This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
This section is a continuation of "Longest military occupation - session 2". see also: [1]
According to the following quote, the longest modern military occupation is in Kashmir: "If we consider the postwar legal regime that established the international laws that regulate and administer occupation, Kashmir is the first site of contemporary military occupation, yet its history remains comparatively less known than that of Palestine or Iraq, even though the number of Indian troops posted in Kashmir approaches 700,000 more than twice the US. forces in Iraq at the height of the military occupation there". [2] Hence the article sentence: "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times" is incorrect. Ykantor ( talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment the cited references for the "longest military occupation" statement present:
"See for example:
"
* Hajjar, Lisa (2005).
Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza. University of California Press. p. 96.
ISBN
0520241940. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is the longest military occupation in modern times.
*
Anderson, Perry (July–August 2001).
"Editorial: Scurrying Towards Bethlehem". New Left Review. 10. ...longest official military occupation of modern history—currently entering its thirty-fifth year
*
Makdisi, Saree (2010).
Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation. W. W. Norton & Company.
ISBN
9780393338447. ...longest-lasting military occupation of the modern age
*
Kretzmer, David (Spring 2012).
"The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel" (PDF). International Review of the Red Cross. 94 (885).
doi:
10.1017/S1816383112000446. This is probably the longest occupation in modern international relations, and it holds a central place in all literature on the law of belligerent occupation since the early 1970s
* Alexandrowicz, Ra'anan (24 January 2012),
The Justice of Occupation, The New York Times, Israel is the only modern state that has held territories under military occupation for over four decades
* Weill, Sharon (2014).
The Role of National Courts in Applying International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press. p. 22.
ISBN
9780199685424. Although the basic philosophy behind the law of military occupation is that it is a temporary situation modem occupations have well demonstrated that rien ne dure comme le provisoire A significant number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than two decades such as the occupations of Namibia by South Africa and of East Timor by Indonesia as well as the ongoing occupations of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the longest in all occupation's history has already entered its fifth decade.
This is not an issue that I have greatly followed but I had gathered that the issue was clear. Greg Kaye 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of the longest-this, biggest-that, style of writing, but the extraordinary length of this occupation is one of its most notably features so it absolutely must be mentioned. Not just the length of it, but the extraordinary nature of that length. It would be easy to add additional excellent references that it is the longest. Zero talk 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article should impart factual description of its subject. It should not approach the subject with a polemical attack. The BDS movement disapproves not merely of the "occupation," (itself a charged term despite its adoption by foreign diplomats) but of the existence of Israel as a Jewish State altogether. (This point of view is also implicit in the Palestinian Authority's refusal to agree to recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" during last year's framework negotiations with Israel mediated by John Kerry and the Obama administration.) Inasmuch as the word "occupation" has been adopted by the BDS movement some years ago now as a code-phrase for attacks on the integrity, security, and sovereignty of the State of Israel, I personally am motivated to again bring the question the prominence of its use in a Wikipedia article about Israel to this page. Would the BDS movement prefer the article to be renamed "The Fascist Occupying State of Israel?" That would be highly improper regardless of the number of Wikipedia Editors or Administrators who might like to see that! In short, it is inappropriate to demonize the subject of any Wikipedia article. The Israeli authorities, indeed, might prefer that Wikipedia simply excise any article entitled "Israel," preferring to separate its fortunes from a Wikipedia that is so implacably opposed to its existence as a Jewish State. The idea that Israel is "occupying" territory that is part and parcel of the historic Land of Israel, and indeed that was contemplated in the San Remo agreement as part of a modern Jewish State, is highly questionable, prima facie. Israel conquered the West Bank, a.k.a., Judea and Samaria, in 1967 at its peril. To the victors go the spoils. As far as voting rights for Arabs there are concerned, the establishment of areas under Palestinian Arab authority as contemplated by the Oslo accords has provided a measure of self-determination which could be further expanded for those indigenous Moslems. The Arab-Israeli conflict is highly unique. Attempting to frame it in terms of, e.g., colonialism, or, e.g., terms analogous to South African Apartheid or other struggles for self-determination is to perpetuate a serious miscarriage of justice. Hence, "I would like to see the phrase Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times.[note 3][28]" removed, per se, from this article and placed in a separate article that covers the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question. Jabeles ( talk) 16:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Kashmir is not recognized as occupied in any international fora, certainly not with anything approaching the consensus on Palestine. It is of course true that there are a huge number of Indian troops there, and there is widespread separatist sentiment. Tibet is not occupied either, there is no country in the world that recognizes it as occupied. There were and remain border disputes, and problems with autonomy and repression, but that is not the same as occupation technically. International law can be crazy and inconsistent, but that's the way it is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we just not mention the longest occupation line since it is not npov and is not necessarily even true. The US is technically occupying Native American land, Tibet and Kashmir are both occupied, as well as similar occupations elsewhere. This line will just inflame tensions further for this article. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 17:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not going to accept with equanimity the pejorative/polemic tone of the subject statement (regarding longest military occupation). Neither should any Wikipedia Editor or Administrator with a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. To wit, the statement clearly is meant to calumnify Israel, the only Jewish State in the middle east. Clearly, the implication is that the occupation is a bad thing because it deprives certain individuals of self-determination and imposes inconveniences or hardships upon them! But the question is, who is responsible for the undesired state-of-affairs? That is the key point, and it is implicit. The clear and extremely biased insinuation is that the responsibility falls upon the occupying power, i.e., upon the State of Israel. But is this so? That isn't addressed in these talk pages. If the main page describing the State of Israel implicitly criticizes Israel savagely without justification, that is not a neutral point of view. The main page, to satisfy neutrality concerns, needs to touch upon the question of whose fault it is that this occupation has lasted since 1967 (48 years), and moreover acknowledge de minimus that there is honest disagreement among well-intentioned individuals as to (indeed) which side may be responsible. FURTHERMORE, the citation of scholarly and journalistic works claiming to justify a one-sided point of view (regarding the "occupation" being solely the responsibility of Israel) is fundamentally flawed since OBVIOUSLY one could find competing journalistic or scholarly works, or both, that would take an opposing point-of-view. So please dispense with that silliness. Jabeles ( talk) 22:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
After all the verbiage here, we still have the undeniable fact that a large number of highly respectable sources state that this is the longest modern occupation. That makes it available for addition according to the rules, and nobody has provided a rule-based argument for its omission. Nor any logically valid argument, in my opinion. So add it already and think of something else to argue about. Zero talk 10:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Beside engaging in soapboxing, many editors here are engaging in original research. Our aim is to summarize what the sources say, not to invent a narrative to defend our country against a perceived slight. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 12:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Question on the language in the infobox... There has been a distinction made between Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew, but not between Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic. Modern Hebrew is not a different language than Biblical Hebrew, just an updated version - if you can speak/read/write one, you can speak/read/write the other with some minor stylistic differences. Biblical Hebrew is not spoken now. Is that not the same difference as Classical vs Modern Standard Arabic? Classical Arabic is what is used in the Quran, while Modern Standard Arabic is what is spoken now. While there is no named difference between the two variants, they are in fact variants. I just noticed there was a few edits regarding this and wanted some clarification. Goalie1998 ( talk) 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A large portion of the population of Israel are not citizens and cannot vote, which violates the definition of universal sufferage. Also apparently my opinions are "misconceptions" which apparently must be fixed. Scientus ( talk) 07:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it necessary or useful to the article have a picture of a generic child (I am aware it is Bar Rafaeli, and that she is Israeli) in the Demographics section? Maybe remove it, or replace it with something that more appropriately depicts the demographics of Israel? Goalie1998 ( talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Goalie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.70.42 ( talk) 17:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The statement that "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed" is misleading and I believe biased. It suggests that Jerusalem is Israeli territory, but that some dispute this. The reality is that few countries recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. A more accurate statement would be "Israel annexed occupied Jerusalem, an act which is not recognized internationally". 122.59.167.152 ( talk) 08:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Jerusalem is Israeli territory" can you please cite that? Greg Kaye 16:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't imply that Jerusalem is entirely in Israeli territory, if that's what you're thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.70.42 ( talk) 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wanted to ask why Israel is recognised as a 'state' when it is infact an illegal occupation... Yet Palestine is not recognised at all as a state... Muzaffariqbal1 ( talk) 08:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The first line of the lead of the Israel article notes the English, Arabic, and Hebrew transliterations of the name along with their IPAs. Consequently, the first line is heavily cluttered. About three quarters of the line is text that most of our readership will not be able to understand. Most of our readers do not speak Arabic or Hebrew or understand IPA. I submitted a motion to clear the first line of this text, perhaps moving the material to some other section of the article. I noticed that the infobox in the top-right of the article already has the Hebrew and Arabic translations of "State of Israel", so I see no need for them to be in the first sentence of the lead.
It was pointed out to me that this is a problem that appears across many articles concerning countries with multiple official languages, such as Switzerland. Since the issue is widespread, I would like some external comments. These articles all seem to be in violation of WP:LEADCLUTTER. Kurzon ( talk) 03:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Israel ( /ˈɪzreɪəl/ or /ˈɪzriːəl/), officially the State of Israel"; then there is a bracket; then there is the text at issue which contains a very significant changes of formating styles and which, if anything, is consistent in its variation; then there is a close bracket; then, after less than one line of text (at least on display on my screen) we get back to a more expected presentation of text in Latin script. Once finding the beginning of the bracketed section, it is relatively easy to find the end. Kurzon by extension of the rationale that you have presented we could also remove the first three pictures from the article as they all present otherwise unexplained symbols and scripts. Greg Kaye 06:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Butler2007p82
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Visweswaran2013p7
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).On 28 October 1991 both the Senate and the House of Representatives legislated perhaps the most important legal pronouncement on Tibet. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal year 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138 (H..1415) declared Tibet, including those areas: incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai, is an occupied country under the established principles of international law; (2) Tibets true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile as recognized by the Tibetan people, and finally calls for Tibetan peoples right to self-determination
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
This section is a continuation of "Longest military occupation - session 2". see also: [1]
According to the following quote, the longest modern military occupation is in Kashmir: "If we consider the postwar legal regime that established the international laws that regulate and administer occupation, Kashmir is the first site of contemporary military occupation, yet its history remains comparatively less known than that of Palestine or Iraq, even though the number of Indian troops posted in Kashmir approaches 700,000 more than twice the US. forces in Iraq at the height of the military occupation there". [2] Hence the article sentence: "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times" is incorrect. Ykantor ( talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment the cited references for the "longest military occupation" statement present:
"See for example:
"
* Hajjar, Lisa (2005).
Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza. University of California Press. p. 96.
ISBN
0520241940. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is the longest military occupation in modern times.
*
Anderson, Perry (July–August 2001).
"Editorial: Scurrying Towards Bethlehem". New Left Review. 10. ...longest official military occupation of modern history—currently entering its thirty-fifth year
*
Makdisi, Saree (2010).
Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation. W. W. Norton & Company.
ISBN
9780393338447. ...longest-lasting military occupation of the modern age
*
Kretzmer, David (Spring 2012).
"The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel" (PDF). International Review of the Red Cross. 94 (885).
doi:
10.1017/S1816383112000446. This is probably the longest occupation in modern international relations, and it holds a central place in all literature on the law of belligerent occupation since the early 1970s
* Alexandrowicz, Ra'anan (24 January 2012),
The Justice of Occupation, The New York Times, Israel is the only modern state that has held territories under military occupation for over four decades
* Weill, Sharon (2014).
The Role of National Courts in Applying International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press. p. 22.
ISBN
9780199685424. Although the basic philosophy behind the law of military occupation is that it is a temporary situation modem occupations have well demonstrated that rien ne dure comme le provisoire A significant number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than two decades such as the occupations of Namibia by South Africa and of East Timor by Indonesia as well as the ongoing occupations of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is the longest in all occupation's history has already entered its fifth decade.
This is not an issue that I have greatly followed but I had gathered that the issue was clear. Greg Kaye 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of the longest-this, biggest-that, style of writing, but the extraordinary length of this occupation is one of its most notably features so it absolutely must be mentioned. Not just the length of it, but the extraordinary nature of that length. It would be easy to add additional excellent references that it is the longest. Zero talk 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article should impart factual description of its subject. It should not approach the subject with a polemical attack. The BDS movement disapproves not merely of the "occupation," (itself a charged term despite its adoption by foreign diplomats) but of the existence of Israel as a Jewish State altogether. (This point of view is also implicit in the Palestinian Authority's refusal to agree to recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" during last year's framework negotiations with Israel mediated by John Kerry and the Obama administration.) Inasmuch as the word "occupation" has been adopted by the BDS movement some years ago now as a code-phrase for attacks on the integrity, security, and sovereignty of the State of Israel, I personally am motivated to again bring the question the prominence of its use in a Wikipedia article about Israel to this page. Would the BDS movement prefer the article to be renamed "The Fascist Occupying State of Israel?" That would be highly improper regardless of the number of Wikipedia Editors or Administrators who might like to see that! In short, it is inappropriate to demonize the subject of any Wikipedia article. The Israeli authorities, indeed, might prefer that Wikipedia simply excise any article entitled "Israel," preferring to separate its fortunes from a Wikipedia that is so implacably opposed to its existence as a Jewish State. The idea that Israel is "occupying" territory that is part and parcel of the historic Land of Israel, and indeed that was contemplated in the San Remo agreement as part of a modern Jewish State, is highly questionable, prima facie. Israel conquered the West Bank, a.k.a., Judea and Samaria, in 1967 at its peril. To the victors go the spoils. As far as voting rights for Arabs there are concerned, the establishment of areas under Palestinian Arab authority as contemplated by the Oslo accords has provided a measure of self-determination which could be further expanded for those indigenous Moslems. The Arab-Israeli conflict is highly unique. Attempting to frame it in terms of, e.g., colonialism, or, e.g., terms analogous to South African Apartheid or other struggles for self-determination is to perpetuate a serious miscarriage of justice. Hence, "I would like to see the phrase Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times.[note 3][28]" removed, per se, from this article and placed in a separate article that covers the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question. Jabeles ( talk) 16:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Kashmir is not recognized as occupied in any international fora, certainly not with anything approaching the consensus on Palestine. It is of course true that there are a huge number of Indian troops there, and there is widespread separatist sentiment. Tibet is not occupied either, there is no country in the world that recognizes it as occupied. There were and remain border disputes, and problems with autonomy and repression, but that is not the same as occupation technically. International law can be crazy and inconsistent, but that's the way it is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we just not mention the longest occupation line since it is not npov and is not necessarily even true. The US is technically occupying Native American land, Tibet and Kashmir are both occupied, as well as similar occupations elsewhere. This line will just inflame tensions further for this article. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 17:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not going to accept with equanimity the pejorative/polemic tone of the subject statement (regarding longest military occupation). Neither should any Wikipedia Editor or Administrator with a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. To wit, the statement clearly is meant to calumnify Israel, the only Jewish State in the middle east. Clearly, the implication is that the occupation is a bad thing because it deprives certain individuals of self-determination and imposes inconveniences or hardships upon them! But the question is, who is responsible for the undesired state-of-affairs? That is the key point, and it is implicit. The clear and extremely biased insinuation is that the responsibility falls upon the occupying power, i.e., upon the State of Israel. But is this so? That isn't addressed in these talk pages. If the main page describing the State of Israel implicitly criticizes Israel savagely without justification, that is not a neutral point of view. The main page, to satisfy neutrality concerns, needs to touch upon the question of whose fault it is that this occupation has lasted since 1967 (48 years), and moreover acknowledge de minimus that there is honest disagreement among well-intentioned individuals as to (indeed) which side may be responsible. FURTHERMORE, the citation of scholarly and journalistic works claiming to justify a one-sided point of view (regarding the "occupation" being solely the responsibility of Israel) is fundamentally flawed since OBVIOUSLY one could find competing journalistic or scholarly works, or both, that would take an opposing point-of-view. So please dispense with that silliness. Jabeles ( talk) 22:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
After all the verbiage here, we still have the undeniable fact that a large number of highly respectable sources state that this is the longest modern occupation. That makes it available for addition according to the rules, and nobody has provided a rule-based argument for its omission. Nor any logically valid argument, in my opinion. So add it already and think of something else to argue about. Zero talk 10:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Beside engaging in soapboxing, many editors here are engaging in original research. Our aim is to summarize what the sources say, not to invent a narrative to defend our country against a perceived slight. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 12:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Question on the language in the infobox... There has been a distinction made between Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew, but not between Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic. Modern Hebrew is not a different language than Biblical Hebrew, just an updated version - if you can speak/read/write one, you can speak/read/write the other with some minor stylistic differences. Biblical Hebrew is not spoken now. Is that not the same difference as Classical vs Modern Standard Arabic? Classical Arabic is what is used in the Quran, while Modern Standard Arabic is what is spoken now. While there is no named difference between the two variants, they are in fact variants. I just noticed there was a few edits regarding this and wanted some clarification. Goalie1998 ( talk) 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A large portion of the population of Israel are not citizens and cannot vote, which violates the definition of universal sufferage. Also apparently my opinions are "misconceptions" which apparently must be fixed. Scientus ( talk) 07:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it necessary or useful to the article have a picture of a generic child (I am aware it is Bar Rafaeli, and that she is Israeli) in the Demographics section? Maybe remove it, or replace it with something that more appropriately depicts the demographics of Israel? Goalie1998 ( talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Goalie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.70.42 ( talk) 17:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The statement that "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed" is misleading and I believe biased. It suggests that Jerusalem is Israeli territory, but that some dispute this. The reality is that few countries recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. A more accurate statement would be "Israel annexed occupied Jerusalem, an act which is not recognized internationally". 122.59.167.152 ( talk) 08:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Jerusalem is Israeli territory" can you please cite that? Greg Kaye 16:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't imply that Jerusalem is entirely in Israeli territory, if that's what you're thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.70.42 ( talk) 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wanted to ask why Israel is recognised as a 'state' when it is infact an illegal occupation... Yet Palestine is not recognised at all as a state... Muzaffariqbal1 ( talk) 08:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The first line of the lead of the Israel article notes the English, Arabic, and Hebrew transliterations of the name along with their IPAs. Consequently, the first line is heavily cluttered. About three quarters of the line is text that most of our readership will not be able to understand. Most of our readers do not speak Arabic or Hebrew or understand IPA. I submitted a motion to clear the first line of this text, perhaps moving the material to some other section of the article. I noticed that the infobox in the top-right of the article already has the Hebrew and Arabic translations of "State of Israel", so I see no need for them to be in the first sentence of the lead.
It was pointed out to me that this is a problem that appears across many articles concerning countries with multiple official languages, such as Switzerland. Since the issue is widespread, I would like some external comments. These articles all seem to be in violation of WP:LEADCLUTTER. Kurzon ( talk) 03:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Israel ( /ˈɪzreɪəl/ or /ˈɪzriːəl/), officially the State of Israel"; then there is a bracket; then there is the text at issue which contains a very significant changes of formating styles and which, if anything, is consistent in its variation; then there is a close bracket; then, after less than one line of text (at least on display on my screen) we get back to a more expected presentation of text in Latin script. Once finding the beginning of the bracketed section, it is relatively easy to find the end. Kurzon by extension of the rationale that you have presented we could also remove the first three pictures from the article as they all present otherwise unexplained symbols and scripts. Greg Kaye 06:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Butler2007p82
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Visweswaran2013p7
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).On 28 October 1991 both the Senate and the House of Representatives legislated perhaps the most important legal pronouncement on Tibet. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal year 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138 (H..1415) declared Tibet, including those areas: incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai, is an occupied country under the established principles of international law; (2) Tibets true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile as recognized by the Tibetan people, and finally calls for Tibetan peoples right to self-determination