Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Title

Whos POV is the title (I'm guessing Palestinian). It should be in the intro.Bensaccount 21:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done -- uriber 21:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The section of the article called "Claims"

The first major part of this article, with the heading "Claims" is so awful that it's painful to read. Much of it is downright childish and frankly I think it is an embarrassing blight on Wikipedia. Who is going to complain if I delete it completely? --Zero 12:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you not think there is anything of value in it? Is there a place on Wikipedia for the competing claims of Israelis and Palestinians regarding this land to be presented? Jayjg 14:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't think that what is there does justice to either side. A complete rewrite would be best, but I still think that what is there now is worse than nothing at all. --Zero 15:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I bet you'd be really good at a complete re-write. ;-) Jayjg 16:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Problems of terminology

I know it's been discussed before, but I hardly think we can call the discussion settled.

• The term "Palestinians" is used in both a narrow and a general sense.
• The term "Palestinian territories" is also used in two senses.

The definition of Palestine changed at least twice since the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine, which by the way some people also dispute (the Brits stole it vs. we all agreed they should administer it for a while).

In English grammar, the term "Palestinian territories" would ordinarily mean:

• land belonging to Palestinians, or on which they live

Just like "Canadian territories" would mean:

• land belonging to Canadians, or on which they live

Compare also "Kurdish territory":

• land on which Kurds live

Kurds and Canadians differ, in that Kurds are in Iraq and other nearby countries; they don't have a country of their own. Canadians have their own country.

Further discussion depends on one's definitions of Palestine and "Palestinians". --Uncle Ed 16:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Cut from claims section:

(Opponents argue that today's Palestinians are of Arab descent, and there is no evidence that they are related in any way to the Philistines or to the Caananites of ancient times.)

This sentence is ambiguous. I can't replace "Palestinians" with "Palestian Arabs", because that would introduce a tautology.

Opponents argue that today's Palestinian Arabs are of Arab descent.

Well, obviously ANY Arabs would be of Arab descent.

The claim seems to be arguing that the group they call "Palestinians" are the only true Palestinians, and the Jordanians and Israelis aren't Palestinian in any sense worthy of consideration. Jews who lived in Palestine aren't "Palestinian", and Israeli Arabs aren't "Palestinian".

Which raises an interesting question. Why are Israeli Arabs not considered "Palestinian" any more?

This is beginning to look uncomfortably like the shifting ground fallacy, with advocates changing the definition of Palestine and Palestinian to their advantage.

• Palestine belongs to the Palestinians.
• No Israeli is a Palestinian
• Therefore, Palestine doesn't belong to any Israelis.

The logic is valid, but for the argument to be "sound" BOTH its premises must be true. They seem to hinge on definitions of Palestine.

If we regard "Palestine" as equivalent to the mandate territory, and "Palestinian" as anyone who lived there before the League of Nations and United Nations started carving up the territory, then the argument becomes:

• The British Mandate of Palestine belongs to the people who used to live there.
• Some Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews used to live ther.
• Therefore, Palestine belongs to some Israelis.

This is why definitions are important. They change the meaning of arguments. --Uncle Ed 16:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Modern day Arabs are descended from all sorts of peoples, and in order to ensure that their claim to the land pre-dates any Jewish claims, Palestinians today claim to be descendants of Canaanites and Philistines. That is, no doubt, why the argument was there. Jayjg 17:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which Palestinians make that claim? Non-Jordanian, non-Israeli Arabs? --Uncle Ed 18:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arabs who classify themselves as Palestinian. That would include, among others, Israeli Arabs and Jordanian non-Bedouin Arabs. You're making this harder than it needs to be, Ed; nowadays there is a specific group of Arabic speaking people who self-identify as "Palestinian". This identity has taken shape over the last 40 years or so. Jayjg 22:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Jay. I agonized over clicking the "Save page" button, because I feared giving offense. But I'm new Middle East history. You can call me an amiable dunce if you want...

So how about we create a Palestinian identity article? --Uncle Ed 13:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. More proliferation of tiny overlapping articles? Jayjg 02:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That would make me sigh, too, Jay. How about a series of tiny, stand-alone articles which do NOT repeat each other. Instead of overlaps, we use links. Then we can see clearly how to integrate them, or just leave them separate. ----Uncle Ed (Rod Poe) 19:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ENTIRE REGION was called "Palestine" back in 'biblical times' (hence, one can refer to King Herod of Palestine) - and those who practiced the Law of Abraham (they weren't called "jewish" back then) LIVED within Palestine (whether Arab or not). Based on that, I believe a Palestinian to be anyone who wishes to identify with having a cultural history thereof - whether a 'modern day' definition is developed or not (with mostly Arab Palestinians identifying with it, whether muslim, christian, druze, or jewish). --User:Rarelibra

NPOV

The introduction blatantly expresses a Pro-Israeli POV. _R_ 20:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "Palestinian territories" -- as the term is used by mainstream Western journalists -- are areass sought by certain nationalists (see "Definitions of Palestinian") on which to found a new nation-state: primarily, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Because nearly all of these nationalists, as well as the bulk of their sympathizers, and the UN, consider these territiories to be under occupation by Israel, they frequently refer to them as the occupied Palestinian territories.

The term Palestinian territories, used in a more general sense, simply refers areas within the geographic region known from ancient times as "Palestine" (see definitions of Palestine).

What do you suggest, R? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"as the term is used by mainstream Western journalists"? ITYMTS, as the term is used by everyone except staunch Zionists. NPOV does not necessarily mean "cover every viewpoint" (at least not in every part of the article!). "certain nationalists"? This makes it sound as though a Palestinian nation does not have widespread support among the Palestinian people (defining "Palestinian people" to mean anything other than what is commonly understood by that phrase sdoes not actually make the article neutral but simply makes its biases explicit). The piece about "Palestinian territories" more generally referring to the area known from olden times as Palestine is only possible because you have (rather bizarrely) renamed the page from "Occupied Palestinian territories", which is what the world calls them. (The UN represents a consensus. You might not like it but it is, in many ways, the voice of the world. If it agrees to call the territories occupied, and you are in dispute with them, you are POV not it. I fear the anti-UN propaganda of the Bush administration has led people to forget that the UN is not a body separate from the world, but one that the world is party to.) It's an emotive issue, I know, and one on which practically everyone has a standpoint that is not particularly neutral. And I'm not suggesting that the consensus view is right necessarily. But as it stands this article is laughable. How would you feel about an article about Israel that began by suggesting that Israeli nationalists and the UN consider it a nation but in fact it was stolen from the Arabs? (You might agree with those who suggest that an article could include that viewpoint, but I'm sure that you would not feel it was an appropriate way to introduce the article, specifically because it is not consensual.)Dr Zen 10:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In light of the vigorous consensus-building and dispute resolution attempts in Talk sections of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am removing the NPOV tags. If someone has a any further problems not already covered in Talk, they should start a new section and bring forth their concerns. These perpetual NPOV tags are unreasonable.--A. S. A. 12:26, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Chunk of text

Often people refer to non-sovereign lands which are within the traditional boundaries of "Palestine", but outside of the generally recognized borders of Jordan and Israel, as being "Palestinian territories". As mentioned above, since the late 1990s, this has included most of the Gaza Strip and large sections of the West Bank.

• This usage tends to convey a complex of ideas, chiefly the view that (1) there exists a Palestinian people who (2) deserve their own homeland which (3) ought to include Gaza and West Bank.

• Adherents of this point of view or users of this definition commonly use the term "occupied Palestinian territories" (see article).

Hey, this is rather good. This should be in the introduction instead of the ridiculously POV thing that is there now! This is the common view of what the territories are and should lead the article. Yes, the article must include minority views, but the minority views should not be highlighted in a way that makes it seem that Wikipedia endorses them. Dr Zen 00:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you think what I wrote is both accurate and unbiased, please add it to the introduction. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great article

I'm new to Wikipedia and so I'm looking around at various articles trying to get my bearings. I just want to say here that this article is one of the best, if not the best, I've read so far. The writing is great; it's clear, informative, and it's fair (to my eyes, anyway), which is a Herculean task given the subject matter. Congrats to the person or people who did the bulk of the work. This is a worthy standard for any Wiki editor to aim for. Slim 08:51, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Position of "Claims"

Went askew after I added the flag. Tried twice to fix it. Anybody? deeceevoice 20:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You have included a flag of the State of Palestine; if you include this, you'd have to include the flag of Israel as well. The article already goes over competing claims to the territories; let's not over-politicize and already politicized set of articles by taking the position of one side. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That seems a little silly. After all, I've made no move to include the Palestinian flag in the article on Israel. I'm restoring it, because it is entirely appropriate -- just as inclusion of the Morningstar flag is appropriate in an article on West Papua. deeceevoice 21:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If you do please put in the flag of Israel as well, or I'll have to take it out again. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, only if you'll accept inclusion a flag of the Palestinian state in the article on Israel. The flag is included in the section of this article specifically treating the "non-sovereign lands" and "Palestinian territories." In this context, it is absolutely appropriate to include the flag claimed by those living in those lands. This flag is as appropriate here and in this context as it is in the Flags of non-sovereign nations. It is as appropriate here as the flag of the African National Congress would have been in the section of an article referring to insurgents/freedom fighters in South Africa. Like it or not, that's just the plain truth. deeceevoice 21:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Your equation of the Palestinians with black South Africans during the apartheid regime (or Israelis with white South Africans) displays a bias which is apparent from your inclusion of the flag as well. Israelis live in these territories as well as Palestinians; hundreds of thousands of them, and they claim these lands too. You see how political things get when one starts to support the claims of one side over another? You pre-suppose that these lands all belong to the Palestinians, which is hardly NPOV; why not leave things NPOV instead? Or better yet, why not get consensus for this controversial change before trying to force it on the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No. It is not about a "bias." It is about making a logical association between a territory and the people of that territory. It does not exist in a political or ethno-religious vacuum. You're reacting emotionally. This is about what makes sense in the context of an article -- forget the specific subject matter. What? No claims of bias with regard to the Morningstar flag in the article on West Papua? Sorry, but it seems the bias is yours. If you have a problem with the presence of the flag, then you may want to put it up for RfC. Peace. deeceevoice 21:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not the flag of the territory, and when it was created it also referred to the territory of Israel, which was claimed by the State of Palestine. For many it still does. The flag you keep trying to include is the flag of a political entity, not a territory, and Israelis too are a "people of that territory". No flag at all is what makes sense in the context of the article, but if you want to put it in, you can certainly put it up for RfC. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

This article speaks specifically to the Palestinian territories as "non-sovereign" lands. If you challenge the appropriateness of the inclusion of the Palestinian flag here, then you challenge the whole notion of the article on Flags on non sovereign lands. What? Are those flags to be completely dissociated from the articles on the very lands to which they refer? Nonsense! And, no. I presuppose nothing of the sort. I simply inserted the Palestinian flag. Furthermore, this flag is the official flag of the Palestinian Authority under whose (semi) autonomy the territories are governed. So, what's your beef? deeceevoice 21:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no article on Flags on non sovereign lands; the red-link should tell you as much, so your argument makes no sense. Oh, and can you think of any other entity under whose autonomy the territories are governed? I can think of one. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so it's a typo/misspeak. Flags of non-sovereign nations. Got it? The Palestinian flag stays. If it sticks in your craw, hey, deal with it. deeceevoice 21:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Right; and Flags of non-sovereign nations implies no exact territorial boundaries. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy. Happy, happy. :D deeceevoice 21:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh good. Glad we were able to get to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, the Palestinian flag isn't going to be bigger, regardless of how many times you make it that way. Decide on a size, 200px, 225px, 250px, whatever, and then apply it to both. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Grow up! You can't get everything you want. You got the Israeli flag included. You insisted on having it on top, which is appropriate; because Israel ultimately controls the territories. But the flag sizes stay as they are. Because of the lengthwise orientation of the Palestinian flag, as opposed to the boxy shape of the image of the Israeli flag, when the images are sized identically, the Israeli flag appears noticeably larger, even though the space both images occupy (including captions) is identical. Only by slightly upsizing the Palestinian flag does it appear almost the same size. It's slightly longer, but it's actually shorter than the Israeli flag. It seems like a pretty fair tradeoff to me. deeceevoice 22:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not what I want; NPOV insists they be the same size, and Wikipedia demands NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

And that's what you've got. The flags are as close to the same size as they're gonna get. The image size includes the text. When there is more text for the caption, the image shrinks. Do a double screen and compare images at the different sizes. This is the best fit. I've already tried -- long before you raised the issue, and this is the best fit I could get. deeceevoice 22:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

There's no flag of Palestine

None. Never has been. Israel owns the land and always will. Get over it.--Elitcher 01:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the Palestinian Authority does have an official flag -- and so does Palestine. deeceevoice 01:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You just cannot say that Israel owns the land because you have some sympathy to Israel. There are Palestinain People living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they have an authority on these lands, with an authority, that most of the world recognizes including the USA, so there is a Palestinain Flag. So, don't tell me that Israel owns the West Bank & Gaza Strip, because Israel is only recognized excluding the West Bank & Gaza.

Elitcher, why did you have to post such biased junk? all this did was create a useless section. pure inuyasha

3 Revert Rule

Deeceevoice, you have violated the 3 Revert Rule many times over today; I have refrained from reporting you until now, but if you don't stop bullying your POV into the article, I will be forced to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL! And you haven't?!!! Through it all, though, I thought we'd reached a compromise. The article discusses the divided authority of the Palestinian territories, of the Palestinian Authority (which is referred to in the article) and of Israel, which is also referred to in the article. There are pics of flags (which I think add visual interest) of both entities of virtually identical size. I think the article looks great. What's the complaint? What is POV about my changes?deeceevoice 02:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll start with one issue; the flag is the flag of the State of Palestine, not a "Palestinian state". Rather than your intepretation, the article should simply list facts. I'll make that change now and see how long it takes you to revert. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Next, we'll talk about your insistence that the flag of the State of Palestine be larger than the Flag of the State of Israel, but I'll wait for you to revert me first. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"State of Palestine." That's fine with me. I couldn't care less. If that's all you were objecting to we haven't got a problem. Have you actually compared the images of the flags themselves? Don't count pixels. If you can come up with a set of numbers that can make the images of the flags (not the squares including text) closer in size, have at it, but see my comments above. deeceevoice 03:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

What I note is that you now have the State of Palestine flag at 250px, 25% larger than the State of Israel flag at 200px. That means 25% wider, which is quite obvious when you line them up one under the other, one clear reason why you don't like that format. The other stuff is meaningless; I could equally complain that the text under the State of Palestine flag is longer, making that box bigger. I will try one more time to NPOV the images by making them the same size, and then see how fast you revert that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

There you go -- counting pixels. Again, the total number of pixels for the image includes the text. What people notice first is color -- the flags, and that's the issue here. The flags themselves are virtually identical in size. (Did you do a double screen and position the images side by side? You will see quite clearly that the Israeli flag is clearly slightly taller than the Palestinian Authority flag. The PA flag is slightly longer than the Israeli flag. It'd be great if the artwork for all the flags had exactly the same proportions -- but they don't. So, we have to do the best we can. As I said, if you can come up with some numbers that render the flags more equal in size, that's great. And, no. The reason I don't like all the images lined up underneath one another is that it's visually boring -- something you were in agreement with a while back. Anyone who knows anything about page layout will tell you that. We both tried staggering Israel to the left, but that didn't work, because it screwed up the bulleting. This is what we ended up with. deeceevoice 03:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And, no. That change is not acceptable. The Israeli flag is quite a bit larger than that of the Palestinian Authority. You've made no effort at all to compensate for the addtional text of the caption under the PA flag. I take that back; I'm being unfair. I notice you tried what I did (before you raised this issue, incidentally) -- increasing the images by increments of 25 to see what would happen. It doesn't work. It's better with the Israeli flag being taller and the PA flag shorter, at 200/250. The disparity is greater between the two images now. deeceevoice 03:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It's nowhere near the disparity with your version. So what now, are you going to revert yet again? I strongly advise against it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You are kidding -- right? HAVE you tried what I suggested? Pull up the two versions of the page and compare them side by side. And, yes, I will revert if I must. You charging me with violating the three reverts rule is the pot calling the kettle black. Two can play that game, but I'd rather not. deeceevoice 03:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayig, are you still there? deeceevoice 03:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC) It seems a third party has decided to revert the image. I had hoped we could come to an agreement w/regard to this, but it seems you're not acting in good faith. Unless one has a problem with spatial perception, it is quite clear that when the images fields are sized identically, the Palestian Authority flag is noticeably and substantially smaller than the Israeli flag. Not good. The only solution is to play with the numbers until some semblance of equality of size is reached. I've done that to the best of my ability -- but all you can do is look at the numbers. The numbers is not what people see; they see the image. deeceevoice 03:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, still here. I pulled them up one underneath the other, and the Palestinian one was much larger; try it that way. But that's o.k., I have a banned user sockpuppet friend who follows me around and likes to revert me, and he's taken care of doing so now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So far as I know, I haven't yet been banned and I'm not a sockpuppet, just not logged in.

Right. And if you did log in, which userid would you use? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe one way to resolve the disparate flag size issue is to use a different version of the Palestinian flag that is not so long, like the one I see here which seems more in similar proportion to the Israel flag. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the flags don't belong here in the first place, it won't help with the fundamental problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, MPerel. Good idea. At least we'll start with an image that will give us a better chance at parity. However, there is still the problem of the different lengths of the captions, which will affect ultimate image size. (As the length of the caption increases, the image shrings.) But the PA flag's caption can be edited down. (I tried that, too, but with the difference in basic shapes of the two flags, it didn't help.) I'm a techno-idiot. Can you import that image to the watchamacallit (the Wiki Commons media bank) for us? :) deeceevoice 03:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, fine. NOW the images don't belong? You're being completely unreasonable, Jayig. As long as there's a chance you can have the Israeli flag on top AND bigger, you're in. But as soon as someone comes up with a suggestion that holds the promise of a flag of equal size, you want neither? Clearly, there is a place for both images in this article. I think MPerel's suggestion has considerable merit. MPerel, I say go for it.deeceevoice 03:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I never liked the flags at all, which is why I kept deleting them at first, and saying they didn't belong, till I ran out of reverts. If the Israeli flag were twice as large as the Palestinian, and right at the top, I'd still delete it given the chance. If the article only had an Israeli flag, I'd still delete it. Flags don't belong in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And I see a sensible editor has come along and finally set things right. Let's hope the article stays that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. I thought -- and still do think -- both flags belong here. They underscore the divided nature of the territories and add visual interest. And, no. One editor does not have final say. Indeed, the editor hasn't even participated in the discussion -- which makes his/her action doubly inappropriate. deeceevoice 04:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Do the flags belong here?

If you find it absolutely necessary to include flags here, may I suggest Image:Israel and Palestine Peace.png. It works for peace and there is no size disparity. But I think that flags should be reserved for nation-states, such as State of Palestine & State of Israel. Here they only add unnecessary tensions. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Humus_sapiens, if you had bothered to participate in the discussion before doing your edit— which would have been the appropriate and courteous thing to do— you would have discovered that that is where we were heading: flags of similar orientation/format, so there is no disparity in size. Thank you very much. :p I'm hoping that someone is importing a suitable image, or a pair of comparable ones. deeceevoice 04:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

HS, I just checked the link, and it's a very cool graphic -- no doubt. But because it's the logo of a peace group, its use here would be misleading in that this article is not about rapprochement between the two parties -- doncha think? deeceevoice 04:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Anybody still here? Where are we? deeceevoice 04:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, I did load another version of the flag Image:Palestinianflagproposed.gif, but Humus sapien's (and Jayjg's above also) comment does makes me wonder whether the flags should even be here. Maybe it just unnecessarily fans the flames. I'll maybe have more of an opinion about it tomorrow after some sleep : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I was taught to treat flags very seriously. The territories are not political entities, therefore political/national flags don't belong here, don't add to the quality of the article and are/will be a contention point. I did'n read the entire discussion yet, but a very quick glance already proved it for me. Sorry for barging in like that. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

My comments in this regard are chiefly under the subhead dealing with "Claims" above. I do happen to think the flags add positively to the article, as I've already stated. There is nothing more natural than associating a flag with the peoples/regions it represents. A flag does not, after all, exist in a vacuum. As representations of the authorities in control of the territories under discussion, the Israeli flag and the flag of the Palestinian Authority are no less appropriate here than the Stars and Stripes is in an article about the U.S.A. -- particularly when the article specifically addresses the Palestinian Authority and the issues surrounding the debate over the rightful/lawful possession of and sovereignty over the land. As I've stated, IMO, they give the article visual punch and serve to underscore the divisions regarding the land. Certainly, if both flags are equally represented, there should not be a problem.

However, there seems to be an almost rabid fixation on the part of some Wikipedians to squelch anything that might remotely lend dignity to the claims of Palestinians to their native lands -- even when also presenting the Israeli point of view. (Many of us recall the firestorm over shameful bias of the New anti-Semitism a while back. It may yet be ongoing; I have no idea.) IMO, this kind of mentality should not be pandered or surrendered to. I'm thoroughly disappointed in what I see as Jayig's unreasonableness in this regard. Frankly, I think the article looks damned good -- compelling, even -- with both flags. Now, the content could use some tweaking.... deeceevoice 04:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Putting flags into an article doesn't "lend dignity to the claims of Palestinians to their native lands", and in any event, that's hardly the purpose of an encyclopedia article. As I keep trying to remind people, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place where one re-fight conflicts by proxy. As for the various personal attacks with which you liberally lace your comments both to and about me, please desist, it is getting tiresome already. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't try to twist my words. I've made it clear the grounds upon which I think the flags should remain. My intent was to characterize the position taken by people such as yourself who seem hell-bent on disallowing at every turn possible anything regarding the possibility of Palestinian autonomy. And there is nothing I've written to or about you that could be construed by any reasonable individual as a personal "attack."deeceevoice 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Telling me I am "reacting emotionally" is a personal attack. So is implying I have "an almost rabid fixation on the part of some Wikipedians to squelch anything that might remotely lend dignity to the claims of Palestinians to their native lands", that I have "shameful bias", that my "kind of mentality should not be pandered or surrendered to", that people "such as myself...seem hell-bent on disallowing at every turn possible anything regarding the possibility of Palestinian autonomy." Every single one of those things is a personal attack that has nothing to do with article content, and everything to do with ad hominum arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Good morning, Jayjg. Nope. Saying you're reacting emotionally is simply my honest assessment of the nature of your input into the discussion. Further, the business about being "rabid" and the allusion to the "shameful bias" of the New anti-Semitism article is, IMO, an accurate characterization of what went on among the participants in that particular article during the time I was involved. It was appalling. There are certainly several others who would concur -- which is why someone quite independent of me referred it to the RfC page and others intervened. More evidence, IMO, of this kind of arrogant, stubborn mind-set is User:Elitcher whose only contribution to this article during this discussion was to delete only the Palestinian flag with the edit comment "No Palestine, never," and, in the discussion under the header he/she created "There's no flag of Palestine": " None. Never has been. Israel owns the land and always will. Get over it." Clearly, this person is confusing an apparent compulsion to express his/her Zionism, tossing in a healthy pinch of tea leaf gazing (with somewhat dubious results, I might add), with composing an effective article.

I, on the other hand, have repeatedly demonstrated an openness to compromise and to useful edits. Further, it seems I have the apparently rare ability to accurately discern the difference between flag size and image field size, between the number of pixels in an image field and the actual size of an object within that field. (Who knew?)

Gee, Jayjg. Does your complaint mean that when you charged me with "bias," it was a "personal attack"? Sure sounds like it. :p deeceevoice 10:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Elitcher is not a Zionist, it is a parody of a Zionist, just another of the sockpuppets our banned user friend is using to stalk me; you can ignore its contributions. As for your beliefs about me, please don't air them in the future, since that's not what Talk: pages are for. Instead, let's just talk about article content, and I'm sure we'll get along much better. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

But enough of that. Let's get on with this flag business. I like the suggestion that we search for two flags of approximately identical shapes -- rectangular or square -- and put them both in the article. Yep, Palestinians and Israelis have a very difficult time living side by side one another. But, it seems to me, the two flags of the Palestinian Authority and Israel certainly should be able to coexist on a single page on Wikipedia without some kind of freakin' holy war breaking out. We are, after all, adults. deeceevoice 10:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

As I've said above, this article is about the territories, not about the State of Israel or the State of Palestine; the flags belong in an article about them, not here. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Like I said before, this is an article about the territories and whoever will control it will be left to a political or military solution in the future. Leave both flags out of it and keep to purely academic discussion. If that isnt possible. then dont waste our time policing this article and stop posting. "Palestine" doesnt exist and Israel's control over the territories is not yet final. So leave it alone. Guy Montag 10:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Your telling me what to do doesn't resolve this. What? You've suddenly got the power to squelch debate by fiat? To tell people to stop posting? Who died and made you king? And I suppose Jayjg hasn't done precisely the same thing in spades, accomplishing her first reverts of my edits without a word of explanation in discussion? Or, does the 3RR apply to only lowly peons and not to administrators, as well?

I noticed (but haven't read) the changes you've made to the article and your accompanying edit notation about the 3RR. My changes to the article were relatively modest and mostly cleaned up the language. Further, it was the first time I actually approached the wording of the article itself. Again, I haven't read any of your changes, but I did notice that you've de-alphabetized the list of "see also" articles. What's the rationale behind that? You just felt a burning desire to put Israel and Zionism (a topic which I added, by the way) at the top of the heap? *chuckling and shaking my head* deeceevoice 10:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Further, you say Palestine doesn't exist. I won't argue that point. The flag is that of the Palestinian Authority, which does -- as does, of course, Israel. They are the two political entities that exercise control over the Palestinian territories, which is the subject of this article. And as such, both flags are appropriate. Both flags should be represented. deeceevoice 12:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority is not a state, it is an organization which exists solely on the conditition that it carries out its function under a treaty. It does not have sovereignty, or any rights of a state. It was theoretically supposed to be an autonomous self policing organization that kept order in the territories while allowing some measure of self rule for Palestinian Arabs. The fact that everything went to hell doesnt upgrade its status to that of a state. It is still very much a temporary organization beholden to the will of Israel, at least on paper. Neither flags are appropriate for this article. It serves absolutely no purpose other than to inflame tensions. Activists on both sides will start an edit war over this, and I dont have the time to police every bozo who thinks this is the place to fight the Arab Israeli conflict. Your edits so far were ok. Keep the flags out of this and we can get back to normal editing.

Guy Montag 21:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

In response to the question in the section title - my answer is "No". The "Palestinian territories" are not a political entity, and they don't have a flag. Putting the Palestinian flag and/or the flag of Israel on any article having to do with Palestinians and/or Israel is ridiculous. -- uriber 08:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are there so many zionist jews editing this page? The flag stayes it says PALESTINIAN territories, and that is the closest thing Palestinians have to a flag. Go tend to the zionism articles, because of these zealous zionists, every topic about the middle east in wikipedia is becoming biased garbage.

A general update?

The wording of this article -- which I see as substantially fair and balanced, refers to 2002 as a status point. Since it is now 2005, perhaps we might consider an update. What about the controversy of the Wall? I've got deadlines today. Someone might wanna have at it, since it's a matter that has attracted worldwide attention and a hell of a lot of controversy -- and condemnation. deeceevoice 10:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The controversy about the security fence is well covered in the articles about the fence and the West Bank; there's no need to continually duplicate information from one article to the next, then you just get divergence. As for a 2005 update, that's a good idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean treat the issue in depth. But since it's certainly an important issue that's come to the fore recently involving portions of the territories, it most certainly should be mentioned, with a link to articles where it is more fully treated. deeceevoice 17:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Basic information

There's a lot here about legal status, but not much information about demographics, economy etc. I know we also have articles West Bank and Gaza Strip, but some basic information about "facts on the ground" for the territories as a unit would be helpful. —Ashley Y 02:40, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Latest edits

Claims must be sourced and NPOV, the points "not in contention" were not accurate, and Ishmael is seen as the ancestor of the Arabs, not the Muslims; Islam is a faith. Please don't revert inaccuracies just for the sake of reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Scarequotes

I've removed from scarequotes from terms that are already in consideration clauses (e.g. "argues that" etc.). For instance, consider these two sentences:

Ashley argues that strawberries are "better" that bananas.

Ashley argues that strawberries are better that bananas.

I hope you'll agree that the latter is more neutral than the former. —Ashley Y 06:35, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I see after Guy Montag restored his scare-quotes on Palestinian claims, without any discussion here, Protest has added the same to Israeli claims on the same basis, to wit "they qualify that a pov word is the opinion of another". This is an improvement for balance I suppose, but they are all unnecessary in my view. —Ashley Y 08:55, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

It looks silly with all those scarequotes, and I suspect they are generally used to discredit different claims some way or another. A real encyclopedia would never have scarequotes on every word or phrasing someone disagrees with. I would like to seem them all removed (with some exceptions were it would be natural), but if that's not possible, it should be used equally on claims made by both sides. --Cybbe 10:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

It indeed looks silly with all those quotes, this was my little protest. According to The American Heritage Dictionary, quotes are used for a passage attributed to another and repeated word for word, or to indicate the unusual or dubious status of a word. The former is not applicable to most of the cases in this article, and the latter indicates POV. Many quotation marks have been added recently in this article and many other Israel-related articles, and I think they should all be removed.--Protest 14:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Particularly sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Not my sockpuppet, though it may look that way from the histories. —Ashley Y 21:49, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I never imagined it was you, though I did have someone else in mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I certainly hope you're not implying this to be my sockpuppet. --Cybbe 22:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

No Cybbe, not you either. I know many Wikipedians, only some of whom might act this way. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I will refrain from such behaviour in the future, although I did make the article more balanced (quote-wise), and you must admit this was more effective than the usual edit wars.--Protest 22:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Bedouin and Christian

What is the meaning of this sentence? There are Palestinian Arab Bedouins as well and Palestinian Arab Christians.Yuber^(talk) 16:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Bedouins in Israel do not all consider themselves to be Palestinians, nor do all Christians. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Nor do all jews believe themselves Jewish.

Non-relevant arguments

Re the section "The Palestinians also say that increasing amounts of Palestinian land have been annexed by Israel since Israel was created. Also, they say that the populations of the territories under Israeli control have been harassed, killed and denied their basic rights. Israel counters this argument by denying it entirely."

This article lists claims about rights to the territory, not general beefs each group has with each other. The argument given is not an argument about why the Palestinians have a right to the territory, but rather a general and unsourced complaint about Israel. Also, the argument made for Israel is a strawman argument and essentially meaningless. If you don't restrict the scope of the article to its actual topic, next you be getting long back and forth arguments about suicide bombers, etc. Please keep the article on topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The "increasing amounts of land annexed" phrase is very relevant to the territorial dispute.Yuber^(talk) 19:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

But the section isn't about the dispute, it is about the differing claims to the land. Claiming that Israelis are annexing it has nothing to do with whether or not Palestinians have a prima facie claim to it. Again, please keep in mind both the scope of the section, and of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Pointless Article, delete

I began trying to clean up some of the bias from this article and realized that this is just an Israel/Palestine argument that belongs in a Talk page. Talk about the territory, its geography, government, industries, etc... Arguments over claims to the land belong in Israeli-Palestinian conflict --Cypherx 01:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point; we don't need to have every article on the region descend into back and forth polemics. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Cybbe seems to disagree; I wish he would come here to talk about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Im not against the idea per se, but then we'll have to completely start this article over, not only removing portions of it. The only thing this article currently deals with is different aspects of claims to the Palestinian territories. I have no problem with that being covered in a seperate article, as long as all relevant information is kept, and as long as this article links to it in some way, ie "The Palestinian territories are considered disputed by Israel and occupied by the PNA, see ****** for more information on issues..." etc.

But, if this article should deal with only geography, demographics, businesses, schools, universities etc., we'll have to start it over, keeping all disputed issues away with only short, neutral references to articles dealing with those issues. Many of the articles in this part of Wikipedia are a mess and information is often duplicated and lengthy discussion on different views dominate; this article needs a fresh start if the goal is to change it's focus, as it can't be done by tweaking this one which strictly deals with contested topics. I actually like the idea to keep the political aspects of these territories away from this article, but it is probably best achieved by writing an article with that purpose in mind "from scratch"

Also, my revertion was very much related to factual inaccuracy; it is quite possible to regard the territories as occupied and still view the israeli control as "legitimate", (other examples, allied occupation after WWII). "groups who dispute the legitimacy of Israeli control" is not a good description of the EU, the UNSC, the ICJ, most UN member states etc, many of them view the Israeli _control_ as legitimate speaking from a strictly legal POV. --Cybbe 00:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Cypherx's deletions

Cybbe, while cypherx's removals were perhaps overbold, he has a point. More than being POV, there is much here which seems to me to be original research and non sequitur. That "occupied Palestinian territories" "connotes much more than a definition, but a host of related propositions that amount to a preventive political argument about the disposition and status of the land" is highly disputable. I don't want to really open this can of worms, but the longterm usage of the term by the US, the State Department in particular shows how dubious this is. Is it really the case that the State Department holds these views or would phrase its position as this section implies it must? Or is it just saying no more than (a) these are territories (hope no one disputes that) (b) they are in a region which has been known as Palestine ("Palestinian" is ambiguous, could mean this, could mean belongs to people now known as Palestinians) (c) the only part with any content at all - that they are occupied, a word which Israel itself has at times accepted (SC 242)?--John Z 00:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd disagree with Cypherx about deleting the whole article though.--John Z 00:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israeli biase

Why is the majority of the article written from the point of view of zionist Israelis? It reads as if the rest of the world is a bunch of idiots to use this term!

Muslim and Christian claims

Regarding the statement:

...many Israeli (and other) Jews, many Christians, and even some Muslims[1] hold that the land was promised to them by God. The Jewish and Christian claim is based largely on God's promise to Abraham in Genesis chapter 15, and its reiteration to Abraham's sons Isaac and Jacob and descendent Moses in later chapters of the Hebrew Bible; the Muslim claim is based in various verses in the Qur'an. Westerners sympathetic to the Palestinians often dismiss these claims as religious and therefore without force in a modern international dispute.Palestinian (and other) Muslims counter it in a variety of ways, such as by claiming that, according to their religious beliefs, God sent Islam to replace older religions as the final Word thus negating previous covenants, or claiming that since Ishmael was firstborn, he should inherit the promise together with Isaac. Palestinian Christians generally do not recognize the validity of Jewish and Christian theological arguments supporting Jewish claims to the land...

This needs to be clarified. Generally, practicing Palestinian Muslims and Christians (i.e. those who actually care enough about religion to think about these things) do not dispute what is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible regarding the promised land. The Hebrew Bible is revered in both Islam and Christianity. However, as alluded to in the article, they believe that the promises no longer hold true. This does not mean that Jews have no claim to the land (although many nationalists on both Israeli and Palestinian sides use that argument nowadays for their own agendas), but rather that the exclusivity of Judaism's claim to the land is no longer valid. In Islam, the Quran teaches that the Islamic holy book was sent to humankind to establish Islam due to the failure of the "people of the book", i.e. Jews and Christians, to uphold their covenants with G_d. Therefore Islam is now the Word of G_d and while the Quran teaches respect for the previous bibles, it regards their believers as having broken their covenants. Palestinian Christians generally do not, as the article states, reject Jewish claims to the land, but also rather reject 'exclusive' Jewish claims. This comes from their interpretation of the teachings of Jesus that the Temple, which "shall be destroyed and rebuilt in three days", is the body of Christ (i.e. salvation) and not a physical structure. Like Muslims, they believe that the coming of Jesus concluded the prophecies of the old testament but furthermore, that G_d does not promise physical structures such as land or riches or whatever to His believers on earth. Furthermore, in line with the teachings of Christianity, Palestinian Christians do not agree with the notion that their suffering and life under occupation is G_d's will, since they consider that believers in Jesus are now the "Chosen People", but not chosen to live on a particular piece of land, but chosen for salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven. In this context, Palestinian Christians regard the beliefs of the "Christian Zionists" who live mostly in the United States (and some in Australia now) as utterly misguided, while most other worldwide denominations do not attach much political context to biblical translations, if at all. So in both religions, and also in practice up until the 20th century and the waves of Zionist immigration, there was relative harmony between Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Palestine, as the latter two religions did not deny the claims of the Jews to live in the land, but just the "exclusivity" of these claims. I hope I or someone else can help clarify these aspects in the article at some point. Ramallite ^(talk) 4 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful post. On the one hand, it would be good to have a clearer explanation of this; on the other hand, this probably isn't the article for long descriptions of various Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologies. I've tried to reflect some of what you've said above in a small edit; what do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

Agreed - not a place for longer descriptions. I did need to change what was written before to make sure it is correct. Firstly, much of Genesis is a close reflection of the first Sura of the Quran that describes G_d's covenant with the people of Israel (bani Isra'il). Except that it goes on the describe in later Suras the disobeying of the Israelites of G_d's commandments, citing the golden calf built by Aaron and going on from there. Also, Christians do not believe that the promise of the land itself now applies to them, as could be construed from your edit. Ramallite ^(talk) 4 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

Hmm. Many would argue that the Qur'an reflects Genesis, given the relative ages of the works.:-) Regarding Christians, doesn't the theology of supersessionism mean that the Church is the New Israel, and all promises made to Israel now devolve to the Church? Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Well, yeah - that's true since the Quran came way after Genesis, in fact, according to hadith, the purpose of Islam is to take all former laws of G_d and tie them together into a final covenant, so to speak, which is why the Quran is regarded as the final word of G_d in Islam. What you say about supersessionism is true in and of itself, but not generally applicable to Palestinian (and most other) Christians, because Palestinians generally do not adhere to the concept of a "promised land" in Christianity. The concept of a promised land is regarded as a strictly Jewish belief and therefore, naturally belongs to adherents of Judaism but doesn't extend beyond that. In other words, and as opposed to supersessionism, Palestinian christians do not view themselves as the 'replacement' of the "chosen people" but rather the adherents to a new message from G_d that states that He does not offer material possessions but rather offers salvation through Jesus. Also as opposed to supersessionism, Palestinian Muslims and Christians do not regard the denial of Jews that Jesus is the messiah as a disrespect for their original mitzvah. Jews are regarded, though, of imposing their religious beliefs on them by occupying them, hence where the problem lies. Ramallite ^(talk) 4 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Palestinians are supported by countries backing the road map

Jayjg, I was wondering why you think that stating the fact that there are countries that also want to see a Palestinian state be established is biased? I can't see how that statement is biased in any way. I mean, I could see what you're saying if the statement was non-factual, but it isn't. The claim that I am "soapboxing" is kind of confusing and I don't see what meaning of the term "soapbox" you are intending here.Heraclius 7 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

The Palestinians are seeking to found a state. Many people worldwide support that; many in Israel do as well. Others, both worldwise and in Israel, do not. However, none of that is particularly relevant to the intro - the inclusion of a POV which supports the Palestinian view is merely an attempt to impart a POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)

I have put it farther down because you are so insistent that it not be in the intro. The lack of a mention of the road map in this article is strange and that's why it belongs here.Heraclius 7 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

This is an article which defines what the territories are, and what the term means. It's not an article which describes various efforts at solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in particular it is not an article which describes on one side of that. Regarding your comments, please make arguments, not assertions; why do you think that "the lack of a mention of the road map in this article" is "strange"? Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

The relevance of the road map, a document backed by the world's main powers describing a probable future for the territories, is absolutely obvious; even more relevant than the roadmap is the support of these powers. The current wording ("The Palestinian people seek to found an independent state in these non-sovereign areas") is less informative, and misleading insofar as it suggests that the Palestinian people are alone in this aspiration. I think Heraclius' original wording was excellent. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

However, I'm not going to change this yet - this article needs considerably more work than I can give it right this second. This should talk about the Palestinian territories in the sense that they are normally understood, and leave the meaning and connotations of "Palestinian territories" to Wiktionary. Unfortunately, like so many Palestine-related articles, it seems to be devoted largely to descriptions of POVs (Wikipedia's curse.) - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

I put it in the section called "Legal status of the territories" following a suggestion by Ramallite.Heraclius 8 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

Also, I made mention of the fact that the government of Israel accepted it with 14 revisions. I don't have a source for this but I'm pretty sure it's not disputed.Heraclius 8 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

Looking to set up an NPOV article on areas under PNA control

I know I'm wading into the very, very, very dangerous ground of the Israel-Palestinian conflict here, and I'm going to do my best to write this comment without using any of the red flag words that will cause the passionate partisans on both sides of this debate to shut down thinking and start yelling. Anyway, what I was looking for when I wandered over to this page was a description of the areas over which the Palestinian National Authority has control of various types (security, civil, etc.) both in accodance with agreeements signed with Israel and in terms of the reality on the ground. I imagine that in practice, that such an article would include:

• A description (with maps, hopefully) of the land designated as "Area A" and "Area B," and any other territory whose inhabitants were eligable to vote in PNA elections;
• Notes about what parts of the land in the last bullet point Israel has retaken some degree of control over since 2000, or over which they never relinquished any control;
• A description of what governmental services (if any) are provided by the PNA in those areas, along with what services (if any) are provided by Israel in those areas;
• A description of the de facto status (in terms of citizenship, passports, voting, taxes, etc.) of the inhabitants of those territories as it applies to their day-to-day life, not in terms of the endless wrangling over their de jure status

Much of this page in particular and pages relating to the Israel-Palestinian conflict in general seem to boil down to arguments over what people think the future should look like for the region, on who is to blame for the current situation, and what the de jure status of the land and people under dispute is. While as a thinking citizen of the world I have opinions of my own on these subjects, I think that as an practical matter an encyclopedia should have an article on the above subjects, called, for lack of a better name, Territory under the control of the Palestinian National Authority. Though I may live in a fantasy world on this point, I think the article could be relatively NPOV: no matter what your opinion of the subject, the PNA does exist; people did vote in its elections; it does control to one degree or another certain territories in the region, and does not control others. What do others think? Could this be useful? Or would it only fan the flames? --Jfruh 22:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but shouldn't this belong in the Palestinian National Authority article?--Doron 06:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "territories under the control of the PNA" would be simply incorrect as a title. Most of them aren't. Even at the peak of Oslo, only 19% if I remember correctly was under the most generous level of PNA control (i.e. Area A) and this still wasn't complete control.

The issues you bring up should, of course, be covered in this article. Palmiro 15:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Doron and also second Palmiro's sentiment that these topics should be covered in the PNA article, it would make much more sense than the current diatribe and listing of everything that's wrong with the PNA and the Palestinian people instead of some actually useful information. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Occupied Palestine

Occupied Palestine is a term used only by supporters (to some extent or another) of the Palestinian or Arab nationalist cause. Between 1948 and 1967, it was used exclusively (as far as I have seen) to refer to the territory which had become the state of Israel. Of course, many Palestinians felt that they were living under occupation in the West Bank (this feeling wasn't, I think, as common in Gaza) and legally it would indeed appear that these were occupied territories. But the term 'Occupied Palestine' wasn't used to refer to them.

Since 1967, the term 'Occupied Palestine' was used to refer to all of historic Palestine. Change in the use of this term dates to the Palestinian acceptance of the two-state solution. Since then, supporters of the moderate Palestinian position have increasingly used the term to refer solely to the West Bank and Gaza. However, it is also still used to refer to all of historic Palestine, cf [1]. For the sake of accuracy, the actual use of the term should be stated. Palmiro 17:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anyone who uses the term Occupied Palestine to refer solely to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Palestinians who favor a two-state solution typically use the term Occupied Palestinian Territories to refer to those areas. The want it recognized that, by agreeing to accept Israel in its pre-1967 borders, they are conceding 78% of historic Palestine in the interests of peace.Brian Tvedt 02:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Israel has no "pre-1967 borders" it has 1949 Armistice lines that were explicitly not borders, at the insistence of the Arab side. As for "conceding 78% of historic Palestine", "historic Palestine" included Jordan, which is majority Palestinian. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

(sigh - not this argument again) According to King Abdullah it's not majority Palestinian (of course this coming from a dictator so who knows?), but there's been no official census taken to verify the "majority Palestinian" argument, just a lot of wishful thinking. Anyway, whatever the percentage, they are Jordanians now - of Palestinian origin - but Jordanian. Just like a lot of people of Irish origin in Boston or German origin in Switzerland. Anyway, back to the point, Brian is probably right, "Palestinian territories" is almost always used to refer to WB&G (with or without the word "occupied" preceding it) while "Palestine" or "occupied Palestine" is used by many to refer to the land of Palestine between the river and the sea. There are other phrases too, like "aradi il-dakhil" - "the inside lands"; or "aradi il-48" - "the 1948 lands" to refer to lands that became Israel in 1948. It's just our euphemistic counterparts to "eretz yisrael" or "yehuda ve shomron" or whatever. Just because we have thicker eyebrows doesn't mean we are the ones who should get scrutinized for every utterance. Anybody got some tweezers? Ramallite ^(talk) 14:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is used by the UN almost consistently, in thousands of documents, but I don't know what its official status is. --Zero

An undisputed fact that is false

The article says this is undisputed: "The Israelis are descended from people who lived in the area prior to the year 70 CE. Most of them were driven out and scattered at that time...". The last part is certainly disputed and is in fact well established as wrong. The Romans deported some Jews but the mass of the population were only excluded from Jerusalem and its surrounds. The Jewish population remained large in other parts of Palestine, especially in the Galilee. It was not until the 3rd or 4th century that Jews became a minority and even then it was partly because of Jewish conversion to Christianity. See any good history book. --Zero 03:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

But technically one could claim that it is not occupied seeing as it never was a de facto country. The claim of Palestinians nationaliy only really develops once the PLO is formed to laed them, before that no-one really thought of people as anything other than Muslim, Christian or Jew. It could be considered occupied seeing as it was annexed by Transjordan in 1948 but only the UK recognised this. You can't occupy a country if it isn't one. Palestinian as a decription is the deconstruction of th term to mean Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaa, but this makes no sense demographically, why would people move to such disproportionate areas? Palestinian as a decription would have to be a Western concept, applied after the fall of the Ottoamns (who rarely named anything that wasn't Turkish)People attached nationality gradually as they had different leaders who weren't exactly the best of friends (UK and France) which pulled their prevading interests in different directoins as well as adding their own style of diplomacy, economics and leadership.

--- This "fact" is also false simply because a) non-jewish Israelis do not claim such an descent, b) nor can people that have converted to judaism claim such a descent and c) in general such claims are speculative. Of course many jews may descend from these Israeli tribes of the ancient, but so may also many other people, the only difference being that they doesn't hinge their identity on it. I won't say that it is untrue, but it is not an undisputed fact. Pete

I have edited this. No-one can say that most Jewish Iraelis are descended from people who lived in 70CE. So the undisputed fact is that this is disputed! Aren't many Israelis Ashkenazim (i.e. from Central Eastern Europe)? I will find more evidence and references to back this up shortly. See Joachim Martillo.

Added NPOV warning

My specific issue is that in the "Legal Status" section, the parts about East Jerusalem is too weak with regard to "international bodies." The legal status of East Jerusalem is not that international bodies do not recognize Israel's annexation claim, but rather that the UN Security Council has specifically rejected it.

I'm also sure that there are many other POV problems with the article as well. Marsden 14:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the UN Security Council the source of all international law? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

UNSC (binding), UN General Assembly, and International Court of Justice (rulings binding, opinions not). Ramallite ^(talk) 03:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The UNSC makes binding law only for items on which it chooses to. The UNGA never makes international law. The International Court of Justice only makes binding law for those who have gone before it willingly. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The ICJ used only "binding law", only existing IL in its legal analysis shown in its advisory opinion. The worlds greatest legal expertise reached the (unanimous might i add, read the dissenting judge Buergenthals opinon) conclusion that under IL, these territories were occupied. They didnt create anything, they used law already binding upon Israel. While the decision itself is not binding, all the treaties and all the law used by the court, is. As for the UNSC, it has used the term occupied territories for binding resolutions (in this context). And the GA resolutions reflect the viewpoints and opinio juris by the vast majority of UN member states. --Cybbe 17:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Advisory opinions are just that, and they have no relevance to International Law. The UNSC has not ruled on the issue using actionable Chapter VII resolutions, so the status of their statements as binding International Law is also questionable. UNGA resolutions are simply political posturing, they have nothing to do with International Law. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you did not adress my issues. --Cybbe 20:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You raised no issues, you merely made incorrect assertions. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Which of my assertions were incorrect: that the ICJ used law binding upon Israel, that UNSC has used the term "occupied" in countless resolutions, or that GA resolutions reflect the viewpoints of the member states voting in favour of them? --Cybbe 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The first is incorrect, the other two are irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The first is entirely correct, and I wonder on what basis you state that advisory opinions have no relevance to international law. They are statements of international law, or if you like opinions as to how international law applies to a given case. They do not legally impose any requirements on any party per se, but they clearly represent as authoritative a judgement as to what international law is as one could hope for. Palmiro | Talk 21:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The ICJ asserted that certain of its opinions were facts and that various things were international law and binding on Israel, but its jurisdiction does not extend to Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

My assertion was completely independent of their jurisdiction, it has nothing to do with their analysis of law binding upon Israel in the Opinion's later paragraphs. Fact remains, all 15 judges reached the conclusion that the territories were occupied when they looked at the situation and the relevant law (i.e., law binding upon Israel). This point in the judgment has not been criticized by anyone, in fact, EU agreed with the legal conclusions of the court, although they initially were against it hearing the case. --Cybbe 15:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A lamyman's view -- why not just write something like "Israel's position has not been accepted by ..., and explicitly rejected by ...", or something more elaborate? Does Wikipedia have to have a stand regarding authority of international law?--Doron 11:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

internally linking *this* article

Request to internally link, somewhere (anywhere)? TIA. El_C 00:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I haven't reviewed Special:Whatlinkshere/Palestinian_territories! El_C 00:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits (Shebaa farms)

Are the Shebaa farms really part of the Golan? If, as appears likely, they are Lebanese territory, this would seem to be incorrect. Does Israel consider them part of the Golan? Palmiro | Talk 23:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Box: Countries and territories in the Middle East

all the countries in the Middle East are listed in the box

but even though it's labeled Countries and territories in the Middle East, the Palestinian territories aren't includes - it looks weird

Yes, it should be included. Palmiro | Talk 14:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Now added. From the template history it appears it was there (but listed as "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip" separately, which is inappropriate) until September, when an editor removed it with the edit summary "Gaza Strip and West Bank are not countries" - true but irrelevant, given the template heading. Palmiro | Talk 18:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Palestine

Because we have Palestinian Territories with a Palestinian people, that means the Palestine is a country (not a soverign country) and not an area without any country.

Capital

I have four unbiased proposals: 1. Jerusalem is the capital of both Israel and Palestine 2. West Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine 3. Tel-Aviv is the capital of Israel and Gaza City is the capital of Palestine (because they were both temporary caqpitals in 1948) 4. Yerushalyim is the capital of Israel and Al-Quds is the capital of Palestine

No. All of these claims are in fact disputed.Savidan 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Points not in dispute

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs who lived within the current borders of Israel before 1948 were not allowed to continue to live there after the 1948-1949 war ended, and most of these Palestinians and their descendents came to reside in the current Palestinian territories or other countries.

I'm not saying that I disagree with, but I'm wondering if this is a mutually accepted number of refugees by both parties in the conflict. Since this is a hugely contested article, I didn't change this in deference to the fact that this may have been discussed earlier with sources. Savidan 06:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess that it says "hundreds of thousands" in order to be not disputed. Nobody claims the number is less than that. --Zero 08:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Israeli terminology

Can anyone indicate how the Israeli government normally refers to the territory/territories collectively? Does it have an official collective designation for them; if not what is its stated rationale for not having one, and how does it refer to them in practice? Some brief indication of this in the intro would be good, since neither of the two terms given are generally used by Israel or its supporters as far as I know. Palmiro | Talk 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Claims/Israeli claims/Palestinian claims/points not in dispute

This whole section reads like something somebody wrote on the basis of what he/she thought were the arguments that might be put forward on either side. I would suggest that if we were to have a section of this sort, it would be much better to quote official positions of either side, and then, making clear the distinction, other positions advanced by various political tendencies among the Israelis and the Palestinians. I am unsure what the best way to deal with the current section is - I would quite like to delete the whole thing, but I don't have the time to research and write a replacement at the moment. I have put in a section-OR tag. Palmiro | Talk 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I might add that it also makes no distinction between legal claims and propaganda/public relations positions taken by the parties. Palmiro | Talk 18:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

A few questions/points:

1. Since when Golan Heights are Pal. territory?
2. The politically charged "occupation" in the very first line is POV. Are we talking about Palestinian territories or harping the "big bad Israel" song?
3. Intentionally or not, the text makes it look like as Israel occupied them in 1949.
4. When did the term come into the existence? Were these areas called "Palestinian territories" or "Occupied Palestinian territories" before Israel took them from Egypt and Jordan?
5. What makes a territory "Palestinian"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits, which I see as tending to move the focus of the intro away from the topic of the article to a dispute about the name of the topic. To answer your detailed questions:

1. That was a reference to the term "occupied territories" tout court, which strictly speaking includes the Golan. This point was repeatedly made in previous discussions by persons objecting to the use of the term "occupied territories' to refer to those under discussion here.
2. It's not a question of POV, it's a question of giving the names for the territory in common use. The United Nations uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory", lots of organisations call them the "Occupied Palestinian Territories". When I fixed the intro I asked here, in the section above, if someone could provide the terminoogy used by the Israeli government for balance. Can you?
3. I didn't read it like that, but if that's how it appears it should be fixed.
4. They didn't form a single geopolitical entity at that point. I think it's quite clear that they do now (and Israel acknowledged this in the Oslo accords).
5. It't not our job to decide whether the territories are Palestinian or not but to give encyclopaedic information about them in a suitably-named article.

Now some questions of my own:

1. A. If you think this title is incorrect for the article, what title do you think it should have? West Bank and Gaza Strip? What do you think should be the criteria for naming the article?
2. B. As far as I know, other territories whose name is a matter of occasional controversy are covered in the article under the official or most common name, while if there is an article on the naming dispute itself it has a title that indicates that. See Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland naming dispute, or a slightly different approach Republic_of_Macedonia and Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Naming_issue. Why should the same not apply here, if we need an article about the naming issue? Palmiro | Talk 12:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One more question: you've added "Since then, the United Nations and most foreign governments regard the territories as being under military occupation." What evidence is there that the territories were not regarded as being occupied before 1967? Palmiro | Talk 12:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased the intro a little. Let's try to keep the focus on the topic.

• But this is not Israeli-occupied territories, so the Golans do not belong here.
  • That was included to clarify why, although the term "The Occupied Territories", is used for these territories, it is not precise. This is something that some people, not including myself, felt extremely strongly about in past discussions. If you feel it would be better to omit both this name and the attached caveat, I am not bothered either way.
• Some organizations politicize the issues into absurdity. That includes the unreformed UN. BTW, in 1947 UNGA R.181 these areas were called Judea and Samaria. AFAIK, Israel also uses these ancient names.[2], see Yesha.
  • That may be your view, but it doesn't detract from the fact that these are commonly used terms for the territories in question and we normally give all common names in the first line. That doesn;t mean endorsing any political baggage they may be held to have. What about giving whetever term the Israeli govt uses as well, rather than objecting to the inclusion of this one?
    • I disagree that these relate to the same territory. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, what do you think does not refer to the same territory as what else? I'm a bit confused. Palmiro | Talk 16:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry if I caused the confusion. I was talking about PT and Yesha. Does Yesha include Gaza? Do the PTs include Jerusalem Jewish Quarter, Ariel, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• I never said that it is "our job to decide whether the territories are Palestinian or not" - only asked for a definition.
  • I'm lost here. You asked "What makes a territory Palestinian or not?" It's not up to us to say what makes a territory Palestinian or not. But the term "Palestinian territories" is clearly used, rightly or wrongly, to refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a single geopolitical entity/politically defined territory - which they undoubtedly are in many respects. I'm not too hung up about the name of the article but I think it's clear what its topic is, and should be.Palmiro | Talk 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• A/B: I do not know enough to answer that right now.
  • Oh dear. Palmiro | Talk 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is a long List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel, but since it is next to impossible to find evidence that the territories were not regarded as being occupied before 1967, a better question is: Is there an evidence that they were regarded as being "occupied Palestinian territories" before 1967? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Identity of various territories

excerpted from above discussion for clarity Sorry if I caused the confusion. I was talking about PT and Yesha. Does Yesha include Gaza? Do the PTs include Jerusalem Jewish Quarter, Ariel, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think they are the same. To judge from the "Yesha" article, it does include Gaza - it's one of the names that make up the acronym. The term "Palestinian territories" simply refers to the territory forming part of the former British Mandate that was captured by Israel in 1967. So it includes the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (and I can quite see how seeing such a term used to include that would grate on people's sensibilities, and it's worth noting that the Palestinians have made no claims to the Jewish quarter in the course of negotiations) as well as the West Bank settlements. The point is that this territory has a particular legal, political and historical status which leads to it being treated as a unit in all sorts of contexts, so it deserves an article as such in Wikipedia. Personally (and I have said this till I was blue in the face on many previous occasions) I am not particularly hung up on what this article is called (you could equally call it the 1967 Territories, which is a common term in Palestinian and Arab use, but of course there are potential objections to that, notably that it could quite possibly be seen as "going with" the term "1948 Territories" the meaning of which you can readily grasp I am sure even if you're not already familiar with it) but I do think that it is clear that the territory should be covered comprehensively, including questions of demography and geography (for example) as well as political status. Wikipedia naming guidelines suggest that the "common name" prevails, but it is not massively clearer what the most common name here is (occupied territories ? slightly imprecise, as it can cover Golan. Palestinian territories? people may object to it. Occupied Palestinian Territory? fine by me, and used by the UN, but gets in not one but two things that many people will object to.) And in any case I think a clear and minimally controversial title is better than a common title that will create massive warfare and bog down the first half of the article in an argument over the correctness of the title itself. Hope that is clearer. Palmiro | Talk 09:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to be confused. You are saying that the PLO didn't make claim to the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. But as far as I know, they claim all "pre-1967 territories" (which is of course the 1949 Green Line). That would include the Jewish Quarter and the Temple Mount, including the Western Wall. Are they also the Palestinian territories? What made the territories Palestinian if the Palestinian National Charter of 1964 Article 24 says: "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area."[3]. BTW, this is a good point for our article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I said, "in the course of negotiations", i.e. at Taba I believe the Palestinians were willing to accept not only the Jewish quarter but also part of the adjoining Armenian quarter currently in Jewish use becoming sovereign Israeli territory. As for the PLO Charter, see article 2; Article 24 is AFAIK simply a way of not stepping on the toes of the HKJ, and doesn't say that those territories are not Palestinian. The point is, this article is not about a proposed Palestinian state (there's an article about that already, linked in the second paragraph here), nor is it about the territories over which the PNA exercises varying degrees of control (covered in the PNA article); it's about the territories that were part of the British Mandate and that Israel captured in 1967. That is how the terms "Palestinian territories' and "Occupied Palestinian Territory/Territories" are generally used, rightly or wrongly. Palmiro | Talk 10:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The British Mandate is another confusing point. I think mentioning the British Mandate (that was gone in 1948) in the first line would confuse our readers. Whatever was the reason for the Article 24, it is notable enough to be mentioned, no? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But this article is clearly about the territories, not about the term. Your changes to the header make it into the opposite. I don't think this is helpful, and I reiterate my remarks comparing this to coverage of Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland naming controversy, etc. Is it your position that we should not have an article about the Palestinian Territories/OPT/67 Territories/Yesha, as a geopolitical territory? If we are agreed that we should have such an article, can we agree that this article should be the basis for it, under an as-yet-to-be-determined name? Palmiro | Talk 11:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Re article 24, of course it can be mentioned, perhaps it needs more context but I don't have a big problem with how you have put it in. Palmiro | Talk 11:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is late, so this will be my last post for today. IMHO, a good encyclopedic article begins with its terminology. Later we have sections on history/status, claims, etc. For history/geography we have articles Palestine, West Bank, Gaza Strip, etc. How can we dedicate this to geography when the borders are not defined and the term is admittedly POV? It seems that the concept of the Palestinian territories came into existence only after the Jews took control over the area. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's early enough here for me to keep going: the borders are defined. This article is about the territories which were part of the British Mandate of Palestine until its dissolution and were subsequently occupied by Jordan and Egypt until 1967 and then by Israel. By the way, the boundaries (not international borders) of these territories are perfectly clear, as is indicated in the article. At least, that is my understanding. If the article is not about that, then we should create an article about that. I am not sure that the term "Palestinian territories" is in widespread use with any other meaning. This is not the same as Palestine, not the same as Gaza Strip and not the same as West Bank. It includes the Gaza Strip and West Bank and covers the two of them taken together as a geopolitical entity, with specific characteristics, which they certainly constitute. I do not, by the way, admit that the term is POV; I admit that a small minority of people hold it to be so, just as is the case with "Republic of Macedonia". "the concept of the Palestinian territories came into existence only after the Jews took control over the area": under that name, certainly (and they were Israelis, not Jews in general). But it's the name that's commonly used now. Moreover, in 1966 the territories weren't under the same admininstration, and weren't the subject of an international agreement and negotiating process which explicitly recognised their integrity (as Oslo did). Palmiro | Talk 12:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If "the borders are defined" then the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, including the Western Wall are Palestinian territories. Would that be NPOV? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The current introductory sentence: "The meaning of the term Palestinian territories has political connotations and varies across differing points of view" seems to extract the very dignity out of the title, and is (inadvertently) poisoning the well of the article before actually getting into it. Since the premise of having an article entitled "Palestinian territories" is that it is a common use term, then the introductory sentence should just reflect that common use definition, then describe any sourced controversy associated with it afterwards, either in the paragraph or via footnotes if necessary. If the reason this sentence is the way it is because "Palestinian territories" is a POV, and "a good encyclopedic article begins with its terminology", then the intro for, say, Israel would read "The term 'Israel' is often used to describe a political entity in the middle east that is largely considered a country governed by a democratically elected parliament but whose existence is disputed by some". My proposal for the introduction is

The Palestinian territories are the geographic areas of Palestine (or the Middle East) that were captured by Israel in the Six-day War of 1967 whose status is pending the conclusion of negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The term is generally used to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the context of a Palestinian perspective, but may also be referred to as "occupied Palestinian territories", "'Judea and Samaria' and Gaza", or "disputed territories".

I realize that "occupied" or "disputed" may also be referring to the Golan, but with an intro like this, I believe the context is obvious that the Golan is not included. The phrase "whose status is pending the conclusion of negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization" would clearly allude to the Palestinian areas without the Golan or the Sinai which were also captured in '67, and include Jerusalem NPOV-ly ;) Incidentally, in this or any other article, I don't like the intro to be "(title) is a term used to describe" as opposed to "(title) is". I just think it's pretty POV, because if an article is important enough to exist in the first place, it shouldn't be prejudiced that way, with rare exceptions. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, thank you for a good proposal - at least I find it good. The only tweaks I'd like to make are 1) "areas in the Middle East" - more NPOV than "areas of Palestine" and 2) removing "the" from "geographic areas" - remembering the UNSC Res. 242.

I am taking the liberty and replacing the first intro paragraph with the result. Please take a look. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya salaam. Nothing like a third party to break a deadlock. The first sentence is fine; I find the second a little confusing (it suggests to me that the term is used with other meanings from a non-Palestinian perspective: is this what was intended?), but I also feel the need to relax and take a break from controversial areas of Wikipedia at the moment, so I am going to selfishly leave it to the two of you to sort it out. In the meantime I have made some slight changes: I hope these are OK. Palmiro | Talk 12:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help - the phrase 'from a Palestinian perspective' is in order to address POV stances, I tried to find a more encyclopedic way of saying "is a term used to describe". The very title of this article implies the Palestinian perspective, since it would be called other things to different people, and I just wanted to try to make that clear. Humus, if you're fine with it, I think we're okay! Ramallite ^(talk) 14:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning that the term represents, if not a Palestinian perspective, at least a perspective sympathetic to Palestinian demands, but perhaps the way it is phrased could be clarified. Maybe a comma would do the job? "The term is generally used to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in the context of a Palestinian perspective"? Palmiro | Talk 14:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a way to clarifying further, comma or otherwise, I don't think anybody would have a problem with that :) Ramallite ^(talk) 14:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(Sniff) That's the most beautiful comma I've ever seen... so properly placed... so delicate... my eyes are welling up at the sight of it... ;) Ramallite ^(talk) 16:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Lookin good. There is some duplication between the 1st and 4th paragraphs, and we could also mention that the UN used "Samaria and Judea" terminology at least in the UNGA Res.181 of 1947, but I don't feel like touching it right now. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Many or most Jewish Israelis are descended from people who lived in the area prior to the year 70 CE.

This is not in dispute? How can this be proven? Many people may have converted to judaism in the last 2000 years. That would explain why German jews look more like Germans than like Morrocan Jews or Iraqi Jews. I dont know why this point is not in dispute according to this article... I dispute it in any case. So i am erasing it :-)--Burgas00 19:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I´d like to delete the whole section...but if that isn´t possible we can keep this one because the inclusion of the word "many" covers your objection. --Zero 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How about changing the phrasing to "Many or most Jewish Israelis claim descendence from people who lived in the area prior to the year 70 CE." or something? Maybe it is no point. I agree that it is a highly disputable "fact--Pertn 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both. We can change to "claim descendence...) but maybe the whole section should simply be scrapped. --Burgas00 11:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"According to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, both the Jews and the Arabs are descended from patriarch Abraham: Jews are the descendants of Isaac through Jacob and Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael." I dont find this serious either... It is not one of the arguments the state of Israel would use in the UN. Nor can I imagine a Israeli (or Palestinian) government spokesman using them on an interview on CNN. The Bible is not a source of International law... In any case Palestinians are not all of ethnic arab descent. Both Palestinian muslims, christians and jews (Must'arabim) were all arabized after Muslim invasions of Palestine. It is only sionism which has made Palestinian jews no longer see themselves as Palestinian (or Arab) but as Israeli. The same goes for Mizrahi jews, most of which have lost their arab identity as a result of the arab-israeli conflict.--Burgas00 11:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Leave the Palestinian flag alone. Get at life.

The article is about the geographic areas and not political entities, so flags dont belong. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Palestinian Territories" have to do with PALESTINE. This is what the country of Palestine has been reduced to after it was ransacked and stolen. All but the most brain-dead should be able to comprehend this. Why does it not surprise me that the star of David is all over your page. In every article on here about the middle east, zionist jews like yourself are calling the shots, regulating things that might offend their extremist ideologies. No offense, but shouldn't you be tending the Judaism articles so zealously? Leave the FLAG ALONE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.17.133 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for visiting my page, hope you liked it. Read some history: there has never been a country called Palestine. If you insist otherwise, please tell us everything you know about it: years, kings, queens, coins, etc. Also it would be useful for you to read WP:NPA and other WP:RULES. In any case, this is not about a country but geographic areas, so no flag. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The flag of Palestine was raised over that land long before the state of Israel was founded. Why do you care so much about the Palestinian flag being in this article? Does it bother you so much to see even a hint of your "arch nemesis" getting a bit of long overdue respect and recognition? Let me make this clear for you: whether or not your biased brain wants to believe it, a Palestinian State has been declared on these "territories" many times, with this being the flag. Leave it alone, I think your JDL buddies will let it slide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.17.133 (talk • contribs)

I am in generous mood today and will ignore that childish personal attack, but don't expect this in the future. There are articles such as State of Palestine, Palestinian people, Palestinian National Authority that carry this flag. This one, however, is about geographic areas. Do you understand the difference between politics and geography? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand the difference between politics and geography. "West Bank' and "Gaza" would be geographical terms. Do you undertstand English? Read "PALESTINIAN Territories". Hate to break your heart, but I don't really care if you're "in a good mood, but don't expect it in the future". Is that a threat? Is it supposed to intimidate me or something? The flag stays.

P.S. I think it's really cute that you put a link to "personal attack". Sorry for """persecuting""" you.

-"Unsigned Hype"

I'm going to remove the political flag from geographic article for the last time before going to WP:RfC. Hopefully, the anon IP got familiar with the policies by now. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry sir. As anybody can see in the preceding discussion, if there has to be a flag for Palestine, that's what it is. A Palestinian state has been declared multiple times on the "PALESTINIAN Territories". I'll never stop fixing this blatant POV vandalism.

The flag will always stay. ←"Unsigned Hype"

You should have read this article before editing it: "The Palestinian territories are geographic areas ... whose status is pending the conclusion of negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization." Palestinian state is another article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry I know how to read. As long as this article is named "PALESTINIAN Territories", I'll always be here to re-edit your subtle zionist vandalism. Geographic or not, the Palestinian State has declared on these lands. The flag will continue to be put back. -"Unsigned Hype

If you insist that the "declaration" of the Palestinian State in 1988 was not hollow, that would mean that the Palestinian State already exists and all the issues regarding conflicting claims, undefined borders, etc. are already resolved. Please, don't make this more political and controversial than it already is and don't mix this article with Palestinian state.

By your logic, should Palestinian Talmud proudly brandish the Palestinian flag? I want to believe you are smarter than that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said that conficting claims or border disputes have been settled, but these are the areas that constitute what is left of the state of Palestine. These are the primary inhabitants demographically. The Palestinians have this flag as their own, and they reside in the "Palestinian Territories". The physical areas would be called The West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The flag of the Palestinian people belongs on the "Palestinian Territories" page, as a representative of the inhabitants.

"areas that constitute what is left of the state of Palestine" - you wrote this as if it ever existed. Proof please.

"Primary inhabitants demographically" is another weak argument. Mexicans are "primary inhabitants demographically" in Arizona (I think), and Kurds are "primary inhabitants demographically" in some areas of the Middle East, but it would be wrong for an encyclopedia article on geographical areas to brandish political flags. The PT is not a political entity. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The "state of Palestine" is a bad term, coined by zionists in order to erase history, and belittle the people of Palestine. It makes them feel that they have to have had zionist recognition to legitimately declare themself as a country. This is the flag of the Palestinian people, and the "PALESTINIAN Territories" are the only places where these indigenous people remain the majority inhabitants. In the 20th century, when you foreigners reminiscent of yourself invaded the middle east, they chopped up the then larger countries and parcelled them up. The British mandate of Palestine existed before Israel did, and this was the flag. Palestinians deserve at least some recognition, after you stole their country, renamed it, and populated it with foreigners. You now walk around in that land without even thinking about how remarkably the entire personality of the land has changed during the last 60 years. You come out on top in everything. You are prominent in movies, literature, news, politics, and banking, yet you still have to militarily police even the slightest hint of Palestinian recognition, even on a website. You can claim that your vigilant vandalism is not based on hatred towards another people, but I know that you lie. How can the Palestinian flag not be in the Palestinian Territories article? That will never be fair or acceptable.

Wrong. First, let's note that you're switching from the territories occupied by Egypt and Jordan in 1949 (and where for 19 years they failed to create a Palestinian state) to the territory of the State of Israel.

Second, the reason the British Mandate of Palestine was created was "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". Read that article to see its flag. As for the historical claims, the Jews lived in the Land of Israel at least for 3 millennia, while the Arab conquest came about in the 7th century and for 400 years since 1517 it was a backwater province of Turkish Ottoman Empire. At least three times (in 1937, 1947, 2000), the Arab leaders rejected coexistence and peaceful partitions, choosing instead violence and destruction.

"You are prominent in movies, literature, news, politics, and banking..." - this belongs to a separate article, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Arab leaders rejected coexistence?

How's this for "coexistence"

"Within then the next twenty years, we must have a Jewish majority in Palestine." -David Ben Gurion 1917

"it must be clear that there is no room in the country for both peoples . . . If the Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us" -Yosef Weitz, 1940

"I am for compulsory transfer; I don't see anything immoral in it." -David Ben Gurion, 1948

The ancestors of the Jews you refer to didn't live anywhere but Eastern Europe, the Jews of 3000 years ago were assimilated into the Middle East millenia ago. Palestinians are the descendants of the Canaanites, who have lived in Palestine for 6000 years. The so called "backwater province" was very cultivated long before the first zionist settlers dreamed of arriving, teeming with olives, figs, grapes, and oranges. Even ardent zionists are unable to prove that Palestinian companies weren't the first to export Jaffa oranges to Europe. By saying Palestine was a "backwater", you state a completely baseless lie, a blatant insult. I can feel your hatred and scorn towards the Palestinians merely by reading your spiteful words.

Anonymous: Although I don't object to the flag personally, keep in mind that there are a number of articles on Palestine, and some have the flag and some don't. This article, as it now stands, is supposed to discuss the geographic areas (towns, villages, mountains, topography) where the Palestinian people live (that article has a flag) and the official body is the Palestinian National Authority (that article also has a flag). Note that Israel has a flag and Judea and Samaria does not. If you are concerned with Palestinians getting recognition (as am I), please consider contributing constructively to Wikipedia and don't get bogged down with symbolisms. I am concerned with the discussion above (e.g. the 'You foreigners' tirade) because such language may go against Wikipedia civility rules. Hope this helps. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point Ramallite, but I simply think its proper to have a Palestinian flag on the "Palestinian Territories" article. Every time I edit on this website I have been continously harassed by hard-line zionists who run this site. I will refrain from this edit for now, as it is clear to me that zionists have better technology than me when it comes to edits. I hope you see where I'm coming from.

As this article is about geographic areas whose future political status is uncertain, adding the flag of a proposed (but not presently existing) state does not constitute an NPOV article. A political entity such as the Palestinian National Authority should have a flag, as should an article on the proposed Palestinian state. However, as Humus sapiens pointed out, this article is not about such a political entity. —Aiden 18:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Who asked you?

Reconciliation between Palestinian territories and Israeli-occupied territories - 1

I think Palestinian territories and Israeli-occupied territories have (1) lots of currently overlapping material and (2) lots of material that could be included in the other article. Perhaps these can be merged at some point. (Note: one obvious difference is Golan/Sinai which are not Palestinian but are often (erroneously) included depending on which of the many terms is used.) To this end, I merged common parts of the first two paragraphs of the introduction as a start. They are not identical (Golan/Sinai) but very close. SeattliteTungsten 07:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to restore Ramallite's phrase that this term is in "the context of a Palestinian perspective". Please see the discussion above about that. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I folded your changes back into Israeli-occupied territories to continue the unification. Sorry about ax'ing that phrase. I agree it should be in. SeattliteTungsten 17:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't help thinking the original phrasing was better, because now new elements (Golan, Sinai) are introduce that clutters up the intro and makes it more confusing. The original phrasing meant to state that the PTs are 'areas occupied in 1967 whose status is pending agreement with the PLO' - to differentiate them from the remaining areas. I am not aware that Golan/Sinai are erroneously referred to at Palestinian Territories. Any thoughts? Ramallite ^(talk) 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The original phrasing said "territory captured by Israel in the Six-day War of 1967 whose status is pending..." which could be mistakenly read that "all" of this territory captured (incl. Golan and Sinai) is now "pending..." which isn't true. (Remember the "all" controversy from UN 242 whereby people want to add "all" to the meaning of the English version?) Instead of being open to that inaccurate reading, better just to say "except Golan and Sinai" when the definition starts "territory captured by Israel in the Six-day War". Using "whose status is pending agreement with the PLO" as a definition I think confuses what/where the territories are with current attributes about them that are discussed later. For instance, now that Hamas has replaced PLO as the negotiating party would this mean we have to change the definition of the territories to say "whose status is pending agreement with the Hamas led PA"? It doesn't make sense that we should have to change the definition for this reason. The territories are defined as what they are and the final/pending status is discussed after. SeattliteTungsten 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a big deal to me. However, two things: First, my original phrasing was something like "the territories ... that are pending agreement. Maybe it should have been "those territories ... whose status is pending agreement. Perhaps my English is not good enough to be entirely clear on this matter, but in any case, I reiterate that I don't know that there is any noteworthy erroneous use of Palestinian Territories applied to Golan/Sinai. It appears that we are trying to clarify a misconception that does not exist in the first place! Second, and for informational purposes only, Hamas has not replaced the PLO as the negotiating party. Negotiation with Israel is the domain of the PLO as the 'sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people' only - and the PA was born out of a deal between Israel and the PLO, but the PLO (of which Hamas is not a part - yet) remains the official negotiating body. PA officials are a separate entity from PLO negotiators. So again, I just don't want it to seem like we are creating issues from non-issues. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with using a definition "geographic areas in the Middle East captured by Israel in the Six-day War" as a definition is that it could be understood to include Golan and Sinai because these were "geographic areas in the Middle East captured by Israel in the Six-day War" but are not part of this article. To prevent misunderstanding relative to "captured by Israel in the Six-day War", it should explicitly exclude Golan and Sinai. Alternatively, we could just say, "The Palestinian territories are geographic areas in the Middle East including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza" and save "captured by Israel in 1967" for the history section or a paragraph describing what delimits the border of these regions. SeattliteTungsten 18:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Or "those portions of the territories captured in '67 whose status is pending agreement between the PLO and Israel..." It doesn't matter much to me... the current version or another version, whatever works! Ramallite ^(talk) 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What the....

As I wrote above a while ago, I objected to this "is a term used to" phrasing. Here are my reasons better defined:

1. It's grammatically awkward. We know it's a term, EVERY title in this encyclopedia is a 'term'.
2. It's thinly veiled well-poisoning. It's as if one is saying "It's not supposed to be this way, but some people insist on using this term".
3. There is nothing wrong with "refers to", especially since it was I who unnecessarily qualified it a while back with "from a Palestinian perspective" even though it's from a lot of other perspectives as well. It is a stronger intro to say "refers to" instead of adding to the number of qualifiers.. ('is one of many terms' - 'from a Palestinian perspective' - 'other terms used to describe the same area are') - one feels you almost need to add 'only on Wednesdays from 2-6pm on non-rainy days'.
4. See Judea and Samaria for an example.

I see no honest reason to revert my change (which is a little of what was left after a lengthy debate on this page, see above). If I had to choose the best reason, it would be the POV factor of #2 above, with #1 not far behind. Say what you want about it, but there is no way you will convince me that 'used to describe' is more "accurate" than 'refers to'. Ramallite (a term used to describe an editor who just wrote the preceding piece). 20:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's one of a number of terms used to describe that area, in the absence of an agreed or universally recognized term. Saying it's "one of a number terms used to describe" makes that clear, whereas "refers to" doesn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed Judea and Samaria to say the same. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How else would one describe the area from a Palestinian perspective? Or is "from a Palestinian perspective" going to disappear as well? It's not about a "universally recognized term", or half the articles on the middle east wouldn't be here. There is an article entitled 'Palestinian territories', let's define it before placing all the caveats before it - and the definition of it just happens to be a Palestinian perspective. You haven't addressed any of my concerns above. I'm no fan of 'Judea and Samaria', but my points above apply there as well. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ramallite, I didn't follow your point. The area is referred to by a lot of different phrases or names. There is no internationally agreed term for it. The phrase "refers to" doesn't quite capture that, so I've changed it to "is one of a number of terms used to describe," and then we list the others too. The article Judea and Samaria now starts in roughly the same way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of "it is one of a number terms used to describe" is clear and neutral. Works for me. —Aiden 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)