Talk:Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Iskandar323 in topic Title
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 April 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Rlink2 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
( )
To T:DYK/P6
- ... that the (il)legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine has received less attention than individual violations of international law during the occupation? Source: various, see article
- ALT1: ... that many international law experts and states doubt that extended occupations, such as the Israeli occupation of Palestine, can ever be legal? Source: Wilde p. 26: "International law experts, and most states, tend to regard as implausible the idea that prolonged occupations, such as those covering the second phase, can ever be justified according to this framework... Indeed, it is not credible to regard the occupation as a necessary and proportionate means of ensuring Israel’s security"
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/7th Division (Finland)
Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 21:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC).
- Will review Bruxton (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Well written and neutral. New enough and long enough. I wish there was a photo, however I cannot think of one at the moment. I did not find copyright violations. Regarding ALT0 - it would be better to provide the sources for the hook instead of saying "see article". I like hook ALT0 and it is supported by references in the article. It is also more appropriate to use ALT0 because it is a summary of the article. Interesting hook and interesting article. The article has correct inline citations and the QPQ is completed. Bruxton (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note on ALT0: please do not remove the (il) as it could mislead readers that the general agreement is that the occupation is legal, when the reverse is the case. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Slightly confusing title
editShouldn't this be 'Legality of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories' or 'Legality of the Israeli occupation of the State of Palestine', to avoid confusion with Palestine (region). Most of the sources still appear to use 'Palestinian Territories', which I feel isn't the best wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Certainly there is a technical argument, we also have International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine where the court describes the case as the "Situation in the State of Palestine", and Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem (same as ICJ calls it). Just as a title, Idk that it is really that confusing and it is linked out to Pt in the first sentence, I can't see that interested parties are going to misconstrue the title as referring to historical Palestine rather than the current version. In reality, Pt = oPt = (territory claimed by) SoP, the majority of newsorgs continue for historical reasons to use Pt while the UN and other sources tend to use oPt/OPT, few use Palestine as yet. If there were to be a change, then I prefer SoP. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm just being a bit slow today. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Cloudfront prevents archiving of pdf
editThe ruling is in a pdf at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf but it seems that Cloudflare prevents the pdf from being archived by the Wayback Machine. Boud (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Title
editFollowing the ICJ opinion, we have a clear statement of illegality (lots of RS reporting it), whereas before all we had was a majority of opinion that it was. So I think we ought to change this? Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the lead, in the title, or in general? I'm thinking that perhaps it should move too. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)