This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Israeli occupation of the West Bank was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() |
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Does it make sense to have "media coverage" be the first section in this article? It seems awkward. I'd propose to move this section to the bottom, unless someone has a better suggestion. DMH43 ( talk) 18:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Rename “state of assymmetric war” to “methods of enforcing and resisting the occupation”
Rename “wider implications” to “exporting methods of enforcing the occupation” and possibly adding a discussion on the occupation setting a precedant in international law. DMH43 ( talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Rename "Conquest" to "Beginning of the Occupation", since the territory has not been formally annexed into Israel and even the Israeli Supreme Court recognizes it as occupied territory. Also, other articles about the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank do not use the morally loaded/antiquated word "Conquest", and they legally annexed it (a step that Israel has not taken). -- Tobyw87 ( talk) 21:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Israeli Occupation of the West Bank", not "Israeli Conquest of the West Bank
it seems like editors here want to 'vilify Israel using a different lexicon than it wants to use to describe similar actions taken by other states in the region
The "Legal status" section claims that Yoram Dinstein contests two claims:
However, the source cited (Galchinsky, 2004) only supports his contesting of the first claim. I've added a Failed verification template. Dotyoyo ( talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The article currently says "The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 established that force may not be used to deny self-determination, and that recourse to force to resist colonial or alien domination is legitimate.
" And then gives this quote by renowned scholar
Richard Falk:
Without entering into the substantive details, the main relevant point is that the historic 1960 UN General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples establishes four important propositions. First, force to deny self-determination is prohibited under international law. Second, and conversely, 'forcible resistance to forcible denial of self-determination—by imposing or maintaining colonial or alien domination—is legitimate according to the Declaration.' Third, movements to achieve self-determination, although not qualifying as states, have standing in international law, including the right to receive support from outside actors. Finally, third-party governments can treat such movements as legitimate without encroaching on the rights of the state exercising control over the territory and its inhabitants." (Falk 2002, p. 26)
Falk gives the following reference: Abi-Saab, “Wars of National Liberation", p 416.
I think that's an error. On page 415-416 Abi-Saab quotes
Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.
That quote comes from United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970), not United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960), as can be seen here. Abi-Saad mentions the 1960 and 1970 resolutions in quick succession (on page 414) so I can see why it may have been easy to make that error. I think it should be corrected in the article, given that 1514 doesn't talk about using force to achieve self-determination. VR (Please ping on reply) 02:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
International law is silent on the rights of an occupied people to resist an occupation that flagrantly and persistently violates their most fundamental rights Such rights do seem to flow directly, however, from the general support given to the dynam ics of decolonization and from the related legitimacy of efforts by a colonized or oppressed people to engage in struggle, including armed struggle. [1]
would require an extended footnote if not indeed a whole article to clarify": @ Nishidani, I'm trying to do exactly that here. Any feedback is appreciated. I can also move this to mainspace and you can then edit directly. VR (Please ping on reply) 00:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Abi-Saab, Georges (1985). "Wars of National Liberation and the Laws of War". In Falk, Richard; Kratochwil, Friedrich; Mendlovitz, Saul H. (eds.). International Law: A Contemporary Perspective. Westview Press. pp. 410–436. ISBN 978-0-865-31241-8. Nishidani ( talk) 13:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The article has major POV issues. For example, it continues to treat the issue as part of a dispute, when in reality the issue was settled by the ICJ and every other human rights organization. It treats the Israeli POV as being a valid one despite having been refuted by the ICJ. It also mentions a lot of things that are less relevant to the body; for example, elaborations on the settlements like the number of settlers and units is not mentioned, while there is an entire paragraph on the Israeli government's views. These are some of the actionable issues to be addressed. Makeandtoss ( talk) 09:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I made a trip down memory lane to look at how I first drafted the lead. I.e.
The Israeli Occupation of the West Bank refers to the Belligerent Occupation and the impact of the ongoing process of colonization/settlement [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [a] of that territory undertaken by the state of Israel from 1967 to the present day. The status of being an occupied territory, has been affirmed by both the International Court of Justice and by the Israeli Supreme Court, [11] though the official Israel government view is that the law of occupation does not apply. [12] [13] The United Nations Security Council likewise has consistently reaffirmed that settlements in that territory are void of legality and a 'flagrant violation of international law'. [14] Military occupations of this kind continue on the premise that a state of cease-fire exists, in theory temporary, which maintains the status of a conflictual arrangement denying the Palestinians, technically Protected persons under the First Geneva Convention, [b] the right to self-determination. [16] [c] [d]
It is reputed to be perhaps 'the most closely studied conflict on earth', [e] and controversies abound even to what terminology is appropriate to narrate the realities, pro-Israeli sources favouring one set of terms and the Palestinian Authority advocating a different nomenclature. Observers have dedicated much analysis of the implications of keywords that tend to dominate the respective discourses. This dissension extends to the issue of the way the media, both traditional and social, portray the conflict, with arguments protesting either a systematic pro-Israeli bias or prejudice against Israel. The domain of public discussion is also subject to intense contestation: some organizations claims pro-Israeli Jewish students are subject to vilification and harassment on campus. [20] Others note that proposed talks on campus can be rescinded for fears that audiences might not be sufficiently prepared to evaluate objectively the material to be presented. [f] Attempts have been made to silence several high-profile critics of Israeli policies in the territories, among them Tony Judt, Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad, Nadia Abu El-Haj and William I. Robinson. [22] Such difficulties have given rise to anxieties that the topic itself is at risk, and that the political pressures and taboos circumscribing research and discussion undermine Academic freedom itself. [23] [24]
The length of Israel’s prolonged occupation was already regarded as 'exceptional' after two decades [25] [g] and is now deemed to be the longest in modern history, [27] [16]suggesting that, rather than a temporary occupation, it is an extension of a colonial project [28] [h] [i] outlined as early as Theodor Herzl [31] which is how Palestinians view it. [j] Generally international jurists affirm that, the longer the occupation, the greater must be the weight of the occupied people's humanitarian needs in any assessment of the occupying power's security measures. [33] It is widely considered to be a classic example of an 'intractable' conflict. [34] [k]
On the 50th anniversary of the Occupation, Human Rights Watch stated that Israel’s methods of control consist of 'repression, institutionalized discrimination, and systematic abuses of the Palestinian population’s rights', and involve five types of major violations of International human rights law. [l] The system developed has often been likened to that of apartheid. The broad thrust of Israeli ethnic and geopolitical policies since the foundation of the state, following Mandatory tactics, has been perceived as one intent on Divide and rule (hafrayd umshol) [37] [38] [39] and, in the case of West Bank Palestinians, given their ethnic unity, to exploit class and village/urban differences, [40] and to splinter them into different factions in order to undermine their collective bargaining power, and then negotiate with the weakest actor. [41]
The occupation has numerous critics in Israel, and some, among them Jeff Halpern, argue that the technologies Israel has developed to contain Palestinian national aspirations have been widely adopted and now play a pivotal role in the broader sphere of global pacification. [42]
Overlong, yes. But it does what this endlessly revised lead has failed to do, i.e. sum up the article content, as required by lead policy. Nishidani ( talk) 17:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I edited too many similar articles today, cannot remember which one lede paragraph highlighting Israeli government's position I was referring to, and unable to follow up on who inserted what anywhere. I have removed the POV tag. But I disagree with the current state of the lede. The opening paragraph must be kept general, neutral and brief; which it currently certainly isn't. The second lede paragraph should expand on how Israel moved in illegal settlers and how these settlers came to live under civilian rule thus solidifying Israel's institutionalized system of discrimination against the Palestinians under its occupation; checkpoints; etc. Third paragraph should be about Palestinian and Israeli politics and the debate which was settled by the ICJ (and had already been settled by other RS). Fourth paragraph should be about international repercussions. Makeandtoss ( talk) 22:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Israeli occupation of the West Bank was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() |
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Does it make sense to have "media coverage" be the first section in this article? It seems awkward. I'd propose to move this section to the bottom, unless someone has a better suggestion. DMH43 ( talk) 18:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Rename “state of assymmetric war” to “methods of enforcing and resisting the occupation”
Rename “wider implications” to “exporting methods of enforcing the occupation” and possibly adding a discussion on the occupation setting a precedant in international law. DMH43 ( talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Rename "Conquest" to "Beginning of the Occupation", since the territory has not been formally annexed into Israel and even the Israeli Supreme Court recognizes it as occupied territory. Also, other articles about the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank do not use the morally loaded/antiquated word "Conquest", and they legally annexed it (a step that Israel has not taken). -- Tobyw87 ( talk) 21:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Israeli Occupation of the West Bank", not "Israeli Conquest of the West Bank
it seems like editors here want to 'vilify Israel using a different lexicon than it wants to use to describe similar actions taken by other states in the region
The "Legal status" section claims that Yoram Dinstein contests two claims:
However, the source cited (Galchinsky, 2004) only supports his contesting of the first claim. I've added a Failed verification template. Dotyoyo ( talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The article currently says "The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 established that force may not be used to deny self-determination, and that recourse to force to resist colonial or alien domination is legitimate.
" And then gives this quote by renowned scholar
Richard Falk:
Without entering into the substantive details, the main relevant point is that the historic 1960 UN General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples establishes four important propositions. First, force to deny self-determination is prohibited under international law. Second, and conversely, 'forcible resistance to forcible denial of self-determination—by imposing or maintaining colonial or alien domination—is legitimate according to the Declaration.' Third, movements to achieve self-determination, although not qualifying as states, have standing in international law, including the right to receive support from outside actors. Finally, third-party governments can treat such movements as legitimate without encroaching on the rights of the state exercising control over the territory and its inhabitants." (Falk 2002, p. 26)
Falk gives the following reference: Abi-Saab, “Wars of National Liberation", p 416.
I think that's an error. On page 415-416 Abi-Saab quotes
Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.
That quote comes from United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970), not United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960), as can be seen here. Abi-Saad mentions the 1960 and 1970 resolutions in quick succession (on page 414) so I can see why it may have been easy to make that error. I think it should be corrected in the article, given that 1514 doesn't talk about using force to achieve self-determination. VR (Please ping on reply) 02:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
International law is silent on the rights of an occupied people to resist an occupation that flagrantly and persistently violates their most fundamental rights Such rights do seem to flow directly, however, from the general support given to the dynam ics of decolonization and from the related legitimacy of efforts by a colonized or oppressed people to engage in struggle, including armed struggle. [1]
would require an extended footnote if not indeed a whole article to clarify": @ Nishidani, I'm trying to do exactly that here. Any feedback is appreciated. I can also move this to mainspace and you can then edit directly. VR (Please ping on reply) 00:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Abi-Saab, Georges (1985). "Wars of National Liberation and the Laws of War". In Falk, Richard; Kratochwil, Friedrich; Mendlovitz, Saul H. (eds.). International Law: A Contemporary Perspective. Westview Press. pp. 410–436. ISBN 978-0-865-31241-8. Nishidani ( talk) 13:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The article has major POV issues. For example, it continues to treat the issue as part of a dispute, when in reality the issue was settled by the ICJ and every other human rights organization. It treats the Israeli POV as being a valid one despite having been refuted by the ICJ. It also mentions a lot of things that are less relevant to the body; for example, elaborations on the settlements like the number of settlers and units is not mentioned, while there is an entire paragraph on the Israeli government's views. These are some of the actionable issues to be addressed. Makeandtoss ( talk) 09:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I made a trip down memory lane to look at how I first drafted the lead. I.e.
The Israeli Occupation of the West Bank refers to the Belligerent Occupation and the impact of the ongoing process of colonization/settlement [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [a] of that territory undertaken by the state of Israel from 1967 to the present day. The status of being an occupied territory, has been affirmed by both the International Court of Justice and by the Israeli Supreme Court, [11] though the official Israel government view is that the law of occupation does not apply. [12] [13] The United Nations Security Council likewise has consistently reaffirmed that settlements in that territory are void of legality and a 'flagrant violation of international law'. [14] Military occupations of this kind continue on the premise that a state of cease-fire exists, in theory temporary, which maintains the status of a conflictual arrangement denying the Palestinians, technically Protected persons under the First Geneva Convention, [b] the right to self-determination. [16] [c] [d]
It is reputed to be perhaps 'the most closely studied conflict on earth', [e] and controversies abound even to what terminology is appropriate to narrate the realities, pro-Israeli sources favouring one set of terms and the Palestinian Authority advocating a different nomenclature. Observers have dedicated much analysis of the implications of keywords that tend to dominate the respective discourses. This dissension extends to the issue of the way the media, both traditional and social, portray the conflict, with arguments protesting either a systematic pro-Israeli bias or prejudice against Israel. The domain of public discussion is also subject to intense contestation: some organizations claims pro-Israeli Jewish students are subject to vilification and harassment on campus. [20] Others note that proposed talks on campus can be rescinded for fears that audiences might not be sufficiently prepared to evaluate objectively the material to be presented. [f] Attempts have been made to silence several high-profile critics of Israeli policies in the territories, among them Tony Judt, Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad, Nadia Abu El-Haj and William I. Robinson. [22] Such difficulties have given rise to anxieties that the topic itself is at risk, and that the political pressures and taboos circumscribing research and discussion undermine Academic freedom itself. [23] [24]
The length of Israel’s prolonged occupation was already regarded as 'exceptional' after two decades [25] [g] and is now deemed to be the longest in modern history, [27] [16]suggesting that, rather than a temporary occupation, it is an extension of a colonial project [28] [h] [i] outlined as early as Theodor Herzl [31] which is how Palestinians view it. [j] Generally international jurists affirm that, the longer the occupation, the greater must be the weight of the occupied people's humanitarian needs in any assessment of the occupying power's security measures. [33] It is widely considered to be a classic example of an 'intractable' conflict. [34] [k]
On the 50th anniversary of the Occupation, Human Rights Watch stated that Israel’s methods of control consist of 'repression, institutionalized discrimination, and systematic abuses of the Palestinian population’s rights', and involve five types of major violations of International human rights law. [l] The system developed has often been likened to that of apartheid. The broad thrust of Israeli ethnic and geopolitical policies since the foundation of the state, following Mandatory tactics, has been perceived as one intent on Divide and rule (hafrayd umshol) [37] [38] [39] and, in the case of West Bank Palestinians, given their ethnic unity, to exploit class and village/urban differences, [40] and to splinter them into different factions in order to undermine their collective bargaining power, and then negotiate with the weakest actor. [41]
The occupation has numerous critics in Israel, and some, among them Jeff Halpern, argue that the technologies Israel has developed to contain Palestinian national aspirations have been widely adopted and now play a pivotal role in the broader sphere of global pacification. [42]
Overlong, yes. But it does what this endlessly revised lead has failed to do, i.e. sum up the article content, as required by lead policy. Nishidani ( talk) 17:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I edited too many similar articles today, cannot remember which one lede paragraph highlighting Israeli government's position I was referring to, and unable to follow up on who inserted what anywhere. I have removed the POV tag. But I disagree with the current state of the lede. The opening paragraph must be kept general, neutral and brief; which it currently certainly isn't. The second lede paragraph should expand on how Israel moved in illegal settlers and how these settlers came to live under civilian rule thus solidifying Israel's institutionalized system of discrimination against the Palestinians under its occupation; checkpoints; etc. Third paragraph should be about Palestinian and Israeli politics and the debate which was settled by the ICJ (and had already been settled by other RS). Fourth paragraph should be about international repercussions. Makeandtoss ( talk) 22:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).