This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gouncbeatduke (talk | contribs) at 23:19, 23 January 2015 (→Relevance of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to borders of Israel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:19, 23 January 2015 by Gouncbeatduke (talk | contribs) (→Relevance of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to borders of Israel)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 |
|
Old archives Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
| Toolbox |
|---|
New president
new president has ben elected today, Jun 10 2014: Reuven Rivlin.
Biased Lead
Why does the lead not talk about human rights? Or international law? It takes devotes a whole paragraph, the final one, talking about how wonderful Israel's democracy is? What about its negatives? For example, it mentions that "Neighboring Arab armies invaded Palestine on the next day and fought the Israeli forces. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (between 1967 and 1982), part of South Lebanon (between 1982 and 2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. It annexed portions of these territories, including East Jerusalem, but the border with the West Bank is disputed". This leads the lay reader to believe that Israel, out of desperation from being attacked by the evil Arabs, annexed these territories. Why is international law and the fourth Geneva convention not mentioned?
Furthermore, this completely ignores the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's indigenous population. The vast majority of scholars and academics, including the Misplaced Pages article on ethnic cleansing itself, recognizes the 1948 Palestinian exodus to be a form of ethnic cleansing, so this is within the bounds of WP:NPOV. It leads the reader to believe that after the Jewish state was declared, Arab states just, at whim, declared war on it. (David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization... declared "the establishment of a Jewish state...Neighboring Arab armies invaded Palestine on the next day) No historical context is given. Is ethnic cleansing, a recognized crime against humanity, not important enough to be included in the lead? Is the plight of the Palestinians at the hands of the state of Israel insignificant relative to how awesome it is that Israel has universal suffrage? JDiala (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think there is at least one problem here, namely the border between Israel and the West Bank isn't "disputed" as far as I know. I'll look into this in the coming days provided I have the time. Otherwise, the content of the lead should reflect the contents of the article, and the ethnic cleansing of 1948 isn't a major point in the article so it may not be something that we mention in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, no. You haven't addressed my point. I suggest you re-read what I said, and if you think that the 1948 exodus isn't a major point in the article, which I find to be utterly loathsome considering it was such a serious historical event, then I think it ought to have a place. It's like having an article on Germany without mentioning the Holocaust as a 'major point'. JDiala (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- While JDiala raises a point that should be included, that is that the State of Israel is located on land the ownership of which is disputed, the tone of his initial post is anything but evenhanded and his comparison (above) of Israel to Germany and the Holocaust is, for obvious reasons, so contemptible that it destroys any credibility JDiala might have had.Gillartsny (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that JDiala brings up this point in an very opinionated fashion. Some see comparing German actions in the Holocaust to Israeli actions concerning the Palestinians as blood libel. However, we do have to consider that the Arab world (and some on the left) view Israel as a pariah state founded by British and American imperialism. Given the importance this point of view has in past and current events, perhaps a short section dealing with the criticism should be considered, as well as the Israeli response. I haven't entirely read the main article, Criticism of the Israeli government, that deals with this. PizzaMeLove (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- JDiala's comparison of the 1948 exodus with the Holocaust is insulting and absurd (both in nature and extent). It calls Holocaust denial or banalization.
- A more appropriate comparison for the "Nakba" would be some hypothetical day commemorating the German defeat in World War II, resulting in the expulsion or flight of many Germans from the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. After all, when you attack people and start genocidal wars, you live with the consequences.
- To say that Israel is a "pariah" state is false and POV (it's a recognized state by the international community, many important organizations and 85% of all countries in the world). The complex events surrounding the 1948 war are widely explained in the proper articles and the 'history' section of this one (The United Nations estimated that more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled during the conflict from what would become Israel). There's also an entire article to satisfy those who want to use an encyclopedia to vilify the Jewish state. I think it's more than enough. Let's keep the lead clean from propagandists and haters. Thanks.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Wlglunight93, slow down there. What I was suggesting was a section that explains some of the current controversy surrounding Israel within the Israel article itself given its notability. I am NOT pushing that Israel is a "pariah" state! Nor do I hold such a position! You'll find that I've mentioned the POV of the Criticism of Israeli government article on its talk page talk:Criticism of the Israeli government. PizzaMeLove (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies to you. I misunderstood what you said. You are not a POV user. It's a great idea to balance the article 'criticism of Israel' by expanding the "response" section. But I don't think such a political controversy (full of arguments and counter-arguments) belongs to an article based on facts like this one (which is about Israel as a country, not Israel as the "evil Zionist entity that takes the blood of Palestinian children to make matzot"). If this were the case, we should add something about criticism in many other articles, including the United States, Europe, China, Venezuela, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Arab and Muslim states, as well as many South American countries that expelled authentic indigenous populations without a previous provocation. It's already explained in the proper section that 700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled during the 1948 war. It's correct that there is a suspicious and disproportionate media's obsession with Israel, despite the fact that all of its neighbors have much less than a clean record when it comes to the treatment of their own people... but this is not the right place to explain it. If someone wants to investigate about accusations against Israel (which are not necessarily true), they have an entire article. This is not the place for that.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Wlglunight93, slow down there. What I was suggesting was a section that explains some of the current controversy surrounding Israel within the Israel article itself given its notability. I am NOT pushing that Israel is a "pariah" state! Nor do I hold such a position! You'll find that I've mentioned the POV of the Criticism of Israeli government article on its talk page talk:Criticism of the Israeli government. PizzaMeLove (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that JDiala brings up this point in an very opinionated fashion. Some see comparing German actions in the Holocaust to Israeli actions concerning the Palestinians as blood libel. However, we do have to consider that the Arab world (and some on the left) view Israel as a pariah state founded by British and American imperialism. Given the importance this point of view has in past and current events, perhaps a short section dealing with the criticism should be considered, as well as the Israeli response. I haven't entirely read the main article, Criticism of the Israeli government, that deals with this. PizzaMeLove (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- While JDiala raises a point that should be included, that is that the State of Israel is located on land the ownership of which is disputed, the tone of his initial post is anything but evenhanded and his comparison (above) of Israel to Germany and the Holocaust is, for obvious reasons, so contemptible that it destroys any credibility JDiala might have had.Gillartsny (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, no. You haven't addressed my point. I suggest you re-read what I said, and if you think that the 1948 exodus isn't a major point in the article, which I find to be utterly loathsome considering it was such a serious historical event, then I think it ought to have a place. It's like having an article on Germany without mentioning the Holocaust as a 'major point'. JDiala (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I have brought this up before, the phrase "It annexed portions of these territories, including East Jerusalem, but the border with the West Bank is disputed." is problematic because it implies other borders isn't disputed. It implies East Jerusalem and Golan Heights as being part of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- They are parts of Israel.124.180.140.187 (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the ... Sinai Peninsula (between 1967 and 1982) ... . Of course, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula briefly in 1956 as well. ← ZScarpia 11:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Where is the source for a dispute about the West Bank border? The Israeli government itself recognises the Green Line as the border between the Occupied Territories and Israel. The only dispute I am aware of is the status of Jerusalem, but no other country or international organisation in the world recognises East Jerusalem as part of Israel. Clarification please. KingHiggins (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- If other countries and "international organizations" want to live in a fantasy world where Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, that's their problem. The reality is that Jerusalem (all of Jerusalem) is the capital of Israel. And there is no such thing as a "State of Palestine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.142.175 (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with that statement is that it dismisses a viewpoint held by a lot governments and organizations that can be sourced. We are not permitted to disregard the viewpoints found in reliable sources. This is against WP:NPOV some mention is allowed by WP:WEIGHT. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- If other countries and "international organizations" want to live in a fantasy world where Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, that's their problem. The reality is that Jerusalem (all of Jerusalem) is the capital of Israel. And there is no such thing as a "State of Palestine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.142.175 (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
References
More NPOV problems
The previous discussion has been archived, which breaks the link in the link in the template of this section.
I'm not sure the dispute was considered resolved. Pygy (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Pygy: Silence to the point a section is archived can be seen as agreement. Which link is broken ? “WarKosign” 07:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- You fixed the link by recreating this section with exactly the same name, this is why I saw nothing broken. “WarKosign” 09:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The only possible resolution will come when some more NPOV editors become interested in the article. As long as the majority of editors continue to delete anything that does no conform to their WP:FRINGE theories, this will remain an article written from a WP:FRINGE POV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I assume by FRINGE you mean "something that you disagree with". “WarKosign” 07:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I mean the article is written solely from a minority world view and the editors disallow the inclusion of the majority world view. If you look at the UN vote on General Assembly resolution 67/19, this article (Israel) is solely written from the view of the 9 countries that voted against the resolution, and the editors here disallow the inclusion of the view of the 138 countries that voted for the resolution. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- That article looks quite balanced to me: it describes the history, the content of the resolution, campaign for and against, the vote, the reactions (with Palestinian and Israeli given equal room that is more than for other reactions). If you think otherwise, you should use article's talk page to suggest specific changes you would like. In any case, how is it relevant to this article ? “WarKosign” 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am saying that this article (Israel) is solely written from the view of the 9 countries that voted against the resolution, and the editors here disallow the inclusion of the view of the 138 countries that voted for the resolution. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Where is this resolution mentioned in the article, and why should it be mentioned at all? “WarKosign” 20:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am saying that this article (Israel) is solely written from the view of the 9 countries that voted against the resolution, and the editors here disallow the inclusion of the view of the 138 countries that voted for the resolution. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- That article looks quite balanced to me: it describes the history, the content of the resolution, campaign for and against, the vote, the reactions (with Palestinian and Israeli given equal room that is more than for other reactions). If you think otherwise, you should use article's talk page to suggest specific changes you would like. In any case, how is it relevant to this article ? “WarKosign” 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- I mean the article is written solely from a minority world view and the editors disallow the inclusion of the majority world view. If you look at the UN vote on General Assembly resolution 67/19, this article (Israel) is solely written from the view of the 9 countries that voted against the resolution, and the editors here disallow the inclusion of the view of the 138 countries that voted for the resolution. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- I assume by FRINGE you mean "something that you disagree with". “WarKosign” 07:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- The only possible resolution will come when some more NPOV editors become interested in the article. As long as the majority of editors continue to delete anything that does no conform to their WP:FRINGE theories, this will remain an article written from a WP:FRINGE POV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"Longest military occupation in modern times"
First session
I suggest adding reference to the "Longest military occupation in modern times", as sourced at Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza, page 96. Any objections? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The status of the territories is disputed, so any reference has to be properly balanced. What do you intent to write ? “WarKosign” 08:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am fine to add balance if it can be sourced and it is appropriately weighted. Note that those who deny use of the term "occupation" represent a very small proportion of world opinion, close to WP:FRINGE, as the article you linked to explains. Anyway, this article already uses the term occupied, so we have little to debate here.
- I simply propose to write that "the occupation by Israel of certain neighbouring territories is the world's longest military occupation in modern times". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- We could write "According to Lisa Hajjar, as of 2005 ..." since this book proves that this is what she wrote. There are other authors, such as this that disagree with her. There is a whole article dedicated to the status of the disputed territories, so I see no reason to add this specific opinion in the article on Israel. “WarKosign” 12:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose Oncenawhile proposal. Ykantor (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- That opinion piece in the Boston Globe isn't the kind of high-quality source we'd like to use here. Here is a better source, which states "This is probably the longest occupation in modern international relations, and it holds a central place in all literature on the law of belligerent occupation since the early 1970s." FWIW, Opposing without reasons has the same effect as not opposing. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here is a better source: 'But these territories are not "occupied" in the sense meant by the Geneva Convention' There are many sources for both points of view. Do we really need to represent them in the article on Israel ? Alleged occupation should be mentioned, with a link to its dedicated article.
- BTW, isn't Tibet (arguably) occupied by china since 1949, by far longer than the disputed territories ? “WarKosign” 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Melanie Philips as a reliable source? We should cancel the whole project if that one gets accepted. Zero 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, Tibetans are Chinese citizens, so annexation may be a better description. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- And by the way, Melanie Phillips is definitely not an appropriate WP:RS for this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- These four books explain that the only people who argue that "occupied" is not applicable are Israeli government officials and some US government officials, whose original motive was an attempt to reset the starting point for the negotiations at Camp David. . These politicized manipulations have not been accepted by mainstream international scholars, so we should not let them affect our description of the territorial status either. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, the predominant view (most scholars, governments, the UN, ICJ, ICRC etc), according to which Israel occupies the territories, shouldn't be presented in the same way as the fringe view that there is no occupation. Especially, the fringe view shouldn't be mentioned on an article about Israel, the country. There are other articles where its inclusion might be considered. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Oncenawhile and Dailycare that reference to the longest military occupation in modern times should be included in this article. The POV of this article is currently WP:FRINGE and needs to be moved to a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, the predominant view (most scholars, governments, the UN, ICJ, ICRC etc), according to which Israel occupies the territories, shouldn't be presented in the same way as the fringe view that there is no occupation. Especially, the fringe view shouldn't be mentioned on an article about Israel, the country. There are other articles where its inclusion might be considered. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- That opinion piece in the Boston Globe isn't the kind of high-quality source we'd like to use here. Here is a better source, which states "This is probably the longest occupation in modern international relations, and it holds a central place in all literature on the law of belligerent occupation since the early 1970s." FWIW, Opposing without reasons has the same effect as not opposing. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose Oncenawhile proposal. Ykantor (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- We could write "According to Lisa Hajjar, as of 2005 ..." since this book proves that this is what she wrote. There are other authors, such as this that disagree with her. There is a whole article dedicated to the status of the disputed territories, so I see no reason to add this specific opinion in the article on Israel. “WarKosign” 12:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I also agree with the other concerned editors that a reference should be made regarding the longest military occupation in modern times. This article does indeed suffer from WP:FRINGE. There is also the lead with the reference to the israeli political system that is incredibly fringe status and pushing a POV. Mbcap (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks all. I propose to add that "the occupation by Israel of certain neighbouring territories is the world's longest military occupation in modern times". Any remaining concerns from anyone else here? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- At very least, some of this phrase should wikilink to Status of territories captured by Israel where the status of the "occupied" territories is discussed in a neutral manner. “WarKosign” 07:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- - I oppose this phrase which is incorrect. As said, Tibet is occupied from the mid 20th century. the question whether it is annexed does not dependent in the question of occupation. Other examples: Operation Trikora, Papua conflict, Azad Kashmir, Jebel Akhdar War, Vietnam War, Ifni War, Indian annexation of Goa,Sino-Indian War, Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation (??),
- -A What is the definition of modern times? is it the 21 century only? from the 1st world war? from Napoleonic wars? Ykantor (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ykantor, your examples are WP:OR, whereas the proposed statement is sourced. Your examples are also wrong, because they are all annexations. You are wrong that the difference is not relevant. For example, see :
- "The difference between effective military occupation (or conquest) and annexation involves a profound difference in the rights conferred by each"
- Another relevant discussion of occupation vs annexation is here.
- Do you have any further objections?
- Happy new year. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- If Israel had annexed the West Bank, you wouldn't recognize it anyway. You would still call it "occupation" like you do with the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (which Israel did annexed). Happy new year.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- If sources say it's the longest occupation, then saying that is ok and, in fact, mandatory regardless of how logical editors feel that opinion is. In other words, any objections to the suggested text (I certainly have none) should be based on wikipedia policy, not on editors' opinions in the matter. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. Focus on the sources. Perhaps use wording such as "has been described as the longest military occupation in modern times" to try to deflect claims of editorial bias one way or the other. Put more than one inline citation and a hefty quotation in each of them. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. Most reliable sources regard the territories, including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to be occupied Palestinian lands. This fact has been discussed countless times. The territories are not "disputed". Moreover, this occupation is the longest in modern history. I don't see a problem with noting that. This article has a pro-Zionist POV, this would help balance it. JDiala (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. Focus on the sources. Perhaps use wording such as "has been described as the longest military occupation in modern times" to try to deflect claims of editorial bias one way or the other. Put more than one inline citation and a hefty quotation in each of them. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- If sources say it's the longest occupation, then saying that is ok and, in fact, mandatory regardless of how logical editors feel that opinion is. In other words, any objections to the suggested text (I certainly have none) should be based on wikipedia policy, not on editors' opinions in the matter. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- If Israel had annexed the West Bank, you wouldn't recognize it anyway. You would still call it "occupation" like you do with the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (which Israel did annexed). Happy new year.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Oncenawhile.
- Will you please refer to issue A as well? (see above)
- Your assertion, that a territory "occupied" status expires when it is annexed to the occupying power, is a wp:or. Note that if and when you support this assertion, one implication is an expiry of the Golan Heights "occupied" status as well.
- Please read the Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II. Poland annexed territories where a lot of Germans flew or were expelled. According to your view, this annexation act, changed (?) the territories status from "occupied" to "annexed". What an idyllic situation. `Ykantor (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
This rather long discussion is not going anywhere, as both sides cling to their own views. As an uninvolved user, can I point out that there is very little to discuss here and that most of the comments violate WP:OR. Whereas I disagree with the claim of "longest occupation" on a personal level, it's a sourced statement. That some users WP:DONTLIKEIT or put forward their own interpretations (in violation of WP:OR) is rather irrelevant. Please keep in mind that at Misplaced Pages, we will always go for a sourced error rather than an unsourced truth. Misplaced Pages is about sources (satisfying WP:RS) and that applies to this article as well. So even though I agree with the claim in the title, it's well-sourced and no valid objections (under Misplaced Pages policies) have been made for several weeks. It follows that the statement should go into the article.Jeppiz (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Jeppiz. Stop the silliness about "what is an occupation?" and "what is the modern era?" We summarize what reliable sources say, giving appropriate weight in accordance with WP:UNDUE. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- -@ Malik Shabazz: You are an administrator. It does not suit you to use offending terms like "Stop the silliness".
- - In my opinion, this statement is factually wrong. The situation is similar to a "sniper" who is shooting a blank target and later draw the concentric circles to fit the hole in the center. i.e starting the "modern times" to fit the 1967 war and occupation. Some editors agree that it is wrong and some are opposed. But in my opinion we should improve this encyclopedia by a process of verification so that the inserted text is correct. If eventually it is indeed a mistaken text, then we may ask for advice how to avoid insertion of errors into Misplaced Pages.
- - As a compromise, the statement may be modified to " a long occupation" and not "the longest occupation". Ykantor (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ykantor, if the sources say "a long occupation", we use that. If the source says "the longest occupation" we use that. And to be blunt, your personal opinion about whether the statement is right or wrong is entirely irrelevant. Once again, Misplaced Pages is about sources, not truths.Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- The following searches are:
- Longest military occupation and israel (google books) - https://www.google.com/search?q=longest+military+occupation+and+israel+&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl
- Longest military occupation and israel (google scholar) - http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=longest+military+occupation+and+israel&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
- Longest military occupation and israel (google news) - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+scholar&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=Iy2nVIrxHMuxUdX2gYAJ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=nws&q=longest+military+occupation+and+israel
- The following searches are:
- I think you will find plenty of sources to say this is the longest military occupation in modern times. As one user has recently pointed out, this is an encyclopedia where we use sourced information. Our aim is to collate the information that already exists. If reliable sources say longest military occupation then even if wrong (by some people's views aka fringe views), it must still go in. Misplaced Pages is not the place for incorporating editors views. Mbcap (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mbcap thank-you for the invitation to this discussion. Within the realisation that WP only needs a basic level of citation perhaps I can start by reinterpreting your worthwhile searches above in the following form:
- "longest military occupation" AND israel gets "About 155 results" in books
- "longest military occupation" AND israel gets "About 40 results" in Scholar
- "longest military occupation" AND israel gets "About 28 results" in News
- Potential citations seem to be flowing in abundance and that's before considering phrasing variants. GregKaye 14:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Gregkaye: The very first of the results you found says: "Other occupations, such as the Chinese occupation of Tibet, have been longer and less justified, and Israel ended its occupation in 1995". This is only one source that shows how your method of WP:GOOGLETEST is flawed - you are counting all the works that deal with the subject of the alleged occupation, whether supporting or contradicting it, as evidence of its correctness. 15:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mbcap thank-you for the invitation to this discussion. Within the realisation that WP only needs a basic level of citation perhaps I can start by reinterpreting your worthwhile searches above in the following form:
- My point precisely. If you or WarKosign want to add it, just go ahead. There seems to be a clear consensus that that is a sourced claim. (I'd say Tibet myself, but as I told Ykantor above, our personal opinions are irrelevant). The one question mark that remains is the definition of "in modern times", what exact timespan is intended?Jeppiz (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Jeppiz, I stumbled on this page a few days ago and read the discussion. I did a search and found that it was well sourced. If there is consensus then yes, I think it is sensible to include the statement. However this is not a democracy so we cannot just all decide to do something that is against Misplaced Pages policy. If you still have contentions regarding the aforementioned statement about the longest military occupation, please feel free to discuss them. Mbcap (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap, I'm not sure I follow. I've never suggested we go against any Misplaced Pages policy. Quite the opposite, I've suggested we'd report what the sources say rather than interpreting the sources as it suits us. That is the basic policy of WP:OR.Jeppiz (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for making it clear. I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to your comment about how there seems to be consensus. I was not saying you were going against policy. Rather I was saying, even if there is consensus but we are going against policy, it does not mean the statement "longest military occupation" should be included. That is why I said feel free to discuss your contentions. The encyclopaedia only gets better if people disagree, it keeps us on our toes to put in information that accurately reflects the sum of human knowledge. Secondly the reason I made the strongly worded comment about editors personal views was because it does not deliver much information, thus making it difficult to discern whether your view is reflected in line with wiki policy or something else entirely. It is unnecessary for editors to express their personal views. If you do so, you should say why your opinion deserves to be considered. This would really help other editors. Nevertheless I will look into the Tibet situation. In the meantime I suggest the original editor Oncenawhile who proposed the addition of the aforementioned statement, to incorporate the statement into the article. Any other additions or clarifications for the statement should always follow WP:UNDUE. Mbcap (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz: Since it does not seem right to continue this discussion in the help desk, I would like to ask you here, concerning the difference between a fact and an opinion. My English is not that good, but I still can not understand why do you think that " In my opinion, the Chinese occupation of Tibet is the longest military occupation...in this case we're not talking about an obvious factual error, we're talking about different interpretations." The following text is factual in my opinion: Tibet was occupied by a Chinese army and the Chinese authorities are still ruling there, with their military might, although the Tibetian would like to have an independent state.
Where is the opinion / interpretation here? Ykantor (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz: Since it does not seem right to continue this discussion in the help desk, I would like to ask you here, concerning the difference between a fact and an opinion. My English is not that good, but I still can not understand why do you think that " In my opinion, the Chinese occupation of Tibet is the longest military occupation...in this case we're not talking about an obvious factual error, we're talking about different interpretations." The following text is factual in my opinion: Tibet was occupied by a Chinese army and the Chinese authorities are still ruling there, with their military might, although the Tibetian would like to have an independent state.
- Thank you for making it clear. I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to your comment about how there seems to be consensus. I was not saying you were going against policy. Rather I was saying, even if there is consensus but we are going against policy, it does not mean the statement "longest military occupation" should be included. That is why I said feel free to discuss your contentions. The encyclopaedia only gets better if people disagree, it keeps us on our toes to put in information that accurately reflects the sum of human knowledge. Secondly the reason I made the strongly worded comment about editors personal views was because it does not deliver much information, thus making it difficult to discern whether your view is reflected in line with wiki policy or something else entirely. It is unnecessary for editors to express their personal views. If you do so, you should say why your opinion deserves to be considered. This would really help other editors. Nevertheless I will look into the Tibet situation. In the meantime I suggest the original editor Oncenawhile who proposed the addition of the aforementioned statement, to incorporate the statement into the article. Any other additions or clarifications for the statement should always follow WP:UNDUE. Mbcap (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Tibet has no bearing on the question of whether the statement we're discussing is sourced reliably. My suggestion is to go ahead with the edit, since there don't seem to be any policy-based objections under discussion and this discussion has been open for a while now. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
is an opinion / interpretation rather than a factual sentence.
- Jeppiz I had a look into the Tibet situation and found them not to be under military occupation or any sort of occupation for that matter. It is a recognised territory of the PRC and no country disputes this (at least not officially). If others want to dispute similarly please cite sources. One could claim USA is the longest militar occupation or that South Korea is and the list goes on. One could even say that Jews lived in Palestine for thousands of years and that palestinian arabs are the ones who are doing the occupying so really there is no occupation. However it all comes down to sources and due weight. If there are no sources or there is no due weight, then the claim is rejected with haste. Since a majority agree for inclusion of the statement, could we discuss where to put the statement? It is not immediately clear from reading the talk page, where in the article the inclusion of the statement would be deemed most appropriate. Mbcap (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- The proper place to add this statement is at Status of territories captured by Israel#Occupied or Israeli-occupied territories#Applicability of the term "occupied" or International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict#Legal issues related to occupation, any of the multiple articles dedicated to discussion of the alleged occupation. This article deals with Israel within its internationally recognized borders which nobody calls occupied territory, so this description simply does not belong here. “WarKosign” 16:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Reading this article carefully, the reference could fit well in three places:
- In the lead: Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (1956–57, 1967–82), part of South Lebanon (1982–2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. It extended its laws to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the West Bank. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, but efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have so far not resulted in peace.
- Israel#Administrative divisions
- Israel#Israeli-occupied territories
- It should also go in the other articles you mention. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Reading this article carefully, the reference could fit well in three places:
- The proper place to add this statement is at Status of territories captured by Israel#Occupied or Israeli-occupied territories#Applicability of the term "occupied" or International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict#Legal issues related to occupation, any of the multiple articles dedicated to discussion of the alleged occupation. This article deals with Israel within its internationally recognized borders which nobody calls occupied territory, so this description simply does not belong here. “WarKosign” 16:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Occupied Tibet: The Case in International Law by Eva Herzer. Ykantor (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- ...states clearly that Tibet has been annexed by China. Please read the sources I posted above which explain the difference between "military occupation" and "annexation". They are different terms, hence why numerous sources more reputable than me or you have concluded that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the world's longest ongoing military occupation. The only credible way you can dispute this would be to find an WP:RS which concludes a different situation represents the longest, but when I search "longest military occupation" in google it only comes up with Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Occupied Tibet: The Case in International Law by Eva Herzer. Ykantor (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I was invited to join the discussion by Mbcap but am still unsure of definitions. My first thought is that I would tend to regard annexations and military occupations (which might be better regarded as militarily supported occupations) as, at the very least, having a great deal of overlap. I did some searches:
- ("west bank" AND "Gaza" and "Palestine") AND "annexation" gets "About 4,870 results" in Scholar
- ("west bank" AND "Gaza" and "Palestine") AND "Military occupation" gets "About 4,810 results"
- "Tibet" AND "annexation" gets "About 5,700 results" in Scholar
- "Tibet" AND "Military occupation" gets "About 1,550 results" in Scholar
Also I think that it is notable that the Misplaced Pages article on annexation has sections on the "West Bank", "East Jerusalem" and the "Golan Heights". I don't know why Gaza does not have section. In each case of annexation the governing power has a military and other resources used to maintain control and in each case these resources will be tactically dispatched. For instance, in recent times Israel's resources have been poured into building what I have translated into Misplaced Pages as being "(the) fence, one that caused separation" but this is a relatively new development. For most of the history of the occupation/annexation there has been no physical partition but this is within a political situation that is very well defined as an apartheid. Identity cards are marked with religion and the approach of Israeli security forces with me changed to a remarkably more positive disposition once it was discovered that I had UK nationality. (I'm and Anglo-Euro-Japanese mutt that looks a bit middle eastern). There is disparity there but for most of the history this was without partition. Even when the barrier was being built it was possible to clamber through or around less built sections when travelling with Palestinian friends and, in these cases, I rarely saw a military presence although there was plenty of evidence of destruction which was reportedly by things like the movement of military vehicles. I think that I saw more military presence when with Jewish friends travelling to places like the Dead Sea and Masada when visiting Samaritan villages or passing through checkpoints. Again, inequalities are evident in that the queues for Jews and tourists move much more quickly than the long lines for local Arabs, Armenians etc. However I have no certainty as to how this compares to other annexations. I spent time, with Israeli friends, in Nepal but never made it to Tibet. Speaking to Chinese, Chinese-Tibetan and other tourists I would say that Tibet is certainly under control and I think that China's willingness to use military force when it desires is clear. Also, as long as religious Jews can buy up west bank land and get on with what they want to do, Israel largely leaves the Palestinians to get on with things under their own governance.
I am unsure as to how to define military occupation as distinct from annexation? 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- If I understand corectly, the purpose of adding this remark regarding the occupation is to offer some counter balance to the mostly pro-zionist attitude of the article. Wouldnt there be less contraversial changes which could serve this goal? Such as, remarking that the population census excludes non-Jewish population in the occupied and non-annexed areas, as these do not have citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.225.2.2 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion on actual wording
- Yes I agree partly with your suggestion WarKosign; "The proper place to add this statement is at Status of territories captured by Israel#Occupied or Israeli-occupied territories#Applicability of the term "occupied" or International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict#Legal issues related to occupation, any of the multiple articles dedicated to discussion of the alleged occupation."
- Regarding the alleged occupation which you mention, I would say it is very clear that this is no allegation but rather, it is a statement of fact that Israel has occupied said territories. This is a Fact because it has been asserted as such by so many reliable sources, and not to mention bodies such as the UN, and amnesty internation. The territories are occupied, this is a fact and once in the article it will read as a statement of fact because we have WP:RS compliant sources which stipulate such.
- Ykantor, Tibet is not under occupation, never mind a military one. It is part of PRC which no country disputes.
- Going back to the issue of where to put the statement, yes I agree Oncenawhile, we should place it in the above mentioned articles but most important of all, it needs to be placed in this page first. My proposed wording for inclusion in the lead is in the second paragraph;
- Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (1956–57, 1967–82), part of South Lebanon (1982–2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Israel's continued occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the longest military occupation in modern times. It has extended its laws to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the west Bank. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, but efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have so far not resulted in peace.
- As this is the lead and the statement to be included is a statement of fact, no Fringe views should go into this paragraph or anywhere else on this article for that matter. It would be akin to mentioning flat earth societies on the page. I welcome any policy based objections otherwise we should move to incorporate this in the main article after someone copy edits it. The word occupation is said twice in the sentence and I could not figure out a way to make it single whilst maintaining its meaning. Any help would be appreciated. Mbcap (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is a very obvious fact that Israel captured these territories forcefully (either for very good reasons or not, not going into it now). Military occupation "is effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign". Due to the history of the disputed territories they did not have an "actual sovereign" when Israel invaded, so by this (and several other) definition what is going on on the territories can't be called a military occupation. In practice there is little difference between whatever it should be called and a real military occupation - people are under military rule against their will, this is not a good thing and that it should come to an end some way of another, but calling it an occupation is simply factually incorrect.“WarKosign” 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am fine with Mbcap's proposed drafting. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is a very obvious fact that Israel captured these territories forcefully (either for very good reasons or not, not going into it now). Military occupation "is effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign". Due to the history of the disputed territories they did not have an "actual sovereign" when Israel invaded, so by this (and several other) definition what is going on on the territories can't be called a military occupation. In practice there is little difference between whatever it should be called and a real military occupation - people are under military rule against their will, this is not a good thing and that it should come to an end some way of another, but calling it an occupation is simply factually incorrect.“WarKosign” 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your responses WarKosign and Oncenawhile. As I have mentioned before personal opinions are not useful here (especially if they are WP:FRINGE) if not backed up by policy. Everyone here would welcome and appreciate policy based objections. The aforementioned territories are occupied, this is fact. WarKosign this is not a place for fringe theories. Let me clarify what you are saying because reading what you have written forces ones mind to question ones faculties, so it is not an occupation because; the people we occupied never had a head of state before we came to occupy them. Please could I request that no more Fringe theories such as this should be mentioned and the same goes for the other thousand fringe theories explaining why the the UN, numerous governmental bodies and other groups are wrong as they all suffered a collective incompetency that resulted in a semantic misunderstanding. It is laughable and is not worth its weight in photons. I will wait for a further day to allow any other editors to raise policy based objections. Mbcap (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- If the sentence: “Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has become the longest military occupation in modern times.” was added to the end of the second paragraph of the introduction, it would help move this towards a NPOV article. Both the Lisa Hajjar book and the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/opinion/the-justice-of-occupation.html?_r=0 )would be good citations. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Calling something WP:FRINGE doesn't make it so. "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view", but there are scholarly opinions that go both ways on this subject. There is a dispute over the status of the territories, one side calls it "occupied" while another calls it "disputed". There are arguments for both sides. Taking a definition favoring one POV and disregarding the other creates a biased an unbalanced article. It is OK to say something like "this and that scholar referred to the situation in the disputed territories as the longest military occupation in the modern history", since it is a verifiable fact that these people said so. It is not ok repeat the scholar's opinion in Misplaced Pages voice as a fact, since it's not a fact that it's correct to call the situation occupation and that it's longer than anything in the modern times that could be called occupation. “WarKosign” 07:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your responses WarKosign and Oncenawhile. As I have mentioned before personal opinions are not useful here (especially if they are WP:FRINGE) if not backed up by policy. Everyone here would welcome and appreciate policy based objections. The aforementioned territories are occupied, this is fact. WarKosign this is not a place for fringe theories. Let me clarify what you are saying because reading what you have written forces ones mind to question ones faculties, so it is not an occupation because; the people we occupied never had a head of state before we came to occupy them. Please could I request that no more Fringe theories such as this should be mentioned and the same goes for the other thousand fringe theories explaining why the the UN, numerous governmental bodies and other groups are wrong as they all suffered a collective incompetency that resulted in a semantic misunderstanding. It is laughable and is not worth its weight in photons. I will wait for a further day to allow any other editors to raise policy based objections. Mbcap (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is an ongoing Theatre of the Absurd here. A factual error is about to be included in Misplaced Pages, despite that the mistakes are highlighted. If one reads Operation Trikora, Papua conflict, Azad Kashmir, Jebel Akhdar War, Vietnam War, Ifni War, Indian annexation of Goa,Sino-Indian War, Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, he realizs that there are older military occupations, with oppressed locals, and no solution yet. E.g. Brad Adams the Asia director at Human Rights Watch has said in 2006: "Although ‘azad’ means ‘free,’ the residents of Azad Kashmir are anything but, The Pakistani authorities govern Azad Kashmir with strict controls on basic freedoms".
- I do not think so WarKosign. I do not appreciate your comment on the edit summary. If you wish to state what you said in your edit summary you should also post it here. My response to the summary would be, explaining that the sun is up at this moment in Amsterdam is not an opinion. In fact, it would be silly of me not to take issue with someone who denies that statement of fact. As other editors have mentioned and also for the reasons I highlighted this statement of fact will be put into the page sometime this evening to allow any remaining authors to provide their insight. Your disputes are groundless and without due weight as elucidated by the total lack of reference to sources in the previous posts for the claims which are being made. Could I ask any future posts with objections to reference policy and also to support their claim with sources. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Mbcap: If you mean this edit, I took back a part of my statement (that I do not wish to express an opinion) after I understood that it's silly of me to try to avoid expressing an opinion that I have already expressed, I do not see why it should offend you or anyone else. I reserve the right to call myself stupid at any time.
- I agree that your or mine personal opinions are irrelevant. Each of the 3 articles that I linked to above lists its sources for both POVs, including one that the territories should not be called occupied. It is not WP:FRINGE to represent one of the two sides in a conflict whether you agree with it or not, doing anything else is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. As I wrote above, I am fine with including the statement about the longest occupation as long as it's presented as one point of view and not an objective fact, same as the POV that it is not an occupation is not presented as an indisputable fact.“WarKosign” 09:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I do not think so WarKosign. I do not appreciate your comment on the edit summary. If you wish to state what you said in your edit summary you should also post it here. My response to the summary would be, explaining that the sun is up at this moment in Amsterdam is not an opinion. In fact, it would be silly of me not to take issue with someone who denies that statement of fact. As other editors have mentioned and also for the reasons I highlighted this statement of fact will be put into the page sometime this evening to allow any remaining authors to provide their insight. Your disputes are groundless and without due weight as elucidated by the total lack of reference to sources in the previous posts for the claims which are being made. Could I ask any future posts with objections to reference policy and also to support their claim with sources. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello WarKosign I apologise as I think I have misunderstood what you were doing. You should also revert your change of the talk page since your post was replied to by the time you changed. This is to maintain context and I am sure I read somewhere that it is a serious thing to alter your talk page post after it has been replied to. It seems 2 editors are insistant on putting both sides where I am able to side only one side when it comes to the question of occupation. Even so, I will assume I am ignorant of the issue and invite those editors to provide references from reliable sources that stipulate it is not an occupation.
I have also requested for an editor to help with this dispute, whom I think has expertise on Israel. I will wait for the other editors to respond. Mbcap (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign, Tibet is not occupied. It is not a valid comparison to Palestinian held territories;
- Palestinian territories - internationallay recognised to be under occupation and also plenty of reliable sources which elaborate on this face therefore they are supported by two bodies of evidence
- Tibet - this is the fringe view which has no international recognition as being under occupation (it does not even have some recognition as no country dispute the PRC's sovereignty of Tibet) To give weight to something which has none would not be sensible. Unlike Palestinian territories it has no body of support from nation states and very negligible mention by sources.
- WarKosign, Tibet is not occupied. It is not a valid comparison to Palestinian held territories;
- Tibet is occupied according to this source Ykantor (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Gregkaye. Since it has been shown that there is scholarly weight to the Tibetan claim we should move to incorporate it into the lead when mentioning the longest military occupation in modern history. An altered proposed draft for the consideration of editors;
- The international community consisting of the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the international criminal court as well as human rights organisations, consider Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel however disputes the position of the international community. The occupation of the Palestinian territories is also considered to be the longest military occupation in modern times but this is disputed by some scholars who say Tibet's alleged occupation by China (No Nation State disputes China's sovereignty over Tibet), dates further back than the occupation of the Palestinian territories. Mbcap (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm reading this whole discussion, and you actually showed one of the arguments for those who disagree with the longest occupation claim, simply by writing "Palestinian territories". Technically only since Oslo Accords parts of them became Palestinian territories. When they were captured in 1967 they were not considered or called like that, as there was no such sovereignty. Yuvn86 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ok so we just reword it from the original source at the start of this discussion as
- The international community consisting of the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the international criminal court as well as human rights organisations, consider Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel however disputes the position of the international community. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are also considered to be the longest military occupation in modern times but this is disputed by some scholars who say Tibet's alleged occupation by China (No Nation State disputes China's sovereignty over Tibet), dates further back than the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Mbcap (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Gaza is not occupied by Israel. Ykantor (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also, this draft doesn't make sense: it says that the international community considers Israel to be occupying Gaza, but Israel disputes it because China allegedly occupies Tibet for a longer time. Israel doesn't recognize the occupation itself, regardless of its length. “WarKosign” 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Who are the "some scholars" who say Tibet is currently under military occupation? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- We shouldn't, IMO, discuss Tibet here at all, or define what the international community is. Why not just say "is considered to be the longest military occupation in modern times"? This in a minor point in the article, so it shouldn't be presented in detail. The article has a lot of detail already and we don't intend to start describing Israel as an "alleged" country in every instance (several countries don't recognize Israel). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- We shouldn't, IMO, discuss Tibet here at all, or define what the international community is. Why not just say "is considered to be the longest military occupation in modern times"? This in a minor point in the article, so it shouldn't be presented in detail. The article has a lot of detail already and we don't intend to start describing Israel as an "alleged" country in every instance (several countries don't recognize Israel). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
As I see it this is purely and simply an NPOV issue.I've inserted the image here in an attempt to illustrate the point. The different sources that express opinions about the occupation or not are include governmental and academic sources and both have weight in regard to Misplaced Pages discussion. Several sources regard a recently recognised State of Palestine as being occupied while fewer sources regard Tibet as being occupied. There is no black and white here. We cannot pick and choose sources and draw some arbitrary and subjective line in the sand to say this is the point to which we accept what sources say and this is when we don't.- If a view is to be considered to indicates that Palestine is occupied then (if we are to have neutrality) the view must also be considered that indicates that Tibet is occupied. If it is then proposed the we consider Palestine to be occupied at the same time that we consider Tibet not to be occupied then it would need to argued that relevant sources provide acceptable arguments to say that Palestine is occupies while indicating that relevant sources provide unacceptable arguments in their presentation of an occupied Tibet. I don't think that this can be done. At each point NPOV requires us to consider both sides of the story and, at each point there are two sides. Various academics may take their individual views but, as an encyclopaedia, we cannot take sides. NPOV must either cause us to describe neither to be occupied or both to be occupied. We cannot pick sides with subjective judgements. Relevant questions are not being asked.
- Relevant question Which is the longest Military occupation of a population that wanted independence? Arguably the answer here is Palestine. We can look back at history but one current survey that I referenced seemed to indicate that Tibetans, while having a general antipathy for the Chinese, were not seeking independence. I don't know if this means that they wouldn't choose independence if it was offered on a plate but if clear and reliable survey information was available then this may provide a let out. Failing this I think that NPOV is best applied as presented above. GregKaye 17:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- late comment on above strike, This is in response to comment by Oncenawhile below. The case re Palestine-Israel is different in that Israel presents a democracy in which Arabs are not allowed to vote by the Tibet-China situation is different in that China does not allow any general member of the population to vote. GregKaye 09:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are millions of people around the world who want independence but do not meet the definition of Military occupation (Irish in Northern Ireland, Native Americans in the USA, Tibetans in Tibet, etc.). This key issue is if all the people are given "formal sovereignty" and allowed to become full citizens. Israel does not allow the Arabs in the occupied territories to become citizens because they don't want them voting in their elections. That is why this continues to be a military occupation, while Tibet, Northern Ireland and the USA are not.
- A good example where this issue has already been beaten to death is Misplaced Pages's List of military occupations. Note that Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights are the only occupations on the "current" list that have been going on since the 1960s. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Point well made Gouncbeatduke. My two cents here is that since noone has provided any sources suggesting that Tibet represents the worlds longest military occupation, then there really is no debate. If an editor is determined to perform his/her own WP:OR to try to disprove a well sourced statement, they are welcome to do so as thoughtful testing is always helpful. But a very high bar should be set when balancing the talk page OR of wikipedia editors vs. sourced scholarly statements, and since a reasonable explanation has been provided (the well attested difference between military occupation and annexation), there really is nothing to discuss any more. As I mentioned above, unless Ykantor can find an WP:RS which concludes directly that a different situation represents the longest military occupation, then the Tibet point should be treated as WP:HORSEMEAT. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Gregkaye, I just read your comment in the previous thread as well - the difference between occupation and annexation are explained for example in , , and . The third one explains this in its most simplest form:
- "The significance of the temporary nature of military occupation is that it brings about no change of allegiance. Military government remains an alien government whether of short or long duration, though prolonged occupation may encourage the occupying power to change military occupation into something else, namely annexation" (page 44)
- The reason that Israel sits at the top of this prestigious list of longest occupations is because the West Bank has remained in a state of political limbo under a supposedly "temporary" arrangement for almost half a century. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just found another great source :
- "Although the basic philosophy behind the law of military occupation is that it is a temporary situation modem occupations have well demonstrated that rien ne dure comme le provisoire A significant number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than two decades such as the occupations of Namibia by South Africa and of East Timor by Indonesia as well as the ongoing occupations of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the longest in all occupation's history has already entered its fifth decade."
- Oncenawhile (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Kuril Islands dispute is still not resolved: "The San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan from 1951 states that Japan must give up all claims to the Kuril islands, but it also does not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over the Kuril Islands. Furthermore, Japan currently claims that at least some of the disputed islands are not a part of the Kuril Islands, and thus are not covered by the treaty." Ykantor (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sources that discuss the Kurils probably don't discuss the occupation of Palestine, so the Kurils are irrelevant here. Most sources that discuss Tibet probably don't discuss the occupation of Palestine either, so Tibet is likewise irrelevant here. Most sources seem to simply say this is the longest occupation. By saying "is considered to be" we leave open that it may not be so considered by everyone, and do it in a compact way that doesn't include excessive trivia about this minor point. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ykantor, please could you respond directly to three points you keep avoiding: (1) none of the situations you have raised are under military occupation - the word "military" is crucial here, (2) the populations of all of the examples you raise are citizens of the controlling power (Tibetans are Chinese citizens and Kuriles are Russian citizens), and (3) the credentials of the sources brought to support the proposal here are all high quality. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- More sources: (1) Perry Anderson: "longest official military occupation of modern history—currently entering its thirty-fifth year" (in 2001); (2) Saree Makdisi: "longest-lasting military occupation of the modern age"; (3) Lisa Hajjar: "longest in modern history"; (4) Edward Said: "These are settlements and a military occupation that is the longest in the twentieth and twenty-first century, the longest formerly being the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945. So this is thirty-three years old, pushing the record." Oncenawhile (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ykantor, please could you respond directly to three points you keep avoiding: (1) none of the situations you have raised are under military occupation - the word "military" is crucial here, (2) the populations of all of the examples you raise are citizens of the controlling power (Tibetans are Chinese citizens and Kuriles are Russian citizens), and (3) the credentials of the sources brought to support the proposal here are all high quality. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sources that discuss the Kurils probably don't discuss the occupation of Palestine, so the Kurils are irrelevant here. Most sources that discuss Tibet probably don't discuss the occupation of Palestine either, so Tibet is likewise irrelevant here. Most sources seem to simply say this is the longest occupation. By saying "is considered to be" we leave open that it may not be so considered by everyone, and do it in a compact way that doesn't include excessive trivia about this minor point. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just found another great source :
- Gregkaye, I just read your comment in the previous thread as well - the difference between occupation and annexation are explained for example in , , and . The third one explains this in its most simplest form:
- Point well made Gouncbeatduke. My two cents here is that since noone has provided any sources suggesting that Tibet represents the worlds longest military occupation, then there really is no debate. If an editor is determined to perform his/her own WP:OR to try to disprove a well sourced statement, they are welcome to do so as thoughtful testing is always helpful. But a very high bar should be set when balancing the talk page OR of wikipedia editors vs. sourced scholarly statements, and since a reasonable explanation has been provided (the well attested difference between military occupation and annexation), there really is nothing to discuss any more. As I mentioned above, unless Ykantor can find an WP:RS which concludes directly that a different situation represents the longest military occupation, then the Tibet point should be treated as WP:HORSEMEAT. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- to Oncenawhile: Your points 1,2,3 are correct. How can we convey the right information into the article? I am not sure that the "occupied" status of an occupied territory is canceled at the moment of annexing it by the occupying power. E.g. China annexed Tibet, but on 1961, the U.N resolution 1723 said "this events violates...the principle of self determination of people and nations' . That means that after the Chinese occupation and annexation, The U.N indicated that the Tibetian people are occupied.
- -In my opinion, the article should state that there are other occupied populations and for longer terms, but those other cases are "enjoying" "ordinary occupation" rather than military occupation.
- - Territory: Gaza is not occupied. The west bank population is under partial autonomy. Ykantor (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Propose comment with footnote
In view of comments by Oncenawhile I propose the use of a simple comment as proposed above but with the addition of an explanatory Template:Efn footnote. The case re Palestine-Israel is different in that Israel presents a democracy in which Arabs are not allowed to vote by the Tibet-China situation is different in that China does not allow any general member of the population to vote. I think that NPOV can be satisfied in the inclusion of the comment based on sources but that comment is best qualified with additional information to provide context. GregKaye 09:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd just like to clarify that the assertion that "Arabs are not allowed to vote" in Israel is downright wrong. All citizens can vote. There are Arab political parties and Arab MPs. I think what Greg meant above is that most Arabs in the occupied territories cannot vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli citizens. — Cliftonian (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sure the Arabs in the disputed territories can vote, in 2006 they even gave a terror organization a majority in their parliament. Could such a thing happen under military occupation ?“WarKosign” 12:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding GregKaye's original statement at the top, please note all citizens can vote in Israel. Inside the 1967 Israeli borders, both Jewish and Arab residents are allowed to become citizens. In the Israeli-occupied territories, Jewish residents ARE allowed to become citizens of Israel, and Arab residents are NOT allowed to become citizens of Israel. All residents in Tibet are allowed to become citizens of China, and all citizens of China can vote, but China's elections leave a lot to be desired in terms of democratic freedom. While I think you are misstating the problem a bit, the explanatory Template:Efn footnote sounds workable to me. The footnote might say something like “The international community (including the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the International Criminal Court, and the vast majority of international human rights organizations) consider Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The government of Israel and some of its supporters have, at times, disputed this position of the international community. See Misplaced Pages’s details on International views on the Israeli-occupied territories for more information.”Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do you consider the disputed territories part of Israel ? You can claim that either the territories are under Israel's occupation or that they are part of Israel; don't use both contradictory claims in the same argument. If the territories are a part of Israel there can be no occupation (maybe there is discrimination, but it's a different issue). If the territories are not a part of Israel, obviously the residents are not allowed to vote in Israel's election; they can (and occasionally do) hold elections of their own.“WarKosign” 17:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign To clarify what has been said by Gouncbeatduke, so that the issue is not riddled with confusion:
- Comments above which are using Tibet's situation as comparison are not aware of the difference in situation between the two. That is what is being highlighted here.
- Tibetan are allowed to become citizens of china and all citizens of China can vote
- The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not afforded the same privilege. This point was not made to highlight any point other than to say a comparison is not possible.
- No country in the world disputes the sovereignty of China over Tibet, as opposed to;
- Countries, international bodies (UN), human rights organisations, regional bodies (EU) and the international criminal court consider Israel to be occupying.
- Points above which may have attempted to link the ability of jewish residents to seek citizenship, and the inability of the occupied people to do the same, to discrimination are not valid.
- This is not an issue of discrimination. Jewish residents living is settlements within occupied territories are allowed citizenship. These settlements are built against international law anyway so the issue is more complex than the one being suggested of discrimination.
In light of this could I request another proposed wording to be made. Mbcap (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well said Mbcap. I suggest the following sentence be added to end of the second intro paragraph.
- "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times."
- The note would include: “The majority of the international community (including the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the International Criminal Court, and the vast majority of human rights organizations) considers Israel to be occupying Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The government of Israel and some supporters have, at times, disputed this position of the international community. See Misplaced Pages’s details at International views on the Israeli-occupied territories for more information.”
- Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is acceptable and also well balanced with the note. Does anyone have any objections? Mbcap (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I support that as well. --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would support this solution. — Cliftonian (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I support that as well. --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is acceptable and also well balanced with the note. Does anyone have any objections? Mbcap (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Gouncbeatduke: There is agreement from 3 other editors and no objections have been raised so far. Please feel free to edit the lead in line with what we have discussed. Mbcap (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Make that four also adding my support. There is ambiguity in the claim regarding occupation and I think that the footnote clarifies this well. GregKaye 11:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Do you have reliable sources that say that this is the longest military occupation in modern times or are you just looking at the date and declaring other long standing Military occupations before modern times? Seems like synth and undue weight. Misplaced Pages isn't here to lobby against Israel for the Palestinians or Vice versa.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hello -Serialjoepsycho-, this reply is out of order. My apologies. Just wanted to say that you should really take head and follow your own advice.
Also I think you may need to test out your faculties, especially memory, vision and frontaspatial function. For us to discuss this issue at such a length and for you to come and make an off the cuff remark about just looking at the date is honestly deserving of disgust. Please read the discussion before making ignorant comments.Mbcap (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)- No need for a test of my faculties. They are working just fine. I did not read half of the above when it started to seem like a partisan pissing contest.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mbcap The above discussion has been largely WP:CIVIL. There is no need to comment on your judgements regarding another editor's cognitive abilities. I would further like to remind you that you had previously agreed to argue the argument and not the person.
- -Serialjoepsycho- If you want to accuse Misplaced Pages editors of adopting partisan views then you should substantiate your claim. GregKaye 11:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Out of deference for you GregKaye, I will withdraw my comment. Mbcap (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- No need for a test of my faculties. They are working just fine. I did not read half of the above when it started to seem like a partisan pissing contest.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hello -Serialjoepsycho-, this reply is out of order. My apologies. Just wanted to say that you should really take head and follow your own advice.
-Serialjoepsycho- Yes, the reference has now been added. These are some among others:
- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40609-014-0004-y/fulltext.html
- http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03071840108446671
- http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/palestinian-authority-continues-fail-its-people-689817861
- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LkUhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT120&dq=%22longest+military+occupation%22+and+%22Gaza%22+and+%22West+Bank%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PDuvVLHtLKrD7gaU3IHACg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22longest%20military%20occupation%22%20and%20%22Gaza%22%20and%20%22West%20Bank%22&f=false
- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KnJ94LFpow0C&pg=PA29&dq=%22longest+military+occupation%22+and+%22Gaza%22+and+%22West+Bank%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PDuvVLHtLKrD7gaU3IHACg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22longest%20military%20occupation%22%20and%20%22Gaza%22%20and%20%22West%20Bank%22&f=false
Mbcap (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
| reference list |
|---|
|
Undoing no consensus editing
How come that a discussed sentence with no consensus is inserted into the article? were is the supposed good faith editing?
- this text has a factual mistake - Gaza is not occupied.
- East Jerusalem is annexed to Israel. You can not claim that Tibet Military occupation expired when annexed , but did not expired for east Jerusalem. You can't agree and disagree in the same time.
- The West bank is occupied, but there is a partial autonomy. Ignoring the autonomy is a clear wp:pov.
- note 2 has unsupported claims that should be supported or being erased.
- source no. 25 - Alexandrowicz, Ra'anan is not a source, since this is an opinion and not a newspaper report.
-I am not sure that the "occupied" status of an occupied territory is canceled at the moment of annexing it by the occupying power. E.g. China annexed Tibet, but on 1961, the U.N resolution 1723 said "this events violates...the principle of self determination of people and nations' . That means that after the Chinese occupation and annexation, The U.N indicated that the Tibetian people are still occupied.
-In my opinion, the article should state that there are other occupied populations and for longer terms, but those other cases are "enjoying" "ordinary occupation" rather than military occupation.
- I revert this bad edit. Ykantor (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ykantor, I have reverted your edit. The statement was well sourced and deliberated over since the 18th of December. We finally reached concensus and the sources were so strong
you would have to have an above average disposition towards psychosis to object. That is just an example to demonstrate how far your statement "factual mistake" is to reality.If an editor makes a contribution in good faith and with credible sources, you discuss first then edit. The above editors spent a long time collecting sources and editing them in appropriatley, together with the footnote. They also spent a considerable amount of time discussing the issue with you despite there being enough evidence to merit inclusion. Your revert shows the utter disregard you have for the hard work that was done. If this is repeated again despite concensus on the issue, I will personally take you to ANI. A point to take not of is, everyone is aware of your circular arguments. I hope you are able to entertain yourself as I will certainly not be giving any consideration to the above points. We have covered them in exeptional detail.Which is why I mentioned, I think you are either possibly psychotic or a paid pro-zionist pusher. Definatley one or the other.Mbcap (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)- to Mbcap:You are encouraged to complain since it seems that you do not bother to refer to this edit problems, e.g Gaza is not occupied. Ykantor (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- - Gaza is not occupied. sources:
- "Is Gaza Occupied?- Redefining the Legal Status of Gaza", by Elizabeth Samson: " Although Israel’s loss of “effective control” over Gaza is legally sufficient to indicate that the occupation of the territory has ended, there has been a reluctance on the part of the international community to accept the change in status. While it is not legally necessary to obtain international recognition of Israel’s position, it is politically important for the absence of occupation to be acknowledged by international legal experts so that Israel would not be held to the more stringent legal requirements of an occupier and to lend greater legitimacy to Israel’s acts of self-defense". Also
- Tel Aviv University, Eyal Benvenisti: "the so called "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip in 2005", in his article:""
- Solon Solomon, winter 2011 issue of the Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law
- Peter Berkowitz,"Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War" Ykantor (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ykantor, the article by Elizabeth Samson (who is a lawyer, not an academic) is, as you said of another article above, merely an opinion. Further, as she notes repeatedly in the article, international law still recognises Gaza as being occupied; she is trying to change that: "It is, therefore, imperative that the official legal status of Gaza be changed." This therefore proves exactly the opposite of what you contend; it establishes that, even in the view of someone who does not believe that Gaza is occupied, the international legal status is that it is indeed occupied. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand the point of your second link. This is not, as you imply, by Eyal Benvenisti, but rather an attack on him by a non-reliable advocacy site, and carries no weight at all. I can't open your third link, which is behind a paywall. But it too seems to be an opinion piece, by a former legal adviser to the Knesset Foreign Affairs committee, arguing why international consensus is wrong and should change. And your fourth link is again to an argument, this time by political scientist and Republican politician Peter Berkowitz, that international consensus is wrong and should be changed. The conclusion from all of these links is that, much as you and some commentators may not like it, the consensus under international law is that Gaza is still under Israeli occupation. Unless and until you find a reference in a reliable source asserting that this is not the international legal consensus (not simply one which argues that it should not be the international legal consensus), ythen you cannot assert this in the article. RolandR (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Here are three clear sources confirming the consensus re Gaza:
- Sanger, Andrew (2011). "The Contemporary Law of Blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla". Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2010. 13. Springer Science & Business Media: 429. ISBN 9789067048118.
Israel claims it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip, maintaining that it is neither a Stale nor a territory occupied or controlled by Israel, but rather it has 'sui generis' status. Pursuant to the Disengagement Plan, Israel dismantled all military institutions and settlements in Gaza and there is no longer a permanent Israeli military or civilian presence in the territory. However the Plan also provided that Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip as well as maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border. and reserving the right to reenter Gaza at will.
Israel continues to control six of Gaza's seven land crossings, its maritime borders and airspace and the movement of goods and persons in and out of the territory. Troops from the Israeli Defence Force regularly enter pans of the territory and/or deploy missile attacks, drones and sonic bombs into Gaza. Israel has declared a no-go buffer zone that stretches deep into Gaza: if Gazans enter this zone they are shot on sight. Gaza is also dependent on israel for inter alia electricity, currency, telephone networks, issuing IDs, and permits to enter and leave the territory. Israel also has sole control of the Palestinian Population Registry through which the Israeli Army regulates who is classified as a Palestinian and who is a Gazan or West Banker. Since 2000 aside from a limited number of exceptions Israel has refused to add people to the Palestinian Population Registry.
It is this direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza that has led the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, International human rights organisations, US Government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a significant number of legal commentators, to reject the argument that Gaza is no longer occupied.{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|editors=ignored (|editor=suggested) (help) - Scobbie, Iain (2012). Elizabeth Wilmshurst (ed.). International Law and the Classification of Conflicts. Oxford University Press. p. 295. ISBN 9780199657759.
Even after the accession to power of Hamas, Israel's claim that it no longer occupies Gaza has not been accepted by UN bodies, most States, nor the majority of academic commentators because of its exclusive control of its border with Gaza and crossing points including the effective control it exerted over the Rafah crossing until at least May 2011, its control of Gaza's maritime zones and airspace which constitute what Aronson terms the 'security envelope' around Gaza, as well as its ability to intervene forcibly at will in Gaza.
- Gawerc, Michelle (2012). Prefiguring Peace: Israeli-Palestinian Peacebuilding Partnerships. Lexington Books. p. 44. ISBN 9780739166109.
While Israel withdrew from the immediate territory, Israel still controlled all access to and from Gaza through the border crossings, as well as through the coastline and the airspace. ln addition, Gaza was dependent upon Israel for water electricity sewage communication networks and for its trade (Gisha 2007. Dowty 2008). ln other words, while Israel maintained that its occupation of Gaza ended with its unilateral disengagement Palestinians - as well as many human right organizations and international bodies - argued that Gaza was by all intents and purposes still occupied.
- Sanger, Andrew (2011). "The Contemporary Law of Blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla". Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2010. 13. Springer Science & Business Media: 429. ISBN 9789067048118.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Here are three clear sources confirming the consensus re Gaza:
- Ykantor, I have reverted your edit. The statement was well sourced and deliberated over since the 18th of December. We finally reached concensus and the sources were so strong
Is it worth confining the statement re: occupation to the west bank and golan heights? Perhaps a further note of clarification can be given to the historic situation in Gaza. Before Israeli "withdrawl", was Gaza amongst areas that had been occupied for the longest timespan in midern history? I am dubious about the validity of inclusion of Gaza as an occupied territory on the grounds of NPOV. There seem to be different academic opinions as just being previously mentioned that are brought to bear. GregKaye 12:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
-Sanger says: "maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border. and reserving the right to reenter Gaza at will.", which is a factual lie.
- Scobbie, Iain :" because of its exclusive control of its border with Gaza and crossing points". , which is a factual lie.
- Gawerc, Michelle : "Israel still controlled all access to and from Gaza through the border crossings"., which is a factual lie. also: "Gaza was dependent upon Israel for water electricity sewage communication networks and for its trade" - Instead of thanking Israel that supply electricity to Gaza, although they try to kill us with rockets, he use it as a tool to demonize Israel. Are there some honest people around? Ykantor (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Even if you think the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005, which is a small minority view and probably WP:FRINGE, the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem is still the longest military occupation in modern times. The sentence is factual and accurate. The occupation of the Golan Heights should probably be added to the sentence for completeness, but then we are likely to get entangled in the whole annexation vs. military occupation argument all over again. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Disputed territory
The map in the Russia article has Crimea marked in light green on the grounds that the peninsula is "de facto administered by Russia." Now, Israel de facto administers the Golan Heights, to say nothing of the Judea and Samaria Area. Why no consistency?124.180.140.187 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Because most Misplaced Pages editors allow a NPOV on Russia, but only allow pro-Israel/anti-State-of-Palestine views to be expressed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comparing a very recent event to a long term situation. The Israel maps usually show dashed lines or other methods to demonstrate the dispute. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- The map in the infobox of the Israel article has no dotted lines or any other indication of the occupation of the Golan Heights. The only border shown on the map regarding the Golan Heights is the pre-1967 Syrian border. A better map is needed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Should we also have dotted lines to indicate Israel's borders as defined in the Partition Plan? --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ukraine, is more reacent, and it's light green.... http://en.wikipedia.org/Ukraine 5.29.165.246 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- The map in the infobox of the Israel article has no dotted lines or any other indication of the occupation of the Golan Heights. The only border shown on the map regarding the Golan Heights is the pre-1967 Syrian border. A better map is needed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comparing a very recent event to a long term situation. The Israel maps usually show dashed lines or other methods to demonstrate the dispute. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
References
- Peter Berkowitz (9 April 2012). Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War. Hoover Press. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-0-8179-1436-3.
Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
while viewing the Israel page in wikipedia, i have stumbled upon a wrong map of an existing borders of this country. While it is known widely, i don't understand why the golan heights were removed out of the map,while israel got cities there, and even jurisdiction. All of this while Israel is the last fort of Resistance to terrorist groups.
sources :http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/Middleeastweb/snapshot/GolanHeights.htm http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3411166,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/04/al-qaida-fighters-along-israel-border-in-golan-heights-give-israelis-new-cause/ Dmagio (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no explicit request here. The question you seem to pose is whether we should change the map. The answer to that is no, we use the map with Israel's internationally recognised borders.Jeppiz (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Golan Heights are a sovereign part of Israel according to international law. Why is the OCHA map displaying boarders that haven't existed since 1967 being shown?124.180.140.187 (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- No country has accepted Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, just as no country has accepted Armenia's annexation of Nagorno-Karabach.Jeppiz (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- The IP's definition of “international law” is the exact opposite of what every international court has said. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
|religion = Judaism "Israel is known as the Jewish state. Majority of its population is Jewish over 75%" 50.248.46.25 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} 16:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm guessing the request is to change the religion in the infobox from 'none official' to 'judaism' based on the fact that 75% of the population is of Jewish ethnicity. It is wrong since there are 3 sources for the statement that there is no official religion. There is little doubt that there are more people practicing Judaism than any other religion, but it doesn't make it the official religion. “WarKosign” 16:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV?
 |
|
Editor Ashurbanippal changed (via a revert)
This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 in which the British killed 5,032 Arabs and wounded 14,760, and resulting in over ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled.
to
This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 and led the British to introduce restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine with the White Paper of 1939.
This is typical of the editing throughout this very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab non-NPOV article. When every a small number of Jews are killed, it is discussed in great detail. If any editor attempts to mention Arabs or British casualties, the edits are immediately removed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to argue for neutrality, please start acting accordingly. Without taking a stand on who is right or wrong, your description above is heavily biased. It's not the case that Ashurbanippal changed it. What happened is that you changed the article, and Ashurbanippal reverted your edit. I'm not saying it was right (or wrong) of Ashurbanippal to do so, but if you want to argue NPOV, start by giving NPOV accounts of events. As for the article being POV, you're free to give examples. I think it manages to be surprisingly NPOV, and the best proof of that is that POV-warriors from both sides regularly accuses it of not being NPOV, so clearly we don't give in completely to the POV of one side or the other.Jeppiz (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps English is not your first language, but what I said was “If any editor attempts to mention Arabs or British casualties, the edits are immediately removed.” If I, or any other editor, attempts an edit that included information on Arabs or British casualties, it is immediate reverted by a pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pusher. Above is an example of that. The article history section includes information like “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.” Why is that more important to Israel’s history than 5,032 Arabs being killed and 14,760 wounded? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- So first you misrepresent what actually happened, and when this is pointed out then your next strategy is a personal attack? For the record, I do agree with your edit but when an edit is reverted the correct strategy is to go to the talk page and discuss it calmly in a factual way. Making strong accusations against other is seldom the right strategy.Jeppiz (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I just think "immediately removed" and "immediately reverted" mean the same thing in the English language. I don't understand what you think the difference is. Maybe if I said "Editor Ashurbanippal changed (via a revert)" instead of just "Editor Ashurbanippal changed" it would be more clear? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- So first you misrepresent what actually happened, and when this is pointed out then your next strategy is a personal attack? For the record, I do agree with your edit but when an edit is reverted the correct strategy is to go to the talk page and discuss it calmly in a factual way. Making strong accusations against other is seldom the right strategy.Jeppiz (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps English is not your first language, but what I said was “If any editor attempts to mention Arabs or British casualties, the edits are immediately removed.” If I, or any other editor, attempts an edit that included information on Arabs or British casualties, it is immediate reverted by a pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pusher. Above is an example of that. The article history section includes information like “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.” Why is that more important to Israel’s history than 5,032 Arabs being killed and 14,760 wounded? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gouncbeatduke: before your edit, there was no mention of casualties of the revolt on either side. You apparently decided that the casualties number of this specific event in whole of Israel's history is important enough to mention, but only for one of three sides. It does not sound like very NPOV to me. It also seems UNDUE - could you elaborate what's the reason to tell the number of casualties of one side of this specific conflict, when (as far as I see) there is no mention of casualties numbers for any of the wars (which had far more casualties), only links to their appropriate articles ?“WarKosign” 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to mention the relatively small numbers of British Security Forces casualties (262 killed, c. 550 wounded) and Jewish casualties (c. 300 killed), I have no problem with that. Given many events with much smaller Jewish casualties are include in the article (for example, “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.”) I do not think it is UNDUE to include the over 20,000 Arab casualties here. I would disagree with calling it a "war" from a NPOV, it was really a genocide of indigenous people to clear room for Jewish colonialists, so using the current "revolt" term is more NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no need to add all casualties to the revolt here; if someone wants to read full details, he can click on the main article. Maybe you can start yourself if you are so one-sided on this topic. Many of the British policies were actually pro-Arab during the 1930's and 40's, and overall the Arab population had a huge population growth and their numbers doubled during the 25 years of the Mandate. That's the opposite of "genocide". Yuvn86 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is the very unbalanced treatment of Jews and Arabs throughout the article. If Arabs kill Jews, casualty number are included, regardless of whether you can click and get information. For example, in the “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured” statement currently in the article, you can click on Coastal Road Massacre and get the casualty numbers, but you don’t have to because Jewish casualty numbers are almost always included and Arab casualty numbers are almost never included. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the first intifada the article says "More than a thousand people were killed in the violence", without mentioning Israeli casualties. There should be a policy that determines when and which casualties numbers are included and not every editor free to add numbers that promote the POV they like. “WarKosign” 22:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is the very unbalanced treatment of Jews and Arabs throughout the article. If Arabs kill Jews, casualty number are included, regardless of whether you can click and get information. For example, in the “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured” statement currently in the article, you can click on Coastal Road Massacre and get the casualty numbers, but you don’t have to because Jewish casualty numbers are almost always included and Arab casualty numbers are almost never included. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no need to WP:SOAPBOX. Calling the Jews returning to their homeland (which they never abandoned) "colonials", and calling the Palestinians (who did not exist as distinctive people before 19th century ,coinciding with Zionism, and who happened to multiply rapidly just as Aliyah commenced) "indigenous people" is a wild misrepresentation of history. “WarKosign” 15:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- While some feel there was no distinction of "Palestinian" Arabs from other Arabs prior to the 19th century, the history of both Jews and Arabs in Palestine extends well over 2000 years. The term colonialist refers to people being thrown off their land without payment to make room for immigrants. None of this has anything to do with the central question. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you have reliable sources on History of the Palestinian people prior to 1834, you should add a section there. Don't forget that before people were thrown off "their land" (or sold it, or left on their own), they colonized this land after previous inhabitants were "thrown off without payment". If you want to trace back, trace all the way to the Canaanitess or Philistines, if they still were around they would have the most valid claim on the land. “WarKosign” 18:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have time to edit the History of the Palestinian people article, and I don't even know if all Arab history in the area of today's Palestine belongs in that article. If you are interested in the subject, I suggest you read the Islamization of Palestine article which includes the Arab conquest of Jerusalem from the Byzantine Romans in 636 and some of the Arab history following. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you have reliable sources on History of the Palestinian people prior to 1834, you should add a section there. Don't forget that before people were thrown off "their land" (or sold it, or left on their own), they colonized this land after previous inhabitants were "thrown off without payment". If you want to trace back, trace all the way to the Canaanitess or Philistines, if they still were around they would have the most valid claim on the land. “WarKosign” 18:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- While some feel there was no distinction of "Palestinian" Arabs from other Arabs prior to the 19th century, the history of both Jews and Arabs in Palestine extends well over 2000 years. The term colonialist refers to people being thrown off their land without payment to make room for immigrants. None of this has anything to do with the central question. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no need to add all casualties to the revolt here; if someone wants to read full details, he can click on the main article. Maybe you can start yourself if you are so one-sided on this topic. Many of the British policies were actually pro-Arab during the 1930's and 40's, and overall the Arab population had a huge population growth and their numbers doubled during the 25 years of the Mandate. That's the opposite of "genocide". Yuvn86 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This far Gouncbeatduke has given one example of "just Israeli victims", the massacre in 1978. If Gouncbeatduke would like to start being constructive instead of pointy, they could either make a list of cases instead of just mentioning one single case or make a rational argument for what should be changed.Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Back to the Question
I think the central question here is: Why should the article detail Jewish casualties (for example, the “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.” statement) and not detail Arab casualties (such as the 20,000 Arab casualties of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 or the 107 Arabs killed in the Deir Yassin massacre)? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- It shouldn't. In most cases, if a fatal incident doesn't link to a dedicated article than it's probably not notable enough to be mentioned, especially in such level of detail. If there is a dedicated article then the causalities are already numbered there. “WarKosign” 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- A life is a life. Israel has territories in its occupational perimeter and, as it has so far "failed" (for want of a better word) to release these territories, then they remain Israel's responsibility. A life is a life and every life within the responsible borders of Israel should be equally and fairly accounted for. GregKaye 19:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well said. Unfortunately, the POV-pushing editors will never allow this to happen unless more people stand up to them. All reference to the Deir Yassin massacre has been removed via reverts, as well as any reference to the 20,000 Arab casualties in the Arab revolt of 1936–39. When Jews are killed, such as the 38 killed in the the Coastal Road Massacre, the numbers are itemized in the article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Both Semitic casualties should be mentioned. Kashta (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not to do so might etymologically be regarded as being anti-Semitic. I think that any editor who has deleted relevant references to lives lost in Israel should be challenged potentially on prejudice/partisan attitude and certainly on POV and with reference to this thread.
- However I don't know whether it is relevant to limit the issue to Semites. As per Demographics of Israel#Ethnic and religious groups there are other groups that can have representation.
- I think that it would be fair to also permit commentary on the figures. There are a lot more Arab casualties (with an even larger number when other groups are factored in) than Jewish casualties. I think that care must be taken that this does not become a soapbox for any Palestinian antagonism but there must be a fair representation of the facts. GregKaye 11:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are bundling together Arabs who died on the territory of Israel and Arabs from neighboring states . This article deals with Israel, so it makes sense to concentrate on casualties in Israel + disputed territories, of the citizens/inhabitants of either ethnicity. Here are total numbers of casualties in all the Israel-Arab conflicts. If you sum up casualties of terror, riots, intifadas and operations in the disputed territories you'll see the numbers are quite similar (12K vs 15K). “WarKosign” 15:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Jewish Virtual Library is a very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab web site that should not be cited in any NPOV article. Even the web page you are pointing to at this very biased web site shows the "total" deaths in the conflict to be about 25K Jewish and 91K Arab. There is nothing at the web page that supports your original research numbers (12K vs. 15K). Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Arab–Israeli conflict gives essentially the same numbers (22K vs 91K), but without breaking them into to specific wars. GregKaye made the OR claim that there "a lot are more Arab casualties" without providing any evidence, and I gave a proof that this OR is wrong. Vast majority of these Arabs were not Israeli Arabs nor Palestinians but citizens of countries that attacked Israel. You can't expect an article on a country to focus on casualties in other countries that chose to attack it and suffered the consequences. There are slightly more Israeli Arab/Palestinian casualties in internal conflicts, and the article should treat all loss of life similarly. “WarKosign” 17:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Jewish Virtual Library is a very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab web site that should not be cited in any NPOV article. Even the web page you are pointing to at this very biased web site shows the "total" deaths in the conflict to be about 25K Jewish and 91K Arab. There is nothing at the web page that supports your original research numbers (12K vs. 15K). Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are bundling together Arabs who died on the territory of Israel and Arabs from neighboring states . This article deals with Israel, so it makes sense to concentrate on casualties in Israel + disputed territories, of the citizens/inhabitants of either ethnicity. Here are total numbers of casualties in all the Israel-Arab conflicts. If you sum up casualties of terror, riots, intifadas and operations in the disputed territories you'll see the numbers are quite similar (12K vs 15K). “WarKosign” 15:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Both Semitic casualties should be mentioned. Kashta (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well said. Unfortunately, the POV-pushing editors will never allow this to happen unless more people stand up to them. All reference to the Deir Yassin massacre has been removed via reverts, as well as any reference to the 20,000 Arab casualties in the Arab revolt of 1936–39. When Jews are killed, such as the 38 killed in the the Coastal Road Massacre, the numbers are itemized in the article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- A life is a life. Israel has territories in its occupational perimeter and, as it has so far "failed" (for want of a better word) to release these territories, then they remain Israel's responsibility. A life is a life and every life within the responsible borders of Israel should be equally and fairly accounted for. GregKaye 19:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign sorry for the lack of quotation but I thought this would have/ should have been common knowledge. My background is from having connections to Israeli, Arab peace groups where both sides were well aware of the proportionately high level of casualties on the Palestinian side. Here are a few references that immediately came to hand from a search on palestinian israeli death ratio.
These are just talk page references and clearly article contents should be properly checked. All lives within the demographic area of the borders of Israel must be considered equally with whichever statistics are chosen to be used.
Can I ask if there are any Arab/Palestinian residents within Israel who have become casualties the conflict who are not accounted for in your re-conning of "Israeli Arab/Palestinian casualties". What are your references. GregKaye 18:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note that 2 of the source deal on with Operation Protective Edge, while one covers only events since 2000. My comment was about all the deaths since before founding Israel; not just the recent years. I was looking at this source, but I don't think there is major disagreement on the facts between the sources, only on their interpretation. I'm not sure about your last question, Here is a partial list of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians. “WarKosign” 20:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- GregKaye, your problem is you are presenting well cited, NPOV facts. The Misplaced Pages editors that control the Israel article only allow pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pushing original research to be included in the article, any NPOV citation of NPOV secondary sources is immediately reverted. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think a NPOV article on Israel would contain reference to the Deir Yassin massacre and King David Hotel bombing, and include the casualties of the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. The article already includes many events with mostly Jewish casualties, such as the “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured” statement. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign Can I suggest that if you want to continue a discussion regarding the ratio of fatalities between Jews in Israel in comparison to other resident ethnic groups in Israel, that you consider doing this in a new thread dedicated to the topic. This thread started by posing the very specific question, "This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV?, Gouncbeatduke then restarted this discussion under the heading, "Back to the question". At present, on this important issue, I fear we are straying off topic. Demography is the study of human populations and, in the article being discussed, we are discussing the demographic facts as they relate to Israel, a country placed in categories such as "Western Asian countries", "Arabic-speaking countries and territories", "Member states of the Union for the Mediterranean", "Member states of the United Nations", "Middle Eastern countries" and "Republics". Surely the article on Israel should adopt a similar practice in presenting figures on populations with the same impartiality as other articles. First we have a simple question relating to the relevance of placement of information casualties from, for example, the Arabic ethnic group. Another discussion can then debate the specifics regarding the specific contents to be included. the following signature was added in retrospect. GregKaye 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Back to the question resumed
The question has been presented by Gouncbeatduke proposed in the form: "This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV?.
Comment has subsequently been added by, Jeppiz, Gouncbeatduke, WarKosign, Yuvn86, GregKaye and Kashta. Further RfC responses relating to the above mentioned question are welcome. GregKaye 12:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like the POV-pushing edit warriors are no longer going to allow this discussion. The POV tags for this subject have now been reverted from the article repeatedly. Gouncbeatduke (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be more constructive to write here a list of non-neutral mentions of casualties and discuss whether/how each should be fixed to achieve neutrality. Putting the neutrality tags on a whole section is not (always) enough to know which spot you consider biased. “WarKosign” 18:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is very clear from comments above and below that support is given for the concept that well cited information of casualties regardless of their ethnic roots (and the trifling differences in their DNA) should be added into the article. If information is cited then its inclusion may be disputed in the talk page but I would regard its removal without discussion to be disruptive. Sources such as those like Amnesty should be used. I am very wary of the use of citation information from sources like jewishvirtuallibrary.org within the article (which currently receives 14 links from the article) and would prefer WP:RS sources to be used that may be less prone to bias. However, if sources like the jewishvirtuallibrary.org can be used then I think that this opens up a wide range of potential source use. GregKaye 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be more constructive to write here a list of non-neutral mentions of casualties and discuss whether/how each should be fixed to achieve neutrality. Putting the neutrality tags on a whole section is not (always) enough to know which spot you consider biased. “WarKosign” 18:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Doesn't this fall under discretionary sanctions? If people are actively making the article less neutral, report them to Arbcom. They'll probably get topic banned or blocked. And, yes, of course one standard needs to enforced for both Palestinian and Israeli casualties. One suggestion that I saw earlier in this conversation is that no conflict should be described unless it has an independent article. That seems like a fairly reasonable rule-of-thumb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
RfC: What borders should be used as base for information presentation on Israel: the UN arranged borders of 1947, the Green Line borders of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the borders to which Israel established military control in areas named the West Bank, the Golan Heights and (possibly) Gaza or another option?
| Notice of discussion change in response to comments in the later thread #Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel I have changed the topic of this RfC from "Neutral photographic representation for areas within Israel's borders" to its current title. content from, as previously titles, thread topic, "Neutral photographic representation for areas within Israel's borders" |
|---|
|
It is proposed here that photographic representation within various sections of the article should be in close proportion to the proportions of areas and populations within Israel's borders. This means that, if the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights contribute to a certain proportion of the area within the national boundaries of Israel and to a certain proportion of the population, then the representation of photographs within various sections of the article should reflect these proportions. It is proposed that the sections of the article that should have the type of photographic representation mentioned above are: and possibly also being applied to: Thanks for your consideration. GregKaye 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
What borders should be used as base for information presentation on Israel: the UN arranged borders of 1947, the Green Line borders of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the borders to which Israel established military control in areas named the West Bank, the Golan Heights and (possibly) Gaza or another option?
It is proposed that Misplaced Pages should present clear border defined content related to its presentation and that the article should not include some information and images from within one border defined area while discounting other information from within the same border defined area.
I think that it also needs to be decided/clarified which description of borders are to be used and to what extent reference should be made to other borders.
Parameters of the 1949 Armistice Agreements
I think that it should be noted that Armistice Demarcation Lines do not change borders. As noted by another editor in another discussion, the Armistice Agreements specifically say;
- Egypt/Israel - Article 4. 3. "It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice."
- Lebanon/Israel - Art 2. 2. "(a) The provisions of this agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."
- Syria/Israel - Art 2. 2. "It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military and not by political considerations."
- Jordan/Israel - Art 2. "2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.
GregKaye 13:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would support either clear and consistent use of either the UN mandate borders as a base for a definition of the content of Israel or the use of green line boundaries. I think that whichever borders are used within the article then that set of borders should be applied consistently. The UN mandate borders are those that contain an area that is most widely accepted to be Israel and I have a slight preference for this area to be used for a base description for what is Israel. I think that the article would gain in informational content if it specified if a mentioned location is situated between the UN mandate demarkation and the green line if, indeed, this information on such locations is to be added at all. I do not think that any information on locations on the Palestinian side of the green line should be added into the article and I believe that this would be a neutral approach to the presentation of information on these areas by Misplaced Pages. GregKaye 12:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree similarly along those lines. However, I would want to make a special indication of East Jerusalem with it's borders to indicate that it is the most disputed part of the map and possibly indicate Israeli control of East Jerusalem. The Golan Heights should have lines noting the DMZ exists. West Bank and Gaza should also be labeled in the map as part of Palestine. I would want to have the map labeled with both Israel and Palestine because a discussion of the border of Israel will always involve a discussion of the border of Palestine. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel
Is there any reason why Arabic cities within the border region controlled by Israel are not represented in the Template:Largest cities of Israel? This template currently displays a limited selection of cities within Israel's borders as follows:
| Largest cities or towns in Israel Israel Central Bureau of Statistics | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Name | District | Pop. | ||||||
 Jerusalem  Tel Aviv |
1 | Jerusalem | Jerusalem | 796,200* |  Haifa  Rishon LeZion | ||||
| 2 | Tel Aviv | Tel Aviv | 404,500 | ||||||
| 3 | Haifa | Haifa | 269,300 | ||||||
| 4 | Rishon LeZion | Central | 231,700 | ||||||
| 5 | Ashdod | Southern | 211,400 | ||||||
| 6 | Petah Tikva | Central | 210,800 | ||||||
| 7 | Beersheba | Southern | 195,800 | ||||||
| 8 | Netanya | Central | 188,200 | ||||||
| 9 | Holon | Tel Aviv | 182,000 | ||||||
| 10 | Bnei Brak | Tel Aviv | 161,100 | ||||||
* This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas.
Other cites within Israel's borders include:
I propose that a listing of the largest cites in Israel should be inclusive of all of the largest cites within Israel's borders.
GregKaye 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- The article says that Israel borders the Palestinian territories, so clearly the consensus is that these territories are outside of Israel. Ignoring for a moment the question whether it should be changed, do you believe it can be changed ? If these territories are not a part of Israel, how can these cities be listed as cities in Israel ? “WarKosign” 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- On a side note, you're aware that no government, including that of the State of Israel, considers Gaza or any city in Gaza to be a part of Israel, right?ni believe this has been the case since 2003. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 28 Tevet 5775 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign I did not realise that this was the situation of the article. Am I right in saying that the "Old City of Jerusalem" and its 'holy' sites are all within the area described as Palestinian territories and that, by the reasoning presented by the article, these locations are not to be regarded as being in Israel? In your opinion, in what way should areas within Palestinian Territories be represented. Should they be included in the Israel article or not? GregKaye 18:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: Israel considers the whole city of Jerusalem, east and west, part of it. Palestinian National Authority considers east Jerusalem occupied. Because of this disagreement, the number in the template has a comment "* This number includes occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas.".
- The rest of the cities in your list are in the Palestinian territories, so I see no reason to include them in the list of cities in Israel. Parts of Israel right wing might consider them part of Greater Israel, but this view is not mainstream. “WarKosign” 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign So what is it to be? The article can't have it both ways. The article should either consider areas in Palestinian territories as part of Israel inclusive of locations such Hebron, Nablus etc. as well as occupied east Jerusalem or it should not consider these areas as part of Israel. I can only consider that neutrality has, intentionally or not, departed. The article is not here to advocate for either the Israeli government's interpretations and propaganda or that of the Palestinians. However there are two sets of borders that can be considered in the cases of Gaza and West Bank/Golan regions - either Green Line (Israel) or the borders of occupation/control/military domination. If the first option is chosen then East Jerusalem, the old city inclusive of its holy sites cannot be considered as part of the article's description of Israel and if the second option is chosen then, certainly, East Jerusalem et.al. should not be presented as being part of Israel. GregKaye 09:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- East Jerusalem is not universally accepted as a part of Israel and it should not be presented as such. There are two options: either present no information at all on the population of Jerusalem, or provide it with the disclaimer that the inclusion of east Jerusalem is disputed. Clearly existing consensus is to use the second option. “WarKosign” 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- This blatantly untrue and this is something that I think that anyone with the even rudimentary familiarity with topics such as the green line and Israeli/Palestinian history will clearly realise. The article can't have it both ways. It should either use one set of borders or another. GregKaye 11:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Are you saying that East Jerusalem is universally accepted as a part of Israel ? This claim needs an WP:EXCEPTIONAL source. “WarKosign” 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- This blatantly untrue and this is something that I think that anyone with the even rudimentary familiarity with topics such as the green line and Israeli/Palestinian history will clearly realise. The article can't have it both ways. It should either use one set of borders or another. GregKaye 11:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- East Jerusalem is not universally accepted as a part of Israel and it should not be presented as such. There are two options: either present no information at all on the population of Jerusalem, or provide it with the disclaimer that the inclusion of east Jerusalem is disputed. Clearly existing consensus is to use the second option. “WarKosign” 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign So what is it to be? The article can't have it both ways. The article should either consider areas in Palestinian territories as part of Israel inclusive of locations such Hebron, Nablus etc. as well as occupied east Jerusalem or it should not consider these areas as part of Israel. I can only consider that neutrality has, intentionally or not, departed. The article is not here to advocate for either the Israeli government's interpretations and propaganda or that of the Palestinians. However there are two sets of borders that can be considered in the cases of Gaza and West Bank/Golan regions - either Green Line (Israel) or the borders of occupation/control/military domination. If the first option is chosen then East Jerusalem, the old city inclusive of its holy sites cannot be considered as part of the article's description of Israel and if the second option is chosen then, certainly, East Jerusalem et.al. should not be presented as being part of Israel. GregKaye 09:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign I did not realise that this was the situation of the article. Am I right in saying that the "Old City of Jerusalem" and its 'holy' sites are all within the area described as Palestinian territories and that, by the reasoning presented by the article, these locations are not to be regarded as being in Israel? In your opinion, in what way should areas within Palestinian Territories be represented. Should they be included in the Israel article or not? GregKaye 18:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Support Inclusive I agree that all the cities in Israel should be included so long as a footnote, or other type of note, explains the unique problem such a list involves. This includes those cities in the occupied zones so occupied after the various wars. Again, the status of such cities should be accurately noted...drs (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose and support removal of Jerusalem. The rest of the West Bank is occupied. There is no dispute. Pretending there is a dispute, or taking the Zionist position and including all of the cities, is patently POV. In fact what I don't understand is why Jerusalem is in the template. All of Jerusalem - including West Jerusalem - is, according to the international community, not a part of Israel. East Jerusalem is specifically referred to as occupied Palestinian territory. It should be removed. Keep it strictly within the green line and strictly NPOV. JDiala (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose including cities in Israeli-occupied territories and support the removal of Jerusalem. I would add a note (ref group=note) to the "Largest cities or towns of Israel" title which explains this list does not include cities in the Israeli-occupied territories, and explains the special case of Jerusalem. Alternately, the list might include the city of “West Jerusalem” with a population of “unknown” (as no one has separate population numbers for West and East Jerusalem today), and then explain the West and East Jerusalem story in the note section. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support JDiala. West Jerusalem isn't recognized as being in Israel, otherwise the embassies would be there. We covered this in the Jerusalem RFC a while ago. If Gaza City was included, then Beijing could be included too. ---Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose including cities in Israeli-occupied territories and support the removal of Jerusalem. I would add a note (ref group=note) to the "Largest cities or towns of Israel" title which explains this list does not include cities in the Israeli-occupied territories, and explains the special case of Jerusalem. Alternately, the list might include the city of “West Jerusalem” with a population of “unknown” (as no one has separate population numbers for West and East Jerusalem today), and then explain the West and East Jerusalem story in the note section. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose and comment I have to say GregKaye's proposal of including cities that not even Israel claims as part of its territory seems to me to be extremely odd. Israel has never passed laws purporting to annex either the West Bank or Gaza. I think the most NPOV way to deal with this controversial issue is essentially what we have now: we should limit the list to cities that Israel claims, while putting prominent footnotes and so on beside any that are disputed. Jerusalem, for example, should have a note concisely summarising the controversial situation, and making clear that any figures include occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank areas. So in my view all we need to do is expand the footnote. On this topic: West Jerusalem is so far as I know generally accepted as part of Israel proper; it is East Jerusalem, the part it conquered from Jordan in 1967, that is so controversial. The embassies being elsewhere is actually primarily because of the separate, albeit closely related, issue of the international community not accepting Israel's claim that "Jerusalem", single and united, is its capital (see Positions on Jerusalem and Jerusalem Law). There were foreign embassies in Jerusalem until Israel passed the law claiming to annex East Jerusalem in 1980. — Cliftonian (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- See e.g. "Whither Jerusalem" by Hirsch, Housen-Couriel and Lapidot at page 17: "west Jerusalem (...) most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". --Dailycare (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then perhaps that can go in the footnote as well? Though so far as I know the Green Line is what is generally used to divide what the international community considers Israel proper from what it does not. West Jerusalem is on the western side of the Green Line and I have never heard anybody argue that Israel should pull out of it (apart from those who reject Israel's existence/legitimacy altogether, of course). Moreover I've never heard it argued that West Jerusalem is under military occupation—East Jerusalem yes, but West no. To get back to my original point: regardless of the international community's stance, the fact is that Israel claims Jerusalem and controls it in practice. So in my opinion the most neutral (and accurate) thing to do is to include it, but with a prominent note next to it explaining the controversy. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Countries have explicitly stated that they do not, at this time, consider any of Jerusalem to be a part of Israel. Have they changed their mind since 1980? I don't know. That's irrelevant, however. Moreover, we cannot include cities which Israel claims. Israel can also, as Dailycare noted, claim Beijing. What it unilaterally claims for itself we don't care. Its international status is what is relevant. If a thief steals something, after all, even if "in practice" he controls it, it does not become his. JDiala (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- See Positions on Jerusalem: "The chief dispute revolves around Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem, while broader agreement exists regarding the Israeli presence in West Jerusalem". “WarKosign” 06:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- If there is agreement, why are there no foreign embassies? Read the third sentence in the lead on the Jerusalem page, and this. "While the international community regards East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, neither part, West or East Jerusalem, is recognized as part of the territory of Israel or the State of Palestine". JDiala (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- See West Jerusalem: "A number of western countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States acknowledged de facto Israeli authority, but withheld de jure recognition". Jerusalem Embassy Act "was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem". Jerusalem, east and west, is de-facto the largest city governed by Israel and settled by Israeli citizens/permanent residents. There is already a note in the template about the legal complications surrounding its international recognition status. “WarKosign” 07:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no dispute regarding de facto authority. We are talking about the recognition of legitimate, legal sovereignty, however. This, so far as the evidence suggests, no country has accepted. The Jerusalem Embassy Act is irrelevant, because, in the United States, the executive branch has constitutional authority over foreign policy, not Congress. Thus the official US position does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. You don't need to try and obscure the issue and create some fictitious 'dispute' regarding Jerusalem. This is the unanimous opinion of the international community. JDiala (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- The opinion is far from unanimous, therefore there is a dedicated article. This discussion is about a list of largest cities in Israel. Jerusalem is a city that is de-facto governed by Israel, whether it is internationally recognized or not, so it belongs on the list. Not having it in the list would misrepresent the reality. “WarKosign” 08:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- @JDiala:—Dailycare did not equate Israel's claiming of Jerusalem to a hypothetical claim to Beijing. He equated including Gaza City in this list of "cities in Israel" to including Beijing. In which he is correct, in my opinion, as neither the Israeli government nor any other government considers Gaza to be in Israel. If Israel were to establish de facto control over and lay claim to Beijing or any other city outside its borders, then pass laws purporting to annex it as Israeli territory (as it has done since 1967 regarding East Jerusalem) then my stance would be the same. It should be included with a very prominent note explaining the situation. Not simply omitted. You yourself said above "Keep it strictly within the green line and strictly NPOV". See City Line (Jerusalem). The Green Line goes through the middle of Jerusalem and what we now call "West Jerusalem" is on the western side of the line. — Cliftonian (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Cliftonian: Fair enough, I'll concede I misread that. However, again, there is absolutely no consensus that Jerusalem - any of it- should be considered a part of Israel. This is hardly the first time the issue of Jerusalem has been raised. Does the Jerusalem article consider it to be the capital city of Israel, or indeed even a city in Israel(as opposed to a city claimed by Israel)? No. Why, then should the article on Israel include Jerusalem? Makes no sense. Again, this discussion is pointless; it's been raised many times, and an RfC in 2013. It is not compliant with NPOV to say that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel, or that it is a city in Israel. Regarding my point Keep it strictly within the green line, that was in response to the OP's absurd proposition to include occupied Palestinian territory in the largest cities. West Jerusalem, though it's exceptional in the fact that it is within the green line, is nevertheless, per, again, the unanimous international consensus, not legally Israeli territory. The Jerusalem article states, in unequivocal terms, that "while the international community regards East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, neither part, West or East Jerusalem, is recognized as part of the territory of Israel or the State of Palestine." I cannot stress enough the fact that this discussion is almost pointless. Debating an issue which has been debating non-stop for years now is meaningless. It's best to go by the already agreed upon consensus. JDiala (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- @JDiala:—Dailycare did not equate Israel's claiming of Jerusalem to a hypothetical claim to Beijing. He equated including Gaza City in this list of "cities in Israel" to including Beijing. In which he is correct, in my opinion, as neither the Israeli government nor any other government considers Gaza to be in Israel. If Israel were to establish de facto control over and lay claim to Beijing or any other city outside its borders, then pass laws purporting to annex it as Israeli territory (as it has done since 1967 regarding East Jerusalem) then my stance would be the same. It should be included with a very prominent note explaining the situation. Not simply omitted. You yourself said above "Keep it strictly within the green line and strictly NPOV". See City Line (Jerusalem). The Green Line goes through the middle of Jerusalem and what we now call "West Jerusalem" is on the western side of the line. — Cliftonian (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- The opinion is far from unanimous, therefore there is a dedicated article. This discussion is about a list of largest cities in Israel. Jerusalem is a city that is de-facto governed by Israel, whether it is internationally recognized or not, so it belongs on the list. Not having it in the list would misrepresent the reality. “WarKosign” 08:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no dispute regarding de facto authority. We are talking about the recognition of legitimate, legal sovereignty, however. This, so far as the evidence suggests, no country has accepted. The Jerusalem Embassy Act is irrelevant, because, in the United States, the executive branch has constitutional authority over foreign policy, not Congress. Thus the official US position does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. You don't need to try and obscure the issue and create some fictitious 'dispute' regarding Jerusalem. This is the unanimous opinion of the international community. JDiala (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- See West Jerusalem: "A number of western countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States acknowledged de facto Israeli authority, but withheld de jure recognition". Jerusalem Embassy Act "was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem". Jerusalem, east and west, is de-facto the largest city governed by Israel and settled by Israeli citizens/permanent residents. There is already a note in the template about the legal complications surrounding its international recognition status. “WarKosign” 07:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- If there is agreement, why are there no foreign embassies? Read the third sentence in the lead on the Jerusalem page, and this. "While the international community regards East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, neither part, West or East Jerusalem, is recognized as part of the territory of Israel or the State of Palestine". JDiala (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then perhaps that can go in the footnote as well? Though so far as I know the Green Line is what is generally used to divide what the international community considers Israel proper from what it does not. West Jerusalem is on the western side of the Green Line and I have never heard anybody argue that Israel should pull out of it (apart from those who reject Israel's existence/legitimacy altogether, of course). Moreover I've never heard it argued that West Jerusalem is under military occupation—East Jerusalem yes, but West no. To get back to my original point: regardless of the international community's stance, the fact is that Israel claims Jerusalem and controls it in practice. So in my opinion the most neutral (and accurate) thing to do is to include it, but with a prominent note next to it explaining the controversy. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a fair amount of sympathy with the core arguments presented by Cliftonian. Since the original UN mandate which constituted an area of Israel at an extent that gained the highest level of international support the green line demarcation also came into play. If the article is to use this line as Cliftonian suggests then it should be used consistently. This would mean that East Jerusalem, its population and its sites cannot be considered as part of Israel. As far as I am concerned then the claim of Israel is either most clearly substantiated by the borders of the original UN mandate or it may be defined by the area of military control/dominance which would include Gaza, Golan and the West Bank. GregKaye 11:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not about the supposed consistency the green line demarcation has, or your somewhat binary attitude that the only borders of Israel that the article can represent are either the entire regions of military occupation or the 'original UN mandate' but, rather, what the consensus - both the international/legal/scholarly consensus, and the consensus reached by other editors - says which should dictate what this article says the borders of Israel are. JDiala (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- JDiala There is a big issue regarding the consistent use of borders in the article as the article, in I think flagarant disregard to neutrality, currently includes information on East Jerusalem, and not on other Palestinian locations. To me this looks like picking and choosing content. I readily agree that other issues are of greater importance but consistency is still an issue and
agree(add: think) that the areas defined in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine should be the borders that are used within the article. GregKaye 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)- I have no idea why you're bringing up the UN Partition Plan. Those are not the borders of Israel as internationally recognized. Moreover, the logical thing to do in order to maintain consistency would be to remove East Jerusalem, not add in all of the other Palestinian territories. JDiala (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- You asked about "UN Resolution 181" and, in response, I commented on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. My view is that this agreement showed "an area of Israel at an extent that gained the highest level of international support" and I cannot see what is wrong with that statement. I agree that consistency would be achieved by removing references applying to East Jerusalem. GregKaye 14:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's just irrelevant though. The partition plan was never implemented, and, moreover, even if it had considerable support then, this article is concerned with Israel's borders right now. JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- How about the following compromise—we include Jerusalem in the list as "Jerusalem (West)", accompanied by the population figure for West Jerusalem only, and put a footnote as I described above, but explaining the various points of view and giving the reported population figure for the "united" Jerusalem, East and West, as claimed by the Israeli government? (the district would still be listed as "Jerusalem"). My concern is primarily that both sides of the dispute should be represented. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, this is not a "let's split the difference" discussion. Jerusalem is not a part of Israel. This is the international consensus. You have not addressed that point, which is the most relevant. It should be removed. JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jerusalem is administered by Israel, settled by Israeli citizens and is considered by Israel to be its capital, so you can't say as a plain fact that it's not a part of Israel. There is a dedicated article that begins with "There are differing legal and diplomatic positions on Jerusalem held within the international community", so clearly the matter is not as simple as you're trying to present. “WarKosign” 15:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea, if you can find a recent population figure for West Jerusalem. A source giving both total and east would also do, but WP:CALC can't be applied to numbers from two different sources. “WarKosign” 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, this is not a "let's split the difference" discussion. Jerusalem is not a part of Israel. This is the international consensus. You have not addressed that point, which is the most relevant. It should be removed. JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, because otherwise we need to change the population figures for the whole state and it'll just mess things here. East Jerusalemites usually have permanent residency, but are included in Israel's total population. So the numbers should stay but mention that it's for Jerusalem as a whole, or that the Eastern part is disputed. Yuvn86 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- You asked about "UN Resolution 181" and, in response, I commented on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. My view is that this agreement showed "an area of Israel at an extent that gained the highest level of international support" and I cannot see what is wrong with that statement. I agree that consistency would be achieved by removing references applying to East Jerusalem. GregKaye 14:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you're bringing up the UN Partition Plan. Those are not the borders of Israel as internationally recognized. Moreover, the logical thing to do in order to maintain consistency would be to remove East Jerusalem, not add in all of the other Palestinian territories. JDiala (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- JDiala There is a big issue regarding the consistent use of borders in the article as the article, in I think flagarant disregard to neutrality, currently includes information on East Jerusalem, and not on other Palestinian locations. To me this looks like picking and choosing content. I readily agree that other issues are of greater importance but consistency is still an issue and
- Done this way this discussion is idle. Should be at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Cliftonian, the source I cited said quite clearly: "west Jerusalem (...) most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". You can't try to dismiss this by saying that you haven't heard about it. FWIW, requests to withdraw and being under military occupation aren't the same thing. The technical term for West Jerusalem's current status is "armistice occupation". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- It remains utterly contrary to NPOV to include information on East Jerusalem and perhaps any part of Jerusalem in the Israel article while not including information on all the other city areas in militarily controlled areas. Very clearly the information on East Jerusalem cannot be included if any conception of NPOV and consistency be applied. GregKaye 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding your logic, nor, to be frank, much of anything you're saying. If it's a violation of NPOV to include East Jerusalem, wouldn't it be more of a violation to include the other occupied cities? JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's universally agreed that cities such as Haifa or Tel Aviv are in Israel. There is some disagreement over Jerusalem, more so over East Jerusalem, and much more (nearly complete) disagreement with the idea that cities such as Gaza city or Hebron should be considered to reside in Israel. “WarKosign” 14:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding your logic, nor, to be frank, much of anything you're saying. If it's a violation of NPOV to include East Jerusalem, wouldn't it be more of a violation to include the other occupied cities? JDiala (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- It remains utterly contrary to NPOV to include information on East Jerusalem and perhaps any part of Jerusalem in the Israel article while not including information on all the other city areas in militarily controlled areas. Very clearly the information on East Jerusalem cannot be included if any conception of NPOV and consistency be applied. GregKaye 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Cliftonian, the source I cited said quite clearly: "west Jerusalem (...) most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". You can't try to dismiss this by saying that you haven't heard about it. FWIW, requests to withdraw and being under military occupation aren't the same thing. The technical term for West Jerusalem's current status is "armistice occupation". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
References
Relevance of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to borders of Israel
WarKosign has twice reverted the article to his version removing all reference to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in regard to Israel's borders. The version WarKosign is pushing states "The borders of the new state were not specified." The version that states "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN, but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." would be a more NPOV. Pro-Jewish/Anti-Arab groups in generally push a point of view the borders defined in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine should not be considered a part of the history of Israel. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Gouncbeatduke: Consensus on the article before GregKaye added the {cn} tag was "The borders of the new state were not specified". I supplied the missing reference for the fact that it was decided intentionally not to mention the the partition plan in Israel's declaration of independence and removed the irrelevant wikilink. You did not provide any support for calling my edit NPOV, merely reverted it for no particular reason. Now you opened this section which assumes bad faith. If you disagree with the edit please state your reasons, do not attack the person making it. “WarKosign” 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think we both know you are misrepresenting your edits. Your first revert was to change "The borders of the new state were not ." to "The borders of the new state were not specified.", removing the hyperlink to United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Your second revert today was to change "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN, but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." back to your first revert. Both times you reverted the article to a less-NPOV, that removed the reference to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- My first edit was to replace {cn} with a citation saying that the declaration intentionally did not specify the borders of Israel, those of the partition plan or other. I also removed the wikilink to the partition plan that became irrelevant with this citation. The second edit was a revert of your factually incorrect claim the partition plan actually defined the borders of the State of Israel (rather than being just a proposal that was never implemented). If you have a source that supports your claim, kindly point to it. “WarKosign” 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- When Israel was founded, it stated that it was "prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly". Oncenawhile (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Oncenawhile: how does this statement prove that "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN" ? “WarKosign” 21:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- It proves that Israel was prepared to cooperate with agencies ... that presented borders for the proposed Jewish State. WarKosign I am perplexed that, when you saw Gouncbeatduke edit on this you did not edit so as to give a representative picture of what I would regard as a more complete story but simply reverted to, what seems to me, to be a one sided presentation. I do not see this action as being conducive to building a NPOV encyclopaedia. GregKaye 00:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: "That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." These two sentences together imply the incorrect notion that the borders of the newly declared State of Israel were "specified" by the partition plan, while the source clearly says "The initial draft stated that the boundaries of the state would be those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The inclusion of this was rejected by the larger committee charged with approving the draft by a vote of 5-4.", meaning that the borders of the state were not "specified" by the plan.
- The partition plan is already mentioned two sentences earlier, and we could add that it was initially accepted by the Zionist movement but rejected by the Arab leaders, therefore never implemented. I think it's redundant to add these details in this article since there is already a wikilink to the partition plan which has these details. “WarKosign” 06:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- It proves that Israel was prepared to cooperate with agencies ... that presented borders for the proposed Jewish State. WarKosign I am perplexed that, when you saw Gouncbeatduke edit on this you did not edit so as to give a representative picture of what I would regard as a more complete story but simply reverted to, what seems to me, to be a one sided presentation. I do not see this action as being conducive to building a NPOV encyclopaedia. GregKaye 00:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Oncenawhile: how does this statement prove that "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN" ? “WarKosign” 21:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- When Israel was founded, it stated that it was "prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly". Oncenawhile (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- My first edit was to replace {cn} with a citation saying that the declaration intentionally did not specify the borders of Israel, those of the partition plan or other. I also removed the wikilink to the partition plan that became irrelevant with this citation. The second edit was a revert of your factually incorrect claim the partition plan actually defined the borders of the State of Israel (rather than being just a proposal that was never implemented). If you have a source that supports your claim, kindly point to it. “WarKosign” 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think we both know you are misrepresenting your edits. Your first revert was to change "The borders of the new state were not ." to "The borders of the new state were not specified.", removing the hyperlink to United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Your second revert today was to change "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN, but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." back to your first revert. Both times you reverted the article to a less-NPOV, that removed the reference to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign Borders have clearly been presented. There are even maps that give the details.
The text previously contained the erroneous or otherwise misleading statement "The borders of the new state were not specified." Who added this?
- I added "citation needed" here
- You added your citation here which also removed the very relevant wikilink which, amongst other things, indicated a version of a specification providing map.
- Gouncbeatduke then amended text to "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN, but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" here with explanation "replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited
- You made your objection based revert here stating "Factually incorrect - UN revision plan suggested borders for "a" state, not "the" state that was declared."
- I then reverted so as to present the text, <nowiki>"Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the ] but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries."</nowiki>
If you wanted to present encyclopaedic information why couldn't you have edited to something like this final version? Borders have been very clearly and obviously proposed. GregKaye 08:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: What you wrote isn't quite wrong, but it is redundant and out of chronological order. This is the chronological order, correct me if I'm wrong:
- 1. UN suggested the partition plan (which you could call "a specification" of the borders, although the article never uses the term).
- 2. The plan was not accepted (initially accepted by the Zionists but rejected by the Arab leaders)
- 3. Israel's independence was declared, intentionally not specifying any borders, those suggested by the plan or any other borders.
- 4. 1948 Arab–Israeli War broke out and the eventual armistice line became the de-facto border.
- You added a tag for the article not having a reference for #3 - I fixed it. #2 did not appear in the article and I don't mind adding it (although I do think it's UNDUE in the lead), but it's chronological order is before the declaration of independence, not after it. We could go with something like this:
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations. Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration. Neighboring Arab armies invaded the former Palestinian mandate on the next day and fought the Israeli forces.
- “WarKosign” 08:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- You have done a good job of regurgitating the anti-Arab narrative. Misplaced Pages should not use the anti-Jewish or anti-Arab narrative, but a NPOV. The current version of the article is a much more NPOV than what you are suggesting. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
- Hughes, M. (2009) The banality of brutality: British armed forces and the repression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936–39, English Historical Review Vol. CXXIV No. 507, 314–354.
- Khalidi, Walid (1987). From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine Problem Until 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 978-0-88728-155-6
- "Population, by Population Group, Religion, Age, Sex and Type of Locality". Statistical Abstract of Israel (in Hebrew and English). Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. September 11, 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class Western Asia articles
- Top-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment