Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories

Article title

Today's Advisory Opinion by the ICJ uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory", as does the ICJ's 2004 Advisory Opinion. I see that the article says that this term has been used, for many years, by other international bodies and national governments and that the UN used it till 2012, when Palestine was admitted as a non-member observer state, under the name "State of Palestine". Should we change the article title to either "Palestinian territory" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory"? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This article title is an antique, a hangover from the days of yore, difficult to get rid of because so many RS still use the term, even now.

The "territories" have long been legally considered as one territory and that was reiterated at the ICJ today.

And we now have the ICJ opinion that the occupation is itself illegal (apart from all the other illegal things).

If it was down to me, I'd put Illegally occupied Palestinian territory :/ Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

We could solve the RS issue through a redirect. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would absolutely support a move to Occupied Palestinian Territory, it is overwhelmingly used in legal sources—which is what the article is about. (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

So would I. Misha Wolf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

How can we progress a change of title? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a good question. Stepping back for a moment, let's look at the ICJ opinion (there are sufficient RS covering it so we we can speak to it directly here). A couple of things in there, first the legal position that Gaza and the West bank (incl EJ) are a single territorial unit (equivalent to the territory claimed by the SoP). The current title implies separateness but this only true in a strict geographical sense and a narrative promoted by Israel/US (see CIA "fact"book for example).

Secondly it was determined as a matter of law that the entire territory is occupied even if the Gaza occupation is of the functional variety.

Thirdly the ICJ uses, just like most authoritative sourcing does, the name Occupied Palestinian Territory as well as determining as a matter of law, that said territory is illegally occupied.

So, to reiterate, in my view, the current title is an historical anachronism and should be changed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely potentially merited. Ngrams shows the proper noun phrase (in both singular and plural) holding up well against the generalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

As per above, because this phrase was used for so long (such that some RS style guides mention it), there is an inertia factor at work, that's why the ngrams hold up for Pt. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, I ran out of space in the Ngrams search bar, but some "Palestinian territories" hits are also for "occupied Palestinian territories" (sentence case) – which, if run separately, implies that "Palestinian territories" actually falls well below OPT(s), both individually in the singular and certainly collectively. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

(Ahem, and that's before we even count the Wikipedia mirrors.) Iskandar323 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

So how do we move this along? It's nearly 25 years since the UN and ISO adopted the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (in October 1999). I know that we want to avoid Recentism, but 25 years should be long enough. I know that the UN and ISO have since moved on to "State of Palestine" but that describes the political entity as opposed to the geographical area. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to define it in purely geographical terms, there is nothing wrong with the current title. But given the scope that is clearly not the intention. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

True. I'll rephrase that as "[...] but that describes the proposed political entity as opposed to the existing mess." Misha Wolf (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the thing to do is put up an RM -> Occupied Palestinian territory No? (it's aka oPt as well so that would work or we can consider OPT as a "name" in which case capitalize everything. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that it is a name. Indeed, ISO 3166-1 Newsletter No. V-2 of 1999-10-01 (cited source [10]) states in row 2 "Official name [...] Occupied Palestinian Territory".

In cited source [15], the EU also treats it as a name , eg in "European Union, Trade in goods with Occupied Palestinian Territory".

As I expect that you are far more familiar with the RM process than I am, would you be willing to do it? Misha Wolf (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops! -- Terminology used in the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 2004

I've just noticed that the lede states that "The International Court of Justice has referred to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as the Occupied Palestinian Territory, adopting this term as the legal definition in its advisory opinions of July 2004". Earlier today, I appended "and July 2024", but have only just noticed that the statement is incorrect at least as far as today's ICJ Advisory Opinion is concerned as the latter explicitly includes Gaza in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. I've tried checking the 2004 Advisory Opinion to see what it means by Occupied Palestinian Territory but am having trouble finding a definition. Please could someone else check. As things stand, the statement in the second para of the lede is incorrect, at least as far as the July 2024 Advisory Opinion is concerned. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added a Clarify template to that sentence. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The wall did not affect Gaza (this point was also mentioned again in today's opinion) so the 2004 opinion didn't specifically address Gaza because the wall didn't go there. so it isn't precisely wrong as the WB/EJ are "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The OPT is "defined" (referred to might be better) as 67 borders in lots of places but let me see if I can find an initial determination, it's possible it might have evolved by way of UN resolutions, I'll look. Selfstudier (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, the article currently states clearly that "The International Court of Justice has referred to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as the Occupied Palestinian Territory, adopting this term as the legal definition in its advisory opinions of July 2004". I'm not questioning the origin of the term, I'm questioning the statement in the article. I've just searched the 2004 advisory opinion again and found no evidence for the claim made in the article. While I haven't found a statement including Gaza explicitly in the OPT, I have found a statement which indicates that, within the context of the 2004 proceedings, Gaza was considered to be part of the OPT. Paragraph 90 states:

Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the other participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In particuilar, in paragraph 3 of Annex 1 to the report of the Secretary-General, entitled "Summary Legal Position of the Government of Israel", it is stated that Israel does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention "is applicable to the occupied Palestinian Territory", citing "the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt" and inferring that it is "not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention".

It is my understanding that the mention of Egypt demonstrates that Gaza was within the scope of the ICJ's deliberations as it was Egypt that controlled Gaza prior to 1967 and Egypt did not control the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The High Contracting Party business was about refuting Israel's contention that there was no prior sovereign/the so called missing reversioner (see Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967#Range of Israeli legal and political views.

I still think we need founding statement(s) if we are going to look at a page move, so I will keep looking. Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The ISO source takes us back to 1999 for "Occupied Palestinian territory", that might be enough but just to satisfy my curiosity, I will look some more. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Re the High Contracting Party stuff, I agree, but consider that the mention of Egypt indicates that Gaza was seen as within the scope of the OPT.

Re a page move, I see that as a separate matter from (correcting) the text of the article. The statement "adopting this term as the legal definition" is a very strong one. If it is untrue (or if there is no evidence for it being true), it should be removed. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is misleading to the extent that it was "defined" before that, in 1999 and a little earlier, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It should just say referred to or some such language. Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Selfstudier, I have not found any evidence that the ICJ's 2004 advisory opinion said anything explicit about Gaza being part of, or not being part of, the OPT. So the statement should be removed (unless such evidence can be found). Misha Wolf (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I edited it, it's not necessary anyway, there are plenty of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, we don't seem to be understanding each other. You've written something along the lines of:

[Body][Verb][List of areas][Name]

where [Body] is "ICJ", [Verb] is "referred to", [List of areas] is "West Bank, including East Jerusalem" and [Name] is "Occupied Palestinian Territory".

I dispute that expansion of the term [List of areas] as no-one has provided any clear evidence for the exclusion (or inclusion) of Gaza by the ICJ in its 2004 opinion. I am not (in this thread) concerned with the [Verb], eg whether it should be "defined" or "referred to". I very much am concerned with the [List of areas]. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Just edit it as you like, I am not really interested in this article at all, other than moving it to a more sensible title. Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Done! Misha Wolf (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Some progress elsewhere, one can now write Palestine and it will redirect to SoP (before it threw an error for ambiguity). Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That's good but we now have a circular reference as the "About" template contains "For other uses of Palestine, see Palestine." Misha Wolf (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, there needs to be consequent change around the place. That should be Palestine (disambiguation). Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

And then there is Palestinian territories (disambiguation) /: Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have the phrase going back to 1990 at the UN and in books, the problem is that its just a phrase rather than OPT, think people would just use it instead of Israeli occupied territories, which was the more common usage back then and included the Golan. It says there "The first conjoined usage of the terms "occupied" and "territories" with regard to Israel was in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242,..." so I am still thinking it was more of an evolution rather than someone sitting down one day and saying I hereby define... Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2024

Palestinian territories → Occupied Palestinian Territory – This terminology has become standard across all official sources, the United Nations, itself and in its resolutions, and at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in 2004 and reaffirmed in 2024, the EU and in many secondary sources. The ICJ concluded that the West Bank and Gaza are a single territorial unit: However, the Court recalls that, from a legal standpoint, the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes a single territorial unit, the unity, contiguity and integrity of which is to be preserved and respected. Thus, all references in this Opinion to the Occupied Palestinian Territory are references to this single territorial unit. Although still used in sources, and should remain as an aka, the existing title is currently an anachronism. Note that the OPT is also equivalent geographically to the area claimed by the State of Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Frost 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Move to Occupied Palestinian Territories (plural), that is what some international governments list it as on official websites like travel safety advice, e.g. UK FourPi (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Strongly support for adding "Occupied". No strong opinion on details, but a slight preference for "occupied Palestinian territory" (singular territory with a lowercase "t") as used by the WHO and ICRC. FourPi (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC) + support for singular "Territory" with a capital T (updated based on conversation below). FourPi (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Hi @FourPi, like the ICJ, the ICRC uses "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The UN and ISO used that name until 2012, when Palestine was admitted to the UN as a non-member observer state. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC) I've now discovered that the UN and some or all of its agencies still use the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" when referring to the relevant portion of the Earth's surface, even though they switched in 2012 to "State of Palestine" when referring to the political entity. See, for example, here and here. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC) And here. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC) @Misha Wolf conclusion first, I agree with you: singular Territory with a capital T. I found ECFR uses that too, and I would expect them to skew more towards Israel / USA than the others? So it seems to be used very widely. Australia uses plural (but also say they support a "two state solution" while only recognizing one state). The WHO were using lowercase in 2020, but lowercase seems less common. I checked MSF etc. because they are very dedicated to neutrality, but MSF simply call it Palestine https://www.msf.org/palestine One reservation I had was that capital T looks like a formal name for a place. The Northern Territory or British Indian Ocean Territory, both look like they legitimately belong to a more powerful nation, whereas "occupied Palestinian territory" looked (to me) like what is happening to part (or all) of the land that rightly belongs to a country called Palestine. But after reading the British Indian Ocean Territory page, the situation doesn't seem that different. I already knew the history around Chagos, I just underestimated the level legal recognition for it. FourPi (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Seeking more participation Frost 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. Frost 16:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Occupied Palestinian Territories: It's much, much better. Waqar💬 17:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  But is different from the name ("Occupied Palestinian Territory") adopted by the UN, ISO and the ICJ. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Misha Wolf: I support both, but Occupied Palestinian Territories is better in my opinion. Waqar💬 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Misha Wolf, I picked plural because the plural is used by the UK and Australian governments. But Australia's page includes, "Australia does not recognise a Palestinian state. We are committed to a two-state solution…" and I have nothing polite to say about that contradiction, so they might not be good to copy? FourPi (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC) The WHO and ICRC both say "occupied Palestinian territory", singular "territory" but only Palestine has a capital "P". Singular lowercase "occupied Palestinian territory" is the established term used by the WHO, e.g. in January 2020 The International Committee of the Red Cross "What does the law say about the responsibilities of the Occupying Power in the occupied Palestinian territory?" on 26-07-2024 (and in the footnotes of that) "The official name of the Delegation is "ICRC's Delegation in Israel and the Occupied Territories". The "occupied territories" comprise the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms. The ICRC sometimes uses the term "occupied Palestinian territory" to refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and/or Gaza specifically. This use is based on the standardization of the term, adopted by the United Nations after the recognition of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people." The proper noun in what @Selfstudier links is the name of the legal opinion, "Opinion to the Occupied Palestinian Territory" but the way that legal document uses capitals has me very confused, "…as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory…" and "…in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are contrary to international law, the Court indicates…" and "By virtue of its status as an occupying Power, a State assumes a set of powers and duties…" e.g. why "O" in "Occupied Territory" but "o" in "occupying Power"? whereas the ICRC say "Occupying Power" and "occupied Palestinian territory"? Currently, singular lowercase "territory" like the WHO and ICRC use seems best to me? but if the ICJ ruling somehow added a capital T that is now used elsewhere, then I do not object to us using that here. FourPi (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Hi @FourPi, see the ICRC's "Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory: The law of occupation must be respected" of 2024-07-19. The UN has consistently used the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" since October 1999 to describe the territory, as opposed to the legal entity. That's coming up to 25 years. I consider the position of the UN, with its 193 member states, to be authoritative. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Resolution A/RES/77/247 adopted by the UN General Assembly on 30 December 2022, which requested that the ICJ renders an advisory opinion regarding the occupation, repeatedly uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory". Note also the title of the ICJ's advisory opinion of July 2004, "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". Misha Wolf (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC) (Amended to remove an excess word 12:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)) The important bit is adding the word "occupied". We should also be pointing out that it applies to the Gaza Strip – including from 2007 to September 2023 – on any pages where that is relevant, possibly the page Gaza Strip should move as well? FourPi (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have no issue with adding occupied to the title, but I oppose capitalizing the letter T in territories. That seems out of line with a significant portion of mainstream usage which lowercases the letter t. Remember that Wikipedia titles use sentence case and only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia (MOS:CAPS). The fact that the Red Cross, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, PBS, the WHO, and even different parts of the UN capitalize it as "occupied Palestinian territory" suggests there is no substantial majority. As for plural or singular, ngrams usage suggests that the singular is more common now (and substantial reasoning behind it), so I support that as well. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Without the excess capitalization, I support – News typically has "occupied Palestinian territory" (or territories). It's not a name. The fact that the UN caps it does not make it a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Relist comment - Based strictly on the above there is consensus to move. However, there has been a bit of discussion around capitalisation and pluralisation that could be better explored. I also strongly suspect that once this move is carried out it will be more controversial than it presently appears, though obviously I could be wrong about that. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  @FOARP: I also strongly suspect that once this move is carried out it will be more controversial than it presently appears Why? Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom but would prefer Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. This would be consistent with Allied-occupied Germany, German-occupied Europe, Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Israeli-occupied territories

Kowal2701 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Below, I've pasted in some of my earlier contributions which are now included in collapsed regions of this Talk page.Misha Wolf (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC) (Tidied up the indentation of my text below 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC))

... like the ICJ, the ICRC uses "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The UN and ISO used that name until 2012, when Palestine was admitted to the UN as a non-member observer state. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've now discovered that the UN and some or all of its agencies still use the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" when referring to the relevant portion of the Earth's surface, even though they switched in 2012 to "State of Palestine" when referring to the political entity. See, for example, here and here. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

And here. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

... see the ICRC's "Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory: The law of occupation must be respected" of 2024-07-19.

The UN has consistently used the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" since October 1999 to describe the territory, as opposed to the legal entity. That's coming up to 25 years. I consider the position of the UN, with its 193 member states, to be authoritative. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Resolution A/RES/77/247 adopted by the UN General Assembly on 30 December 2022, which requested that the ICJ renders an advisory opinion regarding the occupation, repeatedly uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory".

Note also the title of the ICJ's advisory opinion of July 2004, "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". Misha Wolf (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC) (Amended to remove an excess word 12:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

Please update "135 UN Member Nations have recognized the State of Palestine." to "145 UN Member Nations have recognized the State of Palestine." as the number has since increased. AG202 (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@MadGuy7023: I am matching the number found at State of Palestine and International recognition of the State of Palestine, which is the page that the aforementioned source links to, meaning that we have a clear and blatant discrepancy that needs to be updated. However, if it's necessary to give a source with the explicit number of "145", here's one: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2024/06/armenia-recognizes-palestinian-state-israel-furious-summons-ambassador. AG202 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Done ({{Numrec|Pal}} and it should autoupdate.) Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)