Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories

Archives

• Talk:Palestinian territories/archive1
• Talk:Palestinian territories/archive2, March 29, 2004–March 17, 2006

pre-1949 terminology

I am not convinced of the use of Res 181 in the introduction. The region that this article concerns did not exist as a separate meaningful unit until the armistice agreements of 1949. All the 1947 UN wording implies is that the names Samaria and Judea were in use for those regions (similarly to Negev, Galilee, etc). That doesn't make them a name for the political unit that didn't exist yet. It is quite different from the way "Judea and Samaria" is used today. --Zero 08:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then to be fair I will add that no reference to "Palestinian Territories", occupied or otherwise, had existed prior to 1967 in regard to *these areas*. As you know, the fact that they were "Occupied Palestinian" never occured to anyone when it was the Jordanians/Egyptians who did the occupying. If you know of a pre-1967 UN resolution using this term, I will be happy to know of it.

-Sangil 09:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making here and you don't seem to have answered my point (but maybe you didn't intend to, that's ok). The boundaries of this region were drawn in 1949 by a series of armistice agreements. Since then, the name of the region has varied over time and according who was speaking. Before then, it didn't exist so it had no name at all. The mention of Res 181 seems to be aimed at making some point about the names Judea and Samaria, probably in response to some debate over how legitimate these names are. It doesn't fit in this intro, it seems to me. Incidentally, it is incorrect to say that the West Bank was not considered occupied prior to 1967. The Arab League considered it occupied, and that's why not a single Arab country recognised the Jordanian annexation. --Zero 10:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your'e right, I wasn't trying to answer anything regarding res. 181. However since you bring it up, and it seems to me a rather interesting point, I'll try to give my take on it. You are welcome to disagree :)

1. Saying that the names "Judea" and "Samaria" are merely geographic is ignoring more than 3000 years of history. As I am sure you know, both have a *very* long history, and both were once (relatively) independant Jewish political entities. There always was, and always will be, a political significance when these names are used.
2. The UN is, *by definition*, a political body. Any mention it makes of anything immediatly gives it political meaning, assuming there was none before.
3. Regarding the relevance of res. 181- the point I am trying to make is that the resolution makes an implicit, but *very* relevant statement- that these areas have no current political context! (as of 1947 of course). The use of "Judea and Samaria", rather antique historical names, implies by default that there was no other, more up-to-date name. Not "west-bank", and certainly not anything "Palestinian" or "Occupied". Actually in 1947 the Arabs in Palestine did not regard themselves as 'Palestinians' at all. What this means is that prior to 1949 this area was called "Judea and Samaria", and that was the ONLY name- geographic, political, whatever. And that is very relevant.

-Sangil 14:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this is referred to in the introduction, so I removed my edit. My point still stands, however- prior to 1967 the area was known by only two names - either "Judea and Samaria" or "The West Bank". So any reference to the area regarding a time before 1967 should use these names only.

-Sangil 10:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the adjective "Palestinian" was not used in regard to these areas as late as the 1970's! UN resolution 242 (after 1967 war) makes no such reference, and neither does resolution 338 from 1973. They were referred to as "The Territories occupied by Israel". The term "palestinian territories" gained widespread use only after the plaestinian terror attacks of the 70's (Munich, Entebbe, etc). Which goes to show- terror is great for PR!

At any rate I am adding a reference to this issue in the article. If any one finds contradicting exvidence, feel free to present it and remove my addition.

-Sangil 10:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that an attack in Europe orchestrated by a group based in Lebanon redefined the name of a piece of territory in Palestine? Can you also say that the Irgun attacks of the 1940s (prior to '48) is the reason that the name 'Israeli' became more internationally recognizable? In any case, this is confusing: the word 'Palestinian' referred to an area that included the West Bank and Gaza prior to '48. In fact, it is so often pointed out on these talk pages that the 'Palestinians' of the early part of the century refers not just to Arabs but to Jews as well. I don't see how the word 'Palestinian' never applied to the area prior to the '70s. Or are you just referring to the area that became defined after the armistice lines with Jordan and Egypt were drawn? Ramallite ^(talk) 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ramallite. But Zero's original point was that names used before 1948 such as Judea and Samaria somehow 'didn't apply' to the current geopolitical status. This article is on the 'Palestinian territories' and not 'Palestine'. Sangil's edits are simply pointing out that the West Bank was known as such after this time period (which I would say 1949 rather than 1967, as the West Bank emerged as a distinct entity at this time), but that Judea and Samaria had been used before. It should be noted that the region as a whole had been dubbed Palestine, but that these specifics areas, prior to 1949, did not excusively represent Palestine. —Aiden 23:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ramallite, that's exactly what I'm saying. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were considered either liberated regions of Israel (by many Israelis), or occupied parts of Jordan and Egypt, respectively. This is why they are referred to as "occupied by Israel" in the UN resolutions. Nobody ever thought in terms of "Palestinian" (meaning the Arabs living in those lands, as opposed to the British Mandate 'Palestine') until the terrorist attacks of the 70's, especially Munich, which brought the "Palestinians" as a national group to the world's attention. In many ways this was the PLO's goal, and they succeeded brilliantly.

The Irgun attacks on the British, while having nothing to do with the name 'Israel', succeeded in a similiar way in bringing the world's attention to the plight of the Jews in Palestine, and to the injustice of British rule. While I personally do not consider the attacks of the 1940's terrorism (since they did not target civilians), the goals of the Irgun were in many ways indeed similiar to those of the PLO.

-Sangil 20:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor

No, it won't do. Here are my reasons:

• The intro itself, over the last few days, has become less encyclopedic and more like a blog entry. This latest edit brings this problem to a new level.
• from the perspective that they belong by right to the "Palestinian people": No, most people who use it (such as the BBC, others) merely are using one of the common use terms for it and referring to the fact that it's Palestinians who live there (something people tend to forget) and that they are not Israeli sovereign territories. I highly doubt that most of the people who use it (and I'm talking about non-Palestinian outlets) are making any political statement such as they 'belong by right' - it's simply a common name, nothing more. Saying that people call it that because in their perspective they 'belong by right' is actually original research.
• Placing "Palestinian People" in quotations marks (or scare quotes) is too POV in my mind.
• The terminological designation of these territories... are the grounds of interminable and often violent dispute. You mean that people start to shoot at each other merely for uttering the wrong name of the territories? That makes little sense, and again is original research.

Please consider revising. I won't revert because I don't like how childish and un-encyclopedic the previous version was to begin with, but who am I if not the only Wikipedian to burp while reading the "War and Peace"..... Ramallite ^(talk) 16:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think my version is imperfect. The phrase "by right" may be a little too strong. But I maintain that usage of the term does make a political statement. At the very least, it makes a demarcation between:

1. real "Palestinian people", and
2. other residents of Palestine who aren't really "Palestinian", such as (variously) Israeli Arabs, Palestinian Jews and of course non-Arab Israelis.

There's a reason people don't just say "West Bank and Gaza Strip" or "West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem" - and it's not just because "Palestinian territiories" has fewer syllables. The very name makes a point.

What I've tried to do over 4 years at Wikipedia is to make the articles touching on the Palestine situation scrupulously neutral: not endorsing any of the major Israeli views, but not endorsing any of the Arab views either. --Uncle Ed 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Palestinian Jews"? What is that? I guess that by "non-Arab Israelis" you are referring to Jewish citizens of Israel. But who are these mysterious "Palestinian Jews"?

And another thing- what does the "real" in "real Palestinian People" refer to? Is it ethnically real? Because then the Arab citizens of Israel are also "real Palestinians". Or maybe it refers to place of residence? Because then the original Jewish residents of Hebron, who lived there for centuries, are "real Palestinians" too (until they were all slaughtered, of course).

Please be careful (and clear!) when labelling people. This is a touchy subject you know.

-Sangil 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume it was a typo of some sort to state that you don't endorse 'major' Israeli views versus 'any' Arab views because that means that 'minor' Israeli views are endorsed? :) Keep in mind that 'Arab' views and 'Palestinian' views are not the same thing, 'Arab' views could mean Saudi or Yemeni views, and they hardly matter compared to Palestinian views. Anyhow, I actually do think fewer syllables has something to do with it, and I don't think that the BBC World's or the New York Times's or George Bush's usage of 'Palestinian territories' is an actual political endorsement. But since you actually stated that your version is imperfect, what do you propose? Ramallite ^(talk) 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My article-contribution style sometimes verges on "stream of consciousness". As long as I know something about a subject I care about and have the confidence that I can be objective towards it, I just keep hacking away at it until it looks right. This process works better when others join in! So I propose we keep working on it - together. --Uncle Ed 22:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, I've been traveling over the past few days and haven't had much access but I'll take a look as soon as I can. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Point of view, reflected in terminology

Since the United Nations calls Gaza, WB & E. Jerusalem "Occupied Palestinian Territory", why not rename the article accordingly? We could then modify the intro to reflect the UN point of view:

• Occupied Palestinian Territory, as designated by a vote of the UN General Assembly on (fill in date here), refers to Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem. The rationale for this designation is that each of the three geographical regions is "occupied" by Israel and widely considered to belong to Arabs indigenous to Palestine (region), known in recent years as "Palestinian Arabs" or simply "Palestinians".

This proposed move and revised intro would make it clear that X says Y about Z, which is the classic Wikipedia formula for neutrally reporting on political and other disputes. --Uncle Ed 18:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The UN General Assembly is hardly a neutral or objective body, and is widely viewed as extremely biased towards the Palestinians due to the automatic majority the arab nations enjoy there. Using their terminology in any article would immediatly make it highly POV. Would you also equate Zionism with Racism as the UN General Assembly had done? It's utterly ridiculous. Any reference to UN Terminology should be reserved for that used in Security Council resolutions. And in these (242 and 338) there is no mention of "Occupied Palestinian Territory".

-Sangil 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the intro says The United Nations presently uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory", but the "Palestinian" label has gained use only during the 1970's.

Is this true or not? I mean, does the UN presently use this term or not? If not "the UN" than who? If not a General Assembly resolution then what?

We need some facts, here. --Uncle Ed 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was I who wrote the passage you quoted. It is true, as you can plainly see if you look at the resolutions mentioned. What I meant to say in the above comment, is that a destinction must be made between the UN Security Council, which is as close to balanced as a multinational organization can be expected to get (and it's not much), and the UN General Assembly, which is wildly biased in favor of the Palestinians. In my opinion nothing originating in the General Assembly can ever come even close to being neutral or balanced. For this reason I think it's irrelevant what term the General Assembly uses, but I left the reference to it for informative reasons.

-Sangil 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you are not confusing "(never) come even close to being neutral or balanced" with "never being pro-Israel"? ;) Anyhow, UN bodies are usually citable sources no matter what we think of them. And I would hardly call the General Assembly 'wildly biased' in favor of Palestinians... "wild" maybe, but not "wildly biased"... Ramallite ^(talk) 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, many observers have reached the conclusion that the UN is indeed wildly pro-Palestinian or at least wildly anti-Israel. There are currently 250 Security Council resolutions and around 1,000 General Assembly resolutions on Israel. Of the ten emergency special sessions the General Assembly has held, six have been about Israel. (David Matas, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. Dundurn Press, Toronto, 2005) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ramallite, I am sure. It is enough to compare the number of General Assembly resolutions dealing with Israel, with the ones dealing with Darfur, Tibet, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Timor, Rwanda, Syria, Congo, and Eritrea combined, to see how ridiculous and biased this organization is. Or maybe the Palestinian problem is the most urgent humanitarian problem in the world, overshadowing all the misery and suffering of every other nation on earth? No, I think it's because the Arab nations use the UN as a weapon against Israel, since they always have an automatic majority there. Another example- Iran vows to erase Israel from the map and denies the Holocaust. Number of General Assembly resolutions condemning Iran? Good guess. You can quote what you like, of course, but keep in mind that the views of the General Assembly are about as balanced as those of Hizbullah. -Sangil 08:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One would have to do a lot better than that to convince me that the GA is 'pro-Palestinian', but that is not the same thing at all as it being 'anti-Israeli', something I don't dispute. I would never consider 'pro Palestinian' and 'anti Israeli' as being the same thing, far from it. But I can see why non-Palestinians would have a hard time understanding why. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please enlighten me then...I may not be Palestinian, but I hope I'll be able to understand :)

-Sangil 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Easy - you said it yourself, the Arabs use Israel-bashing as a weapon - not because of their love of Palestinians, but to play the game of 'blaming the other side' to deflect local criticism of themselves. If Israel didn't exist, these regimes would be gone also. All you have to do is see how these regimes treat Palestinians in order to see where I am coming from... Even you, Gil, can go to Egypt freely, I cannot go without a visa and with the kind of harassment that would make the crap I had to deal with at Ben Gurion seem like a joyride in comparison. So whatever the Arab countries do, they are posturing in front of their own people, they don't actually care about us (not that I really want them to, mind you). Anyway, I have a very busy night, we are going to a Yisrael Beitenu celebration at the Syrian consulate - I think Elton John is performing there with Yardena Arazi... Ramallite ^(talk) 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As for bias... well, perhaps the reason that the GA has passed so many resolutions on Palestine is that the Palestinians have a number of fellow-Arab states who feel obliged - I won't get into discussing motives - to back them up. Nobody really cared that much about the East Timorese (and everybody was much too busy making sure the Indonesians stayed their friends); similar remakrs apply to Tibet and China, Eritrea, etc. Conversely, a parallel with the number of GA resolutions on apartheid South Africa, where a number of neighbouring states felt strongly about the plight of the blacks and most third-world countries sympathised with the ANC, would I suspect reveal a situation not dissimilar to that regarding Palestine. Let's not have context-free denunciations of the General Assembly; they're not very informative. Palmiro | Talk 16:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro- these denunciations are not context-free at all- they are in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And what you have written above is better at proving the UN GA is extremely biased than anything I could have thought of. If as you admit the GA repeately denounces Israel just because several countries with influence desire it- This is bias in the extreme. Especially since Israel does not have its own 'mafia' in the GA, but stands relatively alone (only the US supports it, and in the GA they count as any other nation). The Timorese, Tibetians, Sudanese (among many others) all suffer, but instead of lifting a finger the GA prefers repeately to bash Israel for political reasons, with no one ever speaking up against this "highjacking" of the GA since heaven forbid they would get in trouble with numerous rich, oil producing countries and millions of angry (and often violent) muslims. In addition the GA never takes into account the motives for Israel's actions, nor the actions of the Palestinians which many times themselves deserve denunciation. Is this not the very definition of bias?

Ramallite- I see your point. I guess it's easy to forget this isn't a zero-sum game...but I have to say I am impressed by your acquaintance with Israeli politics and culture- I never imagined a foreigner would find it interesting, since I myself consider it so dull :)

-Sangil 11:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Sangil, I missed your comment until now. What I'm objecting to really is the idea that the GA's failure to condemn the misdeeds of China in Tibet, Indonesia in East Timor, Morocco in the Western Sahara, etc should be taken as evidence that its unusual willingness to condemn Israel's misdeeds is indicative of any particular bias against Israel as such - my view would be that it is correct in most of what it says about Israel, and pusillanimous in its reactions to the crimes committed by China, Indonesia, Morocco etc. I would like to see it denounce those crimes too. I am suggesting, also, that those are not very good points of reference as they took place in different geopolitical circumstances, and that a comparison with the GA's stance towards apartheid South Africa would be a much more valid one and would probably show that it was not in any way uniquely prejudiced against Israel. Palmiro | Talk 15:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the GA was simply more involved in the AI conflict than in other areas. Sadly, however, this is not the case. The GA is extremely one-sided in its involvement, and this is why it's biased. As I've said before, the GA never takes into account the reasons for Israel's actions, the context in which they take place, nor does it ever concern itself with any atrocity, no matter how extreme, commited by Palestinians. I think it's fair to say - with regard to Israel- that the GA is an extension of the Arab League.

-Sangil 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Example of the UN changing its mind

The question is not "Is the UN objective or biased?" but "Can we attribute a point of view to the UN?" Unless Wikipedia's NPOV policy has changed recently, the formula X says Y about Z still applies.

Perhaps we could say that a vote of the General Assembly or a resolution of the Security Council called Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem "Occupied Palestinian Territory" - if there was such a vote or resolution. This case is parallel to the "Zionism is racism" thing, where for a period of time the General Assembly condemned Israel (by a majority vote) and later retracted this condemnation (again by a majority vote). See Zionism is racism. --Uncle Ed 16:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to the above section ("Point of view, reflected in terminology"), then my problem with the suggestion is that simply presenting the UN General Assembly view, without explaining that it's extremely anti-israeli (as even Ramallite admits) would lead people to assume that since the UN is usually neutral, it is also the case here. It's basically a highly biased view masquerading as a neutral, balanced one. For this reason I think that it's better to restrict any reference to the UN in this article to the UN SC (which BTW never used the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories"), or else clarify the UN GA's problematic position.

Sangil 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with the actual message of most resolutions, mind you... When the GA condemns the wall, for example, I'm not going to dwell on the motives of the sponsoring countries since I agree that the wall (in its current land-grab route) is a horrid thing. The other side of my argument is that the GA is probably the only world body that is (at least in appearance) more in line with Palestinian grievances, although it does not send us billions of dollars in annual military and economic aid such as the US congress does to Israel. Most resolutions, from our point of view, are fully justified in and of themselves even if the sponsoring countries have their own agendas. Lastly, there have been many attempts from the pro-Palestinian side to add qualifiers to statements made in Wikipedia articles (such as stating that a source is very biased before introducing its claim), but these are normally rejected on grounds of well-poisoning. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you don't disagree with them- they are anti-israeli! why would you? However, I don't see how you agreeing or disagreeing with them (and I have much to say about them, but that's another discussion) is relevant here. Nor do I understand why the GA is the "only" world body supporting the Palestinians. Last time I checked it was the Israelis who were in isolation (remember the Durban conference? was anybody there pro-israeli, or even neutral, except the US? Nope, it was a Israel-bashing-fest).

Furthermore, I also fail to see why the US aid to Israel is relevant. It also aids Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi-Arabia. The fact that the oil-rich Arab nations prefer using the Palestinians (especially the refugees) as weapons to pressure Israel, rather than actually helping them is sad, but the truth is that the US (via UNRWA and direct aid to the PA) has helped the Palestinians economically far more than any Arab nation ever has.

In conclusion- I admit I am rather new here, so the whole "well-poisioning" thing is new to me. I would appreciate seeing examples of these attemps/rejections you refer to. If this indeed is the case, I suggest to at least always make a clear distinction between the GA and SC, and never simply attribute something to the 'UN' (as has been done in the article).

-Sangil 00:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Attributing something to the GA versus SC is fine, there is no problem with that. US aid to Israel is not relevant, I was simply answering your question about why I think the GA is not necessarily as pro-Palestinian is it is anti-Israel. Finally, I would kindly ask that you do not throw stereotypes at me simply because you may choose to believe them... your statement Of course you don't disagree with them- they are anti-israeli! why would you? was a bit offensive to me since you applied a stereotype without knowing anything about my background. I generally do not mind debating people but do not appreciate being accused of something I am not just because it fits a false stereotype. For the record, I am not anti Israel, but I am very much anti occupation, and I always try to make a distinction between the two, although I am not sure what percentage of the Israeli public appreciate the difference. Since you are new here, please read the Assume Good Faith policy. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If I have offended you, I apologize. I agree I do not know anything about you. However since

1. I assume no supporter of the Palestinians will disagree with anti-israeli resolutions- at least this has never happened to my knowledge, and-
2. you seemed to side yourself with the Palestinians ("although it does not send us billions of dollars...."

I made the above statement. I hope it's clear I was not referring to your contributions to Wikipedia, only to personal opinions. I am happy to hear you regard being anti-Israeli as offensive. In the future, please avoid using first-person personal pronouns if you wish to avoid being identified with a party in the conflict. And again I am sorry if it appeared I was attacking you personally. It was not my intention.

-Sangil 09:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Alo davar, adoni, don't worry about it. Also, I don't wish to avoid being identified with a party in the conflict, I am Palestinian after all. I have a green-colored ID card, and believe me, it doesn't mean 'diplomatic ID'. But I don't want my views misrepresented or stereotyped, that's all. Also, make sure you understand that resolutions or statements against certain policies or actions by the Israeli government or army cannot just be put under the umbrella of 'anti-Israel' as a whole - at least not in my view. L'Chaim, as we say in Balata... Ramallite ^(talk) 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good point. I keep forgetting that there are significant numbers of people who assume that the UN is usually neutral. (Hmm, that sounds sarcastic when I read it back, but I'm not trying to be! :-) Maybe instead of contributors like you and Ramallite and me trying to characterize the UN's degree of bias or objectivity, we could just mention it as a prominent and influential source just like any other. Readers could then decide whether to accept a United Nations pronouncement as valid, invalid, or something in between.

There was also a PNC statement I read today [1] that made various declarations about "Palestine" and "Arabs". I always feel it helps to attribute each point of view to its supporters. --Uncle Ed 22:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro - 2

I've restored that this is one of a number of terms used to describe the area, because that's precisely what it is. The replacement: "The Palestinian territories are geographic areas in the Middle East ..." gives no indication of the highly politicized nature of the name, or that it's one of many terms used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length above and the version without the silly "is a term" was agreed on after a considerable debate. The article is an article about a territory, not about a term. The term we have used here is widely used and disagreement about its use and alternatives are prominently featured in both the introduction and the body of the article. The introduction must introduce the article, however, and not the name of the article. If you object to the use of the name, you should make an application for a page move. Otherwise, the correct solution is to deal with the subject of the article in the introduction, noting - without exaggeration - controversy over terminology. I refer you to Israeli West Bank barrier as an example of this approach. Palmiro | Talk 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, can you cite any other examples of an article about something beginning with "Thingummy is a term used for"? I can't think of any myself, the nearest being articles about writers who commonly used pseudonyms, and that is quite a different scenario. Palmiro | Talk 19:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We already have an article on the topic you wish to deal with, it's called Israeli-occupied territories. Regarding articles that begin with "is a term", try Dominionism, Consumerism, Semantics, Trekkie, Dar al-Islam, Chicano, Postmodernism, Ressentiment, British English, Metrosexual, Groupthink, Collective unconscious, Price gouging, First Nations, Business speak, Rustication, Eurabia, and hundreds more. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples. The Israeli-occupied territories are actually quite distinct from the Palestinian territories (which are a subset of the former). Palmiro | Talk 20:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not to mention Islamofascism and Negro. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about Territories sought by Palestinian Arab nationalists? That would be completely neutral. The people seeking to turn the 3 territories in question into a sovereign nation are indeed Palestinian Arabs. (You might want to debate whether "Palestinian Arabs" should be called "Palestinians" for short - but that's beside the point, unless that is the entire point.)

The way the article is entitled now carries a hint that these territories do belong (or should) to "the Palestinian people" - but the definition of this people is (according to Human Rights Watch) highly politicized.

Either you want the "correct" term, or you are willing to settle for a "neutral" term. I vote for using neutral language, and for describing the points of view of all major parties who advocate any particular term or definition.

Also, there are quite a few Wikipedia articles which are about terms. If you really haven't come across any of them before, I'll get you a list later. Gotta run now. Cheers! --Uncle Ed 20:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The way the article is entitled now follows Wikipedia naming conventions. I know there are plenty of pages about terms, but this isn't one of them.

Also, Jayjg, could you please explain your edit summary? I did not change the meaning of the page; I reverted some very poor and sloppy changes to a version that was painstakingly agreed between myself, Ramallite and Humus Sapiens. The difference between this article and Israeli-occupied territories is plain: the latter includes the Golan, and, historically, the Sinai: this does not. If anything, my edits last night made the position clearer, as the previous explanation of the difference between the two was rather confusingly worded, as noted by Ramallite on the talk page. Palmiro | Talk 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that the content of the two articles should be the same, but this would have less information, because it wouldn't deal with the Golan and Sinai? I fail to see the point, then. Also, where do Yesha, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip fit into this? Are they all going to describe the exact same geographical areas, in multiple articles? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've responded a few lines above, there was an edit conflict. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Palestinian territories are composed of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, just as, for example, the United Kingdom is composed of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have articles on the UK yet also on its component parts. The Palestinian territories are clearly a distinct geopolitical territory, and therefore are worthy of having an article. If we also have to have an article about the different terms people use for them, then I would suggest that we follow the example of Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland naming dispute. Palmiro | Talk 20:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's little overlap between the England et al articles and the United Kingdom, whereas you appear to be taking this article in the direction of a complete overlap with at least three other articles. Also, your claim that "The Palestinian territories are clearly a distinct geopolitical territory" is a political position, not a fact, which is exactly what this article deals with. WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia articles describe POVs, rather than endorsing them; you appear to be taking this article from the former to the latter. Also, please see my fuller response below. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's absurd to compare this term to the "United Kingdom." There is no nation state called "Palestinian territories." Palmiro, you're simply trying to manipulate the language. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Did I say there was a nation-state called the Palestinian territories? Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not trying to manipulate the language. I am trying to ensure that Wikipedia covers a defined geopolitical area. This area is politically and historically distinct from others. It has been the subject of much international discussion, controversy and comment, and of negotiations between the PLO and Israel, the scene of two intifadas, presidential and legislative elections, etc, etc. This is a matter of fact, it is not a political position that all these things happened in this particular area and not elsewhere and that should suggest that there is something distinctive about this area. I find it suprising that people would claim it does not deserve to be covered in an encyclopaedia. Jayjg, I am quite at a loss to understand your remakrs about England and the UK. England is a component part of the UK just as the Bank is a component part of the Palestinian Territories. Palmiro | Talk 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no conflict between what you say and pointing out that "Palestinian territories" is one of a number of terms used to describe the area, which it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be NPOV to describe the PT as a "geopolitical territory", especially given that its borders are still subject to change and that some think that it may include places such as Jerusalem's Jewish quarter. AFAIR, our earlier compromise was based on Ramallite's wording (I think it is reflected in this version 12:56, 24 February 2006 by Aiden, "in the context of a Palestinian perspective" being important clause. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the version you cite by Aiden, which is clearly far superior to the current one. Palmiro | Talk 12:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Obvious" is in the eyes of the beholder

Question for SlimVirgin: if the article is not about an area but, in the words of your patronising (and in my view and what is clearly the view of several other editors on this talk page, incorrect) edit summary, is "about a politicized term (obviously), and only one of several used for the same area; the intro must reflect this", then where is the article about that same area? Palmiro | Talk 20:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that has been mentioned: Israeli-occupied territories, not to mention West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Yesha, Samaria, Judea, Palestine, Israel, Land of Israel, Political status of Palestine, Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Proposals for a Palestinian state, Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian and who knows how many more? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which of these articles is about the "same area" to which SlimVirgin refers here rather than dealing with either part of that area, that area plus other areas, or particular aspects of the status of that area? Palmiro | Talk 20:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, as Jay says, we have several articles about that area. The term "Palestinian territories" is not a term like "Canada," which no-one disputes is the name of a certain geographical area. Even those who to some extent dispute the legitimacy of the government (some First Nations) do not dispute that "Canada" is now the name of that area (well, I've read about one First-Nations activist who disputes it). The use and legitimacy of the term "Palestinian territories," however, is disputed by millions of people, as is the area the term should refer to. It is senseless and highly POV to write this article as though we are writing about "Canada." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither you nor Jayjg have yet pointed out to me the other article about the area in question. Are you disputing that the Palestinian territories are a certain geographical area, or merely that it is neutral to use that name for them? I keep seeing references to them, under various names - most often this one - and this leads me to the conclusion that they probably are worthy of an article on Wikipedia. I'm not at all sure how many people dispute what areas the term should apply to, either. Palmiro | Talk 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep assuming there's an "area in question", rather than a political term for a number of territories whose ownership is disputed. That's what's known as begging the question. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The West Bank and Gaza Strip, taken together, consitute a territory which has been the subject of various international agreements, discussions, controversies etc. They are not two unrelated territories which for some inexplicable reason people keep mentioning in one breath. Do you really think their relationship with each other is imilar to that between, say, Texas and Montana? Even the Oslo accords refered to the integrity of the territory. Palmiro | Talk 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

None of the agreements you referred to ever decided on final boundaries. The term "Palestinian territories" most resembles terms like Sub-Saharan Africa; that is, a number of territories which are often grouped together for various reasons (political, geographic, ethnolinguistic, etc). I suggest we model this article after that one. Also, we should probably try to clean up the overlap between this article, West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Yesha, Samaria, Israeli-occupied territories, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the final borders of the Palestinian Territories are not defined doesn't mean that the Palestinian Territories do not exist. The fact that the term has political significance and refers to a number of specific territories whose ownership is disputed does not mean the use of the term begs the question or constitutes a category error. There are a number of regions that were annexed to Israel in 1967, that are largely populated by Palestinians without Israeli citizenship, and are at the centre of a dispute over a proposed Palestinian state. Whatever position you take on this dispute, a term is still necessary to refer to the territories as a whole. "Disputed Territories" and "Occupied Territories" are sometimes used, but these are general terms that include the Golan Heights and (historically) Sinai, while the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, are more specific terms which, depending on your definition, refer to regions within the Palestinian Territories. I honestly do not understand the controversy surrounding this term. Even if you think parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be fully integrated into Israel, even if you think there should be no Palestinian state, don't you still need an inclusive term that refers to the territories within Israel that are currently semi-autonomous or have special status, in which stateless Palestinian Arabs are a majority and constitute a distinct culture, even if you do not recognize their claim to statehood, or the specifics of that claim? The Spanish still refer to a Basque country, even though they don't recognize its claim to statehood, right? Gregor Samsa 07:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No one's suggesting the article be deleted, simply that it's "one of a number of terms used to describe" a certain area, which it is, rather than a name that everyone accepts. To pretend it's the latter would be POV. I don't understand the resistance to describing it accurately, rather than buying into the ideology of one side or another. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Gregor Samsa's eloquent exposition of the problem, to which should be added that the Palestinian Territories are also treated as a unit in numerous concrete matters of politics, administration and the work of international organizations. This alone would be enough to justify an article about them. SlimVirgin, you are mischaracterising the debate. Nobody is claiming that the name "Palestinian territories", or any of the other names involved, should be portrayed as one that everyone accepts. Your insinuation that other editors are pretending that such is the case is quite unpleasant. You, on the other hand, have indeed claimed that this is, or should be, an article about a term, not an area, and you have rewritten the introduction to turn it into one more suitable to an article about a term (despite the fact that the bulk of the article has for some considerable time focussed to a greater extent on the territories than on the name for them). This is what I have objected to, and continue to object to. Palmiro | Talk 12:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your allegation of unpleasantness is also unpleasant. This is an article about an area for which there are a number of terms, used by different people for different political reasons. Just because you favor one of those terms doesn't make it the only one. The introduction makes that clear as does the section on terminology. That doesn't mean the article is about the term and nothing else, or that it should be. You seem to want to write an article that would actually prevent people from learning certain things, which is disappointing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I will leave it to those reading this debate to decide for themselves whether this outburst is warranted. Palmiro | Talk 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be less occupied with terminology and more concerned with the geo-politics entailed here. If a section on terminology is not sufficient to allay the concerns of some editors, then go ahead and create a Palestinian territories (term) article, as has been suggested. Hijacking this article is not the solution.--AladdinSE 15:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article I can think of that is closest to this is something like Third World; it's a term covering a bunch of territories, not completely well defined, and the term is objected to by some. We need to model this article on something like that. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears that what we have here is what in Computer-Science we would call a "deadlock": On the one hand, in my opinion (I am not speaking on behalf of anyone else here) there is indeed a political entity which is deserving of an article- namely the West Bank and Gaza Strip (East Jerusalem in another matter, since it has different status and different importance than the other two, but that's just my opinion). On the other hand, no suitable name can be found- since the only two which describe exactly this area would not be accepted by everyone (PalTer assumes ownership by the Palestinians, and this would not be acceptible as a neutral viewpoint, while I don't think Palestinians would accept "Yesha" as the main name for this article). So we are at an impass... My suggestion, therefore, for lack of a better one, would be to simply call the article "The West Bank and Gaza Strip", with 'PalTer' and 'Yesha' being articles simply describing the terms, and linking with the main one (I think Yesha is already much like this, PalTer IMO should be written in a similiar manner, only from a Palestinian viewpoint rather than an Israeli one). I know this is not perfect, since there are already articles about both WB and GS, but I think this would be a good compromise (just as stated before, UK includes Scotland, but there are articles about both) -Sangil 11:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with "Palestinian territories" but "West Bank and Gaza Strip" is an acceptable compromise. --Zero^talk 11:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that West Bank and Gaza Strip would be a good compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

(repeating myself, since this question has been raised in two sections:) I would like to thank Sangil for making this helpful contribution; as stated below, I think this may be the best way to resolve our deadlock (though this title should redirect here; a separate article about terminology could cover all competing names the place is called). Palmiro | Talk 17:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your'e welcome :)

-Sangil 18:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How to group

Jayjg says above:

The term "Palestinian territories" most resembles terms like Sub-Saharan Africa; that is, a number of territories which are often grouped together for various reasons (political, geographic, ethnolinguistic, etc).

Sub-Saharan Africa is a geographical grouping, while "Palestinian territories" is a political grouping.

Is there a definition of "Palestinian territories" other than territories in Palestine (region) in which Palestinian Arabs seek to establish a new nation?

I think we need to separate (1) the definition of the term from (2) the rationale for picking these particular territories for the Palestinian Arabs' nationalistic aims.

What we contributors need to decide is:

• Shall we obscure the distinction? Or,
• Shall we describe this distinction?

Perhaps we could start with an informal poll right here. How many contributors feel that "Palestinian territories" has no particular meaning - other than comprising Gaza, WB and E. Jerusalem?

Has a particular political implication

1. Uncle Ed

If we are evenly split (or otherwise deadlocked) on this point, then I will suggest that we provide sources for the two points of view. --Uncle Ed 12:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. Is that a trick question?
   1. I'm sure it's not a trick question; I have plenty of faith in Ed's genuine desire to reach a fair and NPOV treatment of the topic. However, I must admit that I don't find it a helpful question - it appears to me to miss the point. Palmiro | Talk 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a page move

Semiautonomous parts of Israel can be an article about West Bank, Gaza and maybe even East Jerusalem. It's a completely neutral name, right? If not, we can always try out Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem. It's not too long - and it has absolutely no political implications.

We can point out that many various groups refer to 2 or 3 of these areas as "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (UN?) or "the Palestinian territories" (PNC). These meanings have political, i.e. nationalistic implications.

We can also point out that many people, like journalists and diplomats, may use "Palestinian territories" purely as the handiest term available without investing the term with any political implications.

But the political implications cannot be stripped completely. There is the related case of Taiwan, which communist China insists is a wayward province. They've even threatened an immediate invasion over the "terminology issue".

The question boils down to this:

• Do we want to describe the territories (Gaza, WB, EJ) neutrally? In which case, we find a neutral term for them.
• Or do we want to take sides and argue that they belong to a certain group of people?

Either there is a dispute - which we can describe fairly - or there is no dispute at all. Which is it? --Uncle Ed 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Harold, you make a darn good point. Let's write for the guy on the street. He wants to know what "Palestinian territories" means, and I hope we'll all be willing to tell him.

Either he gets a redirect from Palestinian territories to an article with a different name, or he just gets Palestinian territories.

Regardless, he needs to start off with the meaning of the term. And if there are conflicting definitions of the term, he needs to know that. If there are political implications of any of these meanings, he needs to know this too.

By the way, I just wrote Use of the word Palestine to try to get a few things straight, at least in my own mind. --Uncle Ed 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ed, please propose changes on the Talk: page, or re-write the article in your user space. You're really messing the article up. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I've reverted, because the writing in the previous version is a lot clearer, at least for the first few sections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The current introduction states:

"Palestinian territories" is one of a number of terms used to describe, from a Palestinian point of view, areas captured by Israel in the Six-day War of 1967, whose political status has been the subject of negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Two questions: first, are there any other terms commonly used to describe, inclusively, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem? Does the Israeli government, for instance, make a distinction between the "Disputed Territories" and the "Palestinian Disputed Territories"? Second, how does the use of the term Palestinian Territories imply a "Palestinian point of view"? The use of the term Basque country does not imply a "Basque point of view." In what way does the use of the term Palestinian Territories imply recognition of the Palestinian claim to statehood? Gregor Samsa 23:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question properly. Some groups call the territories Yesha, others call them Judea and Samaria, others called them "the Disputed territories" [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. Some even call them "the Liberated territories" [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I forgot about "liberated territories," so I've added it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, this is instructive. A few reservations: "Judea and Samaria" are specific terms referring to the West Bank alone. The "Disputed territories" is a more general term that sometimes includes the Golan Heights and sometimes Sinai. "Liberated territories" is not a commonly used term (not as common as the others you listed), and seems to have as general a meaning as "Disputed territories." Yesha is closest in meaning to "Palestinian Territories," but while it refers to the same regions as the latter term, it is not commonly used among English speakers or in the English-speaking media (aside from references to the Yesha Council). It seems there is no other term used to refer, collectively, in English, to the territories annexed by Israel in 1967 that were formerly part of the British Mandate of Palestine. Moreover, it is still not clear to me why this term implies a "Palestinian point of view" on the part of the user. Since it is the only term in English used to refer to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem exclusively and as a whole, and is widely used in mainstream media without implying recognition of the Palestinian claim to statehood, I don't see why its use implies any particular point of view. Gregor Samsa 00:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The terms "Disputed territories" and "Liberated territories" almost always involve only the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. That is because it is their ownership that is "disputed", as they are the only territories which were part of the Mandate. As for Yesha not being commonly used among English speakers, why do I get 500,000 Google hits for the term? English Google hits, I might add. Now, admittedly they do not all refer to the Yesha we are talking about, but reading through the links confirms that a large majority of them do. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What about "Disputed Palestinian Territories". However, the current name is not that bad. Xtra 04:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But nobody calls it that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I'm straying from the point here. There are certainly many terms that refer to this general region, but my argument is that these terms are either somewhat more or less inclusive (the Disputed territories is somewhat ambiguous--the Golan Heights is frequently referred to as "disputed" as well), or else have limited use outside settler activist groups (Liberated territories, Yesha). While there is controversy surrounding the term, the controversy doesn't seem to be so great that the article should be largely devoted to a question of terminology. As I said before, the use of the term "Palestinian Territories" does not in itself imply recognition of the Palestinian claim to statehood. The term is widely used (far more widely used than any of the other terms listed, with 6.8 million hits), and its use does not necessarily imply a "Palestinian point of view." Gregor Samsa 01:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that "Palestinian territories" is the most popular term is why the article should probably be here. And the fact that the term only came into use after 1967 pretty much explains what POV it embodies. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've written a comment in one of the sections above (""Obvious" is in the eyes of the beholder") without noticing the discussion is continuing here. it regards this discussion, and I will like to try to make a few points clear below:

1. There is justification for an article about the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as these (since Oslo agreement) are often grouped together as a political entity.
2. East Jerusalem is NOT part of this entity, both according to the Oslo agreement, and also since the Palestinians living there are considered Israeli 'residents' (though not citizens) and thus have a different status then the inhabitants of the WB and GS (e.g. they receive Israeli Social Security).
3. The name "Palestinian Territories" makes an assumption that these areas belong to the Palestinians (as opposed to stating that Palestinians live there), and this is a controversial statement that is not recognized by everyone, not even the UN Security Council.
4. There is apparently no name for this 'entity' which is both neutral (i.e. accepted by both sides) and commonly used.

Therefore (and sorry if I am repeating things said previously) there should be an article about WB and GS, which has a neutral name. My suggestion for this name is simply "West Bank and Gaza Strip". Other articles regarding this subject (e.g. "Yesha", "Palestinian Territories", etc.) should be about

• the term, such as historical uses, controversey regarding its use, etc., and
• the particular viewpoint from which the term originated.

They should not be about the area itself, but rather link to the main article. I think the "Yesha" article is a good example.
-Sangil 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Sangil's contentions no. 2 and 3, but if moving this article to West Bank and Gaza Strip is what it takes to let us work on an article about the territory in question that does not become obscured by polemical pyrotechnics about the name of the article, let's do it. There are definitely cases where "West Bank and Gaza Strip" is used as a synonym for what we are talking about here. While our naming conventions would certainly favour the current name, this may be a case to ignore all rules. However, Palestinian Territories should redirect to the new title, and we could create a separate article on terminology, such as Northern Ireland naming dispute. There seem to be grounds for maintaining a separate article on Yesha. Palmiro | Talk 17:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, the term "Palestinian Territories" does not mean "Sovereign territory of Palestine". The closest analogy to "Palestinian Territories" I can think of, and have already mentioned, is the term Basque Country. The term "Basque Country" does not imply ownership or recognition of Basque sovereignty. Gregor Samsa 23:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but it does imply that the land is "Basque" (I do not know a better expression for it)- meaning historically it belonged to the basque people, any independant countries in those lands were Basque, the Basques were (and are) the dominant people in that region historically, culturally, etc. for many centuries. One can hardly claim the same for the Palestinians in the WB and GS- the term "Palestinian People" didn't even exist until the 1960's. The Jews have as much historical and cultural claim, if not more, to those regions as the Palestinians. Therefore calling them the "Palestinian Territories" inherently implies a Palestinian POV.

-Sangil 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, there are a number of terms used for generally overlapping territories, and various articles to do with them (e.g. Palestinian territories, Israeli-Occupied territories, Yesha, Judea and Samaria). They all need to be merged into one article, which explains the different terms in use, and the territories they cover. Individual articles on West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem should cover the details. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And what should this article be named? My suggestion can be seen above. Feel free to add your own if you do not accept mine..

Also, IMO, not all articles need to merged with the main one, as some of them deal with a specific term/viewpoint (e.g. Yesha) and this does not necessarily need to be in the main article (other than mentioning the various names with links to them)

-Sangil 06:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you still seem to be under some misapprehension as to what these various articles cover. They do not all cover the same territory at all. Israeli-occupied territories covers all the territories occupied by Israel in the June War of 1967; this article covers the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but not the Sinai or the Golan (to what extent it should cover East Jerusalem can to my mind be worked out by describing the relationship of East Jerusalem with the rest of the territories, in line with NPOV, in the article); Judea and Samaria is coterminous with the West Bank minus East Jerusalem, not with the territories covered here (it does not include the Gaza Strip). Only Yesha covers essentially the same ground as this article, and it covers a distinct conception of it and therefore probably warrants a separate article. Your essential contention appears to remain that the territory/territories in question in this article do not have any distinct features that warrant there being an article about them qua a geopolitical territory, as opposed to as a term (please feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting your view). That's OK, but it seems clear that most people involved in this debate disagree. Palmiro | Talk 12:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As it's about the West Bank and Gaza Strip, why not call it "West Bank and Gaza Strip"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be time for an RFM on this all right. Sangil's suggestion seems to have a fair amount of support. I'd like to hear the input of Humus Sapiens, Ramallite and if he feels so inclined, Joe Mabel as well, though, as they have all commented on this or related issues in the past. Also, I'm not sure from Jayjg's comments how he feels about this: Jayjg, would I be right in thinking that you still do not feel we need an article dealing with the West Bank and Gaza Strip taken together, as a territory, but prefer any such articles to deal essentially with terminology and to leave any information about the territories themselves to the individual articles on the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Palmiro | Talk 14:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly so. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

May I suggest a somewhat different solution? The introduction would be something like:

Palestinian Territories is a term used by some to describe areas that belong to a future Palestinian state. There is no exact agreement on borders of such state, but most high-level negotiations suggest that the borders with Israel would go either at, or close to, the 1967 Israeli border. The eastern border, with Jordan, is less controversial.

I think it is a better definition because:

• It is not a definition from any particular point of view. Most people on both side of the conflict agree that some territory should be allotted to a Palestinian state some time in the future, and this introduction describes it fairly well.
• At least to me it seems much shorter and more informative.

Looking forward to any comments, Heptor _talk 12:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC).

But I'm not particularly aware of the term being used in this sense at all; in my experience, it's almost always used to refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip collectively. Palmiro | Talk 13:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be POV, and "by some" is weasel wordy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Heptor, I think you mean well, but there is a subtle, but very significant, bias in your formulation you may not be aware of. It leaves the impression that the 1967 territories are up for grabs, and all that remains is for Israel and the Palestinian to sit down and agree on how to divide up the pie (it's not exactly stated, but implied here, that the 1948 territories are completely off the table). This is in fact the Western media POV that of the Israeli left of center. Whereas the Palestinian view, as I understand it, strongly felt, is that all of Palestine outside the Green Line is the sovereign territory of the Palestinian people and that to concede any of it to Israel's permanent borders is an outrage. Whatever you may think of this view, it simply has to be presented in the article. Another consideration, which reveals what's wrong with this similar neutral definition, is that Israeli politicians, even those like Sharon and Olmert who recognize that most of the territory in question will eventually be given to some sort of Palestinian state, virtually never use the term Palestinian Territories to describe it. Brian Tvedt 14:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmwell, I hereby consider my suggestion successfully executed by the joint firing squad. Perhaps somewhat off topic now, to Brian Tvedt, I actually believe that most of the higher level negotiations are about the territories captured in the 1967 war. But of course there are other POVs: some Palestinians and Arabs would say that "Palestinian Territories" is the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterrainian, while some Israelis would say that the term "Palestinian Territories" is itself an insult agains God's will. I am of course not against that such viewpoints should be presented, what I wrote was only meant as an introduction. But well, good luck resolving it. -- Heptor _talk 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

At least it's nice to see someone able to maintain a sense of humour! Palmiro | Talk 13:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...what about the "occupied territories" of the American southwest? ;) Or the "Gadsden Strip"?

Media

Palmiro, it's absurd to say this term represents the view of the Western media. They use many terms and they don't have a POV as a group. There are basically two POVS here, broadly speaking: Arab and Israeli. This term represents the Arab POV, not the Israeli one. Please stop trying to weigh one more heavily than the other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, you are misrepresenting me. Please stop. I did not say that the term represents a point of view of the Western media (I agree that they don't have a single defined point of view as a group); I said that it was used by the Western media. This is manifestly the case; e.g. google shopws 31.800 hits for it on bbc.co.uk, hardly a pro-Arab outlet. You may not like it, but the fact is that the term is one used by plenty of people who are trying not to take sides (yes, believe it or not, there are people who try not to take sides and not everybody can be reduced to being pro-Israeli or pro-Arab). Other examples include the Lonely Planet and Footprint guidebooks to the region, and this despite the Lonely Planet one reflecting a good deal of Israeli propaganda. So stop trying to oversimplify and stop trying to make the article reflect your point of view that this term is only used by supporters of the Palestinian cause. Palmiro | Talk 14:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of terms are used by the Western media. What is important to mention upfront, for the purpose of NPOV, is that it represents the Arab point of view. And what do you mean by "you may not like it"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That the term represents the Arab POV is your POV, which should be described as a particular opinion, not included as fact as you are trying to do. Given that the BBC is committed to political neutrality, it is unlikely that it regards the term as representing an Arab POV, or it would not use it. I would suggest that the same applies to most other non-Arab media outlets using the term, to guidebook publishers, etc. Our NPOV policy requires us to describe POVs rather than presenting one of them as fact.

Also, it's worth pointing out that there is more than one Arab POV (gasp!); not everybody uses the term Palestinian territories, and quite a lot of people would reject it as implying that the 1948 territories, as they are often termed (i.e. Israel) are not also Palestinian. This is one reason for the use of the term "1967 territories' to describe the Palestinian territories. Palmiro | Talk 14:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I said "broadly speaking," and you do know that, broadly speaking, the term represents the Arab position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is one of several used by supporters of the Arab position, who I think are if anything more likely to use "occupied Palestinian territories". In any case, my objection is not to a statement - in NPOV terms - that some see the term as reflecting a Palestinian or Arab position (I do not agree that the term in and of itself "represents the Arab position"), but to your attempt to suppress factual information to the effect that it is not solely used by supporters of the Palestinian position, but also by third parties, including major media outlets. Palmiro | Talk 14:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see an explanation of why this information is not relevant. As it is, the article states as fact in its very first line that the term "Palestinian territories" is used from an Arab point of view. While this is true, it is also used by third parties who are seeking neutrality. As it is, a reader would understand that the term is only used from an Arab point of view: this, of course, is itself a specific point of view (against which factual evidence militates) and as such WP:NPOV precludes us from presenting it as fact. Palmiro | Talk 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it adds nothing in terms of NPOV or information, and because we could add the same expression (used by the media) to many of the other terms too. All that's important to signal up front is that, if the world is to be divided into two POVs (broadly speaking), this is the Arab one, not the Israeli. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it adds the very important information that the term is used by a variety of organizations which are not using it as part of a pro-Arab POV. The world does not have to be, and indeed cannot be, divided into two POVs, broadly speaking or otherwise, and insisting on doing so cannot only lead to a failure of analysis. The idea that the world must be divided into two POVs is your POV, and cannot be treated as fact. The idea that use of the term "Palestinian territories' implies a pro-Arab point of view is also itself a point of view, and cannot be treated as fact. What you are campaigning for and ceaselessly reverting for here is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, as well as, to be blunt, misinformation. Palmiro | Talk 16:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And it doesn't say it's only used by Arabs. It says "used to describe, from an Arab point of view," not "used by Arabs to describe." Big difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will change it to "including from an Arab point of view' to make the difference clearer and prevent any misunderstanding. Perhaps that will resolve the issue. Palmiro | Talk 16:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading your last comment more carefully, I think I probably misinterpreted it. Rereading it, it seems you remain determined that this article state as a matter of fact that the term represents an Arab point of view (and the intro, as pharsed before my last edit, would lead the reader to believe that it only, or always, represented such a point of view as opposed to also being used by those seeking to be neutral, such as the BBC. Of course, the BBC does not succeed in being neutral - but the point is, its intent is to do so, and therefore its choice of the term "Palestinian territories" is clearly as a neutral term whose use does not constitute bias towards any side). As I am blue in the face saying, there is no consensus for this point of view and we therefore cannot state it as fact. This is the essence of WP:NPOV. Palmiro | Talk 16:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading the discussion above, I still do not understand why the "international media" is relevant here. While I *strongly* object to calling the BBC neutral (April fool's is over!)- they can hardly disguise their pro-Arab POV, I think it's not the point. The point is that the "international media" is such a vague, amorphous term that just about anything can be claimed about it. The "international media" at any one point can make any number of contradicting claims, and reflect about a zillion POVs. Adding a reference to it here would allow anyone to add a quote from the "intl media" saying any absurdity about every subject on Wikipedia- and they would not be lying! That is hardly of encyclopedic value. Of course this whole discussion will become less relevant if and when this article is renamed "West Bank and Gaza Strip".

-Sangil 17:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view, if major and reputable organizations which are seeking to be neutral (and end up being effectively biassed towards Israel, such as the BBC ;o ) use this term, that is pretty relevant to a discussion of what point of view, if any, the term represents. Perhaps, indeed, we should go ahead with a move quickly, as it will to some extent defuse this ghastly argument. Palmiro | Talk 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is also in use by Haaretz and JPost (their English versions that is), and "represents a Palestinian POV" is simply misleading. While some may object to the term and others use other terms, there are other ways to present this in the article than denoting the entire term to "a Palestinian POV". This term is in general use across borders and among a wide variety of groups. --Cybbe 18:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Cybbe; I can't access those websites of course. Palmiro | Talk 18:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself, since it is clear I am not being understood. I am not claiming that this term is not used, or even used widely. I am saying that this term is POV, and it is POV whether said by a Palestinian politician or a Norwegian news anchor (are there any Norwegians reading this? :P ). Making a list of everyone who uses this term is irrelavnt, if not misleading (since it would lead one to believe that since the term is widely used, it is also NPOV. I think it's obvious this is not always the case). Just as easily one can add to the article about Yasser Arafat that "he is described as a terrorist in an Israeli viewpoint and in various international media outlets". While I do indeed regard him as a terrorist, also in this case I do not think the media is relevant. Something being repeated by the media does not make it more true, just, or NPOV.

And Cybbe- I would like to see a reference to the JPost quote. For Ha'aretz I'll take your word for it :)

-Sangil 18:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles from JPost and Haaretz are quick searches away, and while not all articles (although some), are available free of charge, they show the term most certainly is in use: [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] - And even though you claim the term is representing a certain POV, the wide usage show that it is by far not restricted to "a Palestinian POV". Cybbe 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

However, for users in certain parts of the world, websites from that part of the world are not a quick search away; they are completely unavailable! Palmiro | Talk 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand. No way of getting round the block either (such as through an anonymous proxy service e.g. http://www.the-cloak.com/ ) ? --Cybbe 20:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not the JPost website I was looking for, but the specific article in it that mentions "Palestinian Territories". Could you point me to it?

Thanks- Sangil 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the area belongs to the state of Israel as in the 1948 UN partition. Any other division would be against international law on Israel's part. Ofcourse, this wouldn't be Israel's first violation...--Flowers8 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Another opinion

Palmiro asked me to weigh in here; this is not an article I had watchlisted (I guess I will now, since this is bound to generate response), but I've taken a quick look at the article and a bit more of a look at the discussion.

I have rarely disagreed more strongly with SlimVirgin, whose work and contributions here I generally respect enormously. She writes, "There are basically two POVS here, broadly speaking: Arab and Israeli. This term represents the Arab POV, not the Israeli one." Points of view here don't neatly line up with nationality/race and it is just silly to suggest that 95% of the world lacks a point of view on the matter: I would say that the rest of the world has a more neutral POV than the engaged parties. Further, Arab points of view range (at least) from people who would like to "drive Israel into the sea" to supporters of a two state solution or a unitary secular state and Israeli points of view range (at least) from "Eretz Israel" types who would like to "transfer" the Palestinians annex not only the entire West Bank but Gaza to supporters of a two state solution or (though few non-Arab Israelis fall into this camp any more) a unitary secular state.

"Palestinian territories" does not specifically imply an Arab or Palestinian POV. It does imply a rejection of the Eretz Israel POV, but the Palestinians are far from the only people opposed to that. Indeed, many Israelis and many diaspora Jews are opposed to that. The term is probably most popular with those who favor a two-state solution more or less following the Green Line, but I'm sure there would be no difficulty finding citations of its use by people who don't hold that view. (I strongly object to the current claim in the article that the term represents an Arab POV: I'm a dispora Jew. This is my favored term, and that does not somehow make me an Arab.)

The term is "Palestinian territories" widely used in the U.S. and UK press. Google gives 9,810,000 hits (of which this article is the first!). The next few are quite interesting in respect of who uses this term: a travel guide and map, both called "Israel and the Palestinian Territories", from Lonely Planet; "Palestinian Territory" rather than "Territories" from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority; a BBC country profile again called "Israel and the Palestinian Territories". These are not people with a political axe to grind. I strongly believe that an article should remain at the current location.

That said, this should be an article more on a concept than on a geographical entity. Jayjg and others are correct that this term strictly postdates 1967, and I believe it didn't really come into common use until after 1973. This article should mention that the term includes the West Bank, Gaza, and sometimes East Jerusalem (and if people can find citations of other uses those should be discussed as well). It should look into how the term developed, who uses it, who objects to it, what other terms are used and by whom, and the status of the territories. It should remain focused on language issues and international (or intercommunal) political issues (as should—and does—Judea and Samaria). The basic geography stuff belongs at Gaza, East Jerusalem, West Bank. - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Even CNN uses the term “Palestinian territories”: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (this one is a speech given by G.W. Bush) [21] CNN can hardly be characterized as pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian. In fact, the term is often used in articles that are explicitly critical of the Palestinian Authority. There is nothing about the term itself that implies recognition of Palestinian sovereignty or a “Palestinian point of view.” Gregor Samsa 20:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, CNN is often characterized as "pro-Palestinian"; whole websites are devoted to exposing its bias, and CNN head Ted Turner said Israel engaged in terrorism. Be that as it may, I agree with Jmabel, the articles, whatever their names, should discuss terminology, not geography, since we already have articles discussing the geography. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

CNNi (CNN International) is definitely more pro-Palestinian. I don't know about CNN US. On the other hand, CNN.com is very pro-Israel, so much so that they use 'communities' instead of 'settlements' at times, and I have been told by an actual employee that a recent (well, this was 3 years ago) change in management slanted CNN.com to a pro-Israel bias so much so that it received an actual 'thank you' letter from the IDF. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For a minute there I thought we had reached a compromise, I'm sorry to see my hopes were premature. But now the gauntlet has been thrown, and what chivalrous knight would not accept such a challenge? :)

Let me start by making my point clear, again-

• The fact that a term is widespread in the media, does not make it NPOV.
• The fact that a term has a billion hits on Goggle, does not make it NPOV.
• The fact that a term has been used by a certain person of importance, does not make it NPOV.
• The fact that a term has been used by a non-Arab, or a Jew, or an Israeli for that matter, does not make it NPOV.
• The fact that a term has been used in a travel guidebook, does not make it NPOV.

That said, I would like to bring your attention to the term "Israeli War of Independence". This term also has a zillion hits on Google, is widespread in the media, is used by many people who are not israeli, Jewish, or have a pro-israeli POV, is widespread in Academia, is mentioned in numerous books (yes, even travel books), etc etc, and yet- Lo and Behold! In Wikipedia the article is called "The 1948 Arab-Israeli War". Yes Gentlemen, I was indeed surprised when I saw this, yet I accepted it and moved on. I suggest you do the same.

And just to make sure my position is clear- I am not saying this article should be removed, nor that there should be no article named "Palestinian Territories". What I am saying is that they should not be the same. In earlier sections my proposal can be found with more details.

(Drinks glass of water)

-Sangil 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I forgot- Gregor Samsa: The term has everything to do with a palestinian POV. using the adjective 'Palestinian' implies these lands are "Palestinian" by nature - meaning they are historically, culturally, etc linked with the Palestinian people. I can't help but smiling- an area called "Judea"(!!) which was the homeland of the Jewish people for centuries, the cradle of our culture and history, the only place on earth where independent Jewish kingdoms existed, is now a "Palestinian" Territory?!? Come on, it doesn't get more POV than this.

-Sangil 21:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the territories are historically significant to the Jewish people is not contested. The fact that there are Jewish settlements in the area and an Israeli claim to the territories is not contested. The fact that certain groups have different names for parts of the territories is not contested. However, when CNN and the BBC both refer to the region as the "Palestinian territories," that suggests that the use of the term is not restricted to people with a "Palestinian POV." NPOV does not mean universal acceptance: "the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such." There is no reason why we cannot include a brief discussion of terminology in this article, but I think people are exaggerating the controversy here. Gregor Samsa 23:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is used both as a generic one and as one expressing a point of view. The analogy is to (forgive me!) brand names: like "give me a kleenex" when you simply want a disposable tissue, or "I xeroxed these papers" when all you did was make a photocopy. Despite the best efforts of copyright lawyers and PR campaigns, some people persist in using the brand names of Kleenex and Xerox in a generic fashion; there's no way to stop them from doing this.

Nonetheless, our encyclopedia articles on tissues and xerography need to make it quite clear that there are both general ideas as well as specific implementations.

Analogously, there are Gaza, the West Bank, and often East Jerusalem. Certain people call these "the Palestian territories", meaning "the territories rightfully belonging to the Palestianan Arabs". We all know that one such group of people issued the PNC statement. (IMHO this statement refers to Palestinian Arabs, Arab Palestinians and Palestinians interchangeably, although I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in linguistics - but that's the impression I got when I read the statement. [])

Some people just go along with using the term "Palestinian territories" because it's easy: e.g., maybe they're doing a broadcast and they want to save time. But we are writing an encyclopedia, and we have all the time in the world. We can make obscure or ambiguous terminology as clear as necessary.

That's why I started Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian a couple of years ago. I worked on it with another Wikipedian whose personal views are nearly mirror-opposite to mine.

By the way, Sangil, Judea has always been in Palestine (region) - no matter who defined "Palestine" or when. Let's not mix up geography and politics. Judea is a "Palestinian" place - whether it is or should be a Jewish or Arab place is what is currently disputed.

Much of this depends on how you used the term "Palestinian". If you simply mean "of Palestine (region" then Gaza, Israel, Jerusalem (all parts), Judea, Samaria, etc. are all "Palestinian" in the sense of being "in Palestine-the-region". But let's not lose sight of the fact that MANY PEOPLE also use the term "Palestinian" to mean "belonging to the Palestinian Arabs as opposed to the Palestinian Jews". --Uncle Ed 23:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello - I have been mostly unavailable for the past few days and will continue to be for the next few days as I attend a conference and have limited time. I am very very disappointed with what is transpiring here, now when people ask me where I am from, I wonder if I should say "I am from a place where the term to describe it is sometimes uttered as 'Palestinian territories' but that's only one of many, and I suppose I should also provide the disclaimer that I'm not a Palestinian Jew".

People, what the hell? Let me make my small opinion heard (who am I if not a native of the very piece of land this article is referring to - but that's just one of many terms mind you).

• Ed, arguing that 'Palestinian' is misleading because it might also refer to Palestinian Jews is irrelevant in the 21st century. Jews of Palestine are now called Israeli. Arabs of Palestine are now called Palestinian. It just happens that the word 'Palestinian' in the modern context is somewhat similar (i.e. identical) to another word, 'Palestinian', that had a different meaning at the beginning of the last century. The word 'gay' is maybe a similar example. So let's drop this attempting to re-redefine 'Palestinian'. We don't make these things up on WP, we just write like any 21st century people would.
• Everybody: Saying that "Palestinian territories" implies 'ownership" is ridiculous. What is happening is that one is making up a false argument, and then spending too much time battling it. Stop that. In fact, when the movie 'Paradise Now' was being fought over during the Oscars of what to call the originating country, whether 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian Authority', the term Palestinian territories' was chosen as a compromise.
• Who changed 'Palestinian' to 'Arab' in the article? So now we have brought the Somalians, the Omanis, the Kuwaitis, the Algerians, and the Mauritanians into this? What is the point of view of the Sheikh of Bahrain, by the way? Does anybody know?
• I continue to contend that starting the article with the words 'is one of many terms...' is, among other things, tragically and childishly un-encyclopedic. Especially when using the words 'from a Palestinian perspective' can be used to construct a much better intro. See the next point.
• Lastly (for now), my edit of a few weeks ago, which was agreed on by editors of various POVs, has just been massacred for no apparent good-intentioned reason whatsoever. Out of habit (and I write a lot of manuscripts where precision and accuracy are key), I chose my words very carefully: I wrote FROM A PALESTINIAN PERSPECTIVE, not this 'Arab point of view' crap. There is a huge difference between the two. For one, my phrase did not cause controversy, it actually solved it. From a Palestinian perspective means that the point of view of the utterer is irrelevant, and so is the neutrality of the term. It means that this is what the territories would be called from the Palestinian perspective, even if one advocates pulling out my toenails and shipping my ass to a remote uninhabited Pacific island (and believe me, there are plenty of people who would very much like to see that happen). When you change it to 'from an Arab point of view', you are just being inaccurate, performing OR, and causing people to spend too much more time on this talk page than they would otherwise need to.

I have a presentation in a few hours so I should be getting ready (cell-cell adhesion and the role of beta-catenin, in case anybody is wondering), but I hope people will find some enlightenment in what I wrote and not consider it just some idiot Palestinian pissing in the wind. Sigh. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thing when talking about making this article into a description of a term. As far as I understand it, this would be against policy. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. From WP:NOT: "Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term." (my emphasis) Ramallite ^(talk) 04:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel your sincerity, Ramallite. Let's keep working on this. --Uncle Ed 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just one point: the change from "Palestinian" to "Arab" in the first sentence was made by anon editor User:149.99.19.84. Palmiro | Talk 16:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is sad to see that no-one has taken into account any of the issues I have raised. I will therefore do it, again (third time!), in the quickly diminishing hope that someone will actually try to either answer or accept them. So here goes:

1. "Palestinian Territories" is a Palestinian-POV term. This does not mean the POV is that the lands belong to the Palestinians. It does imply that the lands are 'Palestinian' by nature (hence the adjective), while this is not so. (see my previous entry to see why).
2. The israeli POV is by no-means a minority view. The intl media, most countries etc. may support the Palestinian POV, but we are still 50% of this conflict. Israeli POV therefore should have equal weight in the article as the Palestinian one.
3. The very usage of "from a Palestinian perspective" is an awkward attempt to solve the problem of the article name being POV. Why not just accept the obvious solution of giving the article a NPOV name? "West Bank and Gaza Strip" would not need any such bending-over-backwards to explain its POV, since it has none.
4. If one thinks an article describing the term "Palestinian Territories" is unwarranted, against policy etc.- fine, than don't have it. IMO it is justified, just like the term "Yesha" justifies an article, and it should contain much more than a simple description.
5. No-one as yet has put forth a valid argument as to why "Palestinian Territories" is any different than "Israeli War of Independence"- since this term is also widespread, used by many who are not pro-israeli, etc etc (just like I have written before), yet since it implies some israeli POV (which is not clear to me, but whatever),it is NOT the name of the article. Either change one or change the other, but the way it stands now is unbalanced and unconsistent.
6. and lastly- Ed Poor: please try to avoid from mixing up Palestine the region- which is an obsolete term and completely irrelevant here, and Palestine in the sense of Palestinian Arabs. What I said regarding Judea refers to the latter, and it is in no way "obviously Palestinian"- that, my friend, is POV.

-Sangil 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, in (6) there I meant Uncle Ed...
-Sangil 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I answer to "Uncle Ed" or "Ed Poor" ;-)

And if I'm mixing up region with ethnicity or politics, please undo or correct as needed. But it's not always clear what each speaker or writer means when they use words like Palestinian (as adjective or noun). Most of the time it means "Palestinian Arab", doesn't it? --Uncle Ed 21:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So maybe I'll just call you "Poor Uncle Ed"? ;-)

Regarding your question- it's true that it's not always clear what each writer means, since many people confuse the two, or use the terms without without being aware of the multiple meaning. I'll *try* to clarify...

• Palestine is one name of the region usually considered to lie between the Jordan river and the Mediterrenean Sea, with the North-South boundries less well-defined (roughly Lebanon and the Negev desert, although there are many other interpretations). To Israelis this area is known as Eretz Yisrael. It is a geographic term which was most commonly used during the British Mandate of Palestine, as referring to the region in which that mandate existed. Since the Independence of Israel the term is no longer used, as the region had been split up between Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and referring to the area as a whole became irrelevant in a political context (except I guess to Palestinians and Israelis- many of whom still consider the area to be wholly 'Palestine' or 'Eretz Yisrael')
• As noted above, Palestine was also shorthand for the British Mandate of Palestine.
• And finally- since the 1960's, when the Arabs living in this area started to define themselves as a nation separate from the surrounding Arabs, calling themselves the "Palestinian People" or simply "Palestinians", the adjective 'Palestinian' naturally referred (and once more- not only in the possesive sense) to them. This is the meaning of "Palestinian" that is currently in use, as opposed to the previous two.

Pheew! I hope this helped. If anyone has a different view I would love to hear it. My previous entry still stands, though- non of the issues I have raised regarding the title of the article have been addressed in any way.

-Sangil 22:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The crux of your argument seems to be that the term "Palestinian territories" reflects a Palestinian point of view, but you have provided no evidence that this is the case. A great deal of evidence has been provided indicating that the term is not only the most commonly used term for the region, but is also routinely used by virtually all the major English-speaking media outlets, reflecting the views of a variety of nationalities and ideological perspectives. These include CNN: [22] [23] [24] BBC: [25] [26] [27] CBC: [28][29] [30] NYTimes: [31], and even the major English-language Israeli media: Haaretz: [32] [33] [34] and JPost: [35] [36] [37] The "Israeli perspective" is obviously not unified on this issue. Once again, the NPOV policy does not require universal agreement on the use of terms. Minority views should be presented, but they should also be presented as such. Gregor Samsa 22:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you read *anything* I have written above? It appears that you have not and it is starting to get tiresome to repeat myself all the time.

And once again (fourth time!)

1. The fact the a term is widespread in the media (yes, even CNN! yes, even BBC!) does not mean it is NPOV.
2. The fact that a term is commonly used does not mean it is NPOV.
3. The Israeli POV is not a minority opinion. It is as valid, and has as much weight, as the Palestinian one.
4. The term "Palestinian Territories" implies these areas are 'Palestinian' by nature, and this is in no-way NPOV. For God's sake, it even says in the article "from a Palestinian perspective" in reference to this term (what would be NPOV is saying that they are currently inhabited mainly by Palestinians).
5. While the NPOV policy does not demand universal agreement, it does demand the articles be NPOV. This is the reason that the 'Israeli War of Independence' article is named "Arab-Israeli 1948 war"- a much less common, less used in the media term, mind you- and it is also the reason this article should not be named "The Palestinian territories".

Which of the above is not well understood? Please tell me so that maybe I can use different wording to make my point clearer.

And by the way, did you even read the JPost links you provided? Are you seriously bringing them as evidence that the JPost uses this term? In one article the term is brought as a quote from someone, in another in quotation marks, and all the articles are written by the same person- this is hardly evidence that the JPost accepts this term as neutral.

-Sangil 23:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to address the key point at issue: whether the term "Palestinian territories" reflects a "Palestinian point of view." You have yet to offer any evidence that this is the case. The use of the term by virtually all major English-language media outlets does not make the term universally accepted, but it does establish that the use of the term is not restricted to those with a Palestinian POV. Secondly, I did not say that the Israeli perspective constitutes a minority position; I said that your perspective is not to be equated with the "Israeli perspective." Thirdly, I don't understand what you mean when you say the term "implies these areas are 'Palestinian' by nature." Could you clarify? In what way does, for instance, the term "Basque Country" imply that the land is Basque "by nature"? The term simply refers to the semi-autonomous region of Spain largely populated by people of Basque descent. No land is Basque or Palestinian or Israeli "by nature." Soverignty and ownership is established by social and political institutions; it has nothing to do with nature. Finally, I only have access to the abstracts from JPost, but from what I can see the term is used by the writer, and is not in (or is not solely in) quotation marks. It is true that the term is not frequently used by JPost, however, the term is frequently used in Haaretz, a point you do not seem to dispute. Gregor Samsa 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we're making some progress here, but the shifting meanings of Palestine and Palestinian (see Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian) need better accounting than that.

I think Sangil shifted between the geographical and political senses halfway through his first paragraph.

1. the region known from ancient times as Palestine
2. the area temporarily called the British Mandate of Palestine
3. the western portion of #2 assigned as a political move to Jews
4. the Arab-populated parts of #3 which are currently called occupied Palestinian territory by the UN.

I've been working on these definitions for nearly 4 years now. And I can't do it with without you guys: Gregor, Sangil, Ramallite, Jayjg, SlimVirgin. Together I know we can succeed! --Uncle Ed 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Did I?

1. Palestine- a geographic term- unless used as a reference to:
2. British Mandate of Palestine - a political term. From virtually its very inception, this did not include:
3. Transjordan- nowadays simply known as Jordan. Also a political entity.
4. And finally- 'Palestinian' as a term referring to the Palestinian people. This term can have ethnic, political, cultural, or any other meaning, but it has nothing to do with 1 and 2.

As of today, 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian' does not have a geographic sense, unless seen from a Palestinian POV, since the naming of any area as 'Palestinian' is the subject of much debate. And to the best of my knowledge- the UN Security Council has never used the term "Palestinian Territories", occupied or otherwise.

Where did I shift? :)

-Sangil 23:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I must have misread your remarks in my haste. Maybe you didn't shift. Are you saying that Palestine was originally a geographical term but now is a political one. And are you also saying that Palestinians used to be a generic term for anyone in residing in the geographical region but that certain people started using the word in a political sense? --Uncle Ed 13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, since you seem to feel that nobody answered your points, I will try. First of all, your suggestion of having the article at West Bank and Gaza Strip was one I expressed appreciation of and, in the circumstances, conditional support for. Secondly, your remarks regarding the term "Palestinian territories" not representing a Palestinian point of view: a. I disagree that the use of the term by avowedly neutral and objective third parties is irrelevant to deciding on this, and b. I don't see how you leave us with any criteria that would allow us to disprove the contention that the term is used from a Palestinian point of view. If a contention can't be disproved, it's problematic. c. Your remarks about the Israeli War of Independence are a fair point and a not unreasonable parallel, but I don't feel, from my point of view, there's much point debating them at the moment since in any case I no longer have any hope that we will be able to have a decent article on this topic with this title. Palmiro | Talk 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Gregor Samsa

I think it is uncivil, to say the least, to unilaterally change the article while it is being debated in the Talk page. -Sangil 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am debating and editing the article at the same time. There is nothing uncivil about that. It is common practice. However, I will elaborate on my edits here (see below). Gregor Samsa 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To Gregor: Where are they?

Excuse me, Gregor, but which "Palestinian territories" are in Israel? I thought the whole point of the UN / Arab use of the term was that Gaza and West Bank were not "in Israel" but rather "occupied by Israel".

To me (and I daresay to most native speakers of English), the phrase "in country X" implies that X is part of its sovereign territory. Like Long Island is in New York. Or even like Puerto Rico is in the USA.

But when the United States occupied Japan after WW2, no one ever said that Japan was "in" the US. And I don't remember hearing anyone (Jew, Arab, or otherwise) saying that the Golan Heights were "in" Israel. Everyone knows that Israel occupies Golan. The only thing disputed about it is whether they are right or wrong to do so.

On the other hand, maybe there are some right-wing Israelis who regard Judea and Samaria as still being "in" Israel (in one sense or another). This would be a great time to clear this up.

Remember, I'm not arguing with you. I'm trying to work with you. (In other words, if you just revert my change, I'll simply refuse to have an edit war with you. But I'm hoping we can figure this thing out together.) --Uncle Ed 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, but I didn't say the territories are "in Israel." I said: "The Palestinian territories is a semi-autonomous region of Israel...". The Basque Country is a semi-autonomous region of Spain, and Puerto Rico is a semi-autonomous territory of the United States. That is not a value judgment. I'm not saying that the Palestinian territories should be a semi-autonomous region of Israel, I'm simply saying that it currently is a semi-autonomous region of Israel. That being said, it might be simpler to remove the "of Israel" part, as you did, since the meaning is still the same:

The Palestinian territories is a semi-autonomous region comprised of territories belonging to the former British Mandate of Palestine captured by Israel in the Six-day War of 1967. The political status of the territories has been the subject of negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Gregor Samsa 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to trap you; maybe I misunderstood (and there's always the possibility of a typo, I make plenty of 'em myself ;-) but, I was referring to this:

• the territories within Israel that are currently semi-autonomous or have special status, in which stateless Palestinian Arabs are a majority and constitute a distinct culture

Did you write that, and did you mean by that Gaza, West Bank, or what? --Uncle Ed 13:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not a region of Israel at all, even in the Israeli view, except for East Jerusalem and surrounding areas, which Israel purports to have annexed under its 1980 Jerusalem Law. Palmiro | Talk 16:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying the territories are a part of Israel when not even the Israeli Supreme Court will support such a view, is not only POV, it's a blatant lie. --Cybbe 16:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote that. I was wrong, and quibbling over "of" or "within" is not helpful. What do people think of the amended introduction listed above (without the "of Israel")? This article is about the semi-autonomous region of the Palestinian territories, it is not about (or primarily about) a term. A discussion of terminology would immediately follow this paragraph. Gregor Samsa 18:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The Palestinian Authority excercises varying levels of autonomy in various parts of the territories; in particular, it has no jurisdiction whatsoever in East Jerusalem and the surrounding parts of the West Bank that form part of the Israeli municipality of Jerusalem, and its powers elsewhere vary. Ariel and Ma'ale Adummim, for example, aren't autonomous either. I still think the best and most neutral version we have had yet was that painstakingly agreed on back in February and inserted by Humus Sapiens. Palmiro | Talk 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Title (cont.)

It was getting too crowded up there in Media... Anyways, to the subject at hand-

• Gregor Samsa- regarding your question of how a land can have a 'nature', I have already answered that above, actually using the Basque example you seem to be so fond of. For your comfort I will copy it here:

"...it does imply that the land is "Basque" (I do not know a better expression for it)- meaning historically it belonged to the basque people, any independant countries in those lands were Basque, the Basques were (and are) the dominant people in that region historically, culturally, etc. for many centuries. One can hardly claim the same for the Palestinians in the WB and GS- the term "Palestinian People" didn't even exist until the 1960's. The Jews have as much historical and cultural claim, if not more, to those regions as the Palestinians. Therefore calling them the "Palestinian Territories" inherently implies a Palestinian POV. "

And another previous explanation of mine as to why it is a Palestinian POV term-

"...The term has everything to do with a palestinian POV. using the adjective 'Palestinian' implies these lands are "Palestinian" by nature - meaning they are historically, culturally, etc linked with the Palestinian people. "

I hope it is clear that by saying "nature" I did not mean it in the sense of "Mother Nature", but rather as in the "character" of something. If this is still not clear- tell me so.

• Gregor Samsa- believe or or not my view more or less corresponds to that of the majority of Jews in Israel. Therefore it is not a minority view. Ha'aretz, on the other hand, is universaly accepted in Israel as a Left-Wing pro-Palestinian newspaper, which in no way expresses the views of the majority in Israel.
• Palmiro- a criteria for a POV term would be that it implies that the lands in question are more stongly linked to one group than the other, or that they more rightfully belong to that group, currently or historically, unless there is unequivocal evidence that the statement is true-and there is none in this case for the term "Palestinian Territories"-meaning it fits the above criteria. IMO "West Bank and gaza Strip" does not fit the criteria- making it NPOV.
• Uncle Ed- Are you saying that Palestine was originally a geographical term but now is a political one- Yes.
• Uncle Ed- And are you also saying that Palestinians used to be a generic term for anyone in residing in the geographical region but that certain people started using the word in a political sense?- Definitely Yes.

My conclusion- since I havn't seen anyone denying that "West Bank and Gaza Strip" is a NPOV term- I suggest we use it as the name of the article. Any objections? -Sangil 18:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My only objection is that we'd better take it slow. We need to figure out what to leave in place. A redirect? An article about the term "Palestinian territories"? Or what?

I think we need a table of terms. Who uses each term and what do they mean by it? Uncle Ed 19:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Going by naming guidelines, and the "principle of least surprise", Palestinian territories if it is not the article dealing with the territory, should be a redirect to that article. That is what people looking it up are overwhelmingly likely to be interested in. I think one article to discuss the terminology issue and set out the various terms would be perfectly adequate - I wouldn't think we need one article for 1967 territories, another for Disputed Territories, another for Occupied Palestinian Territory, each one merely discussing the use of the term. All of these, in my view, should redirect to the substantive article, which should note, prominently but without exaggeration, the disagreement over what to call the territory, discusses it in brief and refers to an article entitled Palestinian territories naming dispute, Terms used to refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or whatever. I'm not sure if this is readily resumed into a table, by the way; that sounds to me like a recipe for oversimplification and the sort of OR-type "I think this is what each side thinks' pseudo-analysis that plagues Wikipedia articles on the Palestine conflict, a prime example of which was the late and unlamented "Claims" section in this article. Palmiro | Talk 19:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Palmiro. One main article, mentioning/discussing the various names, with redirects to it from the other main terms, sounds like a good idea.

-Sangil 20:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but what about Eastern Jerusalem? I've heard that mentioned as a "Palestinian Territory".

And why have a separate article on Gaza Strip and West Bank if Palestinian Authority is a sort of governing body over Gaza Strip and West Bank? I'm not opposing the idea, mind you: I just want to make sure it's well thought out. --Uncle Ed 20:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that 'Palestinian Authority' be merged with this article? They are two completely different things. The PA is, as you say, a 'governing body' over (some of) the WB and GS, not the WB and GS itself.

As for East Jerusalem- IMO it should remain in a separate article for the following reasons:

• It currently has a different status than WB and GS regarding Israeli sovereignty (i.e. the Arabs living there are considered 'Permanent Residents')
• It has a different status regarding the negotiations with the Palestinians- for example it is not considered in the Oslo Accord as part of the area which should come under PA control, and officially Israel is not negotiating over it, or planning to pull out of it.

If however, it is decided that it remain in the article, i guess it should be named (sigh) "West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem", with "Palestinian Territories" redirecting to it.

-Sangil 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Sangil. ?Aiden 20:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sangil: from what I can see, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying that to use a term like "Palestinian" or "Basque" (or what have you) to describe a particular territory or country is to suggest that it "historically belonged to that people," or "that the people are the dominant people in that region historically, culturally, etc." But even if we accept that the term "Palestinian" has only had its specific contemporary meaning since the 1960's, that does not mean that the people we now call Palestinian do not have a common history and culture that extends back well before then. Moreover, these people are now the dominant people in the territories. Barring a "population transfer," they will continue to be the dominant people in that region. As for your claim that the term implies the land "belongs," or "historically belonged" to the people, I would disagree. The province of Quebec was never a sovereign country; the land never "belonged historically" to the Quebecois, nor were they the first inhabitants of the region. We nevertheless use the term "Quebec" to describe that region.

Palmiro: I understand that the PA exercises various levels of autonomy over various parts of the territories. That is why I referred to the territories as a semi-autonomous region, whose final political status is still subject to negotiation. This article should be about the existing geopolitical entity called the "Palestinian territories," it should not just be about a term. The question of terminology, Palestinian sovereignty and the territorial disputes, including the question of East Jerusalem and the settlements should still be discussed, extensively, of course. Gregor Samsa 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Gregor Samsa-

* "that does not mean that the people we now call Palestinian do not have a common history and culture that extends back well before then. ". Actually, that's exactly what it means. Since the very notion of a "Palestinian People" did not exist before the 1960's, they naturally could not have a common history and culture. In fact, as recently as the British Mandate (if not later) they saw themselves as "South Syrians".

*"Moreover, these people are now the dominant people in the territories. Barring a "population transfer," they will continue to be the dominant people in that region"- well yes, I can't argue that they are currently the dominant people. However a transfer is not necessary to change this- settling is an alternative way , and the large settlements are the reason why areas in the WB such as Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim will probably NOT be handed over to the Palestinians. (Of course I am not referring to their legality, since there are many opinions on the subject).

*"The province of Quebec was never a sovereign country; the land never "belonged historically" to the Quebecois, nor were they the first inhabitants of the region." What does being a sovereign country have to do with anything? I never mentioned it. The Kurds were never sovereign and yet the area where they lived for centuries is named "Kurdistan". Neither did I mention being the first was relevant (as we both know neither Jews nor Arabs were the first in Canaan). And actually, considering that the Native Americans' rights to their land, or very existence, was usually ignored, Quebec is considered to rightfully belong to Quebecois, as opposed to the English-speaking Canadians, or heaven forbid the Americans. Not to mention that no-one denies Quebec is "Quebecois", or "French", in its character much more than the surrounding areas.

-Sangil 21:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter what they used to call themselves? They now call themselves Palestinians, they are the dominant people living in the territories, and they are the descendents of a people who have lived in the area for centuries. If they decided to call themselves "Klingons," the territories would be called the "Klingon territories." Gregor Samsa 00:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What's more, before the 1960s they were called Palestine Arabs or Palestinian Arabs. Both of these terms appear repeatedly in documents from the Mandate period. There's not a big difference between those terms and the modern Palestinians. In fact the shift in terminology is just a reflection of the fact that the term Palestinians Jews has fallen into disuse, that group of people having chosen to self-identify themselves as Israelis. Certainly the rights of a people to self-determination should not be determined on turns of language. And the right to self determination implies a choice, either to join a larger, existing nation, or to form an independent nation of their own - if at one time they preferred the first alternative, they do not forfeit the right to choose the second now. Brian Tvedt 01:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to choose the name "WB, GS and East Jerusalem"; East Jerusalem is generally considered part of the West Bank and has been since the latter territory came into existence after the Nakba.

Gregor: not all the territories are semiautonomous; some of them, such as East Jerusalem and the remainder of the Israeli-declared Jerusalem municipality, the settlements and about another 50% of the West Bank are under full Israeli control, although in the West Bank outside the Jerusalem municipality the PA does have responsibility for civil affairs relating to Palestinian citizens (on a personal rather than territorial basis).Palmiro | Talk 15:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I used the term "semi-autonomous region" to mean a territory exercising limited self-governance in parts of its domain, not a territory exercising limited self-governance in all of its domain. The meaning of "semi-" in this context is ambiguous, and you're right to point this out. Perhaps the latter is the dominant meaning of "semi-autonomous," I'm not sure. It could be made clearer, although sometimes I wonder. The political status of the territories is itself ambiguous. Gregor Samsa 20:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gregor Samsa- It is your POV that the Palestinians are the dominant people in the West Bank. In fact, they are only dominant in some of it- for example, the Jordan River Vally, which makes up a considerable part of the WB, is virtually empty of Palestinians (except Jericho). Including it in the term 'Palestinian Territories' is a Palestinian POV. The same goes for areas such as Gush Etzion. I'm sorry, but any article about the whole of the West Bank cannot be named 'Palestinian Territories' and be regarded as NPOV.

Brian Tvedt- The term 'Palestinian Arabs' may have been used, but it had a different meaning (= it encompassed a different group of people) then today. In the many centuries until the 1960's,how exactly regarding culture, history, language, religion, etc. have they been different from the Arabs in the areas that today make up Jordan or Israel? There was no difference at all. The difference only came after 1967, when the WB and GS were seperated from Jordan/Egypt, which incidentally is when the Arabs in the WB and GS started to identify themselves as the "Palestinian People'. -Sangil 15:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. During the Mandate period, the term '“Palestinian Arabs” referred to precisely the same group that the word “Palestinians” does now, namely Arabs who lived in Palestine. To take just one example, let me quote from the 1946 report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry [38]:

An additional reason for the insistence of the Palestinian Arabs on immediate independence is their desire for full membership in the newly formed Arab League. The Arabs of Palestine believe themselves to be as fitted for self-government as are their neighbors in Syria and Lebanon who obtained their independence during the Second World War, and in Trans-Jordan which has since become an independent State. The formation of the Arab League has given Arab leaders in Palestine a greater confidence. They feel that the support of the whole Arab world for their cause has now. been mobilized. Furthermore, the presence in the United Nations of five Arab States, one of which is a member of the Security Council, insures that the Arab case will not go by default when the issue of Palestine is brought before the United Nations.

I think it's worth pointing out here that the Committee very clearly did not consider Arab residents of Transjordan to be "Palestinian Arabs".

What the Palestinians were called before the 20th century is not relevant. You specifically said the Palestinians started to identify themselves as the “Palestinian People” in 1967. I have demonstrated they were called “Palestinian Arabs” more than twenty years before 1967, and they didn't just make up the term - the Anglo-American Committee used it. Also not relevant is whether the Palestinian Arabs had any differences in culture, language, or religion from Arabs living outside Palestine. All that matters is that they lived in Palestine (and continue to live there). By the way, it is proper to refer to the Arab citizens of Israel as Palestinians. Brian Tvedt 02:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Brian, are you saying that "people X" going back as far as the late 19th century were first known as "Arabs" then "Palestinian Arabs" then "Palestinian People" and now should be called "Palestinians"? --Uncle Ed 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I‘m saying that (1) “Palestinians” is what, in the 21st century, they are called, by the whole world, including Israel; (2) the term “Palestinians”, in a modern, 21st century political context, is not at all ambiguous, as it means exactly what “Palestinian Arabs” meant in the first half of the twentieth century; (3) the term “Palestinians” is, in any case, a natural extrapolation from “Palestinian Arabs”, as the people formerly referred to as “Palestinian Jews” stopped calling themselves that after the State of Israel was founded; (4) the shift from “Palestinian Arabs” to “Palestinians” did not suddenly happen after the Six Day War, but happened gradually, years before 1967. On Wikipedia we should call this group of people by the name that is most commonly used to refer to them, not the name you, I, the PNC, or anyone else thinks they should be called by. Brian Tvedt 02:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Palestinian Arabs" simply implies the Arabs living in Palestine. It does not mean these people are any different from "Transjordanian Arabs", "Syrian Arabs", whatever, just as "North Koreans" does not imply they are different from "South Koreans", and "Turkish Kurds" are not necessarily different from "Iraqi Kurds" (although prolonged seperation actually causes groups like this to become distinct). There was no difference between Transjordanian Arabs and Palestinian Arabs until 1946 when the latter became independant, just as there was no difference between today's Palestinians and the Israeli Arabs until the 1948 war (they were all "Palestinian Arabs" weren't they?), and yet today they have different names also. The term 'Palestinian People' dates to the 1960's, and so does any reference to the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an individual nation.

-Sangil 03:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I beg to differ. The word 'Arab' is like the word 'Hispanic': almost all South America is Hispanic, but that doesn't mean there is no differences between a Chilean, Venezuelan, Ecuadorean, and a Nicaraguan. As a Palestinian, there is a world of difference between me and an 'Arab' from Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or Morocco. The most common attributes are language (even though dialects differ significantly) and religion (which is never a good thing). But other than that, the traditions, history, food, dress, and customs are pretty different. Even authentic Transjordanian Arabs, as geographically close as they are, do have many distinctions from Palestinian Arabs. I don't have the time to go into detail, but I could some other time. On a personal note, it offends me to be compared to a Jordanian or any other sort of Arab - and offends me even more when people talk about other Arabs as our 'brethren' (they are not even if their governments always claim to be), and how the world expects our 'brethren' Arabs to come to our aid and help us - what rubbish. As a Palestinian, I can say that I'd rather share nationality with the likes of this guy, this woman, him and her (especially her) than Jordanians or otherwise. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope it is obvious I did not mean to offend you. Clearly there is a difference, just like there is a difference between me and an Israeli of North African origin, or between any other two people for that matter. My point was whether the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are indeed a 'seperate nation' from the ones in Israel or Jordan. Until 1947 the Arabs in Palestine (i.e. all Palestine) obviously thought of themselves as one nation (clearly the political divisions of 1949 did not exist then). As far as I know the distiction between the Arabs of Palestine and Jordan as seperate nations was the result of the British Mandate divisions. It is IMO similiar to the way the colonial powers divided Africa with no respect for the local population (splitting up tribes and throwing different nations together) and thus created the nations of "Congo", "Rwanda", "Zambia" etc. which obviously have no connection with the tribal divisions, or national desires, of the Africans.

Conclusion- the British (and French) were a rather ignorant, self-centereed bunch...

-Sangil 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominant people of West Bank and Gaza Strip

It's hard to say what "dominant people" means. Wikipedia has no article on the term. Are we trying to say that the simple majority (i.e. 51% or more) of West Bank residents are Arab (or "Palestinian Arabs")? I would have thought it was at least 80%.

I thought the reason the UN offered to partition mid-twentieth-century "Palestine" into Jewish and Arab sections, was because of the high percentage of Arabs in Gaza Strip and West Bank. And wasn't that related to Egypt's invasion and conquest of Gaza Strip, as well as Jordan's invasion, conquest and annexation of West Bank? (Someone correct me if my sketchy knowledge of political or military history is faulty.)

Or is this a quibble of whether "Palestinians" means "Palestinian Arabs" (as the PLO says), or something else? The whole thing strikes me as jumbled, confusing, and generally mixed up. --Uncle Ed 21:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Partition Plan was the product of many, many factors (too long to list here), of which the population percentages were only one. Egypt and Jordan (as well as Syria and Iraq) didn't "invade the West bank and Gaza Strip"- their goal was the destruction of Israel. They failed, and Israel failed in expelling them completely, and so the borders were based on the 1949 armstice line, which was simply the line marking the positions of the forces. The part remaining under Jordanian control became the West Bank (a name not used before).

You are right that it is difficult to define "dominant people". It is a vague, ill-defined term, and this makes the current name of the article a poor choice (in addition to the reasons I have already mentioned before). The name "West bank and Gaza Strip" on the other hand is clear, relates exactly to the areas in question, and is NPOV.

-Sangil 21:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Dear Ed, being bold is all very well, but this title is likely to be found objectionable by anyone who doesn't like the use of the term Palestine to refer to what's now the State of Israel - quite a lot of people, especially on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there was a different page move proposal above - Sangil's - which had garnered a fair bit of support from people with quite different opinions, so this one seems a bit out of step with the dialogue that's going on. Palmiro | Talk 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Do any of the occupied areas of Palestine included Israel? I didn't see that during my minor overhaul. There are indeed some sources who refer to "Palestine" as including Israel plus the "occupied Palestinian territories", but this is not an article on the region of Palestine.

As for the suddenness of the page move, well, sometimes it's best to be bold. If there's a consensus for either of the following, I won't object:

• Move Occupied areas of Palestine back to Palestinian territories
• Move Occupied areas of Palestine to [[]]

I'm basically done editing this article for the week. --Uncle Ed 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this move, and believe the page should be moved back at once. I'm not able to do it for some reason. Brian Tvedt 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Occupied Territories of Palestine" or "Palestinian Occupied Territories" make more sense? Who uses this term? Gregor Samsa 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No one. That's the point. It has no particular connotation, but simply means the areas of Palestine which are (or have recently been) occupied. Can't get any more neutral than that. --Uncle Ed 00:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reality is not neutral, we're just obliged to present it in a neutral way (i.e. OaoP = ~1000 hits verus PT = ~ 7,000,000). El_C 17:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

We already have Israeli-occupied territories (also including the Golan) — I thought this was the "collective name for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip... used by mainstream Western journalists" so as to avoid offending right-national Israeli govts. by refraining from the use of the word occupied (yet, Olmert now uses the word occupation in major speeches without qualms). El_C 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That was in fact my impression too, but there you go, give right-wing Israeli politicians an inch and they take a mountain (as Abu Ammar found out...)! Palmiro | Talk 21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move undone

I figured out how to move the title back (it was a capitalization issue). I also replaced the intro with the Humus Sapiens version of 24 February 2006, which despite its problems was much better than the current one. Brian Tvedt 03:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No argument about the page move, but your massive revert gives no explanation beyond your opinion htat it "was much better". I think you need a fuller explanation than that, to toss out 6 weeks of work. --Uncle Ed 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Six weeks of work my posterior. The hard work that was put in was put in by Humus Sapiens, myself and most of all Ramallite in finding a reasonably objective consensus version; what happened after that was that SlimVirgin came in and went straight back to the problem version without discussing it and kept reverting first against Ramallite and then against me until she got her way. So much for Wikipedia working by consensus. Brian had every right to go back to Humus' version. Palmiro | Talk 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange statement

The statement "about the same time as the term "Palestinian" first started to be used exclusively in respect to Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" makes little sense. Does it mean:

1. Before 1967 the term 'Palestinian' also applied to other Arabs, but afterwards became exclusive to WB/Gaza?
2. The Arabs of the West Bank/Gaza strip were called something else before 1967?
3. That Palestinians who became refugees everywhere else were no longer called Palestinians after 1967?

It is strange that this statement is included, as ambiguous as it is, and you are asking that it remain unless one can find a source to the contrary. How about I write the statement "Israelis from Reshion Letzion were called exclusively 'Yeke' until 1952", and ask you not to remove it unless you can find a statement to the contrary. First you find a source for a claim, then add the claim. But you don't add a personal theory and then ask that it not be removed unless somebody can find proof to the contrary. Please show me proof that there are no schizophrenic polar bears living in Eilat, because otherwise, it's probably true! Ramallite ^(talk) 14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well basically I think (2) is correct. Correct me if I'm wrong, but until 1948 all (or most) of the Arabs living in Palestine saw themselves as Palestinian Arabs. Between 1949 and 1967 they were part of Jordan and Egypt, and so the Arab nations (and therefore the world) weren't much concerned with how they were called, or what they wanted (when Arabs do injustice to other Arabs no one cares. With Jews/Israelis it's always headline news). Since the 1960's, however, when one speaks of a Palestinian he usually refers either to an inhabitant of the West Bank/Gaza Strip, or to a refugee (actually it's an interesting issue, but IMO since they have not been allowed to become citizens of the Countries where they currently reside, they have remained 'Palestinian' by default). 'Palestinian' in this context does not normally refer to an Israeli Arab. It is this meaning that has become widespread in the 1960's.

As for finding a source for the claim- naturally no such usage existed prior to 1949 because the WB and GS didn't exist then. Between 1949 and 1967 no one called the people in WB/GS 'Palestinians' so as not to offend Jordan and Egypt (Jordan annexed the WB, so the population must be Jordanian, right?). Naturally if you find a source that counters this claim the statement will be removed.

-Sangil 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"the Arab nations (and therefore the world) weren't much concerned with how they were called" - well, I don't know about that, but our own opinion of ourselves counts too, you know! (I know it's something people tend to overlook). The non-Jews of Palestine were called Palestinians by themselves after 1948, regardless of who occupied them. If one were traveling, one would have to refer to one's self as Jordanian (perhaps) because that's the passport that was carried (Gazan's did not carry Egyptian passports, but Palestinian travel documents issued by Egypt), but one would still identify as 'Palestinian' and not 'Jordanian' by ethnicity. In any case, I'm going to remove that sentence until it is written more properly, because even if you are 100% correct in above, there are two problems with the sentence itself: 1- It obviously refers to foreign/western definitions, and not to what the people in question referred to themselves as (which was always Palestinian), and 2- the sentence as written implies that no other Palestinian non-Jew anywhere outside the WB and Gaza Strip was called 'Palestinian', which is obviously incorrect as you know. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, 'widely used' is not the problem, "used exclusively with respect to the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" is the problem, because it's not true. Most Palestinians are actually outside the WB/GS. Maybe the sentence is trying to say something else, but it reads like any person of Palestinian origin who doesn't live in the WB/GZ is not called 'Palestinian' anymore. Maybe the sentence is trying to say that the name 'Palestinian' started being used exclusively to the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Ramallite ^(talk) 14:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the term "exclusively" suggest that Jews who lived in the British Mandate of Palestine were also often refered to as "Palestinians" before that. Should it say something like "Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate of Palestine west of the Jordan river, and descendants thereof"? Perhaps something less lawyerish? -- Heptor _talk 14:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I answered to your statement before this edit. If I may precisise, the "Palestinian Territory" is now usually used about WB & GS. I do think it a quite recent terminology, perhaps after the Oslo Accords? -- Heptor _talk 14:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The earliest clear use I could find of the phrase "Palestinian territories" was a GA resolution in 1979. In newspapers, it appears to have become popular about 1982 but I don't have much access to older archives at the moment. --Zero^talk 16:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - that's all fine - but why is the sentence in question talking about the PEOPLE? Maybe it's supposed to mean the territory, but the way it's phrased, "the same time as the term "Palestinian" first started to be used exclusively in respect to Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" is clearly referring to the PEOPLE, not the TERRITORY - and that's the inaccuracy. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change it to "...Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Arab refugees originating from the former Mandate area". This should solve the problem of the refugees being excluded (assuming non-refugees are no longer of "Palestinian" nationality, but rather of Palestinian origin- e.g. the formula "Jordanian by nationality, and Palestinian by origin").

-Sangil 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it would be more accurate to say "Jordanian by citizenship, Palestinian by origin". In any case, maybe this is why I'm confused: Are you trying to designate the time when Palestinian Jews stopped being called 'Palestinian', and only Palestinian Arabs became exclusively Palestinian? The other reason I'm confused is that, any way I try to see it, 1967 is not a significant date for the defining of the Palestinian people, although it certainly is with regard to territory. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That is how I undestood the sentence - time when Palestinian Jews stopped being called 'Palestinians'. Are you saying it is factually incorrect that it was about the same time as 1967 war? -- Heptor _talk 11:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The term Palestinian Jew fell into disuse after the 1948 war and the founding of Israel. Brian Tvedt 01:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - 'Palestinian Jews' would have ceased to be called that after Israel was founded (1948) and its Jewish citizens became 'Israeli', not twenty years later! I'm sure you already knew this, but must have had a momentary 1948 <-> 1967 mixup !! :) Ramallite ^(talk) 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No mixup - it is quite logical to expect that it would take time before Arabs alone would be referred to as "Palestininans". Or is it a joke I did not undestand? :-s -- Heptor _talk 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am really confused. The original problem is with the phrase: "the term "Palestinian territories" or "Occupied Palestinian Territories" gained wider usage within a decade after Israel's victory in the 1967 Six-Day War,about the same time as the term "Palestinian" first started to be used exclusively in respect to Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip". This is a problem because the term 'Palestinian' never became exclusive to the population of the WB/Gaza strip. When I tried to get clarification, people started explaining when 'Palestinian' first started to be used to describe 'Palestinian territories'. But we're not talking about 'Palestinian territories' here, we are trying to understand what "about the same time as the term "Palestinian" first started to be used exclusively in respect to Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" means.

So I'm going to take a step back and ask: What on earth is the sentence "about the same time as the term "Palestinian" first started to be used exclusively in respect to Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" trying to convey? Maybe I'm misunderstanding..... everything! Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the statement in question is doing there at all, but since whatever it is meant to mean seems to be, judging from this discussion, both (a) wrong and (b) impossible to express accurately without the use of three subordinate clauses, perhaps the best thing to do would simply be to do without it? Would it really be such a loss? Palmiro | Talk 22:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this, because of (a). This info is probably incorrect. (though not b, just as Russians are people from Russia, without any misundersanding about Russians living in US) -- Heptor _talk 22:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the Palestine Post, I can see examples where the word "Palestinians" clearly means Palestinian Arabs already in 1950. My interprettation is that before 1948 everyone who was a resident of Palestine was a "Palestinian" (not just in popular speech but officially too), but then the Palestinian Jews adopted a new label Israeli leaving the word "Palestinian" to the Arabs. It isn't too surprising, but maybe surprising that the Jewish press started using it like that so soon. I'd like to know if the same thing happened in the Hebrew press. --Zero^talk 13:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

unOccupation fetishism(?), in advance

Yes, I added captured and occupied by Israel to the lead. The occupation taboo is no longer what is used to be. The mainstream right-national block has moved centrewords. Sharon has now used the word occupation, Olmert is using it. If the Convergence plan goes a head, the occupation will be, for the most part, over (with East Jerusalem having been annexed). Thus, the Hebrew Wikipedia article's lead sentence reads:הוא הכינוי הרשמי שנתנה מדינת ישראל לשטחים שהיו חלק מהמנדט הבריטי, ונכבשו בידי צה"ל במלחמת ששת הימים — translated "...is the official name given by the State of Israel to territories which were part of the British Mandate of Palestine, and which were occupied by the IDF during the Six Day War." And the Hebrew Wikipedia is fairly pro-Israeli, I find, where in which the Palestinian pov is represented much less than on en. El_C 20:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. נכבשו can easily mean 'conquered', 'taken over', or any number of similiar terms. It does not necessarily mean 'occupied'. And Sharon referred to Gaza, it is not certain at all he also included the West Bank in this statement.

-Sangil 14:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And actually the word 'occupation' is milder than the word 'conquest', which is probably why 'kibbush' was such a taboo word among Israelis since there are no separate words for 'occupy' and 'conquer'. It is against the national psyche to admit that Israel had done such a bad thing as a 'kibbush'. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mixing up two seperate things. 'Conquer' refers to the act of taking over, where as 'Occupation' describes the situation after this takeover. When you say 'the Kibbush' you are referring to the latter (which IMO is also not true, as Judea and Samaria are parts of Eretz Israel- but that is not relevant here). When El_C says נכבשו ('conquered'), he is referring to the former (although it seems he doesn't realize it). Equating the two is an error in basic Hebrew . Since the territories in question were taken over during a full-scale war, I don't think any Israeli would object to the former. The 'Occupation' label is quite a different matter.

-Sangil 15:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sharon said Kibbush. With regards to what I purportedly do or do not seemingly realize as per פ' נפעל נִכְבַּשׁ , I do realize it could also mean to be conquered, to be leveled, to be captivated, to be pickled or to be preserved, but context is everything. I leave it as vague as they do (i.e. without saying 'and remained occupied'). If you wish I could change it to conquered, since it's interchangable in this case (grammatically-speaking). But held (הוחזקו) or taken over and so on is a bit of a stretch. El_C 17:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The territories were taken over from another occupying power - Jordan. And it was a war that was only a part of an ongoing conflict (hard to disagree that the conflict is still ongoing). As an aside, if IYO "Judea and Samaria" are part of Eretz Yisrael, and I am a part of Judea and Samaria, shouldn't that make me Israeli? In all previous 'conquests' in history, the people in 'conquered' territory are annexed by the conqueror (i.e. made citizens) - ultimately (it may take time). Or else they are expelled. Everybody assumed that Sharon was talking about your latter example (occupation), which is why it was a big deal in the news (and as I recall, he wasn't just talking about Gaza but I would need to go back and read the transcript, which is probably irrelevant now that he's no longer PM). Ramallite ^(talk) 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

El_C:

• I know Sharon said 'kibbush'. The point is whether he said it regarding the West Bank or only the Gaza Strip.
• The context in the Hebrew article which you quoted is that of 'conquering', and not of 'occupation'.
• While you may regard the current status in the WB-GS as 'occupation'- the "mainstream right-national block" certainly does not.

Ramallite: (maybe we should continue this discussion in the Talk pages? It's not directly relevant here)
If there exists a single concensus in the Israeli public, it's that the 'Palestinian Arabs' should not be made Israeli citizens, as this would be a demographic catastrophe. The debate is usually about what should be done- the Left Wing believes Israel should leave the territories and accept the creation of a State of Palestine (either by negotiotion or unilaterelly). The Right Wing rejects this idea, believes the Palestinians should either be "convinced" to leave (the more extreme Right), or should otherwise remain- either in an "Autonomy", or as citizens of Jordan (which after all has a Palestinian majority), or even just continue in the current status-quo. Regarding Sharon- see my reply to El_C.
-Sangil 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sangil: regardless of grammar (where I sense some confusion on your part), in diplomatic terms, the context is occupatio bellica. El_C 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've only been speaking Hebrew all my life, but that's always possible- please clear up the 'confusion' as I am curious to what you are referring to. It seems you are still making no distinction between לכבוש (conquer), and כיבוש (occupation = "occupatio bellica"). It is true 'grammatically speaking' they are derivatives of the same verb, but in colloquial Hebrew they have *very* different meanings.

-Sangil 06:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That makes two lives for the both of us. Derivatives? To occupy = לכבוש; to conquer = לכבוש; occupation = כיבוש; conquest = כיבוש. El_C 11:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as for what you call "colloquial" distinction, I've already dealt with the context-dependent respective time frames. El_C 12:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What's your point exactly? The words may appear the same (and technically have both meanings), but when you say to a Hebrew speaker כיבוש, especially in the context of the 'Palestinian Territories', he immediatly thinks of 'Occupation', and not 'Conquest'. When you say לכבוש (in any context), then it is always meant to refer to 'to Conquer', and almost never to 'to Occupy'. If you (are you?) a native speaker of Hebrew, you should clearly be aware of this. -Sangil 21:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a native speaker. I'm also done discussing this. Feel free to find the original author and ask whether they meant military occupation. El_C 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll also accept an answer which establishes the difference between "[militarily] conquered" and "[mil.] occupied," or '[mil.] captured,' etc. El_C 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were done..:)

• "[militarily] conquered" and "[mil.] captured" refer to the act of taking over a territory.
• "[mil.] occupied" refers to a continuing state which is the result of the aforementioned "conquering".

-Sangil 23:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. El_C 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Territory is considered conquered when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. El_C 23:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Occupation, in English, carries the connotation of the somewhat irregular status in which a foreign military controls and, directly or indirectly, adminsters a territory. For example, in World War II, we don't usually speak of Austria having been "occupied" by Germany (nor, in that case, conquered, since the Anschluss was not exactly a military operation); we do speak of Northern France as "occupied"; the term is somewhat contentious for Vichy France; we use it for Hungary only post-Horthy; etc. - Jmabel | Talk 20:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

'Occupation' almost always implies the control of one country's sovereign territory by another country's military forces, barring a more permanent status (e.g. annexation). Even if one does not believe the West Bank is Israeli Territory, it can hardly be considered 'occupied' since there had never been a sovereign Palestinian State there. It was taken from Jordan, who took it from Britain, who took it from the Ottoman Empire, and so on from one 'occupying' power to the next until we reach- Judea...

Sangil 20:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

While there has never been a sovereign Palestinian state, the UN has certainly proposed one (since 1947) and when Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank it was renounced not to Israel but to a potential future Palestinian state. - Jmabel | Talk 21:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

sounds more like your fantasies... -- tasc ^talk_deeds 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "renounced to <state>". Isarig 01:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Technically correct, I'll acknowledge, but I'm pretty certain that at the time Jordan renounced its claim there was a stated intention of in whose favor they intended to renounce, and that was certainly not Israel. - Jmabel | Talk 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

During 19 years of Jordanian/Egyptian rule, they've had plenty of opportunities to create a Palestinian state. Instead, they established the PLO that "does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area." [39]

To put our subject in perspective, note the following titles: Syrian presence in Lebanon, Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There's is something wrong here

It only talk about terms and statut not about events

This article should talk about both Palestinian and Israeli views

Robin Hood 1212 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I vwill add new info to the incomplete article

Robin Hood 1212 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not able to comprehend difference between Palestine and Palestinian territories? -- tasc ^words_deeds 14:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He is the sockpuppet of a banned user anyway. He's been banned numerous times. —Aiden 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian territories r two territories not just a term. Robin Hood 1212 18:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mujahadeen"?

The first sentence of the "Political Status" section starts off with The political status of these Mujahedeen has been the subject of negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and of numerous statements and resolutions by the United Nations. Why is the term "Mujahadeen" used there? That word means a holy warrior, not a piece of land. Nik42 03:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It simple vandalism , which I reverted. Isarig 03:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.lawsociety.org/Reports/reports/1999/geneva4.html
  • In Palestinian territories on Sun Jul 16 21:21:23 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Palestinian territories on Mon Jul 17 16:56:26 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Palestinian territories on Thu Jul 27 01:04:12 2006, 404 Not Found

---

maru (talk) contribs 05:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've substituted http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/3b8a2154701b3ffa8525683c0056b022!OpenDocument, which appears to be the same content. However, it is now the only Google'd copy of that document. IF that link goes dead, there is a copy on the Internet Archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20030620075735/http://www.lawsociety.org/Reports/reports/1999/geneva4.html; it's a June 20, 2003 archive of the page we originally linked.

Things like this would be easier to trace down if this article weren't using blind links for citation. Is someone interested in switching this over to use cite.php (<ref>), with captioned links? I'd do it, but I've got a big backlog. I think it would be a big help to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Occupied Palestine"

"Occupied Palestine" should not redirect here - Occupied Palestine is what is now acknowledged by many countries as the state of Israel. I shall correct this redirection. If this is a problem for anyone please ask me before changing it back, as I'd like to see evidence for it. Thanks --Arctic hobo 09:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts and Figures

Can you someone please explain to me why the following facts and figures are being deleted on an hourly basis? I agree citiation would be good but why don't we leave it on there for a couple of days and give people time to find references????!!!

It is necessary to to highlight this detail as otherwise the History section of this article is quite plain and lacking of any real detail.

"In 1922 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire that ruled the region of Palestine for four centuries (1517-1917), the British Mandate of Palestine was established. At the time, Arabs constituted 90% of the popuation while there were no more than 56,000 recently settled Jews. The future of Palestine was hotly disputed between Arabs and the Zionist movement. In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan proposed a division of the mandated territory between an Arab and a Jewish state, with Jerusalem and the surrounding area to be a corpus separatum under a special international regime. The Jewish community owned less than 6% of the land in Palestine, the remaining land was owned by Arabs. Nevertheless the UN granted the newly formed Jewish state the right to own 54% of the total area of the region in conflict. The regions allotted to the proposed Arab state included what would become the Gaza Strip and almost all of what would become the West Bank, as well as other areas. Despite the UN decision the State of Israel took over 80.48% of the land." --Yas121

they are being removed because they are unsourced, controversial, and in some cases, clearly wrong - all constituting POV pushing. As one example, it is a blatant falsehood that "the remaining land was owned by Arabs" - most of the land was never in private hands, but rather state land, dtaing back to Ottoman times. Isarig 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, finially! I'll make sure proper ref are provided. --Yas121

Also do you not think this is quite funny/inappropriate... Under section:Israeli terminology

• that the nation in control of the area is thus obliged by international law to return it to its rightful owners;

Israel is obliged by international law to return the occupied land!United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

How on earth can we have an article on Palestinian territories without having a section or even mentioning United Nations Security Council Resolution 242??

UN Brochure

I've added as an external link the UN Brochure The Question of Palestine & the United Nations, published by the United Nations Department of Public Information. Its topic is a bit broader than this, but it has several relevant sections and (among other things) it shows clearly that the UN uses the term "occupied territories" to refer to these territories. Someone may want to cite it in some contexts in the article. I believe it would cover more than a few of the uncited passages. - Jmabel | Talk 05:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this information; it has great relavance with the present situation in th Middle East

[spam removed] --Golbez 10:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I was a full fledged zionist supporter before watching these videos. But thanks to your clear, unbiased and fully documented evidence, I now see the error of my ways. How could I have been so blind?! The zionists are responsible for every great catastrophe of the 20th century. It all makes sense now. Death to Israel!!!--Fyrefli 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The name

The name "Palesitnian territories" basically is a violation of WP:NPOV. It's like the problem with the word "terrorism", totally one sided, it should only be a redirect. Amoruso 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

From your edits elsewhere, I presume that you are claiming that it shows pro-Palestinian bias rather than pro-Israeli bias. What are you suggesting would be a neutral term? This is certainly the primary term I've heard in the U.S. and UK news media. It is also the term used by the U.S. State Department; [40] I'm not sure if the UK uses one single term, but this is what their Consulate in Jerusalem uses.[41] - Jmabel | Talk 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A neutral term would be either west bank (judea+samaria) and gaza or disputed territories - there's also another pov,less than this, arleady used, called israeli occupied territrories. Palestinian territories is one side of the dispute, why not use "More israeli territories" ... Amoruso 01:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Palestinian territories" may certainly be the primary term used in the U.S. Europe and pretty much rest of the world Media but that's not good enough for us! here at wikipedia we like to take the pro-israeli-(zionist)-bias a little further than the rest. Yas121 02:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have articles Judea and Samaria, West Bank, and Gaza. - Jmabel | Talk 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem as long as we understand it's a POV, and this logic it's also an antizionist antisemitic term.Amoruso 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

The Lead Paragraph was very sloppy, had no cohesion. So I've added a NAME section, which seems to be the norm for most articles in Wikipedia. I also deleted the funny statement...about israel "holding" the territories instead of occupying them...as amuzing as that was I couln't bring myself to leave it in ;-) Yas121 11:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Jayjg, where would the Zionist cause be without you...as usual you Rev clearly explained edits to fit your zionist agenda. One day you'll get yours... Yas121 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of having a silly sloppy list of all the terms used to describe this land in the lead, does it not make more sense to split that into a NAME section for people who specially want to know them....like in almost every other article in Wikipedia! Yas121 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And how funny is saying Isreal which "holds" the territoris! EVEN Sharon and Olmert use the word occupation!! whats does that tell you about wikipedia??!! Yas121 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

AND why is it OK to have the Countries of Asia tag but not OK to have the countries of Middle-East tag??!! seen a map lately? Yas121 02:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Countries of Asia template actually includes non-countries as well, and specifically lists the Palestinian territories. The Countries of the Middle East template is restricted solely to actual countries, and does not include the Palesinian territories. You should probably actually look at the two templates before changing one for the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Many/Some Jews and Christians object to this term, which they perceive as a rejection of what is in their view legitimate Jewish land.

Hello people. I was thinking isn't adding the above statment to the introduction kind of inflametory? Generally speaking it would be like someone adding a similar statment to introduction of Israel (of course substituing Jews for Palestinians). Personaly I don't like it very much as to me it sounds like saying Many/Some jews don't want to live next to Palestinians in peace, something I know to be untrue having been in that region very recently. So should we keep it or remove it? JEBenson

Almost nobody objects to this term, the Palestinian territories are east of the Jordan river. Amoruso 10:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

JEBenson, you must not have run into Amoruso here... Ramallite ^(talk) 14:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso you misunderstood the main point which is that an encyclopedia is no place to fight-out territorial disputes. Lets leave that to the Politicians :) E Jaffe

Amoruso, how can you write that Palestinian territories are East of the Jordan river? I know many Israelis and none of them hold the extreme positions you do... I think you should quit editing articles related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.--Burgas00 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This site has been hijacked by zionist far-right extremists. It is a shame for Israelis who, on the whole, are a moderate people who just want peace with their neighbours.--Burgas00 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments like the one above are uncalled for, and are a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. WRT you recent edit & edit summary: (1) Katz is a historian. The fact that you, or others, find his views objectionable is not grounds for excluding his quote. (2) There are in fact many WP articles in which pro-Arab sources are calling Israelis colonists, calling Israeli policy "Apartheid", and calling Israeli leaders Fascists or war criminals. If those charges are made by notbale people or in WP:RS, they are not excluded. Isarig 14:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the existence of Palestinian people is an invention of "arab propaganda" is an offensive and ridiculous statement. It has no place on wikipedia. --Burgas00 18:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a different perspective, Burgas00. I think that it is important to note that one side views it this way, even it if comes off as racist. It is a fact that this is some people's point of view. I favor inclusion even though I am ideologically closer to you than to Isarig. --Deodar 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but this opinion is given as mainstream and as acceptable. It is ok to reflect it but not in this section and maybe not even in this article. Would it be acceptable to say that the Kurds or the Armenians "dont exist" in the main section of the page on these territories, because some Turkish nationalist people hold this opinion? Its not a question of ideology but of common sense. --Burgas00 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not described as anything but Shmuel Katz's opinion. And I find nothing objectionabale in quoting a notable Turkish historian that claims the Kurds or Armenians don't exist in the relevant articles. Isarig 20:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I agree with you :) We should not exclude something per se...but we need to see its effect on the overall article, ie what purpose does it serve. I think in this particular case this quote serve no real purpose other than to offend...we are just representing the view of a very small (extremist) minortiy...sort of like puting the "opinion" of some nut in 9/11 who says aliens were controlling the planes via remote control! :-D JEBenson

Allegtions above by Burgas00 are non factual. The insertion of "right wing sectors" is wrong too. There is pretty much a consencus in Israel's society that the West Bank or Judea and Samaria in its proper name is a part of what Israel should have. The problem is the security and demographic reasons which is why they are willing to part with these territories. Very few Jewish israelis considers the land to be "Palestinian" in nature of course. There is a bad faith attempt here to ignore the fact we're talking about lands, not people here. And Israelis do not think that these lands belong to somebody else as a given. Most of Israel's society also acknowledges the relation of Palestinians to Jordan but sees that as an impossible solution. It's hardly anything extreme etc like Burgas has falsely tried to represent. Amoruso 11:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Amoruso, I can whole-heartedly assure you that the majority of israelis don't share your views. (Believe me I know) JEBenson 13:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My views in general or my views on this ? Because I can assure you that there are hardly any Israelis who think differently on this subject. And I know.. Amoruso 13:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the typical discourse of both Islamists in Muslim countries and extremist zionists in Israel. They claim that their own personal views are those of the majority. I have a large number of Israeli friends and they all acknowledge that the land that is now Israel was formerly Palestine and that Israel took the land from them by force. They also acknowlege that the Palestinians are plainly the people from Palestine (unlike a majorty of Israelis who originate, or who's parents originate, in countries from all over the world). The problem, which any reasonable Israeli understands, is that, due to historical reasons, Palestine and the modern state of Israel overlap. A majority of Israelis just want to live in peace and they dont give a damn about "Judea and Samaria". Not all Israelis are Milosevic-style Nationalist fanatics as you want to make people believe. With your edits, I feel you are giving a bad name to Israelis in the eyes of the world.

I would also like to point out that the conquest of the West Bank was fundamentally a decision taken for military rather than irredentist or nationalist reasons. Israel needed a buffer betweem itself and Jordan. It was a mistake, as most Israelis now acknowledge, because (as you rightly point out) Israel would never be able to integrate the large native population of these territories which are rightly called Palestinian territories, without destroying Israel as a "Jewish State".

Finally, Palestinians share more ethnic, cultural and historical ties between themselves and the land on which they have lived for centuries than Israelis who are truly an imagined nation forged in the 20th century from people who have nothing in common with each other except religion. An Israeli claiming that Palestinians "don't exist" is almost comical. --Burgas00 13:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody , and that includes Palestinians themselves, will honesly think that "Israel was formerly Palestine and was taken by force" because that would be simply ignorance. Judea and Samaria are important to all Jews, for the mere fact it is the cradle of the Jewish nation and people, and Olmert representing the majority party says how tough it is to part of any parts of Lands of Israel and that he will never recognise it being a legitimate part of any other state but simply it's a demographic and security necessity. Needless to say, all other parties to the right think that too (and object to his plan) while the Labour party agreed to Olmert's full ideas. I will, in contrast to you, assume WP:AGF and I won't say that you're lying deliberately, but what you've written above is complete false information. Your last paragraph about "Palestinians sharing a land" more than Israelies etc is just stupid no offense. Amoruso 13:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a commonly used phrase "Palestinian territories". NPOV tags usually apply to article contents, not articles' existence. If you have a problem with the article's existence, you don't put a POV tag on it, you propose it for deletion (something you have become very good at recently). That's how you go about it. And as for the above, we get your POV, we get it, okay? But at least I have the decency not to call your POV "just stupid". On more than one occasion, you have come dangerously close to uncivil behaviour that could get you banned if other editors protest. Tone it down please. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your last comment is offensive and deceptive, since if you see the above discussion, you'd see the incivil behaviour by Burgas... I only added the stupid with no offense comment and it was much less that what he said. You have also come close to this exactly incivil behaviour and worse on more than one occasion. Anyway, this tag was made exactly for this - for the NAME of the article. The content is all right but the NAME is inherhent POV. This is its purpose. Amoruso 14:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Offensive huh? Are you sure you're not Palestinian? The "you are not any better" response to criticism is typical of Palestinians, but I guess we and you share the same genes. In any case, if you think I've been uncivil, you are welcome to report me. Just go here and present your case against me with examples of what offended you and what I was responding to. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Nobody honestly believes that Israel was formerly palestine and was taken by force." Im sorry???? Please elaborate...

"Judea and Samaria are important to all jews", yes Amoruso, I dont doubt that. They are also important to all Catholics, Protestants, Jehova's Witnesses etc... Judea and Samaria also happens to be the cradle of the "Christian nation and people". Only these denominations never got around to actually moving there and kicking out the people living in these lands (christian and muslim) or having them living under military occupation.

Spain is also important to all muslims as being the land of the Cordoba Khalifate. Their presence there ended less than 500 years ago (as opposed to 2000) Fortunately for Spaniards the Arabs havent yet thought of all moving there and expelling the Christian inhabitants to France while claiming that the "Spanish territories" are north of the Pyrenees.

These biblical arguments are the only ones extremists seem to be able to come up with. Thank god they are a still a minority in today's world. Amoruso, why not expel all Turks from Turkey and re establish the Byzantine empire?

I am not an anti-zionist and I believe that Israel should peacefully coexist with its neighbours. Israelis are in a difficult situation and most are just scared. This does not mean that they are all believers in Greater Israel as you are. If a real possibility of peace appeared the vast majority would vote to the left. However, it seems this is not going to happen any time soon.

But views such as yours (and those equivalent ones held on the other side) are just part of the problem. I still think you should contribute to wikipedia in less controversial topics and articles.

--Burgas00 16:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Burgas but I will not engage in this little tirade, see WP:SOAPBOX. Just a short comment. As for the Spain and Muslims, in fact just like Muslims still claim Israel as part of their conquest, Spain will probably come too , and if you look at the Madrid bombings, it already began. Needless to say , Jews' connection to Judea and Samaria is not only historic, the Jewish presence in the region ceased only for specific 19 years of Jordanian occupation since time immemorial. As for the relevant article, there was no Palestine state before Israel. If you don't know that, I sugget open a history book on the subject, and that's why the idea of what you suggested is not factual. It's also why the designation "Palestinian territories" is purely a one sided view since it contains a wishful future designation of the territories and not the actual definition of the region. Cheers. Amoruso 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

2 Points.

1) You do not need a political entity, for the people living there to have a common identity, culture and history and for them to have the right not to be forced out of their homes by immigrants from America, Europe and Russia. Palestinians are those people who come from the region of Palestine and identify as Palestinian. Full stop.

2) Before the advent of zionism and the creation of Israel, the jews living in Palestine were Palestinians and Arabic speakers (or, more plainly, - arabs), as were the Christians and Muslims. A Palestinian is someone who is from Palestine (as opposed to someone who is from New York, Russia, France or Poland.) One could be Palestinian Jewish, Christian, Muslim or agnostic.

--Burgas00 19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Core problem

The core problem of the article is that "Palestinian territories" can refer to the A region of the Oslo Accords, also by the U.S etc. It's deceptive to say that the ENTIRE west bank and by the article also Jerusalem is "palestinian territory". That view is not accepted by the majority of people and in fact is highly offensive ... this view is not even supported by the U.N. Looking at resolution 242 . Amoruso 14:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what's offensive? What's offensive is you claiming that you're offended by the presence of the Palestinian territories and the name that goes along with it. That's akin to me saying that I'm offended by the name "Israel" because it should be called "Palestine". But as you know very well, anyone who dares challenge the legitimacy of the state of Israel is labeled an anti-Semite. How can you be offended by a right of a people to self determination? By the way, the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal according to international law. But, I digress.

Why remove a name?

Amoruso, you gave no summary on this edit, which removes a specific name that seems backed by citation, and leaves only weasel words. What is the rationale? - Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The name is mentioned explicitly in the reference, which is the requirement by manual of style, it doesn't make much sense the way it was, because it's not an opinion of one person but simply the obvious opinion that the name "palestinian territories" is biased, that's the important thing here. Amoruso 05:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The 70% of state land

Two sources were given for an assertion that 70% of the area of Mandatory Palestine was state land. One of them was Myths and Facts, which is an AIPAC-sponsored propaganda handbook and not a reliable source. (Actually anyone who has read a lot of history can easily find many errors of fact in it.) In any case, M&F give a pamphlet of Aumann published by the "Israel Academic Committee on the Middle East" (some sort of Israeli think-tank) as their source, which is the same as the source given by the article of Safian published in Pipes' magazine (which I'm not happy about but not deleting). I have the pamphlet of Aumann. He claims the 70% is from page 257 of the Survey of Palestine (1946), which is what M&F used to give as their only source. However page 257 of the Survey does not contain that number, nor does any other page. What it says is that the ownership of only 4500 km² of Palestine (out of 26320 km²) had been determined and of that 660 km² turned out to be state land. Of course the determination of ownership had been focussed at the places where private ownership was most common; it wasn't a random sample. It does say that the Negev (about 48% of the total area) was "probably" mostly state land, and if you add up all the little bits generously assuming that all the probablys and maybes go in one direction then you can get to about 2/3 of the total area. So the 70% is pretty dubious and the raw figure hides the fact that the great majority of it was desert or "mountainous wilderness" and includes Miri land that was shared ownership of a type that didn't fit the British system. I should expand on this in the article; meanwhile I just added the fact that most of the 70% was the Negev. Aumann's pamphlet says: "The greater part of this 70 percent consisted of the Negev, some 3,144,250 acres all told, or close to 50 percent of the 6,580,000 acres in all of Mandatory Palestine." This is the very next sentence in Aumann's pamphlet, so one can ask why neither M&F nor Safian saw fit to quote it. --Zero^talk 12:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

LAND QUESTION IN PALESTINE: 1917-1939

I just stumbled on references to Kenneth W. Stein's book LAND QUESTION IN PALESTINE: 1917-1939. I haven't seen the book, but he has his final chapter "conclusions" online: http://www.ismi.emory.edu/Books/LQPConclusion.html and his bio, cv, pubs, etc are at http://www.ismi.emory.edu/Stein/cvpres.html. This final chapter, sans details, makes far more sense than the zionist mythology of a vacant land... And it provides hints of key British and other documents on Palestine land law during that era that might be online and original source material. As this paints a different picture than is found scattered in various articles, and that are totally unsatisfactory using limited census and land ownership snapshots, this seems to point to some significant research and editing. I trust that one of the projects has the perspective needed. Mulp 09:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this the best article link for "country" references?

I am conscious of POV issues surrounding the name "Palestine", so I'm not trying to stir anything up here, but I would like to know what the best article link is for Wikipedia lists of nations etc. I am asking here purely from an implementation perspective, as I have been doing a lot of work recently for Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template. There are a lot of articles that contain lists of nations, dependencies, etc. List of countries is perhaps the best example. On those lists, there are flag icons followed by a wikilink to the main article for the nation. (e.g. France). What is the most appropriate article link to be used in conjunction with this region? Is it this article (e.g. Palestinian territories)? I have seen several instances where Palestinian National Authority is the wikilinked article, but that seems a bit odd to me, as it refers to the governing organization rather than the region, but perhaps for some NPOV reason, maybe it is the best choice. I don't know - that's why I'm asking here. Is there any consensus on what we should standardize upon for Wikipedia? Andrwsc 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a mess no matter what we do. There are things that don't sit easily with much of the world's (and Wikipedia's) tendency to think in terms of legally constituted states, and this is one of them. 250 years ago, there would have been many such problems with this perspective; now there are comparatively few, but this is one of them. I'm not thrilled with the tendency to want to stick flags next to things that don't necessarily relate to a state, but it seems to be a decision we've made.

In this case, my view is that this is the best link for cultural matters, and Palestinian National Authority for governmental matters. If it isn't clear which of those one is dealing with, then it gets particularly tricky. For example, it is the Authority that has at the UN, but Ibrahim Abu-Lughod taught at the tail end of his life in the Territories, not (in any meaningful sense) in the Authority. There may be contexts where the choice is not obvious, just as there are contexts where it is not obvious whether something pertains to the UK or one of its three-and-a-quarter constituent nations. - Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your response - I was wondering if my request for comments would get any response! It sounds like your answer is "both", and actually, that's the current situation to some extent. We currently have templates set up to use {{flag|Palestinian territories}} to display Palestinian territories and {{flag|Palestinian Authority}} to display Palestinian Authority. I had been thinking we should "consolidate" upon one single usage, but if that is a bad idea, I guess there is no harm in continuing the current situation. The only wrinkle is that we also have "aliases" that use the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code, so that an editor could use {{flagcountry|PSE}} to display Palestine. It is necessary to pick one or the other for PSE to refer to, and as you can see, the current redirect is to "Palestinian territories". I think that's probably the best choice, given that the nomenclature in the ISO standard is for the PSE entry is "Palestinian Territory, Occupied".

Also note that we have {{fb|PLE}} for Palestine, and we have {{flagIOC|PLE|2004 Summer}} for  Palestine. Note that both FIFA and the IOC use PLE as the country code (despite the template name for the football template), and both use "Palestine" as the designation for these teams. I think the respective wikilinked page names are reasonable, given the naming adopted by FIFA and the IOC.

Thanks again for your response. Andrwsc 06:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another deletion attempt concerning various "Palestinian territories" categories

Please see Category:Palestinian territories and:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7. --Timeshifter 01:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to rewrite

I am following the request to "Go to talk, and explain why UN documentation and ICJ terms are POV." The 1947 UN Partition Plan does not mention the term "Palestinian territories". Instead, it says about "Arab State" and "Samaria and Judea" [42]. The rest of the rewrite seems to be of the same quality. Please walk us through your changes here at talk if you insist, but do not rewrite a stable article that was a subject of many compromises. As for the UN, since 1950s-60s it has been a part of the conflict, and therefore its terminology is partisan and its neutrality is questionable. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect in making a complete revert if you have just one specific objection. Your objection is not quite clear, so I will analyse it.

It is not sufficient to have an 'impression'(seems to be of the same quality). The fact is that the rest of the rewrite documents quite closely that in UN documentation and the International Court of Justice document of 2004, which fully reviews the various issues from 1947 to 2003 and lays down a 14 to 1 judgement in favour of that territory being Occupied Palestinian Territory. The wording 'Palestinian territories' is a term widely used in the Israeli media: it is not a word that is accepted in serious internatinal forums. That was not clear, indeed it was obfuscated in the original article, which was almost wholly an Israeli POV for the first part. You may detect a POV in my alterations, and I would be glad if you show me where it subsists. But you damage the page by reverting it to a state whose POV is conspicuous for its lack of proper documentation on agreed international usage. This is not a page to put forth Israel's unique interpretation of the status of the Occupied Palestinian territories. It is a page devoted to the meaning of that term, which has currency only in Israeli usage.

I'd be glad to walk you through my changes. But I worked slowly waiting for someone to come in and challenge this, and no one seems to have looked. If you wish, I will answer any particular question, beginning with the original point you raised. Until tomorrow Nishidani 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You remark as an objection as follows:-

'The 1947 UN Partition Plan does not mention the term "Palestinian territories". Instead, it says about "Arab State" and "Samaria and Judea" '

Quite right. It says (in Part II. - Boundaries A. THE ARAB STATE) that Samaria and Judea will form part of the territory of the future Arab State. Those terms are used because in the territorial split up, the area assigned to Arabs was only readily understood by terms familiar to Western readers of the Bible, i.e. everyone.

I never asserted, at least in English usage the words I wrote cannot be misconstrued as meaning, that the UN Partition plan used the term 'Palestinian Territories'. What I wrote, and to which you take objection to, was as follows:-

'The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which under the UN Partition Plan of 1947 were designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine, as that was readjusted by territorial gains by Israel in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, which left one part of the designated Palestinian area, Gaza, under Egyptian Occupation and administration, and the other part, the West Bank, including Jerusalem, under Jordanian occupation and administration.'

In correct English, for one thing, that should be 'The term/phrase Palestinian territories . .btw) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishidani (talk • contribs).

To parse this, the meaning is. The phrase 'Palestinian Territories' is (now) one of the names for part of the land in British Mandate Palestine designated for a future Arab State by the UN Partition Plan. I add that this term refers not to the UN Partition Map, but to the land as readjusted by Israel in 1948, which limited what is now designated as Palestinian territories to 'Gaza' and the 'West Bank', (areas conquered, obviously, in 1967). I am not saying, therefore, what you argue I am saying, i.e. that 'Palestinian Territories' is used in the UN plan. I am saying the very opposite.

In the earlier text you have the remark:-

'The United Nations generally uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory", with the "Palestinian" label having gained use since the 1970s. Previous UNSC resolutions (such as 242 and 338) use the term "Territories occupied by Israel", whereas in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 passed on November 29, 1947, the term "Samaria and Judea" was used.

Indeed, and if you read the document, you will see that Judea and Samaria are defined as an integral part of the future 'Arab state'.

I don't know how familiar you are with international legal usage. But international legal usage does not employ the term 'Palestinian territories'. It is an Israeli phrase, and I appreciate you hear it often. But outside of Israel, it is not accepted as a meaningful term. So the obvious solution is to clarify the legal status of the territory, in international law, to which the Israeli term refers. Then clarify Israel does not accept those determinations and phrases like 'Occupied Palestinian Land', give the reasons, so that the reader understands quite clearly what on earth a non-Israeli native speaker of English is supposed to understand by that word. I can't even recall encountering it until I saw a link to the page, and I do read widely. This fact, that it is an odd phrase to a non-Israeli native speaker of English (we say 'West Bank' 'Palestine/Palestinian territory' Cisjordan etc) seems to be lost on people who have grown up in that area. And I say that without offence. It is an exquisitely linguistic problem, above all. Regards Nishidani 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. if you see the earlier article to which you reverted, the article is implying, against UN deliberations and the UN Partition Plan, that 'Palestinian territories' refers to Jordanian and Egyptian territories conquered by Israel in 1967. In the UN Partition Plan of 1947, the Arab State prefigured was neither Jordanian nor Egyptian, and to use that phrasing is to argue that there was no project for a future Arab state, distinct from Jordan and Egypt, in the 1947 plan, which is patently untrue. That was my primary objection, and I have hewed strictly to the legal documentation of the UN in successive deliberations, and to the judgement of the International Court of Justice in 2004 to clarify the dangerous and misleading statements in that earlier version. I did not substantially alter the remaining text which presents the reasons for Israel's refusal to accept both the UN and the ICJ's judgements. Israel's POV is thus retained, but it is preceded by not a POV, but a statement of the legal situation in terms of international law, which is not a POV, but has the authority of law.Nishidani 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another revert, which is, allow my personal judgement to intrude, a lazy way to reply to an edit or series of edits one dislikes. The reverts, first two by Humus Sapiens and now one by Tickleme, are poorly motivated, and restore a text that was primitive, confused and misleading, and certainly wholly POV, as the heading of the article indicates. The heading is quite explicit. The article before I touched it was disputed as to its neutrality. My intervention attempts to remove that injurious label, and is not definitive, of course, but consists of a series of rephrasings and contributions, all documented by UN or International Court Sources, which reframe the unsatisfactory introductory remarks to the article both Humus Sapiens and Tickleme prefer, in terms of international usage. It is still open to modification, but the grounds used to revert are specious and reinstate a poorer text.

There is nothing 'salient' about Humus Sapiens's remark, which consist of a badly phrased judgement that shows a lack of understanding of English usage, and a general personal 'impression' of the rest of the text. On being challenged, Humus Sapiens did not reply. Instead Tickleme replies, backing his/her arbitrary (to me) judgement up, but without anything more than a repetition of what Human Sapiens quipped. Tickleme does not do this editor the simple courtesy of outlining why the substantial use of UN and IJC documents in my edits is 'POV'. I'm quite willing to listen. I'm not interested in revert wars. I simply wish to get that 'neutrality disputed' tag eliminated, and it hangs in there because the text you both restore is subject to conflicting POV claims. That, gentleman, means that we are all obliged to work on it and get the text into an acceptible state of neutrality which exhibits respect for the facts, as the text you both restore does not. Neither of you have the right you arrogate to ask me to unilaterally rewrite the section under your supervision (for that is what you both are saying). Since the text is regarded as not 'neutral' by those who composed it, and since you both object to attempts to modify that POV-compromised text along the lines I suggested, obviously you should both pitch in, with me, and improve it.

I shall give you one example of why the introductory paragraph is a disgrace.

(1) The article opens thus:

The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and militarily occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and later, in the Six-Day War, by Israel.

(That is poor English for one thing. It should read, The term/phrase Palestinian territories etc.btw)

I.e. the blatant POV here is that Gaza and the West Bank (in the language universally accepted in international law and discussions) 'Occupied Palestinian territory', do not have a juridical status independent of that they acquired by the successive powers that conquered those areas manu militari. This is false, and should not be in a serious encyclopedia. Let me cite to you the International Court of Justice's ruling on this dispute about the juridical status:

'Israel, contrary to the great majority of the other participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In particular, in paragraph 3 of Annex I 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”.

'91. The Court would recall that the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951 and that Israel is a party to that Convention. Jordan has also been a party thereto since 29 May 1951. Neither of the two States has made any reservation that would be pertinent to the present proceedings. (ICJ ruling July 2004,para 90.)

In simple language, the POV of the Wiki article's leading parapraph is astutely framed in order to pass off as a general judgement what is however only Israel's unique perspective, in contrast to ICJ rulings, on the ostensible lack of a legal status for the (Palestinian Occupied) territory prior to its occupation by Jordan and Egypt, a position which the ICJ rules as immaterial. This is not an encyclopedia for one nation's POV.

The 'portions of the British Mandate' refers to areas which form part of the territory that the UN Partition Plan of 1947 set aside for an autonomous Arab state.

'The Rhodes agreement (3 April 1949) between Israel and Jordan establishes the Green Line, and Article III, para 2 provides that No element of the . . . military or para-military forces of either Party . . . shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose

whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Lines . . . ,

and these lines remain valid until the parties arrive at a political settlement on what the UN Partition Plan termed a future 'Arab State'.

In 1967 Israel conquered this land, and Security Resolution 242 of Nov 22, 1967 called for it to withdraw, since acquiring land by military means is illegal, and gives the conqueror no right of title.

Neither Jordan, nor Egypt, nor Israel have a right of title over the 'Palestinian territories'. Jordan's annexation, which only Britain recognized, has been regarded in the same way as Israel's annexations, i.e. in contravention of International Law.

The POV charged article you both restore says in para 1, further:-

'Note: Israel does not consider East Jerusalem (annexed in 1980) nor the former Israeli - Jordanian no man's land (annexed in 1967) to be parts of the West Bank. Both in fact fall under full Israeli law and jurisdiction as opposed to the 58% of the Israeli-defined West Bank which is ruled by the Israeli 'Judea and Samaria Civil Administration'.'

This is noteworthy as a statement of Israel's unique perspective. It however is not noted, as NPOV rules require, in the same passage, that both numerous UN Resolutions and the ICJ's 2004 ruling deny the legality and therefore truth of the claim asserted. Secondly, the phrase 'Israeli-Jordian no man's land' is a misnomer, since the territory it refers to obliquely is not a 'no man's land', and the 'West Bank' excorporated, once you deduct this area, is not the West Bank as that is defined in UN Resolutions and International Law. The passage therefore is a blatant distortion of the legal status of the Occupied territories, and the second part.

'Both in fact fall under full Israeli law and jurisdiction' cites a de facto state resulting from illegally acquired land not recognized in world forums, and law, and more saliently, the remainder is a nonsense. Nota bene

'58% of the Israeli-defined West Bank which is ruled by the Israeli 'Judea and Samaria Civil Administration'.'

What does this all mean, gentlemen? It means that what the UN and the ICJ defines as the West Bank, is not considered commensurate with what Israel alone defines as the West Bank, and what Israel defines as the residual West Bank is 'ruled' by an administrative organ which does not refer to even that as 'the West Bank' but as 'Judea and Samaria', which are exactly the terms used in the 1947 Plan designating a large portion of the area marked out for a future 'Arab State'. No mention of the crucial judgement laid down by the ICJ in 2004, or the fact that, in international law, all Israeli claims and annexations are, null and void.

The text then is totally confused and confusing. No average reader coming to this page for enlightenment will leave it with a clear, limpid understanding of the juridical state of those territories.

You both ask me to go step by step through the original text with suggested modifications, and obtain consensus. What however you are both doing is reinstating a disgracefully misleading article, on the basis of mere impressionistic assertions, while not contributing to the improvement of the article as it stands. You both say I should begin to rewrite more or less under your supervision, emending the earlier text point by point, so that you can vet each point I suggest, and we can have a consensual text. Fine, only, what this means is that neither of you, so far, shows any willingness to admit the problematical, POV charged nature of the text you reverted to. You haven't protested, intervened, or contributed anything as yet to the improvement of that text as it stood some weeks ago. Therefore, since you ask me to redo the work, which I will be happy to do, I suggest that parity of rights requires you both to begin to collaborate by making your own respective suggestions as well. In that case the 'master-slave' relationship you implicitly require is dissolved, and a collaborative rewriting by equal parties will be able to proceed to iron out the inept, awkward and textually opaque and POV-charged character of the text as it was before I intervened. I will await your contributions befor proceeding. Editorial kibitzing without concrete contributions wastes time, yours and mine Nishidani 09:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I undid Tiamut's changes, which still are WP:POV, WP:OR, and unsourced.

Where is the source for this:

"According to this principle, the Bible's designation of lands under Jewish control constitutes a permanent title, in that it was given by God to the Jews, and this act of donation overrules all historical changes in possession and secular international law governing states."

re:

"Ironically, if such claims are indeed made, then they coincide with the same territorial boundaries that many Jewish fundamentalists assert to be the natural biblical boundaries which must be restored to Israel's sovereignty, from Lebanon to Cairo and Iraq"

We don't use irony in an encyclopaedia, it can't get possibly more POV than that.

re:

"The term "Palestinian Territories" is controversial only in Israel"

Only in Israel? According to whom?

Please discuss changes item per item, so we don't have to exchange lengthy essays. --tickle me 12:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't even finished editing the whole text added by Nishdani. You could have fact tagged those sentences or removed them instead of doing a wholesale revert. Tiamat 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

tickle You ask

Where is the source for this:

According to this principle, the Bible's designation of lands under Jewish control constitutes a permanent title, in that it was given by God to the Jews, and this act of donation overrules all historical changes in possession and secular international law governing states.'

The source, if one is needed (all you need do is ask, without erasing everything. It's quicker.

'Zahal's (Israel Defense Force's) victory in the Six Day War placed the people and the state within a new and fateful period. The whole of Eretz Yisrael is now in the hands of the Jewish people, and just as we are not allowed to give up the State of Israel, so we are ordered to keep what we received there from Eretz Yisrael. We are bound to be loyal to the entirety of the country-for the sake of the people's past as well as its future, and no government in Israel is entitled to give up this entirety, which represents the inherent and in-alienable right of our people from the beginnings of its history n 2 cited Ian S.Lustik, chapter 3 ‘The Evolution of Gush Emunim’ in his ‘’For the Land and the Lordf (1988) Council on Foreign Relations, Washington 2nd ed.1994

'those who even discuss territorial concessions are committing the sin of "profanation of the Name of God." 10 Portions of the Land of Israel not yet ruled by Jews must, he writes, be acquired at any cost: We must settle the whole Land of Israel, and over all of it establish our rule. In the words of [Nachmanides]: "Do not abandon the land to any other nation." If that is possible by peaceful means, wonderful, and if not, we are commanded to make war to accomplish it.n 11'

, the Six Day War gave impetus to radical changes within this movement. Incubated within its schools, youth movement, and seminaries, and within the National Religious Party, was the Young Guard, which expressed disgust with the machine-style, status quo politics of the older generation. Instead, the tzeirim (youth) advanced a political program focusing on establishment of Jewish sovereignty over the whole Land of Israel as a decisive step toward hastening a divinely ordained process of redemption, which they believed had already begun. This leadership cadre, and the national religious subcultural cohort it represented, formed the basis of Israel's Jewish fundamentalist movement-dedicated to the uncompromising implementation of transcendental imperatives through political action.

Nishidani 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several dozen passages from historians and settlers documents that I can provide you at request. They all underline what the phrase you questioned doubts. Therefore, the passage you have elided is perfectly justifiable. All one need do is add the above source (Lustik has a chair at Philadelphia University)

You question, legitimately the phrasing of the following passage.

Ironically, if such claims are indeed made, then they coincide with the same territorial boundaries that many Jewish fundamentalists assert to be the natural biblical boundaries which must be restored to Israel's sovereignty, from Lebanon to Cairo and Iraq'

That was written when I read this remark, which was in the text you keep reverting to:-

Some advocates have claimed that maps used in schools under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority depict this state as consisting of all the territory between the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, the Jordan River and Egypt — including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [citation needed]

What was wrong with this? (1) It is unsourced. No one has protested that such an unsourced statement be removed. You appear not to be troubled by it, since you haven't touched it. But you do object to my balacing statement. Well that statement I can source:-

i.e.again from Lustik:

'One of the most respected scholars in Gush Emunim, Yehuda Elitzur, has outlined several more or less concentric territorial shapes for the Jewish state on the basis of biblical sources. He considers the "promised," or "patriarchal," boundaries-extending to the Euphrates River, southern Turkey, Transjordan, and the Nile Delta-"the ideal borders." The borders as reflected in the lands conquered by the "generation that left Egypt"-including northeastern Sinai, Lebanon and western Syria, the Golan Heights, and much of Transjordan-are the lands Israel is required eventually to conquer and settle.'

I put the word 'ironically' in, because that is exactly what it is. You don't like it? Well, we'll take it out. And leave the passage from Lustik above, sourcing it. Thus the emended text will run:-

Some advocates have claimed that maps used in schools under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority depict this state as consisting of all the territory between the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, the Jordan River and Egypt — including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [citation needed]. These maps coincide with the same territorial boundaries that many Jewish fundamentalists assert to be the natural biblical boundaries which must be restored to Israel's sovereignty, from Lebanon to Cairo and Iraq'(Source. Ian Lustik, For the Lord and the Land' (1988) 2nd ed.1994 ch.3

I hope this rephrasing satisfies your concerns.

"The term "Palestinian Territories" is controversial only in Israel"

Only in Israel? According to whom?

On that I agree thoroughly. The term 'Palestinian territories' is not controversial perhaps in Israel, it is controversial outside of Israel where universal usage refers to 'Cisjordan/Palestine/Palestinian Occupied Territories'. The phrase is current in Israeli usage.

So one could rewrite: 'The term 'Palestinian territories' is mainly one of Israeli usage, to denote what in International law, UN deliberations and general Western usage is referred to as 'The West Bank and Gaza', 'Occupied Palestinian territories' or 'Palestine'.

P.s. you are not exchanging lengthy essays: I am writing lengthy essays to reply minutely to every brief and to me incomprehensible objection you make in phrases or two or three words. I am justifying my choices, you are simply asserting your judgements by what strikes me as a vague and arbitrary claim of POV. So, please answer my earlier remarks and tell me why UN Documentation and ICJ rulings cannot be used, as I used them, to define the word 'Palestinian Territories'? You have asked Tiamut (sp?) and myself you explain ourselves here. All you have done is to revert and make a few quips. Nishidani 13:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ps.The text you keep reverting to is POV-challenged, as the heading notes. You take my revision as POV (arguable. Let's argue it), but show a preference for the earlier text, which is labelled as 'neutrality disputed' and therefore subject to POV doubts. In reverting you are confirming an unreliable text against a text whose unreliability has yet to be formally challenged (except by these recent undocumented charges behind your reversions) This is not good Wiki practice, and you have interrupted another editor's attempt to mediate on the two. My revised text may be objectionable, but it is just as valid as the earlier one, and you show a bias in preferring the former one. These are texts that are under constant revision, and therefore this reverting practice is simply damaging to the collaborative work required. Regards Nishidani 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

POV rewrite

Nishidani - you have made extensive changes to a contentious topic, changes which were viewed by several editors as POV. It was sugegsted to you, and I repeat this suggestion, that you discuss the changes you wnat to intorduce, one by one, here on Talk, so we can evaluate their mertis.

I'll start with the very first sentence you wnat to include, which states:

The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestinewhich under the UN Partition Plan of 1947 were designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine,

This is simply false. As te harticle later describes, the term Palestinian territories is used to describe the Eastern parts of Jerusalem, but that territory was never 'designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine' by the UN partition plan. Th ecurrent article phrasing, which says 'The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and militarily occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and later, in the Six-Day War, by Israel.' is more accurate , and fully NPOV. Yours is not. Isarig 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig Two of your colleagues gave, as the reason for reverting my own contributions, the justification that I had not discussed my edits collegially beforehand (sure. No one seemed to be interested in the page). You now have several people willing to work on the page, collegially, and yet you have gone and made several quick edits, and reverts, and have only alluded to an explanation after several hours. What is good for the goose is good for the gander as Immanuel Kant once said. The two earlier editors (two is not 'several' in English, for your information) gave no adequate reason for their objections and have deserted the page. Reverting while refusing to work (i.e. study closely and in depth what you are objecting to at a glance) is extremely bad practice.

You misrepresent the record. From what little I could gather of the nature of their objections, I wrote extensively in reply. To my replies there was no answer forthcoming, simply further reverts. This again is abusive editing, since it lacks the courtesy of a proper dialogue. You reverted within 8 minutes of our disagreement on RS, that is not sufficient time to familiarize yourself with my extensive discussion of both Humus Sapiens's remark and RTickle Me's remarks. Therefore, you reverted without examining the evidence, but took their judgements (which they will no longere defend) at face value. That is lamentable practice. I suggest then that you do as you and the other two advise, i.e. practice what you preach to others, and before editing, justify your edits. Otherwise you are claiming prior rights to the text as it stood over later editors. Fourthly, you have not edited the many assertions in that text that are unfounded, or confusedly phrased.

To the meat of your objection to para 1. You say

Palestinian territories is used to describe the Eastern parts of Jerusalem, but that territory was never 'designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine' by the UN partition plan.

I can see the problem, now. If I had written, as I will now do, a 'future Arab state in Palestine', you'd have had no excuse for objecting. The 1947 Partition Plan does not speak of an Arab State of Palestine, but an Arab State in portions of the former Palestine. It left it to the inhabitants as to how they would call that state.

Evidently you haven't read the relevant documents, since you evidently haven't read them, you shouldn't be editing posts by people who have.

Secondly you are not familiar with English. The terms Palestinian territories' you say, describes 'the Eastern parts of (the city of? region?) Jerusalem' (I'd like you to document that. It is the first time in 40 years of reading that I have encountered this amazing idea). Note: I do not mention Jerusalem, East of Jerusalem or anything else in my phrasing.

Here is the original passage in the UN Partition Plan document of 1947:-

Part II. - Boundaries

A. THE ARAB STATE(for the map see

http://www.mideastweb.org/UNpartition.htm)

(Omitting the para 1 coordinates for the area of the Arab State in Western Galilee et al ) The following outlines the Boundaries of the Arab State in that document, :-

The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the Sub-Districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin.

(From that point it follows the Nablus-Jenin sub-District boundary westwards for a distance of about three kilometres and then turns north-westwards, passing to the east of the built-up areas of the villages of Jalbun and Faqqu'a, to the boundary of the Sub-Districts of Jenin and Beisan at a point northeast of Nuris. Thence it proceeds first northwestwards to a point due north of the built-up area of Zie'in and then westwards to the Afula-Jenin railway, thence north-westwards along the District boundary line to the point of intersection on the Hejaz railway.

From here the boundary runs southwestwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh. Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El- Mansi. It follows this boundary to the southernmost point of the village of El-Buteimat. From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi 'Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village. From here it runs along the railway line some distance to the east of it to a point just east of the Tulkarm railway station. Thence the boundary follows a line half-way between the railway and the Tulkarm-Qalqiliya-Jaljuliya and Ras El-Ein road to a point just east of Ras El-Ein station, whence it proceeds along the railway some distance to the east of it to the point on the railway line south of the junction of the Haifa-Lydda and Beit Nabala lines, whence it proceeds along the southern border of Lydda airport to its south-west corner, thence in a south-westerly direction to a point just west of the built-up area of Sarafand El 'Amar, whence it turns south, passing just to the west of the built-up area of Abu El-Fadil to the north-east corner of the lands of Beer Ya'aqov. (The boundary line should be so demarcated as to allow direct access from the Arab State to the airport.) Thence the boundary line follows the western and southern boundaries of Ramle village, to the north-east corner of El Na'ana village, thence in a straight line to the southernmost point of El Barriya, along the eastern boundary of that village and the southern boundary of 'Innaba village. Thence it turns north to follow the southern side of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road until El-Qubab, whence it follows the road to the boundary of Abu-Shusha. It runs along the eastern boundaries of Abu Shusha, Seidun, Hulda to the southernmost point of Hulda, thence westwards in a straight line to the north-eastern corner of Umm Kalkha, thence following the northern boundaries of Umm Kalkha, Qazaza and the northern and western boundaries of Mukhezin to the Gaza District boundary and thence runs across the village lands of El-Mismiya El-Kabira, and Yasur to the southern point of intersection, which is midway between the built-up areas of Yasur and Batani Sharqi.

From the southern point of intersection the boundary lines run north-westwards between the villages of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the sea at a point half way between Nabi Yunis and Minat El-Qila, and south-eastwards to a point west of Qastina, whence it turns in a south-westerly direction, passing to the east of the built-up areas of Es Sawafir Esh Sharqiya and 'Ibdis. From the south-east corner of 'Ibdis village it runs to a point southwest of the built-up area of Beit 'Affa, crossing the Hebron-El-Majdal road just to the west of the built-up area of 'Iraq Suweidan. Thence it proceeds southward along the western village boundary of El-Faluja to the Beersheba Sub-District boundary. It then runs across the tribal lands of 'Arab El-Jubarat to a point on the boundary between the Sub-Districts of Beersheba and Hebron north of Kh. Khuweilifa, whence it proceeds in a south-westerly direction to a point on the Beersheba-Gaza main road two kilometres to the north-west of the town. It then turns south-eastwards to reach Wadi Sab' at a point situated one kilometer to the west of it. From here it turns north-eastwards and proceeds along Wadi Sab' and along the Beersheba-Hebron road for a distance of one kilometer, whence it turns eastwards and runs in a straight line to Kh. Kuseifa to join the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary. It then follows the Beersheba-Hebron boundary eastwards to a point north of Ras Ez-Zuweira, only departing from it so as to cut across the base of the indentation between vertical grid lines 150 and 160.

About five kilometres north-east of Ras Ez-Zuweira it turns north, excluding from the Arab State a strip along the coast of the Dead Sea not more than seven kilometres in depth, as far as 'Ein Geddi, whence it turns due east to join the Transjordan frontier in the Dead Sea.

The northern boundary of the Arab section of the coastal plain runs from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis, passing between the built-up areas of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the point of intersection. From here it turns south-westwards, running across the lands of Batani Sharqi, along the eastern boundary of the lands of Beit Daras and across the lands of Julis, leaving the built-up areas of Batani Sharqi and Julis to the westwards, as far as the north-west corner of the lands of Beit-Tima. Thence it runs east of El-Jiya across the village lands of El-Barbara along the eastern boundaries of the villages of Beit Jirja, Deir Suneid and Dimra. From the south-east corner of Dimra the boundary passes across the lands of Beit Hanun, leaving the Jewish lands of Nir-Am to the eastwards. From the south-east corner of Beit Hanun the line runs south-west to a point south of the parallel grid line 100, then turns north-west for two kilometres, turning again in a southwesterly direction and continuing in an almost straight line to the north-west corner of the village lands of Kirbet Ikhza'a. From there it follows the boundary line of this village to its southernmost point. It then runs in a southerly direction along the vertical grid line 90 to its junction with the horizontal grid line 70. It then turns south-eastwards to Kh. El-Ruheiba and then proceeds in a southerly direction to a point known as El-Baha, beyond which it crosses the Beersheba-EI 'Auja main road to the west of Kh. El-Mushrifa. From there it joins Wadi El-Zaiyatin just to the west of El-Subeita. From there it turns to the north-east and then to the south-east following this Wadi and passes to the east of 'Abda to join Wadi Nafkh. It then bulges to the south-west along Wadi Nafkh, Wadi 'Ajrim and Wadi Lassan to the point where Wadi Lassan crosses the Egyptian frontier.'

But, if reading this is confusing (there's a map attached), look at the Map. What you say is wrong because (excuse the capital letters) THE UN PARTITION MAP ONLINE IN ANY SOURCE YOU CARE TO CONSULT GIVES A CLEAR MAP OF THE AREA WEST, NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH of Jerusalem as denoting the future 'Arab State' in portions of the former Palestine.

You have challenged the veracity of my original statement, and made a confused alternative assertion which belies what the documents I source assert. So, I and others await your explanation of why your 'improved version' which denies that fact should not be dismissed as POV?Nishidani 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to have a civil discussion about your edits here, you will cease using your condescending and presumptious tone. I have read the relevant documents, and understand English at least as well as you. Now, to the item at hand: Your proposed solution of using "in" rather than "of" does not adress my issue at all. The issue is that as the artcile makes clear, when people use the term Palestinain territories", they include East Jerusalem in that definition. However, EJ is not a territory that was designated to be part of the Arab state, which is what your misleading and POV rewrite implies. Isarig 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which under the UN Partition Plan of 1947 were designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine

I'm sorry, but you really do not understand, and if my correcting your misunderstandings is condescending in tone, that owes much to the fact that you do not appear to understand straightforward English, and your patent misrepresentations of what I clearly say are the proof, and are causing a serious disruption to an article that must be written in clear unambiguous English. If you did understand English as well as you say, you would have altered the obviously unidiomatic and ungrammatical 'The Palestinian territories is.' to 'The term the Palestinian Territories is. In English, a plural subject cannot normally take a verb in the singular. That has been sitting there for ages, and no one corrects it. You haven't and you argue your knowledge of English is on a par with mine. It isn't.

I'm sorry to say but you do not understand the phrasing of the passage you object to. I did not write that EJ was designated to be part of the Arab State. In repeating this ad nauseam you are creating a straw man and saying it's me. I said, The (term) Palestinian territories refers to those portions of Mandate Palestine marked out for a future Arab State. Since the Mandate Document says Jerusalem has a special status independent of both Israel and the future Arab State, your attempt to pass off the notion I am referring to Jerusalem is inexplicable to me, except in terms of your incapacity to parse English. If you think that it implies this, then show me where I mention the word '(East) Jerusalem'.

Your objection is specious, the word 'Arab State' in Palestine refers to an area circumscribing the internationally-controlled area of jerusalem in that document. And this, young man, is, for the enth time, exactly what I wrote in the paragraph you object to. If you can't understand simple English, get a couple of extra hands in here, native speakers, to support your quixotic construction of my words. If you can't come up with a better pretext for what you have rejected, I'll be forced to revert and then go to an adjudication. The issue is simple. English and what clear wording means to native speakers Nishidani 20:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you want to continue to condescend, and argue about who's understanding of English is better, See how far that gets you. Isarig 20:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you write 'who's' for 'whose'. You won't correct an obvious grammatical error, which I have remarked on a day ago. You keep reverting to a text which contains it. What am I to conclude? That you don't have a native grasp of English. That is the gentlest construction politeness can put on what strikes me as an inability to understand the meaning of what you otherwise object to. Your objections do not make sense.

But since I refuse to take a refusal to persist in dialogue until clarification is obtained. I'll try another rephrasing and see how you read it:

Suggestion 1.

'The term Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for a portion of that part of the British Mandate of Palestine which under the UN Partition Plan of 1947 was designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine.' Nishidani 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion 2.

'The term Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which, under the UN Partition Plan of 1947, were to be included as integral parts of the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine.'

Remember, part of civility means endeavouring to understand what your interlocutor is saying, instead of objecting to him before you have given due thought to what he is saying Nishidani 20:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion 3.'The term Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for a portion of the British Mandate of Palestine which, under the UN Partition Plan of 1947, was to be included as an integral part of the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine, but which in current usage includes East Jerusalem, though in the Mandate Plan that city was to be under International Administration.'

That seems a decent compromise? It is certainly better than the falsehood you keep reverting to, whose wording is mischievous since it hides the fact that the UN Partition Plan of 1947 designated a territory, north south east and west of jerusalem (hence Samaria and Judea, which constitute part of the 'Palestinian territories') as an autonomous Arab State independent of both Jordan and Egypt. To keep that phrasing is to be guilty of historical misrepresentation and an extreme form of POV Nishidani 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither suggestion 1 nor 2 addresses my problem regarding East Jerusalem. Suggestion 3 syas , in a very long winded and cumbersome way, what the current version says succinctly - which is that what we're talking about are the areas occupied by Jordan and Egypt from 1949 to 1967. If you'd like to add a sentence that says that most of these areas (with the notable exception of Jerusalem and its surrounding areas) were designated as part of the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine, I will not object to that. Isarig 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

@nishidani

• The re-write of the first paragraph merely uses extra words to say the exact same thing in even a more POV way.

• The views of "Yehuda Elitzur" of "Gush Emunim" are the views of one individual, cf WP:UNDUE, and certainly not "many Jewish fundamentalists" or even "many Jews". In addition, the argument that their territorial ambitions are the same as any Muslim ones is WP:OR.

• The claims about "international law" are pure invented and unsourced original research, too.

• Any claims or wordings you use that refer to "Israeli usage" are both original research and baseless; Israelis speak Hebrew.

• The opinions of the ICJ are the opinions of the ICJ, nothing more; advisory opinions that do not create international law, cf WP:UNDUE.

--tickle me 08:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

point 1. I use more words, because the statement you prefer is POV, and ignores the juridical status of the 'Palestinian Territories' in International Law. That has to be in the lead para. To avoid mentioning it is to erase a fundamental fact.

point 2.You asked me to provide a quote to substantiate my adjustment of a 'point of view' unsourced, about Arab claims to much larger territories as 'Palestinian'. My edit paralleled this unsourced claim with a suggestion that the same claim is made by Jewish fundamentalists. You charged this required a source. I provided the source (unlike you and others who have no yet sourced the other claim) and now you say you don't think the source is representative. Well (a) The passage lacking a citation which precedes it is wholly arbitrary, and, (b) there is a whole chapter in the book ch.3. written by a senior American academic which documents precisely why what I added is quite true. You can't allow the unsourced claim to stand, and at the same time refuse the sourced counterclaim to stand. That is blatant POV. Read Lustik.

You write:'The views of "Yehuda Elitzur" of "Gush Emunim" are the views of one individual, cf WP:UNDUE, and certainly not "many Jewish fundamentalists".'

You asked me for a source, I gave one, and three excerpts. Now you reply re one, and the objections are specious. Elitzur's views are commonplace, see Lustik ch.3 (or any biography of Ben Gurion). It is not a violation of WP:UNDUE - to argue so is hypocritical because the rest of the text gives ample space to Shmuel Katz's personal opinions even though they have no standing in Internatioonal Law, neither do those of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. You haven't clearly read the source I directed you to. When you have get back to me.

(point 3) You write:'The claims about "international law" are pure invented and unsourced original research. Don't cite 'original search'.

Read the ICJ verdict (INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2004, 9 July 2004) a document freely available in any number of online sites. Quotation or paraphrase of such documents is what writing Wiki articles is about. Please do not raise time-wasting objections that are patently untrue in future.

(point 4) You write: 'Any claims or wordings you use that refer to "Israeli usage" are both original research and baseless; Israelis speak Hebrew.' Rubbish. Israeli usage does not refer to usage of Hebrew. It refers to Israelis' use of the English phrase 'Palestinian Territories'. Unless you haven't noticed, we are dealing with an English page, and English expressions current in Israeli expositions in English of 'Palestinian Territories'.

(point 5) You write: 'The opinions of the ICJ are the opinions of the ICJ, nothing more; advisory opinions that do not create international law, cf WP:UNDUE.'

Again, please use correct language. A judgement rendered down by the International Court of Justice is not simply 'an opinion'. Called on to adjudicate a legal claim, by a near unanimous verdict, the ICJ reviewed all legal documentation relevant to the dispute, and gave its verdict. That verdict is not binding, but it does state the Court's judgement of the legal status quo in terms of international law, as also underwritten by treaties and agreements to which Israel is a signatory. Again, if I cite a document, I expect that those who oppose my use of that document read it before replying. You haven't done that, evidently. When (para 120) the Court rendered the verdict that:-

'The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.'

It is not stating an opinion, which I or you can, with our own opinions (and Shmuel Katz with his) contest as 'just an opinion I disagree with'. It is a formal judgement on a breach of international law, and the function of that Court is to deliberate on International Law. Its verdict has therefore weight as a precedent in future discussions of the status of the Palestinian territories in International Law. That states defy International Law is commonplace, that does not mean those laws are thereby mere opinions or invalid.

FInally, instead of worrying about the two or three documented remarks I made, could you perhaps deign to look at the many parts of this slipshod article which require to be rewritten because they are full of untenable and rule-violating arbitrary remarks like

'Additionally, UN resolutions that characterize these territories as "Palestinian" clearly undermine the foundations of the peace process for the future.'

That is hyperPOV propaganda for one party to the dispute and, like many other passages, has no place in an encuyclopedia, Wiki or otherwise. I note for the record that no one objecting to my own minor and nuanced posts regards this extremely partisan tripe as a violation of Wikipedia rules. It is a sign of bad faith to let it stand, and I am waiting, as a test of good will, for one of those now editing this page to erase it. I won't. Regards Nishidani 09:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nishidani, P.T. is a controversial term not in Israel only - try google. Their boundaries are still to be defined/negotiated. If the maps of P.T. are already drawn, then why the negotiations, peace process, land for peace, etc.? The 1947 UN Partition Plan did not mention the term P.T., see WP:SYNTH. Regarding "international law", see International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus sapiens

(a) I did not say the term 'Palestinian territories' was in the UN Partition Plan, as you imply.

(b)You write. 'Nishidani, P.T. is a controversial term not in Israel only - try google.'

All Google tells me is that the Israeli usage is often repeated by POV sources abroad. My point, I repeat is that, this language has no juridical status. As Moshe Dayan says in his memoirs, parts of 'the territories' are called by Israelis 'SDamaria and Judea' but the correct term for those two districts is 'the West Bank', to give but one example. I have great difficulty in making you all appreciate that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between local idiomatic and in this case customary Israeli usage in English, and standard international language based on the textual history of intgernational law and bilateral negotiations.

You ask: 'If the maps of P.T. are already drawn, then why the negotiations, peace process, land for peace, etc.?'

You are, pardon me, confusing the original map in 1947 designating a future Arab state, with the future Arab state as that is to be determined through negotations, simply because Israel, in law, is an Occupying Power which does not accept that International law and Conventions apply to military occupation. Having 78% of the Partition Land, it wants to negotiate further parts of the 22% remaining, gained through military conquest and imposed settlements on land that often has legal Palestinian title, not through negotation, and now through unilateral decisions (like the Wall outside the Green Line, which appear to constitute an annexation policy. All of these actions are, please read the ICJ verdict, technically violations of the relevant international laws governing territory taken and possessed by manu militari. Regarding International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is merely another controversial Wiki article, like the one we are writing here: it has no standing as a source. I only regard as a relevant source extra-wiki legal documents, drafted by legal experts, not partial summaries made by amateurs trying to find a compromise between opposed POVs. One cannot resolve disputes on a contested page in Wiki by sourcing as ostensible 'objective' accounts other Wiki pages that are equally controversial. RS, so far, does not allow Wiki to be a source for reliable sources. If it did, this would be a meaningless exercise in ouroboric feed back. RegardsNishidani 09:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig My apologies for using this hysteron-proteron priority. I meant to reply to your post first, but found edit conflicts, and thus addressed the last two editors' remarks first. I will address your serious point presently. regards Nishidani 10:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

I came to this page, which I am personally not interested in, for a simple reason. A poster cited it, the section of Shmuel Katz (who is misleadingly described as a writer and the fact that he has had a stronger career in politics as co-founder with Begin of the Herut Party should be mentioned if that quote is to be retained) to protest the usage by another poster of the phrase ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’. The poster who challenged this is a responsible editor, took vehement exception to another editor's use of this phrase simply on the strength of what Katz remarked here. What Katz remarked here is pure mischief, since he tries to pass off as Arab propaganda a phrase which has accepted currency in UN debates and Resolutions. Once I’d examined this page, to which a link was made, and replied with Un-sourced documentation to show that Katz’s remark was POV and false, the poster seems to have accepted my intervention on this issue. He did not know that ‘’Occupied Palestinian Territory’’ was NPOV in international discussions, i.e. an objective designation of what is the case. And the fault for his misapprehension was this page’s highly dubious inclusion of a tendentious assertion by Katz. If Wikipedia editors were more scrupulous in choosing objective statements of the situation instead of cramming numerous personal opinions which are neither here nor there and immaterial to encyclopaedic articles, these misunderstandings would not occur.

Now, to the meat of your position. Overnight I reflected at length and noted that there was indeed substance to your objection, and that I had misunderstood it. That is therefore a free admission of a fault, but, I must add, my misapprehension relates to careless (excuse me) phrasing on your part.

What generated our intensive discussion was the following remark:-

'Palestinian territories is used to describe the Eastern parts of Jerusalem, but that territory was never 'designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab state of Palestine' by the UN partition plan.’

Had you written (also) or something like:

The phrase/term Palestinian territories now covers, in Israeli usage, the eastern parts of Jerusalem, as well as the West Bank territory and Gaza. In that sense, the term as used does not refer to that part of the land which, in the UN Partition Plan of 1947, was designated as constituting the territory of a future Arab State in Palestine, for in that Plan, Jerusalem had a special status as an internationally administered city distinct from both Israel and the intended Arab state.’

then I would not have written what I wrote. Technically, ‘Palestinian territories’ is not used to describe ‘the eastern parts of Jerusalem’: It includes ‘the eastern parts of Jerusalem’ in a more general description of the West Bank and Gaza.

I know this looks pedantic, but language is a minefield, and what I most protest about in these particular pages is the indifference to precise language. We are, I remind myself every day, editing articles that refer to realities with intricate legal histories behind them, and this legal framework is all too often ignored in favour of journalistic snippets which care little for the niceties that are characteristic of negotiations for the political determination of states in conflict.

Notwithstanding the impression your text gave me, duly interpreted as above, the substance of your objection to my phrasing is valid.

Let’s look at the compromise I suggested, and modify it along the lines you now say you would have no objections to. The prior version was succinct, which is a virtue. It is also faulty, in that it gives the juridically incorrect impression that the ‘Palestinian Territories’ have no legal status in international law.

Suggestion 3b = 4.'The term Palestinian territories refers collectively to lands now known as the West Bank, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem. Excluding Jerusalem, which was to have an autonomous status under International Administration, these territories were designated in the UN Partition Plan of 1947 as constituting the area for a future Arab State.’

That is simple, succinct, correct and NPOV. It is better, in my view, to the earlier formulation which makes the ‘Palestinian Territories’ extraterritorial to any known legal status, being in that text, merely areas of ill-defined nature successively conquered and occupied by Jordan, Egypt and Israel.

My reasons for 3b are as stated above. In International Law, governing the terms and limits of authority of a military occupation, all three phases of occupation of those lands were achieved manu militari, and the acquisition of territory by war, unless legitimated by a political settlement between the respective parties, i.e. the occupying power and the representatives of the occupied people, is ruled out as a grave contravention of standing conventions of International Law.

p.s. On a personal note,I am leaving this evening for some weeks abroad and may not be able to reply to any responses. These pages are not to be hurried. I hope in the meantime that my comppromise suggestion, which is along the lines you say are acceptable to you, finds general favour. I would also appreciate it, if some thought were given to the several remarks I made on other passages in the text, which are blatantly POV.

(1) Katz should be mentioned as also an Israeli politician (I.e. he has a vested interest in the personal position he avows).

(2) The remark, unsourced, on Palestinian maps which claim much larger territory should be sourced, and if retained, should include my parallel, which I have sourced to Ian S. Lustik, for similar maps and designs in Jewish fundamentalist groups. It would be simpler, of course, simply to elide the unsourced remark which generated my addition.

(3) The passage -'Additionally, UN resolutions that characterize these territories as "Palestinian" clearly undermine the foundations of the peace process for the future.'

Should be erased. It is indefensible, and hyperPOV. Wikipedia simply does not allow partisan political statements of this kind on its pages. I do not think these suggestions controversial, and hope you can collectively edit them to remove the POV.Regards Nishidani 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your lates suggetsion implie tah the 'Palestinian territories' is a legal term with some legal standing in international law, based on the partition plan. That is an opinion, not fact, and does not belong in the lead. Isarig 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You've changed the grounds of your objection. What I write:i.e.

'The term Palestinian territories refers collectively to lands now known as the West Bank, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem. Excluding Jerusalem, which was to have an autonomous status under International Administration, these territories were designated in the UN Partition Plan of 1947 as constituting the area for a future Arab State.’

does not imply anything about legality, and is not an 'opinion' (unless what you wrote is an 'opinion' because my phrasing has borrowed extensively from your comments). You are confusing my contextual explanations with what I have actually written here. There is no implication. The phrasing is a succinct definition of the historical derivation of the 'Palestinian territories' influenced in two points by your own suggestions. You offered a compromise, and now refused it pretextually.

The words 'Palestinian territories' is not a legal term, I repeat, it is, a popular Israel expression, and as such, has no echo in legal debates, is not the term customarily used in International Arbitration, UN deliberations or the ICJ ruling, deliberations where the issue of legality is discussed. I'm still holding out for a rational response, and am still waiting for a sign of editorial good faith by someone of the several here who will apply Wiki rules to the passages I have indicated to be in violation of them.Nishidani 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ps. can someone point me to a wiki rule which outlaws wasting serious work with an infinite sequence of pretextual objections in a war of attrition?Nishidani 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth

As someone who lives in Israel, i will tell you something about those "Palestinians". They dont work, and live on the money of Israel. Israel offered them to completely become seperate (which means, to stop getting money from Israel), and they started screaming it's racism. First, there is no such people Palestinians. They are Syrian and Egtptian Arabs. Palestine is a historical name of Israel given' by the Romans. Where do Arabs get in the picture?? They were first refered to as Palastinians by Hittler. There was an Islamic and arabic leader, a total creep, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. He supported Hittler [43], who promised him: "Palestine will be yours", and he then starting to invent an identity Palestinians. Before that Arabs here were NEVER referd to as Palastinians. He vent to the Balkans with many Arabs from here to fight for a free arabic state here (the 31th already to the Arabs??) by murdering Croation Jews. Israel not only ain't brutal enough to the "Palastinians", but it is polite to them. They bomb out Sderot ands israel instead of Bombing the hell out of them, sends soldiers to die there so "inocent citizens" wont die. There in school from the age of zero they are tought they live to kill Jews and fight for the Jihad. Here in Israel they teach us noncense that we have to "respect them and try to achieve peace with them". M.V.E.i. 19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)