![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
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. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
![]() | A news item involving ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 July 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The new name is used by RS: [1], [2], [3] Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Article needs urgent expansion before 19 July.. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the move to the current title, but the lede is certainly problematic, much as the title itself, it should not be in italics, when the title was the same as the name of the case (and in italics) it indicated that this article was about a case with that name and not about the legal consequences themselves. Moreover, the way the lede is structured is a bit clunky: "The ICJ case [...] is a proceeding in the International Court of Justice (ICJ)". In my opinion, the lede should either use the name of the case in question as it was before the move (but keeping the current title) or rework it to not include either, something along the lines of: "An advisory opinion on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories was requested to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in December 2022." Cheers, Shrek 5 the divorce ( talk) 20:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I can’t change it, but this is a horrible case of REFERSTO, as it says “The ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories refers to a case”. Obviously the case doesn’t refer to a case, instead the case just IS a case. 86.31.178.164 ( talk) 15:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change existing '...is a proceeding bedore the International Court of Justice' to before the International Court of Justice.
It is just a typo. 2A00:23C5:E01D:F201:1CDB:C602:662D:D8BD ( talk) 16:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | It is
requested that an edit be made to the
extended-confirmed-protected article at
ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. (
·
history ·
last ·
links ·
protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any
extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
For the two vote tables in the article, I think it would be helpful to include a world map color coding each country's vote. I've made maps for the two vote tables.
I think the maps could be put alongside the tables in their respective sections, but I'm not sure if the tables are too wide for that.
SheepTester (
talk)
23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first sentence in the section “Political responses in Israel” contains a link to Weaponization of antisemitism. That link should not be there per WP:NPOV Amisom ( talk) 23:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m not able to edit the article myselfWhy not? Was your EC status reset?
And your personal opinion does not override Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy.Neither does yours. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "International Court of Justice has been "hijacked by islamicists."" into "International Court of Justice has been "hijacked by Islamists."" — 🧀The Cheesedealer squeak!⚟ 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this: "Israel countered the opinion by stating that a political settlement can only be attained through diplomatic negotiations"; this was actually addressed by the ICJ which explicitly said that Palestinian rights are not subject to the whim's of the occupying power; so why was this added? Makeandtoss ( talk) 12:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier: I still don't understand this part: "amount to a form of segregation in the occupied territories, although it did not decide whether the segregation was in fact apartheid." We have plenty of RS including HRW and AI saying that they had indeed said it amounted to apartheid. So why are we giving fringe Haaretz, which has a conflict of interest, more due weight? Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The court said the occupation is de facto annexation, answering the core question it was asked to address. It added that the occupation consists of "systematic discrimination, segregation and" – here comes the dreaded a-word – "apartheid."
Yea, I don't know where they got that from, it's in quotes but I can't find it anywhere and attributed to a couple Haaretz authors plus AP plus Reuters so I wouldn't pay too much attention to that. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
224. A number of participants have argued that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory amount to segregation or apartheid, in breach of Article 3 of CERD.
225. Article 3 of CERD provides as follows: “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.” This provision refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination: racial segregation and apartheid.
Makeandtoss ( talk) 15:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)229. The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD.
the emission of appropriate mandates, I think this is what we ought to pay more attention to, the ICC warrants that have been requested notably do not include potential charges over the settlement issue but now, after this opinion (I prefer to think of it as an authoritative statement of the law), that low hanging fruit is there for the picking, I will be very interested to see whether the ICC goes for it. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
without saying the court disagreed on the apartheid analogyThe court en toto didn't disagree on the apartheid analogy. We discussed what the court said above.
RS, which almost unanimously agree that the ruling said it had amounted to apartheidI saw one, the Guardian, what others?
I think it would be justified to add a subsection Segregration versus apartheid within the #Analyses section. E.g. something along the lines of "The ICJ stated ..." (i.e. it decided to avoid specifically saying "the situation is apartheid"); HRW interpreted this with the statement, "...", Gross/Haaretz (sorry, I've only browsed the discussion, I haven't actually checked) interpeted this ... In other words, if notable experts consider the ICJ to have effectively stated that the situation is apartheid while avoiding it in legal terms, or think that the ICJ chose this wording in order to achieve consensus among the judges, then we can report that as part of the debate in interpreting the ruling. But this is separate from the ICJ's chosen wording in its ruling. If a notable expert sees essentially no difference between segregation and apartheid, then that can be quoted or summarised. After all, whether all forms of racism are "a single thing" or are distinct by nuances or are hugely and fundamentally different from one another is one of the key issues of the whole I/P conflict. Boud ( talk) 23:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Nishidani: @ Boud: @ Selfstudier: I think the most appropriate middle ground solution -for now- would be to say it the way RS like the Intercept and the Guardian framed it: "also found Israel to be violating an international agreement against racial segregation and apartheid;" without elaborating whether it did label Israel as apartheid. Would you support such a compromise? Makeandtoss ( talk) 08:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
settle this issueovernight, we should wait for a bit.
Significantly, the ICJ found Israel’s laws and measures maintained “a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities” and these breached the international prohibition on “racial segregation and apartheid”.
[7] Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)The Israeli government has long rejected claims of apartheid, but the ICJ ruling is consistent with allegations levelled by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Jerusalem-based non-government organisation B’Tselem.
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
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. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
![]() | A news item involving ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 July 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The new name is used by RS: [1], [2], [3] Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Article needs urgent expansion before 19 July.. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the move to the current title, but the lede is certainly problematic, much as the title itself, it should not be in italics, when the title was the same as the name of the case (and in italics) it indicated that this article was about a case with that name and not about the legal consequences themselves. Moreover, the way the lede is structured is a bit clunky: "The ICJ case [...] is a proceeding in the International Court of Justice (ICJ)". In my opinion, the lede should either use the name of the case in question as it was before the move (but keeping the current title) or rework it to not include either, something along the lines of: "An advisory opinion on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories was requested to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in December 2022." Cheers, Shrek 5 the divorce ( talk) 20:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I can’t change it, but this is a horrible case of REFERSTO, as it says “The ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories refers to a case”. Obviously the case doesn’t refer to a case, instead the case just IS a case. 86.31.178.164 ( talk) 15:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change existing '...is a proceeding bedore the International Court of Justice' to before the International Court of Justice.
It is just a typo. 2A00:23C5:E01D:F201:1CDB:C602:662D:D8BD ( talk) 16:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | It is
requested that an edit be made to the
extended-confirmed-protected article at
ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. (
·
history ·
last ·
links ·
protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any
extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
For the two vote tables in the article, I think it would be helpful to include a world map color coding each country's vote. I've made maps for the two vote tables.
I think the maps could be put alongside the tables in their respective sections, but I'm not sure if the tables are too wide for that.
SheepTester (
talk)
23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first sentence in the section “Political responses in Israel” contains a link to Weaponization of antisemitism. That link should not be there per WP:NPOV Amisom ( talk) 23:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m not able to edit the article myselfWhy not? Was your EC status reset?
And your personal opinion does not override Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy.Neither does yours. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "International Court of Justice has been "hijacked by islamicists."" into "International Court of Justice has been "hijacked by Islamists."" — 🧀The Cheesedealer squeak!⚟ 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this: "Israel countered the opinion by stating that a political settlement can only be attained through diplomatic negotiations"; this was actually addressed by the ICJ which explicitly said that Palestinian rights are not subject to the whim's of the occupying power; so why was this added? Makeandtoss ( talk) 12:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier: I still don't understand this part: "amount to a form of segregation in the occupied territories, although it did not decide whether the segregation was in fact apartheid." We have plenty of RS including HRW and AI saying that they had indeed said it amounted to apartheid. So why are we giving fringe Haaretz, which has a conflict of interest, more due weight? Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The court said the occupation is de facto annexation, answering the core question it was asked to address. It added that the occupation consists of "systematic discrimination, segregation and" – here comes the dreaded a-word – "apartheid."
Yea, I don't know where they got that from, it's in quotes but I can't find it anywhere and attributed to a couple Haaretz authors plus AP plus Reuters so I wouldn't pay too much attention to that. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
224. A number of participants have argued that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory amount to segregation or apartheid, in breach of Article 3 of CERD.
225. Article 3 of CERD provides as follows: “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.” This provision refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination: racial segregation and apartheid.
Makeandtoss ( talk) 15:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)229. The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD.
the emission of appropriate mandates, I think this is what we ought to pay more attention to, the ICC warrants that have been requested notably do not include potential charges over the settlement issue but now, after this opinion (I prefer to think of it as an authoritative statement of the law), that low hanging fruit is there for the picking, I will be very interested to see whether the ICC goes for it. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
without saying the court disagreed on the apartheid analogyThe court en toto didn't disagree on the apartheid analogy. We discussed what the court said above.
RS, which almost unanimously agree that the ruling said it had amounted to apartheidI saw one, the Guardian, what others?
I think it would be justified to add a subsection Segregration versus apartheid within the #Analyses section. E.g. something along the lines of "The ICJ stated ..." (i.e. it decided to avoid specifically saying "the situation is apartheid"); HRW interpreted this with the statement, "...", Gross/Haaretz (sorry, I've only browsed the discussion, I haven't actually checked) interpeted this ... In other words, if notable experts consider the ICJ to have effectively stated that the situation is apartheid while avoiding it in legal terms, or think that the ICJ chose this wording in order to achieve consensus among the judges, then we can report that as part of the debate in interpreting the ruling. But this is separate from the ICJ's chosen wording in its ruling. If a notable expert sees essentially no difference between segregation and apartheid, then that can be quoted or summarised. After all, whether all forms of racism are "a single thing" or are distinct by nuances or are hugely and fundamentally different from one another is one of the key issues of the whole I/P conflict. Boud ( talk) 23:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Nishidani: @ Boud: @ Selfstudier: I think the most appropriate middle ground solution -for now- would be to say it the way RS like the Intercept and the Guardian framed it: "also found Israel to be violating an international agreement against racial segregation and apartheid;" without elaborating whether it did label Israel as apartheid. Would you support such a compromise? Makeandtoss ( talk) 08:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
settle this issueovernight, we should wait for a bit.
Significantly, the ICJ found Israel’s laws and measures maintained “a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities” and these breached the international prohibition on “racial segregation and apartheid”.
[7] Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)The Israeli government has long rejected claims of apartheid, but the ICJ ruling is consistent with allegations levelled by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Jerusalem-based non-government organisation B’Tselem.