Talk:Palestinian territories/Archive 3

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)