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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
While the UN like most international organizations regards an occupation of a territory as an unfavorable temporary situation, this is not an illegal state of affairs as long as the reasons for the occupation can be justified by the international law and the humanitarian international law is kept by the occupying country. The UN never said that the the Israeli occupation of the territories captured in 1967 was illegal in principle. It did determine that certain actions of Israel as the occupaying force were illegal. In fact, the 242 and 338 security council resolutions states that Israel's neighboring countries should recognize it and allow it to live within peaceful secure borders before Israel hands back these territories. DrorK ( talk) 10:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"ISRAEL DOES not fit the literal definition of an occupying force. The Hague Conventions and the later Geneva Conventions of 1949 do not appear to apply definitively to the West Bank. The West Bank has never been sovereign territory, and was won from a nation which held no legal claim to the area. After Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza, former Supreme Court president Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since the convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign which was ousted, and that it had been a legitimate sovereign.""- Ashley Perry, I read about this and had trouble finding the article. The actual situation is that Olmert was undergoing a land sale to save his group, anyone giving up land puts the country in danger! -- Saxophonemn ( talk) 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have arisen from Drork's explanation of this edit [1] , which removed the word "illegally" before "occupied". Since (so far as I know) nobody is arguing for or attempting to reinsert the word "illegally" or strike the word "occupied" in the sentence in question, the above debates are mostly unnecessary. If someone wants to suggest alternative wording for the sentence in question then there would be a basis for continuing. Sanguinalis ( talk) 15:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Note that UN GA resolutions are non binding opinion pieces, the GA contains the alliance of non aligned states a majority against Israel! It's like finding a White Power rally declaring Jews to be scum, nothing remarkable. Additionally Israel doesn't recognize the ICJ for its unfair treatment, and it's logistical conflict of impartiality. Stating the occupation is illegal requires the state that was occupied to complain that they're being occupied, oh wait, not possible. The Geneva convention refers to actions that were post WW2 population expulsions, not settlements. Seriously though what should Israel have done revert to a border that worked so well before. UN SC Res 465 never actually states illegality, the context of a resolution is very important. -- Saxophonemn ( talk) 20:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this sentence in the Name section of the article:
Since 1967, the territories have been called "occupied Palestinian territories" by most members of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
When the subject is terminology currently used by the United Nations — the text actually says "most members of the United Nations", but who has done a survey? — there is no question that all three words in Occupied Palestinian Territories are in fact capitalized. It is easy to find reams of UN documents where it is written that way. Here's a typical General Assembly resolution: [2]. The term Occupied Palestinian Territories, with each word capitalized, also appears not just in resolutions but in numerous UN agency reports, studies, and reference materials. It also appears that way in the ICJ ruling on the West Bank separation barrier. By the way, "since 1967" is not correct. So far as I know, the term Occuipied Palestinian Territories (now often abbreviated as OPT) first appears in UN documents in the mid-1980s. Before that you generally see references to "occupied Arab territories" (which of course referred to a larger area), as in this example: [3]. Absent a published study on the question, we ought not to attempt to pinpoint the exact time the term OPT came into widespread use. I think it's best to simply say what the current terminology is.
On this subject, the language the "Palestinian" label having gained wide use since the 1970s, in a later (and older) paragraph in the same section, is somewhat derogatory and smacks of editorializing. I removed the whole paragraph containing it, because there is now a preceding statement in the article that the UN uses the term OPT, because attempting to trace the history of the term is original research (as I have said), and because the implication in the the final statement that Resolution 181 used the description "Judea and Samaria" to mean the same entity that "Palestinian Territories" refers to today is simply false. The words Judea and Samaria do appear in that resolution, but they do not refer to the areas now known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a whole. Of course, before the 1948 war, the present Gaza and West Bank boundaries had no meaning; the closest thing at that time to what is now called the Palestinian Territories was the area allocated to the Arab state in the partition plan for Palestine. Resolution 181 does not refer to that area as "Judea and Samaria", it refers to it as "the Arab State". Sanguinalis ( talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"In proposing the motion, Mr. Ben Gurion intimated that the words "Jewish State" should be substituted for 'Commonwealth". He is also said to have made it clear that acceptance of the "Biltmore programme" was not to be taken as a definition of ultimate Zionist aims. A new world order, he said, was about to be established and the Jewish problem would once again be before an international forum. The resolutions represented immediate aims for submission to that forum, as the demands of the Jewish people." see Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1942. The Near East and Africa Volume IV, page Page 551
"Dr. Weizmann (President of the World Zionist Organization and ex-officio President of the Jewish Agency) expressed the view that the most advantageous settlement of the Palestine question in his opinion would be the division of the country into Jewish and Arab cantons with wide powers of autonomy and the federation of Palestine and Trans-Jordan into one state under continued British supervision for some time to come. As Jewish cantons he would include Galilee (northern Palestine) and the coastal region of Palestine, and as Arab cantons the hill country and western Palestine, together with Trans-Jordan." note that the Negev or southern Palestine were left out of the cantonization plan for subsequent disposition. Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1940. The British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, the Near East and Africa Volume III, page 837
In other words, Mr. Epstein continued, the Agency was unwilling to be placed in a position where it might have to compromise between the Morrison-Grady proposals on the one hand and its own partition plan on the other. This would inevitably result if the Morrison-Grady plan were to be considered first. Mr. Wilson inquired whether it would be correct to say that the Agency Executive had now accepted partition as the solution for Palestine which it favored. Mr. Epstein replied in the affirmative, pointing out that the decision to do so had been taken with only one member of the Executive voting against, and with three members abstaining. Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa Volume VII, page 693.
Palestinian territories are a proper adjective describing a plural noun. Thus the subject verb agreement of a subject noun which is a plural has to have a properly conjugated verb. Somehow no one seems to see the problem. (oops)-- Saxophonemn ( talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The only parallel I see is in United States, but that was out of a symbol of unity post the Civil War. After surviving a with hunt I'm back, BH!!-- Saxophonemn ( talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The new opener is up, I hope you all like it.-- Saxophonemn ( talk) 18:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with Hertz1888's suggestion to stop with "determined". Somehow we do need to convey the fact though that the PTs do not currently constitute a state. As to Saxophonemn's proposed changes, I think both of them (renaming the article, and the lead sentence) go too far in the direction of supporting a fringe view. Actually the current version of the article still has this problem. The fact is there is an overwhelming worldwide consensus that the territories are called the Palestinian Territories. The term is used in all the world's major newspapers, even conservative ones like the Wall Street Journal. The U.S. State Department uses the term routinely (note the capitalization here). To see the problem with making the lead about a term instead of the thing, imagine the lead for Israel reading "Israel is a designation, for many, of those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which were captured by Jewish forces in the 1948 Palestine war". Sanguinalis ( talk) 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I urge you all to read as well, a consensus was made that is was incorrect, no consensus was officially made a proposed suggestion was, and the grammar was correct in the correction. Yet, this ensues with assertions.
The sentence structure: definitive article-proper adjective - subject (plural) - linking verb - (of many) is an explanative (forgot the exact grammatical device/name) - and a string of prepositional phrases - that were originally in the sentence.
The sentence change fixed the major grammatical error of the sentence, the rest was simply just poor style. (Forgot to sign)-- Saxophonemn ( talk) 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
We removed the bit where it said 'Perhaps' east Jerusalem is occupied territory. This is ridiculous. east Jerusalem is land not inlcuded in 1948 or 1949 borders. It was taken after the 1967 war and is occupied territory. Israel calls it it's capital, but no nation reconizes it because it is disputed. This article is riddled with bias and presentation of misleading facts, someone with more patience should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.104.220 ( talk) 16:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Not true at all. Jerusalem was founded circa 1000 BCE by King David. The notable places in East Jerusalem, specifically the Temple Mount (Harm al-Sharif), were also built by Jews, approximately 1600 years BEFORE the founding of Islam. This is well known and documented. After the 1948 War of Independence, Jordan completely occupied East Jerusalem, in violation of international law. East Jerusalem was liberated by Israel in 1967. Proteus7 ( talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I note Malik has removed Harlan's material. I'm diffident about contesting any judgement he makes. I find that material very usual as a basis for examining many I/P issues. Perhaps the sensible thing for Harlan to do is to take a leaf out of Huldra's book = User:Huldra/Sources. She has created a subpage for references to online sources and downloadable books on I/P history. If Harlan does the same, those who are following his close work on key sources can bookmark it, and keep updated. There's a huge indigestibly garbled blob of highly technical material in the Israeli Settlements article. Harlan at least has kept this to a talk page, as a reference to editors. Nishidani ( talk) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Malik may not have understood that this article already discusses these very topics and that its NPOV has been disputed. These are all easily verified examples of "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - mostly by the responsible governmental or intergovernmental entities themselves. They are legal and historical references that I suggest we incorporate into the article in an unbiased fashion. harlan ( talk) 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why the OPT is referred to as PT. This is not only clearly wrong, but actually misleads the public -- Surfer273 ( talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a good argument can be made that Occupied Palestinian Territories is the neutral name. After all, that is what the United Nations calls it. However, I think Palestinian Territories is fine too. It is the term which appears most frequently in news articles (outside Israel). It is also used by diplomats (including the US state department), and appears in many guide books (e.g., Lonely Planet). Realistically, any attempt to rename the article to OPT is likely to lead to an edit war. If you search the archives of this talk page, you will find there was a movement a couple years back to rename the article by pro-Israel editors who were opposed even to the PT title. I think we should leave the title as it is. I'd rather put energy into fixing the serious distortions in the article itself. Sanguinalis ( talk) 02:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
simple:Talk:Palestinian territories
Even if there is disagreement about part of the territories, Gaza is certainly not occupied. Furthermore, the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality guide lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.244.75 ( talk) 18:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Just changed 'US president George W Bush' to 'Former US President George W Bush' and edited the tense of the sentence accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baynardo7 ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is a bit confused. Am I right in understanding that East Jerusalem is considered "Occupied Palestinian Territory" by the United Nations, and all its members excluding Israel, that claims to have annexed it? The lede needs clarifying on this point. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of country categories says "This is a list of categories providing topic coverage on contemporary countries, states and dependencies." It correctly lists Palestinian Territories - State of Palestine.
In the US the term "Country" is used for any political entity known as a nation. see 19 C.F.R. PART 134.1 Definitions The US granted a request from the Palestinian National Authority for recognition of the West Bank and Gaza as a Country in view of developments including the Israeli-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. In a letter dated January 13, 1997, the Department of State advised the other agencies of the Executive branch that it considered the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes. see DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Customs Service, T.D. 97–16, Country of Origin Marking of Products From the West Bank and Gaza The Treasury Department subsequently stated that the country of origin markings of goods from the West Bank and Gaza shall not contain the words ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘‘Made in Israel,’’ ‘‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’’ or words of similar meaning.
The US Library of Congress (LOC) lists the Occupied Territories, West Bank, and Gaza as a Nation. The information is organized under headings for Constitution, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, Legal Guides, and General Sources. The LOC's Multinational Legal Guides lists the jurisdiction as "Palestine". The Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention (114 states) also consider the Palestinian Territories to be occupied territory. UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/63/201 was adopted by 164 votes to 8, with 5 abstentions. It declared the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 140 UN member states acknowledged the declaration of the State of Palestine in resolution 43/177, and 103 states have subsequently recognized the occupied area as the "State of Palestine". The Palestinian Authority submitted documents it said proved Palestine was a legal state to the ICC Prosecutor. They provided proof that 67 countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe had signed bilateral agreements with the State of Palestine.
The Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, is competent to order State and local authorities and the officials and bodies thereof, and other persons carrying out public functions under law, to do or refrain from doing any act in the lawful exercise of their functions. See Basic Law: The Judiciary. The High Court has ruled that: "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation." cited at "B. The Normative Outline in the Supreme Court's Caselaw, 1. Belligerent Occupation, 14." in 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel The Knesset could theoretically overrule the court, but it has not done that in the case of the West Bank, aka the administrative districts of Judea and Samaria.
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has established .ps as the top-level country-code for "Palestinian Territory, Occupied". The ISO Maintenance Agency lists the country name and country elements as "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", Alpha-2 code "PS", Alpha-3 code PSE, numeric code 275. The International Olympic Commission and FIFA formulate their own codes and names that differ from the ISO codes in many cases. The IOC has recognized the National Olympic Committee of "Palestine", Country Code "PSE", since 1996. The FIFA Integration Guidelines, Country and Confederation codes, lists "Palestine" and "PLE". Not allowing the majority or most significant published view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors is a classic violation of basic NPOV policy. harlan ( talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the article be renamed. I'm just pointing out why I reverted an edit and explaining why other editors should not delink the article about the country of Palestine from the article about the region of Palestine (in which it is situated). Dozens of countries recognize the Palestinian territory as the State of Palestine. That article was just restored. The article Proposals for a Palestinian State is really just an article about the final settlement between the two states. harlan ( talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the section about "Greater Israel" The phrase "some Zionists" are Weasel Words. Either quote specific people, or eliminate this sentence completely. Vague attributions create a mistaken impression about how widespread an idea is accepted.
Mftcellist ( talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC) mftcellist
Should it not be Palestinian Territories? Territories is part of a proper noun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.9.216 ( talk) 12:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
There are currently several articles, some of which are in bad shape, that merely reiterate the same information over and over again. They even contradict one another to some extent. We have an article about Palestine as a geographical region (fair enough), we have an article called Palestinian Territories, another one called Outline of Palestine which simply reiterates the same information in other words (it doesn't mention Israel, so it is not really different from the Palestinian Territories article). Then we have Proposals for a Palestinian state, which reiterate a lot of information already given here and in other articles, and we have a strange article called State of Palestine which includes a lot of false information based on a very broad interpretation of a certain user to a few sources. So, instead of spreading the information on so many articles, and having false and/or contradicting information on some of them, why won't we have one or two reasonably written articles? And by the way, the article about the State of Israel and the Land of Israel also include information about this very region, so we actually have at least six overlapping articles (maybe more). I know some bigger countries in Africa that didn't gain so much Wikipedian honor. DrorK ( talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the statement "The US believes in territorial integrity, withdrawal, and recognition of secure boundaries." from what is currently paragraph 3 in this section based on several factors: Firstly, the use of present tense is ambiguous (is this supposed to be a quote from a contemporary source, or it it supposed to refer to the present day?); secondly, at least at first glance it appears to be editorial opinion; thirdly, it's worded as a blanket statement that is so broad as to probably be factually wrong (it may be correct in reference to this particular issue, but that's not self-evident). If someone really believes it should be there, let me suggest As of 2010, the official position of the US government was that blah blah blah blah (insert source) or Mr. XYZ of the US State Department stated in 1967 that "(insert quote)".(insert source). It's possible that the sentence was a quotation from the reference cited for the entire paragraph, but if so that's not at all clear from the wording. 68.105.71.75 ( talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:POVFORK. Enough said. Breein1007 ( talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with Breein1007. This forking of articles about the Palestinian Territories has become a trend. DrorK ( talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it time to merge this article. It is clearly a POV-forking. DrorK ( talk) 07:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose we could have a string of articles under the heading of "Territories occupied by Israel".. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Merge. Int21h ( talk) 11:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it qualifies as a POV fork. It covers the exact same topic, however. Merge. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Per my reading of consensus at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory, I've gone ahead and merged the two articles. I do not claim that my merge is perfect or ideal and fully expect others to improve upon it. But, as the request was raised on my talk page, I suspect that if left alone, that the two articles would continue to exist with everybody worried about making a bold edit on this controversial subject.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Massive synthesis/POV push inviting the reader to consider the merits of being occupied by Israel. Never mind the billions in international aid, the section links the rise of Palestinian living standards with military occupation while managing to say nothing about the situation since 1990 which just might be germane to the article. Information is from a few questionable sources and the legit sources don't include all of the information presented. Sol ( talk) 03:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Wikifan if you think that I followed you to this article, I suggest that you check the article and talk page revision history again. Mitchell G. Bard has degrees in political science and economics, but he is not an authority on public health. The analysis provided by the authors of the Lancet article completely contradicts Bard. So I'm going to insist that any narrative analysis come from Lancet or UNICEF. Neither Lancet nor UNICEF attribute improvements in the statistical indicators to the Israeli occupation or any Israeli policy. Both reports are in-line with fact finding missions which report that Israel has created a humanitarian crisis in the territories. They report stunted growth and other permanent developmental problems in an inordinate percentage of the children reflecting chronic malnutrition. Lancet also describes extreme emotional problems and clinical depression in the general population.
The Lancet report says Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country in a WHO survey. It condemns the occupation, Israeli policy, and Israel's neglect of public health in the Occupied territories:
Between 1967 and 1993, health services for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory were neglected and starved of funds by the Israeli military administration, with shortages of staff, hospital beds, medications, and essential and specialised services, forcing Palestinians to depend on health services in Israel. For example, in 1975 the West Bank health budget was substantially lower than that of one Israeli hospital for the same year. The Palestinian response was to create independent Palestinian services through health, women’s, agricultural, and student social-action groups, all promoting community steadfastness on the land (sumud). This response also led to the development of a Palestinian health and medical care infrastructure, independent of the Israeli military, that still helps to meet the health needs of the population, especially during emergencies.
The story in the field of education is the same. Palestinians built their own institutions of higher learning without any Israeli funding - and despite Israeli attempts to close them dowm. See The Palestinian uprising: a war by other means, by F. Robert Hunter, page 22 [8] I'll be happy to add the World Bank information on curfews and closures, health, poverty, and subsistence poverty. The majority viewpoint is that Israel is illegally depriving the Palestinians of their right to work, right to an education, right to health, right to adequate sources of food and water, right to adequate housing, right to an adequate standard of living, right to freedom of movement, and in many cases the right to life itself. As a civil matter, most of that was contained in the ICJ's findings of fact in the Wall case. harlan ( talk) 05:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Myths&Facts is just about the most junky unreliable load of propaganda that is out there. It should never be used on Wikipedia as a source. As for scoop.ac.nz, that doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Why not take it to WP:RSN? Zero talk 06:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Life expectancy is increasing almost everywhere and infant mortality is decreasing almost everywhere. It is extremely misleading to just report that some indicators were better after 1967 than before. They were also better in Jordan and Egypt, and would have gotten better in WB/Gaza without the occupation too. It would be more sensible to compare WB/Gaza to other populations during the same time period, such as Egypt, Jordan and Israeli Arabs. Zero talk 06:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, you are misrepresenting the Lancet survey, and your rant isn't helping the discussion. The lancet survey is very explicit about how Palestinians see themselves in terms of quality of life. The "life-satisfaction" measurements are non-scientific and shouldn't be considered reliable in this case. POV claims:
For example, the "quality of life" stats were pulled from the "Palestinian Quality of Life Study" using the "Palestinian life quality dataset. (pg 842)" So really, we don't how this information is being gathered and what standards are being used. Palestinian officials are notorious for fudging stats on population, humanitarian aid, and economic policy. Lancet is a rock-star journal but we have to look at what is being cited.
And yet...
More facts:
free of poliomyelitis, as judged by WHO criteria. Communicable diseases of childhood have already been mostly controlled with eff ective immunisation programmes. Standards of health, literacy, and education are generally higher in the occupied Palestinian territory than in several Arab countries, but substantially lower than in Israel (table 1) pg 842.
The lancet study says nothing about hospitals built by Israel or confirms or denies trends regarding Israel's presence in the West Bank/Gaza and improvements in quality of life. The JVL source on the other hand is very explicit and clear. Claiming it is "junky unreliable load of propaganda" is dubious at best. The lancet survey is far more questionable because it relies almost exclusively on unsubstantiated Palestinian complaints. Standard of living is defined by very clear parameters: Life expectancy, infant mortality, social-mobility, and per-capita income. But the authors invent their own rubric to meet a pre-determined agenda. The study puts a lot of attention on recent effects and largely avoids trends between 1967-1980s when violence was sparse. As an occupying power of course Israel had influence over the lives of Palestinians so it is nonsense to say the improved system of health care, construction of universities (banned by Jordan), and increased quality of life was simply part of the general increases in living among Arab nations.
Remember, the lancet survey was authored almost entirely by Palestinian officials and experts.
And Harlan, the claim that the Palestinians have the "the worst quality of life of any country" is patently false. I don't see that in the Lancet report. I'm guessing that is just you SOAPING as usual. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 07:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Sigh.
Yes, I agree Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encylopedia. There is nothing non-neutral about accurately describing Israel's relationship in the occupied territories between 1967-2010. I'll concede the scoop article might be questionable but you continue to ignore the sources that don't reflect your point of view. Buzzwords like "propaganda" don't help the discussion.
I've been extremely explicit in my posts, while you continue to rant and rave independent of facts. Here, a sample of your neutral, polite, cordial SOAP boxing.
The Lancet report says Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country in a WHO survey. It condemns the occupation, Israeli policy, and Israel's neglect of public health in the Occupied territories
This is false. The lancet survey does not say the Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country and nor does the WHO survey.
The majority viewpoint is that Israel is illegally depriving the Palestinians of their right to work, right to an education, right to health, right to adequate sources of food and water, right to adequate housing, right to an adequate standard of living, right to freedom of movement, and in many cases the right to life itself. As a civil matter, most of that was contained in the ICJ's findings of fact in the Wall case
This is also false and dishonest. There is no "majority viewpoint" other than the sources you cherry-pick. UN, UNICIF, and international aid agencies continue to state that the Palestinians, in spite of living under Israeli occupation, experience a much higher standard of living than many Arab nations. It seems you deny the culpability of the UNRWA, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon - states and organizations that have influence over the quality life of Palestinian refugees. Your passing reference of the ICJ finding is funny, considering it was non-binding. Notice your capitlization of "Wall." The Wall is 94% fence, but I guess subtle bias is okay on wikipedia.
says Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. I don't want to hear any more about your unpublished synthesis.
I've provided numerous sources to back general knowledge that you dubiously condemn as propaganda and a minority POV. You are one promoting synth, injecting your own language into the talk discuss (indigenous population, settlements=genocide, etc..)
Myths&Facts is just about the most junky unreliable load of propaganda that is out there. It should never be used on Wikipedia as a source
Wrong again. JVL is a reliable source and the myths/facts section contains a quite few telling excerpts from certified-statements by Palestinian officials, UN employees, and experts. I know you don't like it Harlan because it doesn't reduce the conflict from a neo-colonialist perspective.
There is no reason to credit Israel with building hospitals or schools that were really foreign donor-funded projects. The Quality of Life subsection was an editorial that endorsed a minority view, and it did not mention the prevailing viewpoint at all.
False. Israel built hospitals with Israeli-tax payers dollars and taxes collected from the the Palestinian community. For 20 years, when Israel had zero influence over the lives of Palestinian refugees, no universities were built, very few hospitals were maintained, and disease, poverty, etc...was sky-high. The Arab occupiers were condemned zero times by the UN for their policies. The Quality of Life section was not an editorial, it contains serious hard-facts with precise percentages.
Those charges are based upon many credible published reports that say "quality of life" is abysmal thanks to the Israeli occupation. If you insist, I'll be happy to open a thread at WP:RSN and see if anyone thinks JVL and Efraim Karsh are reliable sources on the issue of public health or if anyone thinks the peer review process at Lancet has been corrupted by the Palestinians
Harlan, I'll ask you one more time: Please find me in the Lancet study anything that remotely discuses Israel's physical relationship between the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza. Stats about hospitals, diseases, trends in standards of livings, etc. I'll tell you - the lancet survey confirms educational stats, life expectancy stats, infant mortality stats, etc. And the statistics rank higher than Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
I'm not disputing the self-reported quality of life surveys. 1,000+ cherry-picked anonymous Palestinians interviewed according to a non-scientific rubric *gasp* shows Palestinians have the lowest quality of life on the planet. This doesn't matter. If it makes you feel any better we could add something like, "Surveys collected by Palestinian universities x, y, and z claim Palestinians age x-z have low levels of happiness, blah blah. But the Lancet does not disprove the JVL source. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Between 1967 and 1993, health services for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory were neglected and starved of funds by the Israeli military administration, with shortages of staff, hospital beds, medications, and essential and specialised services, forcing Palestinians to depend on health services in Israel. For example, in 1975 the West Bank health budget was substantially lower than that of one Israeli hospital for the same year. The Palestinian response was to create independent Palestinian services through health, women’s, agricultural, and student social-action groups, all promoting community steadfastness on the land (sumud). This response also led to the development of a Palestinian health and medical care infrastructure, independent of the Israeli military, that still helps to meet the health needs of the population, especially during emergencies.
Sigh Sigh Sigh.
Harlan, you still have failed to address serious issues and continue to dance around.
I pretty much demolished your SOAPing and proved you continue to make subtle false accusations couched beneath your arguments, and then accuse others of not paying attention. I paid attention.
Again Harlan, again again you insert your own fringe POV with buzzwords such as "Wall" (94% FENCE).
Finally, reliable sources. I love how you accuse me of using "propaganda" sources (JVL is a reliable source), but then...
Let me repeat myself:
The section has:
A) Nothing to do with recentism. We're talking about events between 1967-today, not recent casualties from wars instigated by the Palestinian leadership. Palestinian life improved exponentially when Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem. Palestinians had access to hospitals in Israel, up until 2009 when the PLO stopped paying. Israel did build hospitals in Gaza as well as universities.
B) None of the sources you provided dispute the findings of JVL. Palestinians living under ‘occupation’ have the lowest standard of living in the Middle East.” Your agenda is that Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza destroyed, not improved the quality of life for ordinary Palestinians. You refer to recent events, the second intifada - the Gaza blockade, and other closures.
I don't dispute any of that Harlan. But it is simply a red herring. The Palestinians still have a higher standard of living than most Arab nations, including Egypt. And up until the second intifada hundreds of thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel legally, while no Palestinians worked in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt (or very few at least).
As an occupying power Israel had serious influence and control over Palestinians and the government had no reason to continue the plight. This is why is tried to remove Palestinians out of refugee camps and expand social services. For 20 years the international aid agencies were largely absence, or barely noticeable, as the Arabs had total control. Only after 1967 did the situation start to improve. Had the Six Day War not happened, the Palestinians would be living under the same conditions as those in Lebanon and Egypt.
Again, I don't dispute the arguments from individuals in the UN or UNRWA. But it is truly laughable to deny Israel's relationship with the Palestinian authority since it is the only thing preventing the Palestinian territories from imploding. And we can't ignore the series of treaties sighed between Palestinian and Israelis - Cairo agreements, Oslo, Road Map, etc. All imperfect, but gave Palestinians more control than they had under Arab occupiers.
Do you want to continue this debate? You refuse to acknowledge basic facts and instead go on rants about the Gaza blockade. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What Karsh editorial? I'm not the one posted links from fringe radical, Hamas-activist sites. You totally misrepresents the UNDP link.
So really, the onus is on you. I'm expecting another lengthy reply attacking my character and accusing me of promoting Hasbara. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, you're going off-topic. Yes, Palestinian workers are exploited and the security barrier has disrupted the lives of ordinary Palestinians. Okay, so what? What does this have to do with you constantly misrepresenting, if not outright making up facts to support a narrative that isn't connected with reality? I've showed with serious sources that Israel built up and developed much of today's Palestine infrastructure independent of the UN and aid organizations. And Israel's presence facilitated a much more comprehensive and efficient manner of moving aid into the territories as the Arab occupiers refused international meddling and handled all UNRWA payments on their own. Even today Israel is the one escorting aid and resources into Gaza while Egypt does nothing.
I really don't understand what you are trying to prove or discredit. It's a recognized fact that Israel implemented policies following the Six Day War that significantly reduced poverty and improved the standard of living and quality of life for ordinary Palestinians. If it weren't for Israel there would be independent Palestinian organizations to measure the "quality of life" according to the special, secret-rubric designed by native academics. I don't dispute the symptoms of the second intifada and recent conflicts, but you continue to ignore history and UN stats that disagree with your thesis. I'm still waiting for you to find me the source that says Palestinians are one of the most likely people to not reach age 40. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 06:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
While the UN like most international organizations regards an occupation of a territory as an unfavorable temporary situation, this is not an illegal state of affairs as long as the reasons for the occupation can be justified by the international law and the humanitarian international law is kept by the occupying country. The UN never said that the the Israeli occupation of the territories captured in 1967 was illegal in principle. It did determine that certain actions of Israel as the occupaying force were illegal. In fact, the 242 and 338 security council resolutions states that Israel's neighboring countries should recognize it and allow it to live within peaceful secure borders before Israel hands back these territories. DrorK ( talk) 10:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"ISRAEL DOES not fit the literal definition of an occupying force. The Hague Conventions and the later Geneva Conventions of 1949 do not appear to apply definitively to the West Bank. The West Bank has never been sovereign territory, and was won from a nation which held no legal claim to the area. After Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza, former Supreme Court president Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since the convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign which was ousted, and that it had been a legitimate sovereign.""- Ashley Perry, I read about this and had trouble finding the article. The actual situation is that Olmert was undergoing a land sale to save his group, anyone giving up land puts the country in danger! -- Saxophonemn ( talk) 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have arisen from Drork's explanation of this edit [1] , which removed the word "illegally" before "occupied". Since (so far as I know) nobody is arguing for or attempting to reinsert the word "illegally" or strike the word "occupied" in the sentence in question, the above debates are mostly unnecessary. If someone wants to suggest alternative wording for the sentence in question then there would be a basis for continuing. Sanguinalis ( talk) 15:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Note that UN GA resolutions are non binding opinion pieces, the GA contains the alliance of non aligned states a majority against Israel! It's like finding a White Power rally declaring Jews to be scum, nothing remarkable. Additionally Israel doesn't recognize the ICJ for its unfair treatment, and it's logistical conflict of impartiality. Stating the occupation is illegal requires the state that was occupied to complain that they're being occupied, oh wait, not possible. The Geneva convention refers to actions that were post WW2 population expulsions, not settlements. Seriously though what should Israel have done revert to a border that worked so well before. UN SC Res 465 never actually states illegality, the context of a resolution is very important. -- Saxophonemn ( talk) 20:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this sentence in the Name section of the article:
Since 1967, the territories have been called "occupied Palestinian territories" by most members of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
When the subject is terminology currently used by the United Nations — the text actually says "most members of the United Nations", but who has done a survey? — there is no question that all three words in Occupied Palestinian Territories are in fact capitalized. It is easy to find reams of UN documents where it is written that way. Here's a typical General Assembly resolution: [2]. The term Occupied Palestinian Territories, with each word capitalized, also appears not just in resolutions but in numerous UN agency reports, studies, and reference materials. It also appears that way in the ICJ ruling on the West Bank separation barrier. By the way, "since 1967" is not correct. So far as I know, the term Occuipied Palestinian Territories (now often abbreviated as OPT) first appears in UN documents in the mid-1980s. Before that you generally see references to "occupied Arab territories" (which of course referred to a larger area), as in this example: [3]. Absent a published study on the question, we ought not to attempt to pinpoint the exact time the term OPT came into widespread use. I think it's best to simply say what the current terminology is.
On this subject, the language the "Palestinian" label having gained wide use since the 1970s, in a later (and older) paragraph in the same section, is somewhat derogatory and smacks of editorializing. I removed the whole paragraph containing it, because there is now a preceding statement in the article that the UN uses the term OPT, because attempting to trace the history of the term is original research (as I have said), and because the implication in the the final statement that Resolution 181 used the description "Judea and Samaria" to mean the same entity that "Palestinian Territories" refers to today is simply false. The words Judea and Samaria do appear in that resolution, but they do not refer to the areas now known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a whole. Of course, before the 1948 war, the present Gaza and West Bank boundaries had no meaning; the closest thing at that time to what is now called the Palestinian Territories was the area allocated to the Arab state in the partition plan for Palestine. Resolution 181 does not refer to that area as "Judea and Samaria", it refers to it as "the Arab State". Sanguinalis ( talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"In proposing the motion, Mr. Ben Gurion intimated that the words "Jewish State" should be substituted for 'Commonwealth". He is also said to have made it clear that acceptance of the "Biltmore programme" was not to be taken as a definition of ultimate Zionist aims. A new world order, he said, was about to be established and the Jewish problem would once again be before an international forum. The resolutions represented immediate aims for submission to that forum, as the demands of the Jewish people." see Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1942. The Near East and Africa Volume IV, page Page 551
"Dr. Weizmann (President of the World Zionist Organization and ex-officio President of the Jewish Agency) expressed the view that the most advantageous settlement of the Palestine question in his opinion would be the division of the country into Jewish and Arab cantons with wide powers of autonomy and the federation of Palestine and Trans-Jordan into one state under continued British supervision for some time to come. As Jewish cantons he would include Galilee (northern Palestine) and the coastal region of Palestine, and as Arab cantons the hill country and western Palestine, together with Trans-Jordan." note that the Negev or southern Palestine were left out of the cantonization plan for subsequent disposition. Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1940. The British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, the Near East and Africa Volume III, page 837
In other words, Mr. Epstein continued, the Agency was unwilling to be placed in a position where it might have to compromise between the Morrison-Grady proposals on the one hand and its own partition plan on the other. This would inevitably result if the Morrison-Grady plan were to be considered first. Mr. Wilson inquired whether it would be correct to say that the Agency Executive had now accepted partition as the solution for Palestine which it favored. Mr. Epstein replied in the affirmative, pointing out that the decision to do so had been taken with only one member of the Executive voting against, and with three members abstaining. Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa Volume VII, page 693.
Palestinian territories are a proper adjective describing a plural noun. Thus the subject verb agreement of a subject noun which is a plural has to have a properly conjugated verb. Somehow no one seems to see the problem. (oops)-- Saxophonemn ( talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The only parallel I see is in United States, but that was out of a symbol of unity post the Civil War. After surviving a with hunt I'm back, BH!!-- Saxophonemn ( talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The new opener is up, I hope you all like it.-- Saxophonemn ( talk) 18:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with Hertz1888's suggestion to stop with "determined". Somehow we do need to convey the fact though that the PTs do not currently constitute a state. As to Saxophonemn's proposed changes, I think both of them (renaming the article, and the lead sentence) go too far in the direction of supporting a fringe view. Actually the current version of the article still has this problem. The fact is there is an overwhelming worldwide consensus that the territories are called the Palestinian Territories. The term is used in all the world's major newspapers, even conservative ones like the Wall Street Journal. The U.S. State Department uses the term routinely (note the capitalization here). To see the problem with making the lead about a term instead of the thing, imagine the lead for Israel reading "Israel is a designation, for many, of those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which were captured by Jewish forces in the 1948 Palestine war". Sanguinalis ( talk) 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I urge you all to read as well, a consensus was made that is was incorrect, no consensus was officially made a proposed suggestion was, and the grammar was correct in the correction. Yet, this ensues with assertions.
The sentence structure: definitive article-proper adjective - subject (plural) - linking verb - (of many) is an explanative (forgot the exact grammatical device/name) - and a string of prepositional phrases - that were originally in the sentence.
The sentence change fixed the major grammatical error of the sentence, the rest was simply just poor style. (Forgot to sign)-- Saxophonemn ( talk) 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
We removed the bit where it said 'Perhaps' east Jerusalem is occupied territory. This is ridiculous. east Jerusalem is land not inlcuded in 1948 or 1949 borders. It was taken after the 1967 war and is occupied territory. Israel calls it it's capital, but no nation reconizes it because it is disputed. This article is riddled with bias and presentation of misleading facts, someone with more patience should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.104.220 ( talk) 16:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Not true at all. Jerusalem was founded circa 1000 BCE by King David. The notable places in East Jerusalem, specifically the Temple Mount (Harm al-Sharif), were also built by Jews, approximately 1600 years BEFORE the founding of Islam. This is well known and documented. After the 1948 War of Independence, Jordan completely occupied East Jerusalem, in violation of international law. East Jerusalem was liberated by Israel in 1967. Proteus7 ( talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I note Malik has removed Harlan's material. I'm diffident about contesting any judgement he makes. I find that material very usual as a basis for examining many I/P issues. Perhaps the sensible thing for Harlan to do is to take a leaf out of Huldra's book = User:Huldra/Sources. She has created a subpage for references to online sources and downloadable books on I/P history. If Harlan does the same, those who are following his close work on key sources can bookmark it, and keep updated. There's a huge indigestibly garbled blob of highly technical material in the Israeli Settlements article. Harlan at least has kept this to a talk page, as a reference to editors. Nishidani ( talk) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Malik may not have understood that this article already discusses these very topics and that its NPOV has been disputed. These are all easily verified examples of "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - mostly by the responsible governmental or intergovernmental entities themselves. They are legal and historical references that I suggest we incorporate into the article in an unbiased fashion. harlan ( talk) 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why the OPT is referred to as PT. This is not only clearly wrong, but actually misleads the public -- Surfer273 ( talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a good argument can be made that Occupied Palestinian Territories is the neutral name. After all, that is what the United Nations calls it. However, I think Palestinian Territories is fine too. It is the term which appears most frequently in news articles (outside Israel). It is also used by diplomats (including the US state department), and appears in many guide books (e.g., Lonely Planet). Realistically, any attempt to rename the article to OPT is likely to lead to an edit war. If you search the archives of this talk page, you will find there was a movement a couple years back to rename the article by pro-Israel editors who were opposed even to the PT title. I think we should leave the title as it is. I'd rather put energy into fixing the serious distortions in the article itself. Sanguinalis ( talk) 02:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
simple:Talk:Palestinian territories
Even if there is disagreement about part of the territories, Gaza is certainly not occupied. Furthermore, the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality guide lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.244.75 ( talk) 18:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Just changed 'US president George W Bush' to 'Former US President George W Bush' and edited the tense of the sentence accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baynardo7 ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is a bit confused. Am I right in understanding that East Jerusalem is considered "Occupied Palestinian Territory" by the United Nations, and all its members excluding Israel, that claims to have annexed it? The lede needs clarifying on this point. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of country categories says "This is a list of categories providing topic coverage on contemporary countries, states and dependencies." It correctly lists Palestinian Territories - State of Palestine.
In the US the term "Country" is used for any political entity known as a nation. see 19 C.F.R. PART 134.1 Definitions The US granted a request from the Palestinian National Authority for recognition of the West Bank and Gaza as a Country in view of developments including the Israeli-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. In a letter dated January 13, 1997, the Department of State advised the other agencies of the Executive branch that it considered the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes. see DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Customs Service, T.D. 97–16, Country of Origin Marking of Products From the West Bank and Gaza The Treasury Department subsequently stated that the country of origin markings of goods from the West Bank and Gaza shall not contain the words ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘‘Made in Israel,’’ ‘‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’’ or words of similar meaning.
The US Library of Congress (LOC) lists the Occupied Territories, West Bank, and Gaza as a Nation. The information is organized under headings for Constitution, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, Legal Guides, and General Sources. The LOC's Multinational Legal Guides lists the jurisdiction as "Palestine". The Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention (114 states) also consider the Palestinian Territories to be occupied territory. UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/63/201 was adopted by 164 votes to 8, with 5 abstentions. It declared the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 140 UN member states acknowledged the declaration of the State of Palestine in resolution 43/177, and 103 states have subsequently recognized the occupied area as the "State of Palestine". The Palestinian Authority submitted documents it said proved Palestine was a legal state to the ICC Prosecutor. They provided proof that 67 countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe had signed bilateral agreements with the State of Palestine.
The Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, is competent to order State and local authorities and the officials and bodies thereof, and other persons carrying out public functions under law, to do or refrain from doing any act in the lawful exercise of their functions. See Basic Law: The Judiciary. The High Court has ruled that: "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation." cited at "B. The Normative Outline in the Supreme Court's Caselaw, 1. Belligerent Occupation, 14." in 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel The Knesset could theoretically overrule the court, but it has not done that in the case of the West Bank, aka the administrative districts of Judea and Samaria.
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has established .ps as the top-level country-code for "Palestinian Territory, Occupied". The ISO Maintenance Agency lists the country name and country elements as "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", Alpha-2 code "PS", Alpha-3 code PSE, numeric code 275. The International Olympic Commission and FIFA formulate their own codes and names that differ from the ISO codes in many cases. The IOC has recognized the National Olympic Committee of "Palestine", Country Code "PSE", since 1996. The FIFA Integration Guidelines, Country and Confederation codes, lists "Palestine" and "PLE". Not allowing the majority or most significant published view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors is a classic violation of basic NPOV policy. harlan ( talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the article be renamed. I'm just pointing out why I reverted an edit and explaining why other editors should not delink the article about the country of Palestine from the article about the region of Palestine (in which it is situated). Dozens of countries recognize the Palestinian territory as the State of Palestine. That article was just restored. The article Proposals for a Palestinian State is really just an article about the final settlement between the two states. harlan ( talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the section about "Greater Israel" The phrase "some Zionists" are Weasel Words. Either quote specific people, or eliminate this sentence completely. Vague attributions create a mistaken impression about how widespread an idea is accepted.
Mftcellist ( talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC) mftcellist
Should it not be Palestinian Territories? Territories is part of a proper noun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.9.216 ( talk) 12:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
There are currently several articles, some of which are in bad shape, that merely reiterate the same information over and over again. They even contradict one another to some extent. We have an article about Palestine as a geographical region (fair enough), we have an article called Palestinian Territories, another one called Outline of Palestine which simply reiterates the same information in other words (it doesn't mention Israel, so it is not really different from the Palestinian Territories article). Then we have Proposals for a Palestinian state, which reiterate a lot of information already given here and in other articles, and we have a strange article called State of Palestine which includes a lot of false information based on a very broad interpretation of a certain user to a few sources. So, instead of spreading the information on so many articles, and having false and/or contradicting information on some of them, why won't we have one or two reasonably written articles? And by the way, the article about the State of Israel and the Land of Israel also include information about this very region, so we actually have at least six overlapping articles (maybe more). I know some bigger countries in Africa that didn't gain so much Wikipedian honor. DrorK ( talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the statement "The US believes in territorial integrity, withdrawal, and recognition of secure boundaries." from what is currently paragraph 3 in this section based on several factors: Firstly, the use of present tense is ambiguous (is this supposed to be a quote from a contemporary source, or it it supposed to refer to the present day?); secondly, at least at first glance it appears to be editorial opinion; thirdly, it's worded as a blanket statement that is so broad as to probably be factually wrong (it may be correct in reference to this particular issue, but that's not self-evident). If someone really believes it should be there, let me suggest As of 2010, the official position of the US government was that blah blah blah blah (insert source) or Mr. XYZ of the US State Department stated in 1967 that "(insert quote)".(insert source). It's possible that the sentence was a quotation from the reference cited for the entire paragraph, but if so that's not at all clear from the wording. 68.105.71.75 ( talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:POVFORK. Enough said. Breein1007 ( talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with Breein1007. This forking of articles about the Palestinian Territories has become a trend. DrorK ( talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it time to merge this article. It is clearly a POV-forking. DrorK ( talk) 07:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose we could have a string of articles under the heading of "Territories occupied by Israel".. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Merge. Int21h ( talk) 11:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it qualifies as a POV fork. It covers the exact same topic, however. Merge. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Per my reading of consensus at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory, I've gone ahead and merged the two articles. I do not claim that my merge is perfect or ideal and fully expect others to improve upon it. But, as the request was raised on my talk page, I suspect that if left alone, that the two articles would continue to exist with everybody worried about making a bold edit on this controversial subject.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Massive synthesis/POV push inviting the reader to consider the merits of being occupied by Israel. Never mind the billions in international aid, the section links the rise of Palestinian living standards with military occupation while managing to say nothing about the situation since 1990 which just might be germane to the article. Information is from a few questionable sources and the legit sources don't include all of the information presented. Sol ( talk) 03:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Wikifan if you think that I followed you to this article, I suggest that you check the article and talk page revision history again. Mitchell G. Bard has degrees in political science and economics, but he is not an authority on public health. The analysis provided by the authors of the Lancet article completely contradicts Bard. So I'm going to insist that any narrative analysis come from Lancet or UNICEF. Neither Lancet nor UNICEF attribute improvements in the statistical indicators to the Israeli occupation or any Israeli policy. Both reports are in-line with fact finding missions which report that Israel has created a humanitarian crisis in the territories. They report stunted growth and other permanent developmental problems in an inordinate percentage of the children reflecting chronic malnutrition. Lancet also describes extreme emotional problems and clinical depression in the general population.
The Lancet report says Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country in a WHO survey. It condemns the occupation, Israeli policy, and Israel's neglect of public health in the Occupied territories:
Between 1967 and 1993, health services for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory were neglected and starved of funds by the Israeli military administration, with shortages of staff, hospital beds, medications, and essential and specialised services, forcing Palestinians to depend on health services in Israel. For example, in 1975 the West Bank health budget was substantially lower than that of one Israeli hospital for the same year. The Palestinian response was to create independent Palestinian services through health, women’s, agricultural, and student social-action groups, all promoting community steadfastness on the land (sumud). This response also led to the development of a Palestinian health and medical care infrastructure, independent of the Israeli military, that still helps to meet the health needs of the population, especially during emergencies.
The story in the field of education is the same. Palestinians built their own institutions of higher learning without any Israeli funding - and despite Israeli attempts to close them dowm. See The Palestinian uprising: a war by other means, by F. Robert Hunter, page 22 [8] I'll be happy to add the World Bank information on curfews and closures, health, poverty, and subsistence poverty. The majority viewpoint is that Israel is illegally depriving the Palestinians of their right to work, right to an education, right to health, right to adequate sources of food and water, right to adequate housing, right to an adequate standard of living, right to freedom of movement, and in many cases the right to life itself. As a civil matter, most of that was contained in the ICJ's findings of fact in the Wall case. harlan ( talk) 05:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Myths&Facts is just about the most junky unreliable load of propaganda that is out there. It should never be used on Wikipedia as a source. As for scoop.ac.nz, that doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Why not take it to WP:RSN? Zero talk 06:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Life expectancy is increasing almost everywhere and infant mortality is decreasing almost everywhere. It is extremely misleading to just report that some indicators were better after 1967 than before. They were also better in Jordan and Egypt, and would have gotten better in WB/Gaza without the occupation too. It would be more sensible to compare WB/Gaza to other populations during the same time period, such as Egypt, Jordan and Israeli Arabs. Zero talk 06:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, you are misrepresenting the Lancet survey, and your rant isn't helping the discussion. The lancet survey is very explicit about how Palestinians see themselves in terms of quality of life. The "life-satisfaction" measurements are non-scientific and shouldn't be considered reliable in this case. POV claims:
For example, the "quality of life" stats were pulled from the "Palestinian Quality of Life Study" using the "Palestinian life quality dataset. (pg 842)" So really, we don't how this information is being gathered and what standards are being used. Palestinian officials are notorious for fudging stats on population, humanitarian aid, and economic policy. Lancet is a rock-star journal but we have to look at what is being cited.
And yet...
More facts:
free of poliomyelitis, as judged by WHO criteria. Communicable diseases of childhood have already been mostly controlled with eff ective immunisation programmes. Standards of health, literacy, and education are generally higher in the occupied Palestinian territory than in several Arab countries, but substantially lower than in Israel (table 1) pg 842.
The lancet study says nothing about hospitals built by Israel or confirms or denies trends regarding Israel's presence in the West Bank/Gaza and improvements in quality of life. The JVL source on the other hand is very explicit and clear. Claiming it is "junky unreliable load of propaganda" is dubious at best. The lancet survey is far more questionable because it relies almost exclusively on unsubstantiated Palestinian complaints. Standard of living is defined by very clear parameters: Life expectancy, infant mortality, social-mobility, and per-capita income. But the authors invent their own rubric to meet a pre-determined agenda. The study puts a lot of attention on recent effects and largely avoids trends between 1967-1980s when violence was sparse. As an occupying power of course Israel had influence over the lives of Palestinians so it is nonsense to say the improved system of health care, construction of universities (banned by Jordan), and increased quality of life was simply part of the general increases in living among Arab nations.
Remember, the lancet survey was authored almost entirely by Palestinian officials and experts.
And Harlan, the claim that the Palestinians have the "the worst quality of life of any country" is patently false. I don't see that in the Lancet report. I'm guessing that is just you SOAPING as usual. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 07:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Sigh.
Yes, I agree Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encylopedia. There is nothing non-neutral about accurately describing Israel's relationship in the occupied territories between 1967-2010. I'll concede the scoop article might be questionable but you continue to ignore the sources that don't reflect your point of view. Buzzwords like "propaganda" don't help the discussion.
I've been extremely explicit in my posts, while you continue to rant and rave independent of facts. Here, a sample of your neutral, polite, cordial SOAP boxing.
The Lancet report says Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country in a WHO survey. It condemns the occupation, Israeli policy, and Israel's neglect of public health in the Occupied territories
This is false. The lancet survey does not say the Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country and nor does the WHO survey.
The majority viewpoint is that Israel is illegally depriving the Palestinians of their right to work, right to an education, right to health, right to adequate sources of food and water, right to adequate housing, right to an adequate standard of living, right to freedom of movement, and in many cases the right to life itself. As a civil matter, most of that was contained in the ICJ's findings of fact in the Wall case
This is also false and dishonest. There is no "majority viewpoint" other than the sources you cherry-pick. UN, UNICIF, and international aid agencies continue to state that the Palestinians, in spite of living under Israeli occupation, experience a much higher standard of living than many Arab nations. It seems you deny the culpability of the UNRWA, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon - states and organizations that have influence over the quality life of Palestinian refugees. Your passing reference of the ICJ finding is funny, considering it was non-binding. Notice your capitlization of "Wall." The Wall is 94% fence, but I guess subtle bias is okay on wikipedia.
says Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. I don't want to hear any more about your unpublished synthesis.
I've provided numerous sources to back general knowledge that you dubiously condemn as propaganda and a minority POV. You are one promoting synth, injecting your own language into the talk discuss (indigenous population, settlements=genocide, etc..)
Myths&Facts is just about the most junky unreliable load of propaganda that is out there. It should never be used on Wikipedia as a source
Wrong again. JVL is a reliable source and the myths/facts section contains a quite few telling excerpts from certified-statements by Palestinian officials, UN employees, and experts. I know you don't like it Harlan because it doesn't reduce the conflict from a neo-colonialist perspective.
There is no reason to credit Israel with building hospitals or schools that were really foreign donor-funded projects. The Quality of Life subsection was an editorial that endorsed a minority view, and it did not mention the prevailing viewpoint at all.
False. Israel built hospitals with Israeli-tax payers dollars and taxes collected from the the Palestinian community. For 20 years, when Israel had zero influence over the lives of Palestinian refugees, no universities were built, very few hospitals were maintained, and disease, poverty, etc...was sky-high. The Arab occupiers were condemned zero times by the UN for their policies. The Quality of Life section was not an editorial, it contains serious hard-facts with precise percentages.
Those charges are based upon many credible published reports that say "quality of life" is abysmal thanks to the Israeli occupation. If you insist, I'll be happy to open a thread at WP:RSN and see if anyone thinks JVL and Efraim Karsh are reliable sources on the issue of public health or if anyone thinks the peer review process at Lancet has been corrupted by the Palestinians
Harlan, I'll ask you one more time: Please find me in the Lancet study anything that remotely discuses Israel's physical relationship between the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza. Stats about hospitals, diseases, trends in standards of livings, etc. I'll tell you - the lancet survey confirms educational stats, life expectancy stats, infant mortality stats, etc. And the statistics rank higher than Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
I'm not disputing the self-reported quality of life surveys. 1,000+ cherry-picked anonymous Palestinians interviewed according to a non-scientific rubric *gasp* shows Palestinians have the lowest quality of life on the planet. This doesn't matter. If it makes you feel any better we could add something like, "Surveys collected by Palestinian universities x, y, and z claim Palestinians age x-z have low levels of happiness, blah blah. But the Lancet does not disprove the JVL source. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Between 1967 and 1993, health services for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory were neglected and starved of funds by the Israeli military administration, with shortages of staff, hospital beds, medications, and essential and specialised services, forcing Palestinians to depend on health services in Israel. For example, in 1975 the West Bank health budget was substantially lower than that of one Israeli hospital for the same year. The Palestinian response was to create independent Palestinian services through health, women’s, agricultural, and student social-action groups, all promoting community steadfastness on the land (sumud). This response also led to the development of a Palestinian health and medical care infrastructure, independent of the Israeli military, that still helps to meet the health needs of the population, especially during emergencies.
Sigh Sigh Sigh.
Harlan, you still have failed to address serious issues and continue to dance around.
I pretty much demolished your SOAPing and proved you continue to make subtle false accusations couched beneath your arguments, and then accuse others of not paying attention. I paid attention.
Again Harlan, again again you insert your own fringe POV with buzzwords such as "Wall" (94% FENCE).
Finally, reliable sources. I love how you accuse me of using "propaganda" sources (JVL is a reliable source), but then...
Let me repeat myself:
The section has:
A) Nothing to do with recentism. We're talking about events between 1967-today, not recent casualties from wars instigated by the Palestinian leadership. Palestinian life improved exponentially when Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem. Palestinians had access to hospitals in Israel, up until 2009 when the PLO stopped paying. Israel did build hospitals in Gaza as well as universities.
B) None of the sources you provided dispute the findings of JVL. Palestinians living under ‘occupation’ have the lowest standard of living in the Middle East.” Your agenda is that Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza destroyed, not improved the quality of life for ordinary Palestinians. You refer to recent events, the second intifada - the Gaza blockade, and other closures.
I don't dispute any of that Harlan. But it is simply a red herring. The Palestinians still have a higher standard of living than most Arab nations, including Egypt. And up until the second intifada hundreds of thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel legally, while no Palestinians worked in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt (or very few at least).
As an occupying power Israel had serious influence and control over Palestinians and the government had no reason to continue the plight. This is why is tried to remove Palestinians out of refugee camps and expand social services. For 20 years the international aid agencies were largely absence, or barely noticeable, as the Arabs had total control. Only after 1967 did the situation start to improve. Had the Six Day War not happened, the Palestinians would be living under the same conditions as those in Lebanon and Egypt.
Again, I don't dispute the arguments from individuals in the UN or UNRWA. But it is truly laughable to deny Israel's relationship with the Palestinian authority since it is the only thing preventing the Palestinian territories from imploding. And we can't ignore the series of treaties sighed between Palestinian and Israelis - Cairo agreements, Oslo, Road Map, etc. All imperfect, but gave Palestinians more control than they had under Arab occupiers.
Do you want to continue this debate? You refuse to acknowledge basic facts and instead go on rants about the Gaza blockade. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What Karsh editorial? I'm not the one posted links from fringe radical, Hamas-activist sites. You totally misrepresents the UNDP link.
So really, the onus is on you. I'm expecting another lengthy reply attacking my character and accusing me of promoting Hasbara. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, you're going off-topic. Yes, Palestinian workers are exploited and the security barrier has disrupted the lives of ordinary Palestinians. Okay, so what? What does this have to do with you constantly misrepresenting, if not outright making up facts to support a narrative that isn't connected with reality? I've showed with serious sources that Israel built up and developed much of today's Palestine infrastructure independent of the UN and aid organizations. And Israel's presence facilitated a much more comprehensive and efficient manner of moving aid into the territories as the Arab occupiers refused international meddling and handled all UNRWA payments on their own. Even today Israel is the one escorting aid and resources into Gaza while Egypt does nothing.
I really don't understand what you are trying to prove or discredit. It's a recognized fact that Israel implemented policies following the Six Day War that significantly reduced poverty and improved the standard of living and quality of life for ordinary Palestinians. If it weren't for Israel there would be independent Palestinian organizations to measure the "quality of life" according to the special, secret-rubric designed by native academics. I don't dispute the symptoms of the second intifada and recent conflicts, but you continue to ignore history and UN stats that disagree with your thesis. I'm still waiting for you to find me the source that says Palestinians are one of the most likely people to not reach age 40. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 06:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)