all. DrorK (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

United Nations on Israel & the United States

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/isrlindx.htm

Israel, Palestine and the Occupied Territories

The question of Palestine and Israel has commanded the attention of the UN since the organization was founded. The UN General Assembly voted the original partition of the land in November 1947 and the UN deployed its first peacekeeping operation to monitor the ceasefire lines after the war of 1948. This site introduces readers to the key issues, with a special focus on UN involvement in the conflict. For many years, successive Israeli governments refused to consider a Palestinian state, while most Arabs denied the legitimacy of Israel. In the 1970s both sides began to recognize the need for compromise. The Palestinians proposed a separate state, claiming as their homeland the territories outside the 1948 ceasefire lines, territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war. This idea found widespread support in the international community, and Israel was called on to withdraw from this land, as affirmed in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

Israel's 1967 occupation of other territories complicated the matter. Israel seized Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights and set up settlements in both. Israel also invaded Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 and maintained a long- term occupation in the southern part of the country. These wars and occupations were related to the Palestine question and deepened the political crisis surrounding it. Even after Israel eventually withdrew from Egypt and Lebanon, the Palestine (and Golan) occupations continued. Israel's settlement-building, and its construction of a massive border- wall that annexed large swaths of Palestinian territory, has made resolution of the conflict far more difficult.

Since resolutions 242 and 338, the Security Council has taken no significant steps to end the Israel-Palestine conflict. United States influence has generally kept the issue off the Council's agenda. When Council members have introduced resolutions, responding to periodic crises, the US has repeatedly used its veto on Israel's behalf. The General Assembly has taken a more active and creative role in the conflict, yet its resolutions are non-binding and have largely symbolic weight. Both bodies would have been more effective if governments had been willing to confront US displeasure and US pressure. Recent US policy has only made matters worse.

Key issues that have plagued the stalled "peace process" include: Israel's occupation, Israeli settlements and settlement-building, the Israeli wall, security for Israelis and Palestinians, shared sovereignty over Jerusalem, and the right of return of 3.7 million stateless Palestinian refugees.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/unindex.htm

UN Involvement

Though the Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,” it has not been able to address and resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Council has taken no significant action since 1967, when it passed Resolution 242 calling on Israel to relinquish the territories acquired during its war with Syria and Egypt. The United States has used its influence to keep the issue off the Council’s agenda and it has repeatedly used its veto power on Israel’s behalf. Council resolutions critical of Israel are almost certain to fail, irrespective of the will of other Council members and regardless of international law and the magnitude of Israel’s violations.

The General Assembly has taken a more active role in the conflict, repeatedly taking action and often calling on parties to respect human rights. In 1988, the Assembly took the unprecedented step of holding a special session in Geneva after the United States refused to grant Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat the visa needed to address the Assembly in New York. Israel accuses the General Assembly of having a “pro-Palestinian” bias. Yet the Assembly is unable to compel the parties to work towards peace since its resolutions only have moral and symbolic weight and are not legally binding. Both the Assembly and the Security Council could, of course, be more effective if governments were willing to risk the displeasure and pressure of the United States.

Frustrated by its own impotence and by the inaction of the Security Council, the General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice to evaluate the legal status of Israel’s “separation wall.” In July 2004, the Court declared the illegality of the barrier. The Security Council has yet to accept and enforce the Court’s ruling, however, and the United Nations remains sidelined in the conflict, acting primarily through the Secretary General's special envoys and through its role as a member of the “Quartet.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

UN, Red Cross curtail Gaza aid, criticize Israel

January 8, 2009

JERUSALEM – The U.N. and the Red Cross curtailed aid shipments in the Gaza Strip on Thursday after accusing Israeli forces of firing on their drivers, killing one. 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)75.7.251.235 (talk) U.N. spokesman Adnan Abu Hasna said the U.N. coordinated the delivery with Israel, and the vehicle was marked with a U.N. flag and insignia when it was shot in northern Gaza. 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)~~ In Geneva, the international Red Cross said it would restrict its aid operations to Gaza City for at least one day after one of its convoys came under Israeli fire at the Netzarim crossing during the three-hour lull in fighting Thursday. One driver was lightly injured. 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)~~ A Red Cross spokesman says rescuers had been refused permission by Israeli forces to reach the site for four days. It said the delay in allowing rescue services access was "unacceptable."

75.7.251.235 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Who broke the ceasefire

Please someone correct false information in "recent developments" section, which erroneusly reports that Hamas broke the ceasefire. Actually Hamas re-started hostilities against Israel only after the ceasefire was ended (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-12-18-hamas-declares-end-to-ceasefire-with-israel), while it was Israel who first broke the ceasefire back in november ( "http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians).--Heartpox (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that dozens of rockets were fired at Israel during the supposed "ceasefire", I disagree. Israel acted against an immediate threat, in a very specific place, whereas Hamas fired rockets indiscriminately into civilian population. okedem (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Okedem, I am not discussing here weather or not Israel reacted to an immediate threat. I am just saying that the truce did not collapse in december after rockets were fired from Gaza, as the article says. This cannot be true simply because the truce was supposed to end on Dec 19, so it did not collapse. The sentence, in my opinion, should read as follows: In late December 2008, after the end of a six-months ceasefire on December 19, Israel responded with a series of airstrikes against Hamas in response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip." --Heartpox (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: If you have information on continuous rockets firing all along the ceasefire, you should update accordingly the article dedicated to rocket attacks in 2008. From that list I can see that no rockets were fired between end of July and November (but still Israel attacked Gaza on the 5th of November breaking the truce [1]).

Agreed it is a biased comment that it collapsed AFTER Hamas fired rockets into Israel. It should just say after HAMAS announced it would not renew the ceasefire or along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

you may want to re-check that link: between June 19 and december 19 there were over 200 motars and rockets fired in to israel from gaza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.61.95 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, there were dozens of mortar and rocket attacks into Israel, even during the "ceasefire": List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. Claiming that the only "break" of the ceasefire was an Israeli raid in November is revisionist falsehood. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all meaningless and irrelevant, the ceasefire was invalid since day one, because it was supposed to involve opening passages to and from Gaza, and that didn't happen. The people in Gaza were starving and firing was from both sides. (J.A.W) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.227.29.88 (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not concentrate on the HAMAS lanuching the rockets but look at the siege of GAZA for 2 years, no water, no food, no fuel, assasiantions of Hamas officials, killing of civilians during the ceasefire by Isreal, all border crossing being closed, Gaza nto ahving access to basic rights. Israle not complying wiht any of UN resolutions for the last 60 years. These all had a part to play!! If Israel went back to the 1967 borders, The two state solution would be achievable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.70.117 (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN has also reported Israel broke the ceasefire. Here is an Israeli news source confirming Israel breaking the ceasefire: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050460.html "Six months ago Israel asked and received a cease-fire from Hamas. It unilaterally violated it when it blew up a tunnel, while still asking Egypt to get the Islamic group to hold its fire." Also, the way it is currently worded in the wiki article, it claims the ceasefire collapsed when Hamas shot rockets. The truth is the ceasefire already expired by then so how can Hamas cause the ceasefire to collapse? — Illxchild (talk ·contribs) 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

An opinion piece from late 2008 doesn't make a fact. Here's an article from June 2008, regarding rockets being fired into Israel: [2] Can we now state that Hamas first broke the ceasefire in June? Or did they break it in October? [3] Please review List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 as well. There were quite a few "incidents" during the 6 months "ceasefire"; singling out a specific Israeli one as the only "breaking" of the ceasefire is unacceptable POV. Most sources say the ceasefire broke down in December. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the truce broke down in December is completely inaccurate. The ceasefire truce effectively ended in November the 3rd when Israel army killed six Hamas gunmen. That is the fact. Limited (1-2/month) mortar and rocket attacks were carried out from the Gaza strip during the months of ceasefire by other groups than Hamas and in occasions there were arrests by Hamas of people that carried out the attacks. Fact too. The above information is easily available in any mainstream media site on internet and therefore providing links is not required.Kkevreki (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the whole piece about recent events is left out until things are cleared.Kkevreki (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of Israel

Why isn't there a good one, of the country and cities etc.? RomaC (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It would also be a good idea to put a map showing the evolution of the borders (can't find a map with pre-6-day-war border) Jean-Francois Paradis Montreal, Qc, Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff1308 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An animated map showing the starting and moving of the borders over the thousands and hundreds of years would be awesome, if there is anyone here with the know how and willingness to spend time researching and sourcing it. JayKeaton (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'v found an image containing Israels territory using 4 "snapshots" over the 20th century:
http://www.tvxs.gr/images/stories_photos/03027_0901110506.jpg
The image's title "Palaistinian loss of land 1946 to 2000" is a bit problematic, i suppose... Sperxios (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

World War II(2) and the effects on Israel

It has came to my attention that not many people know this but israel was not a official country until the end of World War II. Many people belive the greater picture of the war was to make Israel a official country. --Jazz951 (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel did not exist, officially or unofficially, until 1948. While there were plans for its establishment from the end of the 19th century, and the Balfur declaration dates from 1917, the country itself was only created in 1948. You might say that international support for that was partly motivated by witnessing the horrors of the holocaust, realizing that Jews need their own country so nothing like that would happen again. okedem (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

With the logic, naturally, that taking that country from someone else would never come back to bite them in the ass, or, at least, that the bite might be mitigated with $2.7B in yearly American aid. GodzillaWax (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The creation of Israel has now proven, for sure, to be the greatest of the "horrors of the holocaust". Now this assassin country, funded by others (they would never be able to be as powerful as they are now by themselves), kill children, old people and other innocent palestinian for no reason, mostly like the nazists did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.162.194 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE:" The creation of Israel has now proven, for sure, to be the greatest of the "horrors of the holocaust". Now this assassin country, funded by others (they would never be able to be as powerful as they are now by themselves), kill children, old people and other innocent palestinian for no reason, mostly like the nazists did. "

1.Israel is not an assasin country funded by others. it is a country that has been taken advantage of and made a hiding ground for these terrorist that you are refuring to as assasins.

2.Israel a horror of the holocaust? what is that sposed to mean jews / israelies were the victims of the holocaust...

3.And further more... they are no where as bad as the nazies ever dreamed of being now i am not saying there the best people in the world. but wait what did i just say. OH! thats right PEOPLE!!! "people are not and can not be perfect (except in a religious point of view and i dont want to go into that now...)" ok i am gonna shut my mouth now unless you have something else to say... Jazz951 (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a blog. This space is for discussion of the article. ShumDavar (talk)

What the heck does BCE mean???

I've asked several people this, and no one seems to know, wouldn't it be smarted to use plain boring old BC and AD so that people actually know what the dates are??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.119.134 (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Look it up. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to be rude. BCE means "Before Common Era" and is supposedly a religion-neutral way of saying BC. Wikipedia's Manual of Style section on the use of AD/CE states that one should not change the given system within an article, unless there is a specific reason to do so (e.g. the article is about a Christianity related subject). Rami R 11:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For one i dont thing this is a article that is worth being out here like this...

For two if you look in history no matter where you look you will see this as a religious related nation weather you like it or not... so i think it should be changed to BC and AD... you also have to remember that there is like 50-100 years between the two... Jazz951 (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

BCE is exactly the same as BC, and CE is exactly the same as AD. The "Common Era" is the era starting from the alleged birth year of Jesus (in practice he was probably born a few years earlier). It is just a matter of style and preferred terminology, and this article is written in the style used in most English Wikipedia articles. DrorK (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

@Jazz951: It's not a Christian religious related nation. So your argument is moot. Rami R 09:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

AD means "Anno Domini": "the year of our lord". We're stuck with the numbers we use -- 2009 isn't going to be changed to some other number -- but there's no reason here to use the ridiculously antiquated nomenclature. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel

In the opening paragraph, the sentence, "The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also adjacent," is unclear. On first read, it sounds like it is saying that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are adjacent to each other. I wonder if it would be better to either add the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the preceding list of neighbouring states with wording that distinguishes them as occupied territories rather than independent states, or to leave the preceding sentence as is and to revise this sentence to clarify that the the West Bank and Gaza Strip border Israel but are not adjacent to each other. This is my first discussion edit - I hope I did it right. Mhanmer (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mhanmer, welcome! I'm moving your edit to the bottom of the talk page where the most current discussion goes. I agree with you, some clarity is needed so as not to imply the West Bank and Gaza Strip are adjacent to each other. I'm going to take a closer look at it now and see what can be done. --MPerel 04:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi MPerel. Nice revision - thanks. Mhanmer (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent developments

Header made by EivindJ.

<< Isarel killed about 800 and injured over 3200 in 14 days offense on Gaza Strip between 2008/12/27-2009/01/09 about 50% of them are women and children under 16 years old. Isarel did not respond to UNSC resolution for immerditae cease-fire. Hamas fired rockets because of the siege that lasted about 18 month during 2007 & 2008. Only 6 Isarelies were killed in rockts attacks. This is not an openion, these are facts from news channels and newspaper articles quoting both sides...It is also dokumented in UNSC meetings regarding Gaza situation, that Israel targeted civilian and aid-worker. Both ICRC and UNRWA submitted official complaints about Isareli armed-forces targeting their operation and employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.80.81 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 January 2009

First of all, most of your data is false. I suggest you use more reliable sources. Now to the main point - are you trying to improve the article, or are you just trying to defame Israel? DrorK (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding to the first comment, which does carry with it a strong hint of anti-Semitism, the West Bank is one of the most densely populated areas in the world with almost half of the population under the age of 17, so it is far more likely that more and younger casualties will occur in the Palestinian provinces than Israel. The other fact not disclosed in the first statement is that Israel's attack was in response to a preceding 6000 rocket attacks by Hamas. These facts can be verified in recent new paper articles[4]. I suggest checking facts and using a spell check tool before contributing to articles. TriXtar (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it carries a 'strong hint of anti-Semitism' at all. The contributor was trying to point out the numbers killed. One may or may not agree with his arguments about why Hamas behaved as it did and about Israeli behaviour but I don't think that it is right to throw around accusations of 'anti-Sematism' just because one is critical of particular actions by Israel. I'm not Israeli but am critical of actions by the coutnries of which I am a citizen and accept critism by people from outside my country, I don't feel the need to accuse them of being racist - particularly as I sometimes agree with that criticism. It would be better to just refute the contributor without the emotive language of 'anti-Semitism' unless he says something particularly aimed at Jews (rather than Israelis) and suggests that Jews across the world are somehow or other bad and evil (and lets hope that no-one ever says such rubbish again). That is anti-semitism, critisising Israel for its actions as a state is not anti-Semitism.EoinBach (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage TriXtar to read WP:CIVIL. Accusing someone of anti-semitism is a very strong accusation, and completely unfounded in this case. I don't think the statement should be added to the article (because it's news, not permanent facts), but that is another matter. And please do not confuse being anti-Israel with being an anti-Semite.JdeJ (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with going around calling anyone who you claim to be defaming the Zionist state as anti-semitic. One cannot be called a racist for defamation of the Zionist state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naztorator (talkwhat their • contribs) 05:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that criticism of Israel, can be of course not antisemitic, as well as criticism of Zionism. Even those who say that Israel has no right to exist,are not always antisemitic, like Gaddafi from Lubya, who says that there should be no Israel or Palestine, but one state for both Israelis an Palestinians. But when somebody justify Hamas firing rockets he is anti-Semitic. Hamas dont target military targets with this rockets, nor political, they don`t ask if somebody Zionist or not, they randomly target Israelis, and as they themselves say that their targets are Israeli Jews, and that Israeli Arabs, Muslim or Christians are not their enemy. So if somebody justify randomly killing Jews of Israel or any other country, they are without a doubt anti-Semitic, no matter justification is.Igorb2008 (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

History section

In the very beginning of the "History" section.

"The Land of Israel ... has been sacred to the Jewish people since Biblical times. According to the Torah, the Land of Israel was promised to the three Patriarchs of the Jewish people, by God, as their homeland;[22][23] scholars have placed this period in the early 2nd millennium BCE.[24]"

Chat's cool, people. I mean, that's really fantastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeelSunny (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA?

"The United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital and maintain their embassies in other cities such as Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Herzliya."

This information keeps being deleted by Okedem. I dont think it is trivia.--Abuk78 (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, quick tip. If you want people to take you seriously, don't write provocative titles in ALL CAPS. It's shouting, and it's rude.

What you write is just another piece of information related to Israel. There are many such pieces of information, all true and referenced. Not all of them can be in a article, and certainly they can't all be in the lead. Thus, we have to pick the most important points. The identity of a nation's capital is certainly relevant, and you can see it mentioned in the lead of most country articles. International opinion regarding the capital, is not quite so important. It does not change anything about the capital, which is defined as a nation's seat of government. Jerusalem still fulfills its functions as the nation capital, regardless of what other countries think of it. Thus, that piece of information is not important enough for the lead. It is mentioned in the footnote from the info-box.

Beyond that explanation, note this - this article, like many other contentious ones, has been heavily debated and changed. As always, the lead receives the greatest amount of attention. The current phrasing is the result of many discussions and arguments, and represents the opinion of many editors. This is also the version that got FA status. When you wish to make a change to such an article, the proper way to do so is to suggest your alternative version in the talk page, and get other people's opinions. Constant re-insertion of your phrasings, without trying to discuss things, is edit-warring. Even if you think your version if "the right one", respect other people's opinions, and try to collaborate, not force your way.

I am reverting your version, and adding a link to said footnote from the lead. A change will only happen if there's major support for your change on the talk page, and not before. okedem (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that CAPS are rude, but also agree that the the information is important enough to be included here. RomaC (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a true, referenced and important piece of information. "Anyone" can edit FAs. This edit doesn't change the FA status of this article and adds value to the article. But as far as I can see you are another article guardian in Wikipedia. --Abuk78 (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Okedem is right. This is detailed in the footnote. It is also well explained in Jerusalem and Positions on Jerusalem. It is also detailed in Tel Aviv. No need to push it everywhere. -- Nudve (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it relevant enough? It's nothing but a minor point. It changes nothing of Jerusalem being the capital. It has no bearing on the lives of Israelis. For all intents and purposes, by all definitions, Jerusalem is the capital. As interesting as international opinion may be, it is far from notable enough for the lead. It is important for the article about Jerusalem, but not for the entire country, and certainly not for the lead.

If you want to discuss this further - sure. Explain how it's important enough for the lead. Why it's on the same level as the country's location, the few sentences about its history, or its political system. But first - revert to the stable version, instead of pushing your version by force. okedem (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; classic case of WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is by no means a case of WP:UNDUE since the vast majority of the world does not consider Jerusalem as the capital of israel, simply because it does not belong to that country. Okedem seems to find a "minor" detail the fact that Israel stolen Jerusalem, breaking the very agreement that created it. Eshneto (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagee with Okedem. It seems clear (see Positions on Jerusalem article) that this article should instead state "Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital". The existing phrase "Jerusalem is the country's capital" indicates bias and asserts something as fact which is contrary to majority international opinion. Wikiwikiwwwest (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel controls Jerusalem and there for it is the countries capital even though its disputed. I agree that there should be a comment added on afterwards saying something like, it is the capital although this is disputed by some etc. Information on another article or in a footnote is not going to be seen by many people so it would be helpful to include it but i dont see the need to say its "claimed by" that too would be bias in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Control" isn't even the point. There's no precedent anywhere I know of for other countries to have any say whatsoever regarding a country's choice for capital city. They can have an opinion, certainly, but for every country in the world, throughout history, it appears that their capital is exactly where they choose their capital to be. "Claim" indicates bias; neutrality simply says "Jerusalem is Israle's capital." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a strong precedent for not allowing the capital of a nation-state to be outside that nation-states territory (and certainly not in disputed territory). I'm pretty sure Denmark has a say in whether or not China's capital city can be within Denmark. Another case in point as the republic of China's capital - listed as being "De Facto" and "Provisional" in wikipedia because their chosen capital is under the control of another state. In the case of Israel they "claim" a capital that is on land that was not allocated to them. As such they have had to militarily occupy the capital to make this happen. If control has nothing to do with it, they could have chosen New York city and not occupied it - would that then make new york the capital of Israel for our purposes? (Come to think of it, I might suggest that Sealand legislate New York to be their capital). I don't think it's neutral to state that Jerusalem is Israels capital without qualification. You would be taking the offical view of only Israel and the US govt (and a few others) into account - the official stance of my government is that the capital of Israel is Tel Aviv. (ps:how do I sign?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.252.146 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to have something along the lines of 'Jerusalem is Israel's Capital, but as parts of it are occupied territory this is not recongised by much of the international community'.EoinBach (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is ABSOLUTELY relevant to state, right up front, that Israel considers Jerusalem its capital but that this does not have international recognition. There are 2 pieces of information in that phrase, and each part is equally important. The only reason to mention the lack of international recognition in a footnote is so that most readers do not see it. 67.193.235.12 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

God

the Land of Israel was promised to the three Patriarchs of the Jewish people, by God, as their homeland should read as the Land of Israel was promised to the three Patriarchs of the Jewish people, by their god, as their homeland as saying "by God" could be viewed as A) an acknowledgment of a higher power and B) recognition that their god is the only god....also capitalizing it as a proper noun insinuates as much by using it as a name. I would have changed it myself but apparently I can't edit this without an account and I'm lazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.220.120 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 16 January 2009

since this is a paraphrase from the torah, it does not need to be changed Goalie1998 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality regarding protests

"Israel responded with a series of airstrikes.[99] In response, protests broke out around the world.[100]"
Is this neutral without mentioning the later pro-Israeli rallies? Squash Racket (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is still neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naztorator (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Naztorator, do you have anything useful to add to the discussion page or is your purpose here to spread your opinions and biased point of view on Israel? Both pro and anti Israeli rallies should be linked to keep the article neutral. If you disagree, please explain your position.

there were jaust as many pro israel protests as "pro-hamas" protests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.38.26 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Academically laughable

While there are many things in this article that I find laughable, one is the presentation of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. As is well known by those who are familiar with the the State of Israel, this presentation is, legally speaking, inaccurate. The United Nations has stated that the Jerusalem is not legally under Israel's jurisdiction and the world, besides a minority, overwhelmingly recognizes Tel Aviv as Israel's capital. This should be made blatantly clear in this article and should not be mentioned in a small footnote that is difficult to see. --SCL98 (talk) 18 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Please see the archives on this subject; it has been discussed ad infinitum. The editors have decided to leave Jerusalem as the listed capital in the article with a footnote explaining why. Thank you Goalie1998 (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel's efforts at peace with the Palestinians

In the intro, the paragraph summarising Israel's violent birth ends with, "and efforts are being made to reach a permanent accord with the Palestinians." This is plainly not the case and I intend to edit the sentence. Menswear (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Do edit, it was never the case that Israel wanted peace. Agreed, this article also does not mention all sides of the Zionist state, such as examples of what the state has been doing to oppress the Palestinian people such as bulldozing homes, and racism of its people towards the people who were conquered by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naztorator (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright people, wikipedia is not a battleground for you to bash Israel, do it on your blogs and opinion websites. The fact is that efforts are being made to reach a permanent accord with the refugees from Jordan (a.k.a. Palestinians). We all have differing opinions, but it is important that the articles maintain a neutral point of view regardless of our emotions. Any edits made to this article that do not adhere to this policy will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to have a negative view of Israel which is still neutral given the facts show the negative view - Similar to articles on Nazi Germany don't paint a positive view. I think if violence directed at Israel is mentioned, then Israels "break-the-bones" strategies, partitioning of the historical lands of Palestine, and holding the Palestinians under occupation rate a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.252.146 (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This sort of an in-depth description of a conflict should go in the article dedicated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As for the claim that efforts are not being made to reach a peace accord: if you can find a reliable and authoritative source to establish such claims i think that you should indeed edit the paragraph. Gregie156 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Capital city

The capital city of Israel is Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. If Jerusalem was ever made capital city that would cause war as the three main religions would have trouble deciding on a chief of state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.41.81 (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The capital is Jerusalem. There is no reliable source that states the capital of Israel Tel Aviv. Please post your source if you feel this is incorrect. Otherwise, please stop trying to conform wikipedia to your biased point of view. This article could becoming locked from vandalism if everyone cannot be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm.....No. The UN and International law does not recognize Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel. Please refer to the 1997 UN report titled "The Status of Jerusalem" which calls it essentially an international city. Please stop with your biased POV.... And acknowledge International law on the issue.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.41.91 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, international law doesn't control Israel. The capital is Jerusalem whether you like it or not. This is not a biased POV, it is clear by looking at any map that exists. There is no need to acknowledge international law since Israel declared it as its capital when they became independent. End of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A capital city of a country is by definition, the city where the country's government is based, and the Israeli government is based in Jerusalem. However, the reason why the United Nations and most countries don't see Jerusalem as Israel's capital is because it is being ilegally occupied by Israel. Jerusalem should really belong to Palestine because Israel is breaking international law. So Tel Aviv should be the capital of Israel, but it isn't. Jprulestheworld (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the archives on this subject; it has been discussed ad infinitum. The editors have decided to leave Jerusalem as the listed capital in the article with a footnote explaining why. Thank you Goalie1998 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI most of Jerusalem is not considered to be "occupied territory", that is to say it was not conquered in 1967. The Israeli government and ministries are located in West-Jerusalem which has been part of Israel since independence.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As this topic keeps coming up, probably a link to a summary of the main arguments should be left at the top of the talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic does not keep coming up, it is settled and then rehashed by talk members wishing to change the article's content. Anyone who disagrees with the issue need only to look up the sources cited in the article. Instead, they add opinion to lengthen the talk page and create controversy because of their emotions and feelings toward this country. Ignore the arguments against Jerusalem, it is the capital of Israel no matter how many times they cover their ears or close their eyes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the archives on this subject; it has been discussed ad infinitum. The editors have decided to leave Jerusalem as the listed capital in the article with a footnote explaining why. Thank you, Goalie1998 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how much you know about Israel but you have a mistake: Jerusalem is not all occupied. Where I live, and where the Knneset is and many other places in jerusalem are in thh non-occupied area. just for your knowledge. Meitar --62.219.228.172 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there IS a link above already. OK, I was thinking about something like that. Squash Racket (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Druze In Israel

The part "Religion in Israel" about the groups in the Arab minority : Druze DO NOT consider themselves Arab (source 36, article "Druze" - Identity Repertoires among Arabs in Israel, Muhammad Amara and Izhak Schnell; Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 30, 2004) and for some it's even insulting. Please change it, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.111.251 (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a lot of information for this Country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.235.98 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

State terrorism

A paragraph should be included about the practice of state terrorism against the Palestinian population. that's something inherent to the Jewish state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.36.23.175 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works with a neutral point of view. 68.160.14.60 (talk)

A neutral point of view does not preclude a discussion of state terrorism. Recall that the terrorist groups Lehi, Hagannah and Irgun are the very first terrorist groups to act in palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.162.194 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Very arrogant not simply to take the point that you have a point of view. Since many oppose that point of view it is clearly such and thus not neutral. A line could mention "[prominent and authoritative source] has stated that Israel's method of warfare is illegal, describing it as "state terrorism"." If you have a good source and somewhere to put it you could try that. In all likelihood someone would then want to post opposing sources and the whole paragraph would eventually be deleted or incorporated into an article on criticisms of Israel and linked from this article. Hope that helps. --91.110.31.237 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Since many oppose that point of view it is clearly such and thus not neutral" - there are many standing on the other side too, does that mean we can't include any information at all? I believe there are plenty of good sources of Israels actions being labeled as state terrorism, from alternative media in the US, and mainstream media from other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.252.146 (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the person who raised this issue. Despite the claim of "neutrality," this article has a definite pro-Israel bias. It's as if terrorism doesn't exist here. Nor is there any respect for the Palestinian point of view. How about the Apartheid Wall? I find the responder extremely arrogant and off-putting. Disregarding the role Israel has played in causing world-wide terrorism and fundamentalist religious extremism is to ignore the elephant in the room. Finally, there is no such thing as a "casus bellum." That translates as "accident war." I think you might have been aiming for "causa belli." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.195.150 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

State terrorism, including a discussion of referenced allegations of state terrorism by Israel is discused here: State Terrorism --ShumDavar (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that terrorism against the Palestinians is inherent to the Jewish state, is an inflammatory posting which should be deleted from this discussion page by the author. --ShumDavar (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it should be removed at all, contributors have a right to raise issues, even if they are contentious, and the question of whether Israel has practiced state terrorism is moot one, Israel has certainly used terroristic methods in the past (and which state, in all honesty hasn't used such methods). There is no doubt that Israel has been consistent in its use of armed methods when dealing with the question of Palestinian former residents of its territory now living in close proximity to its borders. This has been such a feature that it might be right to open the question of whether or not the state has institutionalised 'terrorism' (or perhaps a better term would be 'armed repression' or 'armed suppression') as a means of dealing with Palestinian refugees from the territory which is now part of Israel proper. I would agree that 'terrorism' is an emotive term and perhaps one best avoided (but then again I would also with to avoid its use in regard to Hammas which I find to be a very unsavory group but would say that they have used 'terroristic methods' rather than say they are all terrorists - after all the Hagannah used similar methods to Hamas, excluding suicide bombings, and the Irgun used mass-murder and ethnic cleansing as weapons of war - and its members received a campaign ribbon from the IDF in later years despite being terrorists who tried to import arms and bring off a possible coup d'etat against Israel).EoinBach (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The terroristic methods you attribute to Israel occurred before the country was created. I am not dismissing the acts of Haganah and Irgun (specifically Irgun because their attacks led to innocent civilian deaths). However, I would argue that Haganah was formed to defend its citizens from arab riots and aggression. Hamas is an offensive militia that targets innocent civilians without regret or remorse. Irgun was condemned by jewish organizations and groups for killing innocent civilians. Hamas is endorsed and praised by its people and other countries when they attack. Both sides have used "terroristic methods" but I think the goals and purpose were quite different. Avinyc (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral does not equal uncontroversial. Facts are facts. Technically speaking, the US and Israel are guilty of terrorism, by most concrete definitions of the word, in recent history. Perhaps that should be said, though I understand that to say so would be taboo.

If you're going to mention the illegal conduct of Israel then you have to mention Palestinian terror such as the countless suicide bombings or rockets fired into the Negev. "Disregarding the role Israel has played in causing world-wide terrorism and fundamentalist religious extremism"-- how can you even begin to comment on Israel's role in worldwide fundamentalist religious extremism when 60% of the Jews are secular and the state is predominantly secular. Gaza is the strip controlled by Hamas, who openly calls in its charter to throw the Jewish Israelis into the Mediterranean and establish one Palestinian state ruled by Islamic law. This just exemplifies the point that you know nothing about this topic excluding biased propaganda. Worldwide terrorism and fundamentalist religious extremism is spread by organizations like Hamas and Al Qaeda. Please do not post again until you educate yourself on both sides of the matter of this complex issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.31.120 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely there should be more mention of the Palestinian conflict in the lead?

The only mention,, virtually, is "efforts for a long-lasting peace with the Palestinians have so far been unsuccessful." A bit of an understatement as well.

The issue defines Israel in the international community. In fact, in English speaking countries (which this encyclopedia caters for) this is the main point of interest about the country of Israel.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And while we're at it, let's mention Natalie Portman and felafel in the lede, since they're also a main point of interest about the country. Boring details like location and population can wait.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry, but as far as I know Jerusalem is NOT the capital of Israel, although it is the largest and culturally the most significant city of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.225.205 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you do not know the definition of capital. The capital is the country's seat of government. Israel designated Jerusalem as capital, and its parliament, government offices, supreme court, etc. are located there. Thus, it is the capital. okedem (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a capital. Officially the capital of Israel is Tel Aviv. The BBCV made the same mistake in 2007 and then had to apologize. I think you should reconsider your decision. If Tel Aviv does not match your definition, it is not the Israeli state that is at fault. So when it has designated Jerusalem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.225.205 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the archives on this subject; it has been discussed ad infinitum. The editors have decided to leave Jerusalem as the listed capital in the article with a footnote explaining why. Thank you Goalie1998 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Robot Reverts?

It seems that there is some automatic robot that reverts this article to the official Zionist line within seconds of any edits. Funny. Fourtildas (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion to everyone who edits this article - think how you'd write an article about France, Greece, Turkey, or Tunisia. The article about Israel is not exceptional, it should have the same format and the same wording. DrorK (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

People keep mentioning the "official Zionist line". I'm curious: what is it? Is there a website where it's published and updated? What are it's main contentions? Can we avoid it by sticking to the format used by Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia and so on, or are they also mouthpieces for the official Zionist line? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Vegetation and animals

Live in Israel some plants or animals except human? According this article I don't know? raziel (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's because of article size issues. Squash Racket (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nature is major subject in article about country, particularly in featured article. raziel (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seems to be a valid concern. I checked some articles, and usually there is a small "Environment" or "Biodiversity" section. Squash Racket (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Israel" does not now include the"Jews"

Per the Bibl,e "Israel" use to refer to the 12 tribes. When the tribes split, the Northern tribes inherited the name Israel while the Southern tribes (including the Jews)called themselves Judea. Since that time no "Jew" has been an "Israelite".

2 Chronicles Chapter 10

1: And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for to Shechem were all Israel come to make him king. 2: And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was in Egypt, whither he had fled from the presence of Solomon the king, heard it, that Jeroboam returned out of Egypt. 3: And they sent and called him. So Jeroboam and all Israel came and spake to Rehoboam, saying, 4: Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore ease thou somewhat the grievous servitude of thy father, and his heavy yoke that he put upon us, and we will serve thee. 5: And he said unto them, Come again unto me after three days. And the people departed. 6: And king Rehoboam took counsel with the old men that had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, What counsel give ye me to return answer to this people? 7: And they spake unto him, saying, If thou be kind to this people, and please them, and speak good words to them, they will be thy servants for ever. 8: But he forsook the counsel which the old men gave him, and took counsel with the young men that were brought up with him, that stood before him. 9: And he said unto them, What advice give ye that we may return answer to this people, which have spoken to me, saying, Ease somewhat the yoke that thy father did put upon us? 10: And the young men that were brought up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou answer the people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it somewhat lighter for us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. 11: For whereas my father put a heavy yoke upon you, I will put more to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. 12: So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day, as the king bade, saying, Come again to me on the third day. 13: And the king answered them roughly; and king Rehoboam forsook the counsel of the old men, 14: And answered them after the advice of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add thereto: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. 15: So the king hearkened not unto the people: for the cause was of God, that the LORD might perform his word, which he spake by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 16: And when all Israel saw that the king would not hearken unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? and we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to your tents, O Israel: and now, David, see to thine own house. So all Israel went to their tents. 17: But as for the children of Israel that dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. 18: Then king Rehoboam sent Hadoram that was over the tribute; and the children of Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. But king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. 19: And Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_line

After the death of King Solomon son of David, the ten northern tribes of the Kingdom of Israel rejected the Davidic line, refusing to accept Rehoboam son of Solomon, and instead chose as king Jeroboam and formed the northern Kingdom of Israel. This kingdom was eventually conquered by Assyria who exiled them, to disappear from history as The Ten Lost Tribes.68.160.176.7 (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take this bit of additional information into account: "Since the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah reigned, all Israel did not perform a Passover sacrifice in Jerusalem, because the kingdom had been divided in two since Jeroboam, and they would go to the calf in Bethel and in Dan until now that the ten tribes were exiled, and Jeremiah brought them back, and Josiah reigned over them, and they all came to Jerusalem." Melachim II (II Kings) - Chapter 23:22 Rashi's Commentary, Judaica Press Tanach harlan (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations

According to Checklinks, several URLs are dead or have connection issues. Happy editing, --J.Mundo (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

israel cease to exist in 20 years?cia report

can anyone verify it and if true should it be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.106.199 (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Have no idea what you are referring to, and since even the CIA have yet to invent a time machine, it's irrelevant. okedem (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we have enough problems with describing the present. I am not sure it is a good idea to start describing the world as it might look like 20 years from now. DrorK (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the recent PressTV piece. I don't think PressTV are an RS for CIA reports. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 13:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on your interpretation on the word "exist". The PressTV cites the CIA's belief that a two-state solution will not occur. PressTV argues that non-jews in the westbank will have to be given citizenship or israel will have to implement an apartheid regime. Giving non-jews citizenship would destroy the countries jewish character. Implementing apartheid would destory it's democratic character. Since Israel identifies itself as a jewish democracy, this effectively "destroys" israel. CapitalElll (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This scenario is often brought forward in political debates in Israel, usually as an argument in favor of letting the Palestinians create an independent Palestinian state in the WB and Gaza as soon as possible, i.e. before it is "too late". People who believe in this scenario are worried that Israel will cease to exist as we know it, or to be even more precise: as declared in its declaration of independence, and not that it will cease to exist at all. DrorK (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

its a fake report invented by Iranian TV: http://www.thejc.com/articles/iran-uses-fake-cia-report-kill-israel

Telaviv1 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting rid of the state would be a huge leap foward towards a peaceful trouble free world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.166.65 (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Relations Change Mauretania

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel for the updates on dipl. rel. with mauritania, this should of course be changed in this article. I do not know if it should be cited why and when this happened, since it is in the main foreign relations page. If this is the case, then maybe in the Conflicts and Peace Treaties section?(Petterf (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

History in the lead

The lead has too much history and some of it is poorly written. I suggest removing all history from the lead. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of all history would not comply with policy, since such a large portion of the article deals with it. The quality may depend on what is considered necessary for inclusion, and then the necessary machinations needed to present it neutrally. Currently, that balance is quite reasonable. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

--This wording is pretty suspect... "The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Biblical Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), a concept central to Judaism since ancient times,[8][9] and the heartland of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah." This strikes me as odd...how can a physical state have it's "roots" in an arguably mythical land? Maybe a less contentious wording would be something like "THE IDEA of the modern state of israel...etc.."

Also:

" The Israelis were subsequently victorious in both confirming their independence and expanding the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with many of the Arab countries, resulting in decades of violence that continues to this day.[13] Since its foundation, Israel's boundaries and right to exist have been disputed, mainly by its Arab neighbors. "

This reeks of bias, the use of "victorious" in the sense of expanding their borders beyond what was internationally recognized as a fair division...You don't get to be VICTORIOUS in illegal occupations..you get to be..."successful"..or maybe "despite international condemnation, Israel started a move to occupy territory and illegally commence building settlements there.."

The argument that the history portion needs to stay "as-is" to allow for neutrality, is suspect and ill-intentioned, I believe...seeing as how the section is ANYTHING but neutral. GolemCatcher (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing mythical about the Land of Israel. The Jewish presence in that area is well documented archeologically.

"Victorious" means successful, usually in armed conflict. Israel was the victorious side in the war; this says absolutely nothing about justice or morals, simply describing a fact. okedem (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

--umm...You're not reading my points..my argument is that it seems irresponsible to say that the state of Israel is founded in a biblical reference..it's almost discrediting the validity of Israel, seeing as any bible should be viewed very openly as MAYBE NOT BEING TRUE... --and your second point just conveniently ignores MY point, which is:"Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action were defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not." (which I just lifted from a wikipedia article, as it states my point better than I do)..so Victory in this case means a clear transgression in the eyes of a good chunk of the world..(not just ARAB countries) so i reiterate that I think that wording shows CLEAR bias, and is not appropriate.

GolemCatcher (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with the Land of Israel thing. Biblical isn't just what's written in the book, but a period of time, during which some things happened in the region.

I'm not interested in your legal analysis, and your claim regarding the word "victorious" is simply wrong. Victorious means nothing about legality or morals or international opinion or anything else. It describes the outcome of the war, which was a victory for Israel. The Arab states and Israel had a war, Israel won it, thus - it was victorious. It means nothing else. okedem (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

GolemCatcher, there is more to the situation in Israel than what the UN charter states. Yes, occupation is illegal, but for an occupation to exist, there must have been a sovereign territory to be occupied first. The region mandated under the partition plan was not sovereign territory. Egypt occupied Gaza, but that occupation ended after Israel's victory in the war. The West Bank was claimed by Jordan which was the majority of the mandate before partitioning. Since they lost, the territory belongs to Israel. The UN charter discusses territorial gains, but since the territory in Israel was created by the UN it leaves it as an exception. Israel occupied the Sinai because it was Egypt's territory. Not the case with gaza or the west bank because no country claims it as their territory. Therefore, there is a good argument that the UN charter does not preclude Israel's actions to date. Avinyc (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

--just for the record, ONCE AGAIN you refuse to face the actual argument, while trying to distract with semantic diversions...I re-iterate: "Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action were defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not." Can you not read? -This- wikipedia "article" does not just claim Israel as "victorious" in the War...it claims it as "victorious" in having extended its claims farther than most countries view as justified, or "LEGAL"..and I find that offensive in this context..i.e: a supposedly neutral resource. If you care to rebut, please rebut maturely and insightfully, instead of just as a knee-jerk reaction.. GolemCatcher (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First - cool off. Language such as "Can you not read?" does not contribute to a fruitful discussion.

I say again, "victorious" has no legal meaning. The Israeli forces set out to defend the new country, and also to capture some territories beyond the partition plan lines (yes, they wanted to do this, otherwise they would have captured those territories - whether or not this act is justified is irrelevant). They succeeded in their objectives, and were thus victorious. The capture of new territories wasn't an accident, but was intended. You keep talking pasting the same quote about lawfulness and legality, and they are both irrelevant in this context. I don't know what bothers you about "victorious", but it is an accurate description of reality. okedem (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

--hmm..I agree with you about the "not reading" part, that was out of hand (sorry)..although I guess I felt your statement "I'm not interested in your legal analysis" sort of came off as obnoxious, although perhaps it was not intended as such..? otherwise, maybe it's simply that "victorious" seemed inappropriate UNLESS you are of the mind that Israel specifically SET OUT to expand it's boundaries, which I had not necessarily thought was the case, nor has it generally been reported as the case. Accepting pre-meditation, then yes, victorious seems like a proper choice of words. 70.30.249.99 (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You are both correct in your own way but I believe we are trying to discuss too many things at once and in the wrong order; there also some things unstated, including the highly relevant international (legal) opinions, like it or not. I had tried to finesse that difference with the ‘but also’, but that was reverted[5], unfortunately.

As I see it, based on what currently exists between here and the end of the paragraph, we have to include:

subsequently victorious in confirming their independence; expanded the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN [whatever]; Israel has fought a series of wars; with many Arab countries; and resulting in decades of violence that continues to this day. In the next two sentences farther down we have to include: Since its foundation, Israel's boundaries; right to exist; have been disputed, mainly by its Arab neighbors. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan; and efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success.

Since the ‘and expanding the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN’ are still current, but with different associations, I suggest that the ‘partition plan’ be dropped here (already in the lede), and the ‘borders’ reference be moved farther down. Similarly, the ‘right to exist’ seems currently out of place and should be moved up into the ‘victorious’ phrase, since the '73 war, peace treaties and Oslo, this is generally a mute point, though rejected by radicals (mutually on both sides). It seems most RS’s are realistically beyond this earlier question and are now talking about recognized borders, which continues also. ‘Subsequently’ covers a long time, so no real need for a step-by-step in the lede. I have dropped ‘mainly by its Arab neighbors’ because even its closest allies have RS’d disputes concerning borders and the land within. I have also added a simple ‘because’ for the existing limited success. I suggest the following as a re-write of the last four sentences of the paragraph; it shortens it and hopefully, includes most of the points being discussed. How does this work?

Israel was subsequently victorious militarily in both confirming their independence and in defending their right to exist. Israel has fought a series of wars with many Arab countries, resulting decades of violence and in the expansion of the borders of the Jewish state beyond those internationally recognized. Israel's borders continue to be disputed diplomatically. Israel has signed peace treaties with neighboring Egypt and Jordan. Continuing efforts to resolve the conflict with Palestinians have met only limited success, partly due to religious and nationalistic opposition on both sides.

Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Judah is not a mythical land, there are enough historical and archaeological evidences to prove its existence. Also, almost none of the Jews, and very few non-Jews, disagree with the claim that Jews have their roots in the Kingdom of Judah. It is very hard to prove this connection (just as it is hard to prove the connection between contemporary Egyptians and ancient Egyptians, or between Contemporary Greeks and ancient Hellenic people), and yet in these cases strong traditions count too. As for the term Eretz Yisrael - it is simply a common Jewish/Hebrew term for the region known otherwise (since the mid-2nd century C.E.) as Palestine. DrorK (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

CO48, as far as I can tell, Israel has no "internationally recognized borders", except with Egypt and, to an extent, Jordan. International recognized borders require things like peace treaties; until such are concluded with Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinians, one cannot really claim that Israel has them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are of course correct in a final package sense, but as I understand it, if borders are mutually recognized, then they are generally recognized internationally. Currently the status is 2 of 5; I have no idea of percentage length, but it may be considered positive. I won’t claim a mis-write, but will note that ‘discussed’, ‘documented’, ‘accepted’ or ‘acceptable’ would seem to calm your concern with my initial ‘recognized.’ ‘Documented’ would be most easily RS’d, but I chose ‘accepted’ because of other comments below; it can be RS'd. What word would you consider consensual at the end of that sentence? As far as mention of Lebanon and Syria is concerned, I thought them too off-topic for the lede, but if you feel they are needed, please add them. I made some other tweaks below. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Israel was subsequently victorious militarily in both confirming their independence and in defending their right to exist." - This is not right. Israel's very right to exist is a moral/legal/etc issue. It does not depend on wars, unless you claim that a country's right to exist depends on its ability to push back five Arab armies. Israel defended its existence, not its right to exist (even if Israel had lost the war and was destroyed, it would not have changed its right to exist).

And "victorious militarily" is dubious. We are discussing a war here anyway. The partition plan lines are not "internationally recognized borders", and no longer have any serious legal meaning. And "many Arab countries" is a bit of a stretch. In total, Israel fought five Arab states. After the 1948 war (which is what the sentence talks about), there were wars with only four or three Arab states (depending if you want to count Lebanon, as the 1982 war wasn't specifically against the Lebanese Army, but dealt with several militias - but that's not the point here). So, four states isn't "many". "Several" would be a better description, even "a few" would be accurate (especially considering the Arab league has some 21 members). okedem (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, change ‘right to exist’ to ‘existence’, or maybe add ‘as a Jewish state’, or maybe something else. Concerning ‘right’ and ‘exist’, I was looking more at facts than concepts, and felt that combination was a universal, internationally accepted legal and moral given. Either of the alternatives might better include your concerns.

Concerning wars and existence, you do note the historical facts directly. As Jay points out above, it takes peace treaties and not only wars. In the earlier era, it apparently did include some wars of the existence-preserving or existence-buffering type, based on RSs..

This is the lede, and I had already dropped ‘partition plan’, as I noted above, because it is included previously. Now we are really talking about all the wars since, not that specific one. It is following 'subsequently', and is in summary. Please read it again in that light. I completely agree that ‘many’ is a stretch, but the link was a problem. It would be most generally true to say neighboring Arab states. I have no problem dropping the Arab League link, I considered that a stretch in that direction for the lede. Lets leave Lebanon ’82, just within ‘subsequently’.

I did notice some remaining OR though, and moved ‘Jewish state’ into the victorious phrase to retain the term. The previous usage of the term was incorrect and I changed it to ‘Israeli control’ and changed ‘borders’ to ‘area’. I believe the following is better, more factual and includes the two comments received:

Israel was subsequently victorious in both confirming its independence and in defending the existence of the Jewish state militarily. Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab countries, resulting decades of violence and in the expansion of the area of Israeli control beyond those internationally accepted. Some of the Borders of Israel continue to be disputed diplomatically. Israel has signed peace treaties with [Egypt]] and Jordan. Continuing efforts to resolve the conflict with Palestinians have met only limited success, partly due to religious and nationalistic opposition on both sides.

How does that work? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand the point of "militarily" in the first sentence. If we're talking about the outcome of a war, it's obvious. "resulting [in] decades of violence" - a weird way to put it - the wars didn't result in decades of violence - they were the decades of violence. "expansion of the area" - Yea, but actually only one of them expanded the area of control up to this day, and that's the 1967 war. The current phrasing implies several wars expanded the area, which isn't true. "beyond those internationally accepted" - unclear. While the UN resolutions do call for withdrawal from territories, they specifically refrain from "all territories", and mention defensible border, meaning some area might be retained. Also, "accepted" for what? Occupation following a war is legitimate, until the conflict can be resolved, which is why there are recognized treaties regarding occupation (Geneva, etc). I suppose you mean the accepted lines for the final settlement, but it's unclear. Why don't we stick to the cold facts - "beyond the 1949 lines", or something like that? okedem (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably time you took a shot at it, rather than just shooting it down; I've tried twice. A word here, a phrase there. You take a shot at consensus. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel exasperated. I wasn't trying to criticize you, but to just understand every point here.

How about this:

"The Israelis were subsequently victorious in confirming their independence; as a result of the war, the new Jewish state gained control of areas beyond those in the UN Partition Plan. Since its foundation, Israel's boundaries and very right to exist have been disputed. Following independence, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states; in consequence, Israel came to control territories beyond the 1949 armistice line, and their status remains in dispute. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success, partly due to religious and nationalistic opposition on both sides."

It's surely not perfect, but I'd like to hear your comments. okedem (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "the new Jewish state gained control of areas beyond those in the UN Partition Plan." is certainly more neutral and accurate than "the expansion of the borders of the Jewish state beyond those internationally recognized." Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The partition plan was recognized internationally (UN181), so both are technically correct; the difference in perception of neutrality remains which pov one feels most warm and fuzzy. I'm a little chilled, but it is just the lede. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The partition plan was not accepted by the Arabs, and therefore became moot. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

--I have to say that it's fascinating to watch the evolution of this article, through discourse, and sometimes Consensus... First, I have to say that I think the point of "militarily" in that context is to distinguish between the fact that Israel defended its independance by force, or rather counter-force..(verifiable fact, to an extent) and "confirmed it's RIGHT to exist", which is a political/moral/philosophical? quandry..which CANNOT be solved by violence, defensive or no...and I think cannot be a "fact" in that it is rather an Opinion, in a broad sense of the word.. having said that, Okedem's later proposals seem far more neutral in my eyes... GolemCatcher (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the shot and spectator reaction; I’m not exasperated, it was your turn to serve and my fingers were suffering from tennis elbow, to mix the metaphors. Importantly, the subject is the country, not the people. I made that switch before, believing it stays more on topic, but forgot to note it specifically. I can drop ‘militarily’, because ‘as a result of the war’ was added. Concerning the rest of your comment, it seems overly I-side, since some conditions have been generally continuous, as seen from the P-side since ‘67.

As I noted above, the ‘right to exist’ and ‘boundaries’ are out of general chronologically contested order, and while a former major item, the current order plays the hasbara heart-strings a little loudly for the current status. (I’ll provide a ref for that, if you so desire.) I also dropped the third reference to independence in three sentences as too repetitive; the three are now two. I added a necessary ‘variously’ because of the multitude of events and differences that these simple words convey. I inserted it in the most neutral location; but I note that placing it before ‘boundaries’ might be more currently informative.

In the next two sentences, there is another basic chronological problem, because the ‘occupied territories’ link occurs before the pre-existing armistice link. Since both are necessary, I linked the armistice to ‘confirming’ its independence, because it is the best word to link and those lines were in fact, ‘mutually recognized’, delineated’ and supported. Yes, those lines were also agreed-to as non-permanent and subject to negotiation. The next is maybe touchy, but since there is no longer any ‘violence’, and ‘international’ and ‘diplomatically’ are now also missing from the lede, I find the passive voice ‘came to control’ overly weaseled. Since the ‘how’ is documented (UN242) and the condition still exists; the active voice ‘controls’ is both more accurate and current, as well as neutral-balancing. That’s basically it, but I find the one cited ref of poor quality; I added ‘vigorous’ as a proper characterization for ‘opposition’.

"Israel was subsequently victorious in confirming its independence; as a result of the war, the new Jewish state gained control of areas beyond those in the UN Partition Plan. Since then, Israel's very right to exist and its boundaries have been variously disputed. Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states, and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those previously delineated; their status remains in dispute. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success, partly due to vigorous religious and nationalistic opposition on both sides."

Again in your court. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposal is good. One point, though - I think "previously delineated" ought to link to something, as it might not be clear to reader (when? what were those lines?). How about a link to Green Line (Israel)? okedem (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

An officer and a gentleman. That link looks fine to me. Thanks Okedem, am fine with that, but we should await others for their valid two cents. I do have one hanger, though, but it depends on proffered change. Peace, Salam, Shalom, best regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase should be "beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements" - that's accurate, neutral, and informative. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems mostly OK, drop that link from 'confirming' and insert it as "in the 1949 Armistice Agreements." - that's accurate, neutral, informative and keeps 'previously', which maintains precedence and chronological order of events for this very short 60-year sentence. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The word "previously" is redundant; keep it short and sweet. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How about more history of the Jewish Brigade in WWII, which was raised with the support of the Hagannah, and served as part of the British Eighth Army in North Africa and Italy? This unit was crucial in the formation of the IDF, and has been described as the Brigade with dual alleigance (to the Allies and the Jewish Agency). Also more about the Irgun, Hagannah and Lehi (or Stern Gang) 08:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Why is their no mention of Israeli Genocide against Arabs?

It's a well established fact that Israel defence forces, along with religious extremists in Israel have been pushing the Arab poppulation out of israel illegaly. I dont understand why the article doesnt point out the human right violations, illegal land grabs, and culteral genocide of native Iisraelis? The Israel article comes off as incredibly biased and one sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.154.212 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Got reliable sources, or is this just a rant? Tad Lincoln (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

• Using the term genocide probably isn't likely to encourage a cooperative editing atmosphere. I'm just saying..
• The article has to deal with the entire history of the Israel in a small space. Have a look at the China article for comparison and think about what isn't included there.
• It's probably better to cite specific problem sections if you want things fixed.
• The article does touch on human rights in the Government and politics subsection. Maybe there should be a link to appropriate article.
• There's a whole section on the Occupied territories with links to the appropriate articles Sean.hoyland - talk 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think there is a seriously flaw in the idea of such a genocide. Notwithstanding the fact that many Israelis are arabs and the number of arabs in the region are just a bit higher of course. Just out of curiosity, is there any mention of the human rights violations, illegal land grabs, and cultural genocide of the Jewish population that lived in many Arab countries prior to 1950? Avinyc (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would there be a mention of the undoubted persecution in many of the 'Arab' states prior to the 1950s - such a mention should be in the articles about those states, and I for one would support such mention. However this article is about Israel and so throwing accusations about the 'Arab' countries as a response to negative comments about Israel is immaterial. If there is evidence to support claims that Israel discriminated against Arabs (and Genocide is clearly too strong a term) then I think mention should be made of it.EoinBach (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not suggesting the arab states persecution should be mentioned in this article, the comment was directed to the original poster to go check the articles on arab states to see if there is any information regarding their ethnic cleansing. The point is there is no mention of it in their articles which makes this topic ridiculous and self-serving. Avinyc (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Like the person you're replying to, I think that point is entirely irrelevant. This article, as we have agreed, is about Israel, and any persecution or ethnic cleansing of Arab Israelis requires mention regardless of whether articles about neighbouring Arab countries don't mention ethnic cleansing of Jewish populations in the 1950s. Wikipedia articles aren't about returning favours, or "if they don't do it why should we?". It's about stating the facts, and what you're saying here is, you believe these claims to be fact, but are knowingly ommiting them because the facts you'd like to see written in other articles are not there. How does that benefit this article? How does it benefit knowledge about the issues relating to Israel? Stop abusing your position and start being open minded about what information is missing from this article and needs to be included REGARDLESS of whether other articles ommit certain information. We'll get to that after we sort this out. Why would editors such as those barricading this article on those articles allow such things to be written, when they can just as well use the excuse you've used here and say "Why should we write about Jewish persecution in such and such country, when the Israel article completely ommits ethnic cleansing of Arab Israelis?"

Do you understand how that sort of thinking gets one nowhere? Now do the task you've signed up for, which is editing the article, and include the information you have implied you know and believe to be true, but have ommited due to personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.81.233 (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Might as well add what the Arab extremist are doing in Israel...then it would be at least fair and square...lol... Norum (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Biassed through omission

Since there are heavy emotions involved it may be hard to remain neutral. But surely it is possible to not completely ignore all the bloodshed and report this in a matter of fact way. This is probably a bit awkward, but I agree that Wikipedia does well to remain neutral; There are enough non-neutral sources around. You don't need to discuss whether the bloodshed (either side of the conflict) is justified (I believe it neither is), but you can still describe the vicious cycle of retaliatory action. It requires insight and leadership to overcome this cycle of violence. It also requires the world to be well informed, since we cannot wait for the 'chosen leaders' to choose to transcend from their long history violence at their own pace.

Right now I feel that this article is very non-neutral by omitting important information on the actions of Israel. Regardless of what people may think of them, it would be 'neutralizing' to at least list them. I'd say both sides have to agree with the facts. Whenever I hear of body counts of both sides, I hear vastly larger numbers of Palistinians than from Israel. This objective information helps me form my own opinion about whether there is anything at all legitimate about what's happening in this conflict. Why am I not seeing any of this information? If you feel that it would spur heavy debates, don't think that this is because it's not neutral. Being confronted with facts historically has caused enough riots, bans, etc. That doesn't mean that we should be ignorant! (slightly off-topic) If so we should still consider the world as being flat. Okay, Friedman tells us this is not far from the truth anymore. (/off-topic)

-- EdB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.200.8 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there enough interst, or consensus from respective parties to start a new section called "Controversies"? For one, I want to address and examine the dynamics of the US/Israel relationship as it is being precieved and shaped with events like the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal, John Mearsheimer's and Stephen Walt's book "The Israel Lobby", over a dozen vetoes by the US in the UN Security on behalf of Israel (arguably made in Israel's defence of violations of international law), the effectiveness of the neo-con movement in brining us to war with Iraq under false pretenses and it's relatoinship/ties to the American/Jewish power structure, to name some of the more well known events. There is enough dialouge and research out there concerning the topics I've listed and others as well, for reliable sourcing and I believe the subject matter is very relevant. Although these controversies do not individually constitute an excistential threat to Israel, the culmination of controversies have begun to crack the very old perception that "What's good for Israel is good for the US" and vice versa. Other controvercies like Sabra, Shatila, the destruction of private property, confiscation of private property, second hand status of non-Jewish Israli citizens, etc... may also be included. Like a list of links to the articles that already excist in Wikipedia for the subjects I sugested. Because of Israel's unique relationship to the US, the degree of influence the ethnicly Jewish population exerts over US foreign policy, media, and economic matters there is a growing interest in Israel and that unique relationship. I'm not Jewish, and I'm concerned that the nature of the content I've suggested will be precieved as non-npov. On the other hand for reasons I've stated, I think there is a real consideration here. Israel is as about as controversial as you can get these days, and to not acknowledge that is literally like ignoring the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room.Avidreaderofhistory (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a country, and I do not really think that a "controversies" section would be appropriate. There is likely a separate page dealing with that kind of stuff. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Israel is a specail case, and I wouldn't have suggested it if I did'nt think it was appropriate. Since you didn't explain why you think it's innappropriate, I'll assume because it would be outside the normal format used for articles about countries. What's going on in Israel is outside the normal format for US allies, let alone 1st world developed countries. Never has a country so closley tied to the interest of the US been involved in such controversy. It is historical. I just wanted to make a suggestion. Because, like I said, it's the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room. I mean, it's all there. I hope there will be more disscussion about this. Thanks for the feedback anyways.Avidreaderofhistory (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well most of what you say is discussed in relevant articles (and is false by the way). And I think you are confusing US Jews or some of them with Israel. They don't even have the same interests. The neo-cons, while many of them being Jews, had US interests in mind even if others don't agree with how they define US interests. Israel did not ask for a war against Iraq, Israel would have preferred the US to attack Iran and even warned the US about it. Of course Israelis were happy to see Saddam fall but they had nothing to do with it. Benjil (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not false, you may think they are however, and that is why they are called controversies. And I don't think I'm confusing US Jews with Israel (whatevr that means) I read an article in Harpers about 8 months ago about individuals like you. Or maybe like you. The article was a transcript of email corespondences that alluded to the 'infilltration' of Wikipedia by Jews and an effort by them to attain the rank of senoir editor, or whatever its called, so they could effectively shape the debate surrounding the very controversies we are disscussing. If you can find it you should read it. It's pretty funny. Look, I'm very concerned with the well being of anyone who doesn't want to kill me or enslave me. I just think it's becoming disengenuous and dangerous to continulay whitewash and appologize for a growing list of outrageous controversies that under only slightly different cirmcumstances would be vigorously debated and disscussed. The controversies I'm primarly speaking of deal with Israel's relationship with the US. Honestly if enough contributors don't see the validity for a new section to this article that's fine. I just don't want the idea smothered by people who are unable to be objective.Avidreaderofhistory (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You read an article about "Jews like me infiltrating wikipedia" and you speak of US Jews as some kind of traitors (I am not American nor ever lived in the US by the way). You could easily be qualified as some kind of crazy right-wing extremist with that kind of line. But anyway, this article is not the place for your allegations. Benjil (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an organised existential threat to wikipedia's policy of neutrality sounds like crazy right wing conspiracy theory nonsense but it actually happened. The "individuals like you" was way over the line though Avidreaderofhistory and you should strike it out or say sorry. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of alleged US based 5th columns and various Scheuer vs Dershowitz type things are all very fascinating but surely this article isn't the place for it. These kind of issues and conflict related issues are dealt with in detail in other articles. This article just needs to make sure people can find them via the Israel topics box and the Main article/See also links. Having said that, bias through ommision is obviously a fair assessment in places e.g. the Cast Lead section in Conflicts and peace treaties is all about rockets...apparently no one died. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

With a possibly similar appreciation of history, and having looked at your (Avid's) contribs and talk, I’d say that you have noted the elephant in the discussion. Yes, there are controversies, but you had better have very good precedence to add one; do other countries have similarly titled section? How are their individual controversies presented? It may be better for you to look at your concerns from that perspective, or I predict, you won’t get far here. Notability is a policy benchmark used also, and the Israel lobby is indeed notable regarding the Israel, as that dab page suggests. You might find more editing opportunities and editorial satisfaction at those pages, or Israel-United States relations and Israel-United States military relations, among many others. I might also note that it is enforced policy to write about the subject and the edits, rather than the editors and what they might think, or not. Good editing, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all very much for your input and suggestions. Will look into it.Avidreaderofhistory (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More History in the lede

I have made[6] the following edit to the lede for the Nov ’47 to May ’48 period (three sentences); it currently reads:

In November 1947, following years of communal strife, the United Nations voted for the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The partition plan was reluctantly accepted by Zionist leaders and overwhelmingly rejected by Arab leaders; the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine immediately followed that decision. On May 14, 1948, with the British mandate ending, Zionists declared Israel independent; the neighboring Arab states attacked the next day.

Discussions please, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, I have to say Jayjg was right in reverting your edit - you can't add new material with a "citation needed" tag - either have a source, or don't add it.

Anyway, I disagree with the "reluctantly" qualification - of course some wanted more, but the plan got very positive reactions from the Jewish public in Palestine. Everyone with access to a radio sat and listened with bated breath to the vote in the UN, and when the vote passed everyone went out to the streets to dance and celebrate (this isn't hyperbole, despite the phrasing...). The Zionist leaders had some objections (naturally, you can't always get everything you want - for example, Naharia was to be a Jewish enclave inside the Arab state), but chose to accept it regardless, with some victories for their position, like including most of the Negev in the Jewish state, a move that took great diplomatic efforts. okedem (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, Okedem, chalk it up to my relative newbieness, but when I locate the ‘reluctant’ ref, I will add the suggested descriptive phrases on both ends of the sentence, unlike some admins who should definitely know better. I will also note that those reluctant at the time are largely still reluctant, with the main difference being that they have since led most Israeli governments since 1977. I appreciate the comment’s tone and content, but will point out some simple OR included within it. The ‘everyone with a radio’ is patently incorrect and points to legitimate differences in POV. Although sitting source-less again, I surmise there was equal moaning, wailing, hair-pulling and stunned disbelief on the other side of town, assuming all had radios and a language they understood. Surprise comes when either good or bad shit happening upon you; the surprise is the same, but the reaction can be quite different. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Observer, mate, my comment naturally refers only to the Jews of Palestine, as that's the topic of our discussion here, and not the Arab reaction. I seriously doubt there was any significant "moaning, wailing, hair-pulling and stunned disbelief" on the part of the Jews. Also, my comment is not phrased in a pure NPOV well-sourced manner, and that's why I'd never write such a thing in the article. okedem (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand and point taken, but my mention of moaning etc, was in reference to the non-Jews of Palestine on the same night. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize that. I just don't enjoy my comments being called "patently incorrect", when my meaning is clear from the context. Never mind. okedem (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

While it is true taht those who declared independece were mostly "zionists" the term is misleading since it was not the zionist movement that declared indpendence, but the Jewish Agency for Palestine which would have also included non-zionist ultra orthodox members like agudat israel. I think the Zionist movement was led by Weizmann and he did not declare indepdence: his signature does not appear on the delcaration. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on your comment I assume, therefore, that you accept the previous un-encyclopedic error in ‘Israel declared independence’; there was considerable SYNTH involved that my edit attempted to correct. To put it another way, it might be correct to say ‘colonists and subjects of George III declared American independence; they were not Americans until after they accomplished that fact. Therefore, I had to search for a collective ‘who’ to do it; I ended up with ‘Zionists’ as the most accurate and lede-level single-word choice. I based the choice on that specific linked page and its included links. Simplified, I believe it comes down to David Ben-Gurion, who hammered the gavel first, who read it publicly first and who signed it first; but it seemed too simplistic to say just him, since he represented so many, dancing in the streets and all. He was the head of the Jewish Agency, he was the head of the Yishuv, and he sat on the Zionist Executive (an amazing red-link, many times), which was more powerful than Weizmann’s WZO, post Biltmore. Since these are both Zionist and Jewish positions/organizations, and some Jews were non- or anti-Zionist, I felt ‘Zionists’ was the best, most neutral encompassing term; I doubt anti-Zionist Jews were dancing. Since he wore several hats, I may not discern specifically which he might have worn at the time, without OR; your specific Jewish Agency suggestion seems, to me, to make an OR leap. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything you say is speculation. The Jewish Agency executive took decisions democratically and as far as I can remeber the decision to declare a state was taken by a vote. Ben-Gurion did not simply issue decrees. Too get ultr-orthodox support he agreed to make marriage and who-is-a-jew subject to rabbincial control. He also inserted a reference to divine sanction ("the rock of Israel") in the declaration of independence and made orthodx jews exempt from military service.

I will investigate and see what I can find on this issue but I think you will find that there was Jewish unity on the subject of a state. The fact that we argue loudly does not mean we are not one family.

Telaviv1 (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it wasn't the Jewish Agency it was the Jewish National Council. The Zionist General council voted 40 to 18 in april 47 to create a national comittee which had the task of running the country. its complex and I ahvent got the full story. Agudat Israel boycotted the elections but agreed to join as they beleived the Arabs would slaughter them (the 1929 pogrom establhsied that they were the first ones to get it when trouble arose and that they needed the zionists to protect them).¬¬¬¬

So what is your suggestion for something better than 'Zionists'? Or how would you suggest editing the current sentence? As your post indicates 'Jews' would be improper. Zionists is the best single word. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Palestine's Jews is more appropriate then zionists as these were the elected representatives of palestine's jews. Palestine's Zionists is also OK, you cold try the elected representatives of palestine's Jews and zionists. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment is helpful, but the possessive 'Palestine's Jews' or 'Palestine's Zionists' includes excessive SYNTH, since most were relatively recent immigrants, illegals and/or DPs. I believe 'Zionists in Palestine' would be most accurate and neutral, certainly more so than 'Jews of Palestine', as you point out, Ben-Gurion had to negotiate away 'rabbincial control' to get agreement. Late signing. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Territories

The section of the article currently titled Occupied Territories is a biased POV. Edits should be made to change it back to the original titled Disputed Territories or include both labels. The west bank, golan heights, and Jerusalem have been annexed by Israel and their status under international law conflicts with Israel's position. The Gaza strip, as of the 2005 disengagement is separately disputed because of a continuing blockade and the current conflict with Hamas. Comments or suggestive remarks only please, plenty of other sections to continue pro and anti-Israel banter thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.13 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (I've created an account so that I can be identified in discussions. Avinyc (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you there. The term "occupied territories" has been bugging me for a while now, but I'd like to see if we can get a few more opinions on this before any changes are made. Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The West Bank was never annexed by Israel save the territory known as East Jerusalem (which includes more than the eastern quarters of Jerusalem). Actually if we want to be very precise, Israel didn't officially annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, but enacted its "Law, jurisdiction and administration" on these territories. In practice, it is more or less equivalent to annexation. The West Bank, or at least those parts of it which are under direct Israeli control, can be said to be occupied, but East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are not under occupation administration. They are occupied only in the sense that Syria or the Palestinian Authority believe they should return to their control. DrorK (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Occupied" is the term used by the UNSC, the ICRC, the ICJ etc. It is also the name of the WIkipedia article on the subject. "Disputed" is much more a POV term used by only one party.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the organizations you mentioned are political or semi-political. They are not obligated to descriptive terminology. In the view of these organizations, there is no country called Taiwan, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does not exist and Somalia is one single country. We all know that this is not true in practice. DrorK (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Drork, just want to make sure I understand what your saying. Are you for or against changing the title of the section to "Disputed Territories"? Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of describing the actual situation in these territories. If we have to refer to all of them in one general term, then "disputed territories" is better, but we have to explain the difference between the West Bank which is (at least in many parts of it) under occupation administration (with all the inconveniences resulting from this situation), and East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights which were captured in war, but are administered today as part of Israel. The fact that these territories are defined as "occupied" in many international forums is interesting, but not too informative. If we follow these forums' terminology we might think that Beijing has control over Taiwan, and that Cyprus or Somalia are united countries. DrorK (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. I certainly agree that it is a complicated situation (several complicated situations, actually), that needs to be explained. So, the name of the section should be changed, but in conjunction with changes to the section itself. The question is: how to explain the situation without thoroughly confusing readers? Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Occupied is probably the most accurate term for the section title, as well as being more informative, factual and widely used internationally. I admit that it might not be politically correct in the NPOV Wiki-world, but since these specific territories occur in the geography of this particular (Israel) article, I think this internationally accepted factual term is more appropriate. There is no dispute that the land is disputed, and no dispute that certain specific factions prefer to use the term 'disputed'. 'Disputed' is also seen by many others as POV'ly euphemistic. I believe this section is the perfect place to discuss this specifically, but not in the title. I also note a distinction is made above between 'occupied' and 'not under [military] occupation administration'. This also seems somewhat an internal fine point, since those specific distinctions (Jerusalem Law and Golan Heights Law) are not internationally recognized either. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A)I don't think you can say, providing a number of sources, which term is more widely used internationally. As has already been mentioned in this discussion, just because some international organizations use the term "occupied" does not mean that that is the correct term in widespread use, or for use in this article. B) I have a very difficult time understanding half of what you are saying about they're being no dispute that something is disputed. If there's no dispute that it's disputed, than clearly "disputed" is the correct term to use in the name of the section. Perhaps you should be a little more clear with what you are trying to say. Tad Lincoln (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just quickly, try UN242, UN338, UN478 and UN497[7], I guess that is OK for the UN. For a specific US ref, try [this; other countries have similar refs. You should look at mainstream media in the various countries and at the various times these occurred; they are occupied. I will also note however, that it is only more recent mainstream usages, especially in the US, that have started to use the term 'disputed'. This is largely due to impact of junkyard dog watch-dogging, and political correctness, according to my refs. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a popular term is deemed accurate. It is impossible to compare Israel to any other country in history because the Gaza strip and West bank are not territories of a sovereign state before, during, and after the wars. The Golan Heights are also in dispute not just because of Israel's annexation, but even Syria and Lebanon dispute who controlled it prior to the war with Israel. CasualObserver, I don't see the term being internationally accepted as it once was in the beginning. We don't need to argue that terms can be discovered to be offensive or incorrect but still widely used out of ignorance. The territories here are in dispute as to legal ownership, control, and their future status. UN resolutions are more political than factual which is probably why few of them are actually respected in recent years. Avinyc (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling for "occupied territories"+ Israel and "disputed territories"+Israel shows a more than 20-1 balance in favour of the former with the likes of the US Department fo State using it in document titles [8]. WIkipedia is an encyclopedia and using onscure terms instead of the widely recognised ones does nto help this promary purpose of this website.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to link something popular with accuracy. The term occupied carries a legal inference when truthfully the territories are disputed. Something widely recognized does not make it true, and the primary purpose of fact-based website is to stick to the facts [9]. Avinyc (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this conversation is even taking place is proof that the territories should be called 'disputed'. Today most of the original territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are no longer occupied, and even if you only focus on the West Bank and Golan Heights, there are still areas which are not occupied. It's a very complicated matter and the best way to deal with it is use a 100% neutral term, which is 'disputed'. I think we can all agree that the territories in question are disputed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, we can all agree that there many conversations taking place here and around the world objecting to calling Jerusalem Israel's capital. Would it be neutral to say "capital (disputed)" in the infobox? RomaC (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, the capital of Israel is not in dispute; it is a question of recognition by muslim countries. They refuse to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and refer to the country of Israel as the zionist country. Jerusalem is the undisputed capital of Israel as it is declared by their own sovereign law since becoming a country. The Gaza strip, West Bank, Golan Heights are in dispute, big difference.Avinyc (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is by no means just Muslim countries. The overwhelming majority of embassies to Israel are sited in Tel Aviv (and of course the really anti-Israel states don't have any embassy there.)--Peter cohen (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Embassies are located in Tel Aviv not because it is considered the capital. Diplomatic relations began when the country became independent. From 1948-1967 Jerusalem was not unified and the Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem area was under an arab blockade. After the liberation in 1967, many embassies were already located in Tel Aviv that it would have been difficult to move the offices without upsetting other countries in the region. Other countries, such as Taiwan, have special diplomatic circumstances for their country. The location of an embassy is not indicative of a country's capital. So, as it seems, because muslim countries hate Israel, the embassies are not located in Jerusalem, yet. Avinyc (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "occupation" is used in many different ways, so let's make things straight: (1) If "occupied" means subject to occupation administration (i.e. martial law, restrictions on civil rights etc.) then the Golan Heights are not occupied, while most of the West Bank is occupied (with some semi-autonomous areas subject to the Palestinian Authority). (2) If "occupied" means captured in war and still claimed by the previous sovereign, then the Golan Heights are occupied, and the West Bank is not (Jordan doesn't claim this territory anymore). (3) If "occupied" means a territory whose people strive for independence, then the Golan Heights is not occupied, and the West Bank is occupied. The UN uses the term "occupied" in an obscure way, and that's okay - it is an international political organization, and we all know political or diplomatic language is often obscure and certainly not neutral. The UN has its job, and we have ours. We have to decide if we use the term "occupied" and in what way. DrorK (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Drork, You dismissing the United Nation's term, and suggesting researching the question, sounds like original research, which we are to avoid here, no? RomaC (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is OR, but rather a linguistic issue - like consulting a dictionary to pick the best word for a certain sentence. We are not bound by the UN, which is a political organization with a certain agenda, which dictates the terms it uses. okedem (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually RomaC, we have a long note on the status of Jerusalem as the capital being disputed, as well as an even longer explanation of the main page for Jerusalem. In the infobox, no descriptive is used, so it's not a relevant example in this case. I do not oppose having it as 'the territories' without a descriptive in the lead, having a broader explanation later in the article (and other articles), where it should say that the final status of the territories is disputed.

Due weight should be given to all those who say 'occupied', but I think you're missing the point here. Using the term 'occupied' as fact is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV, because one side in the conflict rejects this term (certainly not a fringe opinion), and because the very word is accusatory/POV. However, the term 'disputed' is completely neutral because it does not takes sides. It merely says that there is no agreement on the status of these territories at the moment (a fact with which I'm sure you will agree), i.e. 'agree to disagree'. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I also completely agree with Drork's last post. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. RomaC (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting for the "Original Research" argument. It is a often used as a "deus ex machina" in these kinds of debates. The vagueness of the term "occupation" and the fact that it is often used politically rather than descriptively, is not my innovative idea. I don't need to source a claim that the sky looks blue at noon, red during sunset and black at night. It is quite obvious to anyone who looks through the window. Similarly the different usages of the word "occupation" and the vagueness of this term is very clear to anyone who reads English. DrorK (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do here is to change the name to "disputed territories", and then, if people feel it necessary, to note, in the section, that the UN classifies these territories as "occupied". Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. These territories were occupied by the use of force (in a war situation) and are considered as 'occupied territories' under international law. I understand why some here wish to use 'disputed territories' but that is one sided and seems to suggest that there is a legal question as to their status, there is no such legal question in international law, the were territories captured by armed actions and as such are occupied (that is clear from UN resolutions). Israeli internal law (such as extending Israeli law etc to the Golan Hights) is immaterial to their status in International Law. If need be I would leave the section as 'Occupied territories' and then note in the body text that Israel refers to these territories as 'Disputed Territories' despite the rulings of the United Nations and the usage of countries such as the UK.EoinBach (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the point where we have to agree that Wikipedia is not a political or juridical body, and it does not "recognize" countries, sovereignty, nor does it enact or acknowledge laws. Wikipedia merely describes situations without saying whether they are desirable or not. This is exactly the difference between Wikipedia and the UN. The UN does recognize political entities, and does state its opinion about laws and statues. We don't. It is not for us to decide which law has the upper hand - the Israeli internal law, the Syrian internal law, the UN resolutions or another article of the international law. BTW, there is no full consensus as to the status of these territories, and there are different opinions regarding each of the territories in question. DrorK (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is based on a disputed opinion, which also makes the changing of the title proper. It is not recognized under international law that territories are occupied. UN resolutions discussing the arab-israeli conflict are not binding. Israel controls the land within its borders, and this "International Law" you mention is based on opinion unless you can provide a better explanation. The fact that you dismiss Israel's law as immaterial is evidence of your biased POV. The section should be changed to Disputed Territories since there is no international law stating they are occupied territories. Avinyc (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EoinBach and have stated so in somewhat different words for the same reason. Perhaps people should look at Occupied territories, for some words behind this thinking. In addition, (I assume) Wiki-content is a consensual balance of what is said and how it is said, but at the same time it also includes some understanding of what is not included. The situation seems that the territories are occupied, including (more or less) Golan and Gaza, based on international bodies, international law and specific national governments; this might be characterized as a third-party view. Since there has been a lack of resolution for many years this has made them disputed, for sure. The use of the 'disputed' term is specifically favored by a minority within Israel; I don't believe it is a majority, but I'm a third party. Since we are on that page and in this specific section, I believe that 'Occupied' should be in the title and the 'disputed' aspect discussed in the section, where it may uses the most relevant sources. On the other hand, if 'Disputed' is in the title, that moves all the 'occupied' aspect into the section for discussion. I feel that would tend to generate more heat than light. Consider it. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I favor the use of disputed over occupied because it is a more balanced and fair description of the situation. Occupied ignores the POV of the Israel and non-occupied position. Disputed allows both views to be recognized. I also do not believe disputed is a minority position and/or limited to Israel. I think it is more accurate to say the minority view in Israel is that the territories are neither occupied nor disputed. Disputed is the middle ground and reflects a NPOV. Avinyc (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The UN regards the Israeli control over the WB and the Golan Heights as a legal occupation, and it specifies the circumstances under which Israel, in this organization's view, will have to withdraw from these territories. The fact that the SC resolutions are non-binding is irrelevant if you are looking for the UN position as a political organization. However, as I said, we do not give precedence to the UN position. It is just another important view, no more, no less. The Israeli internal law makes clear distinction between the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem on the one hand, and the West Bank on the other hand. DrorK (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with any of the facts you have stated. I firmly believe that UN's position and past resolutions should not be the only view expressed in this article. Most countries do not recognize the existence of Israel or accept its capital as Jerusalem. If we follow the same logic of ignoring opposing viewpoints that don't amount to a large google hit result, then we should consider deleting this article to appease the majority POV. Avinyc (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but please stick to the facts. In 1949, a year after its creation) Israel was recognized by 47 out of 89 countries (53%, data is taken from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the list of countries here on en-wp). In 2003 Israel was recognized by 159 out of 194 countries (82%). Almost all of the countries that don't recognize Israel are Arabs or Muslim countries in the Middle East and southern Asia. There are several Arab and Muslim countries that do recognize Israel. Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community as the capital of Israel, but all foreign leaders agree to meet the Israeli leaders in their residence in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is presented as Israel's capital in many international occasions without this causing a fuss or protest. Even Anwar A-Sadat, the Egyptian president, agreed to speak in the Knesset in Jerusalem. The only leader who insisted on visiting Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem is King Abdullah the 2nd of Jordan. So, to sum it up, Israel is well-recognized, and most countries accept Jerusalem as its capital unofficially. DrorK (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should not have said most countries do not recognize Israel. Also, it appears this discussion has fallen into a tangent here. The Jerusalem issue was corrected and now we need to do the same for the occupied territories section. The issue is to change the title of this section to Disputed Territories. I am waiting for those changes to be made as I expect reverts if I do them. Avinyc (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a change and policy is nto to change unless a consensus exists.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help me if you could explain why Disputed is not more neutral than Occupied? I am having difficulty understanding why there is resistance to correcting the title. To me, disputed covers all sides of the problem. If the term is in fact one-sided, is there another alternative suggestion. "Occupied" is one-sided to me. Avinyc (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One critical point is that Wikipedia calls things by the name they are known by, not by the term editors prefer, consensus or not. (Wiki us not a democracy.) Google hits for "'occupied territories' +Israel": 875,000; for "'disputed territories' + Israel":34,000. RomaC (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Basing things on google searches is not recommended. I just did your search myself and came up with 1,510,000 for occupied territories, and 2,000,000 for disputed territories. Goalie1998 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

THere's soemthing very odd about your search. I don't get numbers that large even omitting the "+Israel". My numbers for the specified searches do match RomaC's.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing odd about the search results at all. I just did the same searches. I got about 1.5 million hits for occupied territories + Israel and about 2 million hits for disputed territories + Israel. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have said a couple times above that popular does not mean accurate. A popular search term on google is not grounds to title an article as such. Many articles have redirects and there is nothing wrong with redirecting Occupied Territories to the section or article entitled Disputed Territories. It still allows those searching under their own personal favorite term or keyword to find the relevant article. Avinyc (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

TadL, in Google Search, putting quotation marks around two or more words yields results where those two words occur together in that order. And putting a plus sign in front of a word yields results which must have that word. So, search "occupied territories" + Israel and then search "disputed territories" + Israel and you will get the results that Peter and I did.

Avi, I appreciate you believe that "disputed territories is the correct name, but the threshold for inclusion in Wiki is not accuracy or even truth, but rather verifiability, based on reliable sources. RomaC (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Roma you are correct that the occupied territories is verifiable, but I disagree with the point that wikipedia does not aim to be accurate in its articles. NPOV is also one of the content policies and this is what I have been fighting for throughout this discussion. Avinyc (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Avinyc. Verifiability is more of a mean than a goal. Our goal is to present description as close to the truth as possible. Verifiability is one of the best methods to do that. DrorK (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

this problem could be circumvented by calling it soemthing like "Territories occupied by Israel in the Six Day War" or "Territories conquered by Israel in the Six Day War" Telaviv1 (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first suggestion is just an expansion on the original occupied title which is what we are trying to correct here. The second sentence is not neutral either, and would probably cause a repeat discussion since the term "conquered" would would imply Israeli dominance and control over the territory when we are trying to push things back to the middle. To me, disputed is the middle ground between occupied and conquered. Avinyc (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've read through this talk section. So, in a nutshell the argument being advanced is that changing 'occupied' to 'disputed' here (and by extension, globally in WP in all I-P article titles, subheadings, text etc) we will increase compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCON and probably others that I can't think of.
hmmm...
Has this issue really never been subject to a dispute resolution before ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

..there is all this and probably plenty more where that came from. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the issue has been discussed many times before, but now we are trying to correct the exact situation you described. I am looking for editors to explain why disputed is not neutral and proper term even after all the arguing that has gone on here. If there is no new argument that can counter this position, I feel we should move forward. Avinyc (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you regard occupied->disputed as a correction then you should be able to bring evidence to demonstrate that the change increases the degree of compliance with the guidelines I listed. For example, you could systematically go through the 6 methods outlined in Wikipedia:NCON#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references and present the results. What isn't clear to me in this talk section is what kind of decision procedure would convince you that 'disputed' is not neutral or not an appropriate term. That makes this issue rather intractable. Are you able to imagine an argument or decision procedure that would convince you that 'disputed' is not neutral ? If so, what would be the nature of that argument/decision procedure and the associated information ? Which guidelines that I listed should such an argument/decision procedure focus on ? If your concern is neutrality then I suppose the focus should be on WP:DUE and it's effect on WP:NPOV. That would indicate that the decision procedure should be to determine proper weight by considering a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. Would that be an acceptable decision procedure for example ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful comment and avenue of approach; all should try it. Tends to support current section wording. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We have already discussed the google test earlier in this discussion and I understand occupied is more popular than disputed in search results. The issue of disputed and occupied has not been settled, but steps have been made to correct it already: [10] I also find it humorous that the article itself is in dispute:) Avinyc (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, there is something here I don't understand. Is Avinyc supposed to suggest a way to prove that "Disputed Territories" is a non-neutral term? This is not a scietific theory. There is no need to find a method to disprove it in order to make it valid. What kind of suggestion is it? DrorK (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I wrote "Are you able to imagine an argument or decision procedure that would convince you that 'disputed' is not neutral ? If so, what would be the nature of that argument/decision procedure and the associated information ?". You can change the word from 'disputed' to 'occupied' or anything else in that sentence, it remains essentially the same question. The question is, what is an acceptable decision procedure to decide this issue that complies with guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

An argument that makes disputed not neutral? I suppose if the dispute was settled, that would be an argument against disputed being neutral under those hypothetical circumstances. The decision to change the wording should be based on the factual circumstances that exist in Israel. Israel defeated its neighboring countries in wars which led to the expansion of its borders and territory. This supports their position that they defended themselves and secured the territory as their own, and not occupied. The other side believes it was a mistake and that supporting resolutions at the UN support the position that the territory is illegally occupied. Since the position is disuputed both sides, it is accurate to label the section disputed rather than occupied. Avinyc (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of this is really helps to identify and agree a decision procedure to decide whether 'disputed' or 'occupied' is the most suitable term. Wikipedia deals with verifiability not our views on accuracy or the factual circumstances that exist. We have a whole bunch of guidelines to help us make decisions like this about what to call things by establishing the common international default name of something in an objective way so that we can avoid POV disputes and ensure that readers are presented with neutral, verifiable information. I listed some of them WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCON. We should be able to work within these guidelines to resolve this. Obviously it's important in matters like this to avoid misleading readers by suggesting a false symmetry in views on terminology and I suppose we probably want to avoid heading down this road. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also unfortunate that the set guidelines (as useful as they may seem) do not work to settle arguments for every situation. WP:NPOV has a subsection titled Article Naming (main article: WP:NC) that states "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." Disputed removes the suggestive viewpoint that the territories are illegally occupied while maintaining fair neutrality for both sides. Let the articles description give the context of the situation and not allow the title to set the tone and position. If someone reads in the title "Israeli-occupied territories", then there is no much else the reader needs to learn to understand what the viewpoint of the article will be. If the title is "Disputed Territories", a reader would need to read the description to fully understand things and therefore learn of both arguments and not just one. Avinyc (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You therefore agree that the issue is how to generate names that 'exhibit the highest degree of neutrality'. Isn't it reasonable to say that the view that 'disputed' is a more appropriate and neutral term than 'occupied' is very much an Israeli perspective, a minority view on these matters and that Wikipedia should not be naming things in a way that presents a partisan minority view as if it's a neutral majority view or the internationally recognised common term ? Don't you think that by calling them 'disputed' rather 'occupied' it's reasonable to say that the narrative voice of Wikipedia would be giving undue weight to the Israeli perpective and therefore failing to 'exhibit the highest degree of neutrality' ? Your objective is to avoid a 'suggestive viewpoint' after all. By using 'occupied' the narrative voice of Wikipedia is using the common name used by international organisations, the media, other encyclopedias etc which is what we should be doing whether we like that name or not. I do appreciate that there is a genuine (and genuinely interesting) difference of opinion over terminology which should of course be described in this article (and others) but surely you can agree that the dispute over terminology isn't even remotely symmetrical and that it's inappropriate for Wikipedia's narrative voice to use terminology that represents what amounts to a partisan minority view ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sean, but I disagree with your position that disputed gives undue weight to an Israeli perspective. It is unreasonable to state that the word disputed does not afford a neutral point of view and it is even more unreasonable to suggest that disputed gives undue weight to any one side. If I was to suggest a term that is geared towards the Israeli perspective, then I would suggest something along the lines of "Annexed Territories" or "Conquered Territories" or "Israeli-controlled areas or territories" and ignore the perspective of occupation. On the flip side, "Occupied Territories" does give undue weight to the non-Israeli perspective. How does a title like that allow the reader to discover an opposing argument to the occupation theory? If the title says they are disputed, then both sides are being represented (so to speak). I see your point here regarding majority vs. minority view, but I think we disagree as to where the scale is tipped. It is one viewpoint that the territories are not occupied and another that they are occupied. That is, by definition a dispute. I think you are under the impression that by allowing the title to be changed to disputed, it is "giving in" to the Israeli perspective. This is not the case in my opinion. Avinyc (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well I don't think there is anything more I can really say to persuade you that changing 'occupied' to 'disputed' would be inappropriate and inconsistent with WP's guidelines.
If 'disputed' is neutral then I guess Dore Gold's Viewpoints piece on this issue must be neutral and CAMERA's advocacy on this issue must be neutral e.g.

• Washington Post terms West Bank ‘disputed territory’
• Robert Fisk: Telling it Like it Isn't
• BACKGROUNDER: Jewish Settlements and the Media

That seems quite unlikely. :)
Regarding "Occupied Territories" does give undue weight to the non-Israeli perspective...I can't really take that argument seriously. WP:DUE states quite clearly "in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" so we would be giving due weight based on prevalence in reliable sources. We are obliged to do that. Even the CIA World Fact Book (an RS which is used 12 times in this article making it the most cited source) uses the term 'Israeli-occupied' for both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Readers can discover an opposing argument to the evolution occupation theory by reading the details once they've found the appropriate section via the "occupied" title. :)
I'm not concerned about "giving in" to the Israeli perspective. I am a bit concerned when editors advocate things that are more consistent with the views of CAMERA and Dore Gold on these matters than with the Wikipedia guidelines at least as far as I understand them. I'm sure you and other editors genuinely believe that 'disputed' is more neutral and accurate. Maybe this issue should go to dispute resolution at some point to settle it as consensus here may not be possible I suppose. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you could not look beyond your biased point of view, but I am not here to convince you or anyone else that their view is wrong. It may be your positions when discussing proper changes to an article title, but until you cited them I have never visited or nor read the blog articles from camera.org. Apparently, this is where your research begins and ends regarding the viewpoint of disputed territories. It makes it very hard to take your opinion seriously when you do not make an effort to cite to reliable sources:) The point of this discussion is not to persuade me to "come over to your side" but to establish a clear understanding of which title is proper for this section of the article. On the flip side, I am not here to convince you that I am right or that my position is 100% better than how it already exists. I can accept that the many perceive the situation with the territories as an occupation or conquered, but I do genuinely feel the term disputed labels the situation without bias. I think I need to understand if you see the term "occupied" as implying a neutral view or not. If you do, then this is not going to be worth spending any additional effort to argue over.

In response to the citations, The CIA factbook is cited frequently. I do not know if that was one of the few sources available at the time of this article's publishing or if it was just a matter of convenience to cut and paste from there to quickly create the content here. Whatever the reason, it should be noted that the factbook is not the only reliable source and can contain inaccurate information see [11]. I am not discrediting the information in the CIA facebook, but it is not the final say on a complex subject.

Wikipedia recognizes, either by sneaking editors such as myself or because there is an understanding that the territories are in fact disputed according to their inclusion in these articles: List of territorial disputes, Palestinian territories, and it should be noted that there is a separate map that shows occupied and disputed territories for neutrality here: Atlas of Israel

The information contained on Israel's government website should be considered as reliable as the CIA's webpage, and it describes (6th paragraph) the problem with saying, "Israel's presence in the territory is often incorrectly referred to as an "occupation." What is the status of the territories?

And there are other news organizations besides Camera that report on the conflict using the term disputed territories: [12] [13] [14]Avinyc (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually for interest I don't have a point of view on whether the status of the territories is more accurately described as 'occupied' or 'disputed' in the real world or what kind of occupation it is or isn't etc etc. I honestly don't care or remain unconvinced that it makes much difference to what happens in practice. So you don't need to take my opinion seriously because I don't have one about the real world situation. I just want to make sure we stick to policy and follow guidelines here so that these kind of ideological conflicts don't proliferate in Wikipedia as they're quite destabilising. I haven't cited reliable sources because we failed to agree an acceptable decision procedure to decide this issue that complies with guidelines. If there's no finishing line in a race there's no point in starting to run. :) I was just hoping I could persuade you to agree to a method to decide the matter to avoid a subjective approach. You've only hinted at a method so far e.g. you point to some media RS and Israel's government website using the term 'disputed' suggesting that you at least have some affinity with the Wikipedia:NCON#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references method. I'm curious if you would even agree that a non-subjective method is better than a subjective method ? You've never visited the CAMERA site ? Why not ? It's quite informative and interesting. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not that I purposefully avoided the Camera site, I just never heard of it before. I will take a look as you suggested. I also appreciate that you are looking for a guideline or method that would settle this issue. However, I am not the first one to present this problem, and it does not sound like there is a procedure that gives preference to neutrality, only popularity. I was trying the common sense approach that the word occupied denotes a negative and permanent connotation and it is clearly biased by itself and definition. I do not believe that what I am suggesting is a subjective method when I believe it is adding balance to the article. Let's try it a different way, can you agree that something occupied cannot be also disputed? And/Or can you see that something disputed could also be considered occupied? Avinyc (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that it's not a popularity contest. I don't think it's really about neutrality either except in the due weight sense. It's about terminology and names that are presumably derived from legal viewpoints that flow out into our RS. If country X's position is that it's not an occupying Y it doesn't change the legal obligations of other countries who have signed the geneva conventions to comply them and treat Y as being occupied.by X if that's their own legal interpretation. Everything else cascades from that because their legal interpretation is that it's occupied, the term 'occupied X territory' will be used in their official documents and it flows to our RS. The same goes for the ICRC, human rights groups, and other international organisations like the UN using their legal interpretations->terminology flowing out to our RS and so on and so forth to other encyclopedias, journals, media, websites, the google index etc etc. Country X's opinion isn't really relevant to the legal interpretations made by other countries/organisations and the terminology that derives from them. You might see it as bias/non-neutral and maybe it is but WP sees it as due weight/common naming etc. Try apply your approach to the Republic of China i.e. Taiwan, presumably a highly contentious/non-neutral name for a lot of Chinese people who I imagine might want it called "Taiwan Authority" or might accept "Chinese Taipei". By your argument it should be called something like "disputed Chinese territory" to be more neutral. Yes it's disputed but it's referred to as the Republic of China because that's what it's called. Even Eyal Benvenisti has said "I was struck by the fact that most contemporary occupants ignored their status". :) Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)..on the other hand WP has an article about a country called Burma, a country that doesn't exist and that most people in my part of world have never heard of so perhaps there is a precedent for non-neutral naming. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked two questions in the previous comment, so if you could answer them it would help me to understand where we stand on this issue. You cannot compare the land dispute in Israel with any other country because the Geneva Convention do not fit for this particular situation. The Gaza Strip and West Bank, Israel, and Jordan were not sovereign territories prior to partition. For a short time Egypt controlled Gaza, and Jordan did the same with the West Bank. The Geneva Convention applies to sovereign states and territories, which did not exist on these lands before. Taiwan, however, was conquered and under Japanese rule before becoming Chinese territory. This is very different and uncomparable to the situation in middle east. Avinyc (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I can compare them. I just did and as I said, Israel's interpretation of the law doesn't have any bearing on the legal interpretations->obligations of other countries and bodies. Regarding your questions: "can you agree that something occupied cannot be also disputed?", "And/Or can you see that something disputed could also be considered occupied?". Whether or not I can agree or see those things is immaterial because my opinion should not be part of the decision procedure that identifies the appropriate name. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well of course you can compare them, but in my opinion I disagree with that comparison. There are two sides to this debate, the pro-israeli one and the pro-palestinian one. The legal interpretation put forth is valid because there is nothing that clearly states otherwise. Israel's interpretation that the territory is not occupied is as valid as someone claiming it is occupied. In order to settle that difference, why not call it "disputed?" Since you chose not to answer the questions posed, but did decide to acknowledge them, I can assume that you do agree but just decided make an excuse. This whole debate has been based on opinion so using that as an excuse now seems like a cop out. Avinyc (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the "factual", "disputed" and "accuracy" approach is problematic in context of Israel. One could argue, that in "factual" and "accurate" terms in contrast to "legal" and "widely recogniced" definitions, the State of Israel is "disputed", since some elements do not recongice it. Thus it would be "accurate" and "factual" to use the term "disputed" in context of Israeli regions more broadly, which is much more than questionable. Legal definitions and widely recogniced concepts might be the best way to describe the extraordinary situations in these regions, because the definition of especially "disputed" is not clear-cut. Where do we and wikipedia draw the line in "factual", "accuracy" and especially "disputed"? Does these definitions exist? Pprkl007 (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

More than 80% of the world's independent countries recognize Israel as an independent state within the Green Line. This is less than the recognition enjoyed by Confoederatio Helvetica (i.e. Switzerland), and yet it is enough in order to say that Israel within the borders of the Green Line is not disputed. DrorK (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There would be no need for the "Green Line", or the application of customary international laws governing "armistice occupation" or "belligerent occupation" if the territories were not the subject of an on-going armed dispute. The fact that the status of the territory is disputed is thus a given. The point is that there are several million non-Israeli nationals among the permanent inhabitants of the territories, and that they, together with the Israelis, are entitled to the customary protections of international law.

Recognition of Israel's international boundaries has never been a matter that is solely, or essentially, a matter of its private domestic jurisdiction. During the hearings regarding Israel's admission to the United Nations, the representative of Israel acknowledged that reality. He gave an assurance that, if Israel were admitted as a Member state, it would not invoke domestic jurisdiction under the terms of article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN Charter with regard to the settlement of frontiers, the internationalization of Jerusalem, or the Arab refugee problem. See A/AC.24/SR.51 FIFTY-FIRST MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON MONDAY, 9 MAY 1949 :AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION. The declarations and explanations provided to the Committee are part of Israel's formal undertakings, and they are specifically mentioned in the text of UN General Assembly RES 273, 11 May 1949.

The Provisional Government of Israel originally requested recognition for "an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947." See for example The letter sent to President Harry S. Truman. In 1890, the First International Conference of American States proscribed territorial conquest and established the policy of non-recognition of all acquisitions made by force. The UN Charter, and UN Security Council Resolution 242, both recognize that longstanding international norm.

The statement that "80% of the world's independent countries recognize Israel as an independent state within the Green Line." needs some clarification. UN Security Council Resolution 62 was issued under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It represented a legally binding mandate to establish "armistice lines", i.e. the Green Line. UN member states have subsequently been obliged to recognize that the territory on either side of the line is under a state of "armistice occupation" or "belligerent occupation" (pending a final settlement of the frontiers between all of the parties in accordance with the Laws and Customs of Land Warfare, the individual armistice agreements, and the applicable UN resolutions. See the Hague Convention of 1907, and The International Law of Occupation, By Eyal Benvenisti, page 3. harlan (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Those quoted terms come from your cited book, not the UN resolutions. Besides that, what exactly are you clarifying regarding the recognition of Israel by 80% of the world? If you are interested you can read an opposing view taken in the book you cited here: [15]Avinyc (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Armistice Occupation" is a common term of art in international law with prior legal precedents such as Marzola v. Societa Teavibra. see Hersh Lauterpacht's International Law Reports, beginning at page 64. The UN Security Council resolution cites articles 39 and 40 of the Charter (Chapter VII), and Paragraph 2(a) of the resolution specifically calls for the "delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines".

You have provided a link to an anonymous political editorial. It isn't actually an opposing view "taken in the book" written by Eyal Benvenisti that I cited. The author you mention simply asserts that "Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign." A number of experts in international law have pointed out that the Geneva Conventions do not mention the term "legitimate sovereign", and that terminology was never part of the recorded negotiating history. See for example the monograph "Settlements and the Law: A Juridicial Analysis of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories", Sally V. & W. Thomas Mallison, American Educational Trust, 1982. The General Assembly specifically requested that the ICJ consider the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. The state of Israel never mentioned the terms "disputed territories" or "legitimate sovereign" in its 246-page written statement to the ICJ. harlan (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The book you cited is no more reliable than the editorial cited. I believe the term of art "armistice occupation" was only used in your cited book specifically deals with the german occupations during the war. I do not see how you can apply it here. As for your citation to the ICJ advisory opinion, that dealt with the legality and jurisdiction of the security fence. Since Israel does not recognize the ICJ jurisdiction in the matter, they narrowly answered them using quoted text such as occupied territories. If they raised objections to the term and used disputed, it would have implied legitimacy and recognition for the ICJ to answer those questions. The politics of international disputes. Avinyc (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Avinyc, The case that Lauterpacht cited dealt with the Allied occupation of Italy, there is another case involving the German occupation of Austria in the same chapter. The occupant has no claim or title to the occupied territory. The law of non-recognition meant that Austria was not the successor state of the German Reich. The Baltic states were not the successor states of the Soviet Union - even after 50 years of occupation. The same Hague IV Convention regulations regarding belligerents, military occupation, and armistices have been universally applicable since the Nuremberg International Tribunal determined that they were enforceable as part of customary international law. In common-law countries, like Israel, they are automatically absorbed and are domestically enforceable.

Harlan, those are examples of occupations. Israel does not consider itself an occupying force because there was no sovereign owner of the land prior to the partition and war. In fact, the inhabitants of the region were a mix of Jews and Arabs, so defining one group today makes little sense. Avinyc (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mallison book that I cited references the landmark 1979 Elon Moreh Case (aka "Seventeen Residents of the Village of Rujerib v. Gov't of Israel et al., HCJ 390/79). The Israeli High Court ruled that expropriation of privately-owned Palestinian land for civilian settlements had violated the Hague IV Convention regulations governing military occupation.

The status of the territory on both sides of an armistice line must be addressed as part of the terms of the final peace agreement with the Palestinians. For example, there are some Intel Fab plants located on Palestinian-owned land in Kiryat Gat. Israel guaranteed that Palestinian property would not be expropriated in the 1949 armistice agreement. see Intel chip plant located on disputed Israeli land

The reason that I mentioned the ICJ case is because the government of Israel maintained that it was not responsible for implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Gaza or the West Bank, because they are located outside Israel's sovereign territory and jurisdiction. see paragraph 102 of the ICJ majority opinion and CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2. harlan (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to put forth my original request that is described in the first comment of this section to rename the "Occupied Territories" section to "Disputed Territories." Disputed Territories, in my opinion, covers the notion of occupied and conquered while also giving a NPOV title to the arguments within the section. There has not been any definitive argument other than a popular google search showing that the title should remain as is. Since my suggestion is valid and neutral, unless there is something new to add to this topic, can we move forward with the changes? There have not been any comments posted over a week so I would like to see the article edited before the bots archive this section. Avinyc (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I support your demand. I think this is more neutral and accurate. Benjil (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose changing the section name, for the reasons I noted on 27 February 2009, above, as well as other discussions since. Nothing has changed, certainly not the consensus to make that change. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely support changing it to "disputed". Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would support the change if it was the outcome of an official dispute resolution process with a global scope. By that I mean that the result would apply throughout Wikipedia and not just to this article. That would mean for example that should you be successful in your renaming efforts the 'Israeli-occupied territories' article would be renamed as would numerous other references to the occupied territories. If your argument is valid and consistent with guidelines then it applies globally throughout Wikipedia and you shouldn't have any trouble getting it through a dispute resolution. Discussing and applying a change to this article in isolation from the rest of Wikipedia doesn't make sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Should I or someone else rename the section, or would that start a revert war? Just looking for a way to progress this discussion to a resolution. Avinyc (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Replies should be at the bottom, but these comments are here, so mine is too. Such a name change might do exactly what you suspect. I see it as violating consensus, which we do not have; therefore it should stay as is, having been developed by consensus. If I see it happen, I will do my best to go 3O, before anyone is unwise enough to go 3R in this topic area. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that these areas should be called occupied, since they are.--Ezzex (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This view however, should be ref'd to sources characterized by such terms as 'international law' and 'human rights conventions' and the like, which sound pretty globally NPOV. Many are already on this page. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But wikipedia is not here to reproduce the views of your mind but the different POV from a neutral stand. "Occupied" may be internationally mainstream but this is not the Israeli position and the Israeli position should be at least reflected.Benjil (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, but it might be better stated. Wikipedia is here to present all povs neutrally, in this case it is mainly only two. So, how do we neutrally balance those "internationally mainstream", as you characterize them, with an opposing pov? We should say, the 'law' is this and the dissenting opinion is that; that is basically what the current title does and allows. Are you suggesting that a NPOV presentation would be something like, the dissenting opinion says this and the law says that? That does not appear to be the way the world works or how Wiki's NPOV should work. For blue-linked technicallities supporting this view, I'd suggest WP:UNDUE, for starters. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unemployment high among Palestinians in occupied territories, UN labour agency says" (UN news centre, 2005) [16].

So what ?Benjil (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand what you mean by "in this case it is mainly only two." The positions are that the territories are occupied or not occupied. Using the term disputed is a neutral term that encompasses both viewpoints. Disputed is neutral, but I suppose this is difficult to accept since it is more popular to keep the status quo. Avinyc (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

UN resolution 242 (22. november 1967): (i) "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" [17]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezzex (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, the arabs reject 242, which is something Israel accepts. Are you changing positions? 242 discusses the withdrawal of Israel from territories occupied. Israel did that with the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt. The rest of the resolution requires arabs to make peace with Israel, which they have not. Avinyc (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

UN resolution 681 (20 dec. 1990): "Deplores the decision of Israel, the occupying power, to resume the deportation of Palestionian civilians in the occupies territories" [18].--Ezzex (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll save you some time so that you can post them relevant to this discussion [19] We are not here to go over UN resolutions one by one, but if that is your position, then it is clearly understood. According to the UN, there are many resolutions condemning Israel's actions. Unfortunately, it is difficult to rely on them as a neutral party when there is not a single resolution condemning the other party's actions. 74.73.22.13 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Applicability of the Hague IV Convention

Perhaps Wikipedia should reproduce the views of the government of Israel? While discussing the property right of Israelis evacuated from the Gaza Strip, the Court stated:

"This property right is limited in scope . . . most Israelis do not have ownership of the land on which they built their houses and businesses in the territory to be evacuated. They acquired their rights from the military commander, or from persons acting on his behalf. Neither the military commander nor those acting on his behalf are owners of the property, and they cannot transfer rights better than those they have. To the extent that the Israelis built their homes and assets on land which is not private ('state land'), that land is not owned by the military commander. His authority is defined in regulation 55 of The Hague Regulations. . . . The State of Israel acts . . . as the administrator of the state property and as usufructuary of it . . . " (Id., paragraph 127 of the opinion of the Court).
... ...
B. The Normative Outline in the Supreme Court's Caselaw
1. Belligerent Occupation
14. The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention). The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention. In light of that declaration on the part of the government of Israel, we see no need to reexamine the government's position. We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions. As mentioned, seeing as the government of Israel accepts that the humanitarian aspects of The Fourth Geneva Convention apply in the area, we are not of the opinion that we must take a stand on that issue in the petition before us." see HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel

The Court recently mentioned the disputed rights of Israelis evacuated from Amona:

It is a general principle that "a person must decide in his heart whether to seek the court’s assistance or to take the law into his own hands. A person cannot do these two things at once..." (HCJ 8898/04 Jackson v. Commander of the IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria (unreported 28 October, 2004). For the most recent ruling pertinent to this judgment see HCJ 851/06 Amona Farmer’s Co-operative for communal settlements Ltd. v. Minister of Defense (not yet published, 29 January, 2006); HCJ 6102/04 Moadi v. Minister of the Interior (unreported 26 September, 2005) HCJ 1547/07 Bar Kohva v. Israel Police (not yet published, 11 July, 2007). The court shall not open its doors to those who have taken the law into their own hands, deride the provisions of the law and seek to put before the Authority a fait accomplis. The prohibition on taking the law into one’s own hands falls under the rubric of the broader general principle that requires that a litigant who applies to the court for its assistance come with clean hands, (see for example HCJ197/81 Friedman v. Mayor of Eilat, Piskei Din 36(2) 425 (1982), HCJ 212/56 Slonimsky v. Petah Tikva Municipality, Piskei Din 11 446, 448 (1957); D”N 19/68 Petah Tikva Municipality v. Minister of Agriculture, Piskei Din 23 (1) 253 (1969); HCJ 609/75 Israeli v. Mayor of Tel Aviv – Yafo, Piskei Din 30(2) 304 (1976). The subject under discussion falls under the principle that has been defined as a threshold cause in the matter of applying to the High Court of Justice or the Administrative Court. A litigant who acts with unclean hands will find that his petition is summarily dismissed without his claims being heard on the merits. extracted from HCJ 3483/05 D.B.S. Escort Services Ltd. Et al v. Minister of Communications et al, cited in HCJ 3170/07, HaMoked et al vs The State of Israel et al

harlan (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand the relevance of these block quotes you are pasting into the discussion. Do you have an opinion regarding the neutrality of renaming the section to Disputed Territories? Avinyc (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have explained to several other editors that their personal opinions don't matter. You also have repeatedly claimed that the "government of Israel" doesn't consider the territories to be occupied. Nonetheless, these are authoritative and legally binding decisions which say exactly the opposite. I could add the statements of various IDF and cabinet respondents who also say the territories are occupied. It seems to me that the dispute is an internal one between the various branches of the government. The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, is part and parcel of the "Israeli government". It has the legal competence:

to order State and local authorities and the officials and bodies thereof, and other persons carrying out public functions under law, to do or refrain from doing any act in the lawful exercise of their functions. see Basic Law: The Judiciary.

The Court has ruled that Judea and Samaria are being held in belligerent occupation, and furthermore that Israeli rights in Judea and Samaria are limited to those of a belligerent occupying power in accordance with the provisions of the Hague IV Convention of 1907. Judge Meir Shamgar's ruling regarding the Rights and Duties of the Occupying Power under Articles 43 and 49 of the Hague Regulations in HC 69/81 Bassil Abu Aita v. The Regional commander of Judea and Samaria is much more convincing than the theoretical opinion he expressed in "The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories," Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Y. Dinstein (ed.), 1971. harlan (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not listed a single authoritative or legally binding decision that supports your opinion. I'm sorry you do not accept that, but the territories are not occupied under any law. UN general assembly resolutions are not legally binding. Not a single security council resolution declares they are occupied. The ICJ opinions are opinions. The dispute is clearly not internal otherwise the UN and other countries wouldn't be so vague on the topic (with the exception of local arab states of course). The point has been made that many believe the territories are occupied, but there is also an equally acceptable belief that they are not occupied. Since we cannot agree and there is nothing that speaks clearly on the topic, it should be left described as disputed territories in fairness to both sides. 74.73.22.13 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, there seems to be a standstill for no reason with this section. If anyone is against changing the title, then we should ask for the 3rd opinion mentioned or a dispute resolution. I believe enough time has lapsed waiting for everyone to make their case on this talk page. If the only way to reach a conclusion is to move ahead and change the title now, then I or someone else will make the changes. We can start a new talk discussion on changing the title back to Occupied from Disputed if that suits the editors. Avinyc (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is at a standstill because there is nothing left to debate. The last contribution came from an individual who is unaware of the fact that Israeli High Court decisions are legally binding or that Security Council resolutions, like United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, quite literally state that the Palestinian and Arab territories are occupied. The Israeli High Court has ruled that Judea and Samaria are being held in a state of belligerent occupation, and that the military must administer them under the appropriate rules of occupation, according to international law. The Knesset has never overruled that decision, so it stands. Just this morning, the Netanyahu cabinet evacuated the West Bank settlement outpost of Maoz Esther. You cannot ignore the relevant Supreme Court rulings and honestly say that these territories are disputed, but not occupied. I believe my very first post in this thread pointed out that it was a given that they are disputed, but that they are nonetheless occupied. harlan (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick note - the evacuation of Maoz Esther has absolutely nothing to do with this. It was evacuated not because it's the West Bank is occupied, but just because it was built without getting the proper building and zoning permits, the same as with houses built inside the country without building permits. okedem (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that customary international law is part and parcel of the law of the land of Israel. They have also ruled that the military commander has no title to this territory, and is only authorized the usufruct of the real property. Under international law, State and private property in occupied territories can only be expropriated in cases of military necessity. Any outpost constructed without the cumulative authorizations of the proper authorities is a violation of the Hague regulations, and that has everything to do with this discussion. harlan (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Occupied" should not be changed to "disputed" because there is an overwhelming consensus among reliable sources and states to use the term "occupied", and wikipedia's neutrality policy thus dictates using the mainstream term. Considering states, as Harlan explains above, the score is something like 200 - 1/2. 1/2 because while Israel sometimes disputes the term, Israel itself calls the territories occupied, particularly in formal legal contexts, like Supreme Court decisions and official government statements in the Israeli Supreme Court. There was a big, bruising fight years ago to systematically use the most common term at Wikipedia, and there has been no reason presented to change, or any novel argument.John Z (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your claims would be valid for all settlements, yet they still stand. Israel differentiates between settlements built on public lands, and private Palestinians lands; it also differentiates between those built with proper building permits (including zoning plans, etc), and those built without. International law, the lawfullness of settlements in general, etc. had nothing to do with this current evacuation, which is the same as demolishing houses built without building permits within Israe proper. Don't try to push the Hague into this one. Only Israeli law was used here, which is why there are so many other settlements Israel considers legal, and continues to build them. okedem (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't keep your facts straight. My claim would be valid for any outpost, like Moaz Esther, built on illegally expropriated state land or private property. The Hague Convention rules prohibit confiscation of private property (without exception). The criteria for state lands allow expropriations only in the case of absolute military necessity. The Israeli High Court ruled in the 1979 Elon Moreh Case that disputes involving military expropriation of allegedly private land would continue to be justicable, but that it would not review military decisions to expropriate state lands. The government responded by prohibiting construction of settlements on private Palestinian land. The Sasson report underscored the fact that outposts were subsequently built on state land without any coordination or military planning. In fact, the settlers at Maoz Esther started rebuilding their outpost yesterday after the Defense Minister and military commander ordered it to be dismantled. That is a violation of the Hague Convention rules. The court has already addressed the issue of unclean hands in the HCJ 851/06 Amona Farmer’s Co-operative for communal settlements Ltd. v. Minister of Defense case. They have also addressed the issue of the applicability and authority of international law:

14. The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). see HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel

harlan (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You're pushing so hard to claim the territories are occupied, and that settlements are illegal, that you don't bother reading and understanding what I'm saying. Israel dismantled Maoz Esther based on its lack of proper building permits. Not due to the Hague; not due to the legality/illegality of building settlements in total. This is why Israel differentiates between the different types of settlements (legal/authorized vs. illegal/unauthorized), though in your book there's no difference between the two kinds - all of them are built on either "state lands", or private Palestinian lands in the West Bank, and none of them serve any military need. While many believe Israel should dismantle all settlements, this current dismantling had nothing to do with international law, but with Israel's own building laws. It is no different than demolishing houses building without permits inside Israel. okedem (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In two cases decided shortly after independence (the Shimshon and Stampfer cases) the Israeli Supreme Court held that the fundamental rules of international law accepted as binding by all "civilized" nations were incorporated in the domestic legal system of Israel. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal determined that the articles annexed to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 were customary law that had been recognized by all civilized nations. see the "Place of customary international law" on pages 5-6 of International Law in Domestic Courts: Israel, by Dr. David Kretzmer and Chapter 2 "Application of International Law", in The Occupation of Justice, by David Kretzmer.

The Court determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that only the military commander of an area may requisition land according to article 52 of the Hague regulations. Military necessity had been an after-thought in the planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal. see page 349 of Israel Yearbook on Human Rights Volume 9, 1979, By Yoram Dinstein.

In subsequent cases, the Court has ruled that Article 43 of the Hague IV Convention is a mandatory planning consideration for approval of building projects on state lands in Judea and Samaria. see for example, the Ja'amait Ascan case on pages 68-69 of Kretzmer's The Occupation of Justice.

The Summary of the Sasson Report, available from the Prime Minister of Israel's Communications Office, explains that local law requires the fulfillment of a number of basic conditions before establishing a settlement in the Judea, and Samaria. It lists four pre-conditions that must be fulfilled in each case. The second pre-condition regarding title to the land cites the precedent established in the Elon Moreh case. The third pre-condition is that a settlement can only be established according to a lawfully designed building scheme, which has the power to produce a building permit. The fourth pre-condition is that the bounds of jurisdiction of the settlement must be determined in advance by order of the Commander of the area. The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the fulfillment of the applicable Hague IV Convention criteria is a mandatory and integral part of satisfying those three pre-conditions of the local law. Sasson summed-up the situation by expaining:

An unauthorized outpost is a settlement which does not fulfill at least one of the above mentioned conditions. And I must emphasize: an unauthorized outpost is not a “semi legal” outpost. Unauthorized is illegal.

You are saying that Israel dismantled Maoz Esther because of the lack of building permits. I believe that violates the local law, which happens to include article 43 and 52 of the Hague IV Convention. harlan (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel dismantled Maoz Esther because it was built without permits, it has absolutely nothing to do with international Conventions but only with Israeli law. Is it so hard for you to understand a basic fact ? Benjil (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The links in the posts above explain that the name of one of those local "Israeli laws" that gets violated when settlers build without any title, planning, or permits is the Hague IV Convention. see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Today, Ha'aretz reported that 'Netanyahu's government, like the two that preceded it, claims that the outposts, mostly those on private land, violate the rule of law and require an appropriate response by the authorities.' The report also said that Maoz Esther had been built on private Palestinian land. see Enough with the outpost disgrace.harlan (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And this still has nothing to do with International Conventions or "occupied territories". Building on private land without authorization is illegal in Israel ; building anywhere without authorization is illegal. That's all.Benjil (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel grants the protections of Israeli domestic law to Jewish residents of the settlements in the occupied territories, and subjects them to the jurisdiction of Israeli civil courts. That doesn't mean that Judea and Samaria have been annexed by Israel, or that these settlers are building Maoz Esther on private Palestinian land in Israel.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that the settlers must behave in a manner conformable to the Hague IV Convention regulations, because those regulations are an integral part of domestic Israeli law. The courts have also ruled that the territories of Judea and Samaria, have not been "annexed" to Israel, and that the legal regime which applies in those areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. If the outposts that were declared to be illegal by the Sasson report aren't removed by the responsible Israeli officials, that would invite the application of appropriate sanctions and the principle of universal jurisdiction by other States. That isn't the case when olim build things without permits in Israel. harlan (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:UN Security Council Res. 242 and 338 and Disputed Territories

UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 support the claim of Disputed Territories. The government of Israel declares that they are disputed and not occupied. Since the UN resolutions do not declare Israel is occupying these territories plus the fact that Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to Israel since there was no sovereign power ruling over the land before it was mandated, there is a strong argument that they are not occupied. The only neutral term between Occupied and Not Occupied is Disputed. Avinyc (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

At what point do we have to STOP assuming good faith in these matters? Avinyc's single minded steamrolling over EVERY SINGLE OPPOSING VIEWPOINT to his own poposed change, and his insistence on NOT providing any new counter arguments, but meanwhile repeatedly threatening to revert the wording DESPITE not having anywhere NEAR a concensus sort of speaks to the opposite: a clear agenda, from which he refuses to be swayed. There is overwhelming weight to leaving the wording at "occupied" both nationally, internationally, legally, and Wikipedia side..where is the confusion?

LoiPolloi (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The official position of the Israeli government is that the international humanitarian law contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the areas of Judea and Samaria. The Supreme Court has never overruled that determination. see for example the discussion of that very subject on page 9 of the Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel.

Lord Caradon was the principal author of Resolution 242. He introduced it in the Security Council, and helped negotiate its adoption. He debunked the popular myth that the West Bank and Gaza weren't occupied, and that Israel wasn't required to withdraw from those territories.

It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted . . . Much play has been made of the fact that we did not say "the" territories or "all the" territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in "the" or "all the" that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

What were the 1967 boundaries? They were no more than the cease-fire borders decided nearly two decades previously. They were based on the accident of where exactly the Israeli and the Arab armies happened to be on that particular night . . . Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line I was not prepared to use wording in the Resolution which would have made that line permanent. Nevertheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent "secure and recognized" boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle. --from U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, a case study in diplomatic ambiguity, Published in 1981, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University (Washington, D.C), pp. 9-13, cited in Palestine and the law, By Musa E. Mazzawi, page 210-211

I still don't see any need for mediation. UN Security Council resolution 242 definitely uses the term "occupied", not "disputed". This is a pretty obvious case of WP:Synth. harlan (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly getting tiresome. The term "Occupied Territories" is widely used and recognised in Zionist circles, never mind neutral or opposing ones. Here, for example, we have an example from this week's issue of a mainstream (i.e. Israel-supporting) Jewish weekly newspaper using this expression and quoting a senior Israeli civil servant who also uses it when speaking on the record to the press in his official work.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)