Talk:West Bank/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Deleted from Status section: "The three latter views, however, are held by only a tiny minority in Israel."

"Nearly one-half of Israelis support expulsion of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and nearly one-third support expulsion of Israeli Palestinians (three-fifths support 'encouraging' Israeli Palestinians to leave) while bumper stickers around Jerusalem urge the government to 'Deport the [expletives]'."
- Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict 2nd ed. p.xxix

--joveis 00:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be interested in knowing what poll (if any) Finkelstein cites on that, especially given that you are citing the introduction to his book, not its main body. From what I've read of him, he seems reasonably honest and accurate, but he's not exactly a neutral observer of Israeli politics. I'd want to see something more solid by way of citation before I was sure there was something solid behind that statement. Meanwhile, I don't think there is any harm done in removing the statement about "tiny minority" from the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Joe, thanks. I'm not sure there are 'neutral' observers of Israeli politics, especially among historians, who are well informed and less inclined to neutrality! The extended paragraph I'm quoting from the Finkelstein book cites 14 different news articles in one footnote (mostly Ha'aretz and Jerusalem Post, but also including the Chicago Sun-Times article mentioned below) and the footnote in the book doesn't specify which source belongs to which data. However, there is an earlier version of the introduction on Mr. Finkelstein's website that clarifies:

"According to a recent poll conducted by Israel's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, nearly one-half of Israelis support expulsion of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and nearly one-third support expulsion of Israeli Palestinians (three-fifths support "encouraging" Israeli Palestinians to leave). (58)"

and the footnote begins

58. "Many Israelis content to see Palestinians go," in Chicago Sun-Times (14 March 2002) (Jaffee poll)."

Emboldened by this citation, I'd like to add a brief note to the article. --joveis 13:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It should be possible to find something better than a tertiary link, and I'd object if one were used. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayig, "tertiary link" is a phrase with which many of us are unfamiliar. Define? --joveis 20:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The primary source is the survey by the Jaffee Center. The secondary source is the Chicago Sun-Times report about that. The tertiary source is Finkelstein referring to the Chicago Sun-Times report. The primary source would be best (Jaffee Center poll), next best would be a newspaper report on it. We have no idea when the poll was even taken, much less what questions were asked. It's certainly not "recent" any more, since it was taken before March of 2002; moreover, it's undoubtedly been made moot by subsequent events and polls. Cherry-picking that one poll is POV at best, even assuming Finkelstein's take on it is accurate. It would sort of be like picking the one poll that shows the highest Palestinian support for suicide bombings against civilians, and completely ignoring the rest. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

O.K., you've found a primary source. Now how are you going to deal with all the other problems? Please find a more relevant poll, not one from early 2002. Much has changed since then. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayig, I was originally confused by the phrase "tertiary link" but I saw how you edited the page and understand. I see what you mean about the primary source and have located the primary source and cited it in place of the Finkelstein citation. Hoop obligingly jumped through.

Your other concerns, however, lack merit. I submit that March 2002 is recent. If you insist on changing the word "recent" to the clunkier "2002" I won't strenuously object. As for omitting the data altoghether, that would be extremely POV. If you have a later poll or more Israel-friendly poll to submit, I won't 'ignore' it: we'll include it on the page. For you to assume that there IS a more Israeli-favorable poll (or any poll more recent on the topic) is original research until you produce one. Your assertion that Israeli public opinion has changed since 2002 is original research. The article as I have edited it never states that all polls agree with this one: it only states the contents of a poll. Find another poll if you have a problem with it - but rejecting this poll because the numbers are too high - which is what you are advocating in tricky language - is POV. --joveis 20:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. "More Israeli-friendly poll"? Don't know where that came from. An early 2002 poll is simply not relevant; much has happened in the region since then, particularly the death of Arafat, the barrier has been built, and now the disengagement plan. Popular opinion always changes, and even more so in Israel, where dramatic events regularly occur. Recent polls are relevant, not ones from 3 1/2 years ago. I've provided stats from the most recent polls I could find, which date from early 2005. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The newer polls you cite (there would have been only one poll but two more were conducted, your source suggests, because the first was too high) do average to about 32%, but they were answers to an "either/or" question: Should Israel pull out of Gaza or expel the Palestinians? with some 30% choosing one approach and some 30% choosing the other and 40% giving no answer. The poll I cited from 2002 merely asked: would you approve of Palestinian transfer? with no other multiple choice options. Consequently, it's the more reliable figure. Also, it's the only one applicable to the West Bank, since the poll you cite concerned Gaza, not the Occupied Territories as a whole. But: I pick my battles. --joveis 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Joe, on the West_bank talk page I told Jayjg:

The newer polls you cite (there would have been only one poll but two more were conducted, your source suggests, because the first was too high) do average to about 32%, but they were answers to an "either/or" question: Should Israel pull out of Gaza or expel the Palestinians? with some 30% choosing one approach and some 30% choosing the other and 40% giving no answer. The poll I cited from 2002 merely asked: would you approve of Palestinian transfer? with no other multiple choice options. Consequently, it's the more reliable figure. Also, it's the only one applicable to the West Bank, since the poll you cite concerned Gaza, not the Occupied Territories as a whole. But: I pick my battles. --joveis 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

But I really didn't get a response. Do you agree with me that the 2002 Jaffe center poll on Palestinian transfer, for reasons cited above, is more relevant than the two-polls-cherrypicked-from-three, dealing entirely with Gaza and NOT the West Bank, which Jayjg finds acceptable for the West Bank page? Would you support introduction of more inclusive, less POV language like "(differently-conducted polls from 2002 [1] and 2005[2] (both still cited) returned totals of either 45% or 30% of Israelis favoring Palestinian transfer)." If so, would you as a more seasoned editor introduce such language? I'll back you up. Feel free to respond to me on my talk page. --joveis 22:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• I personally didn't cite a poll: I just changed the text to more accurately reflect the content of a citation it already linked to. What you say sounds reasonable, but I bet there is a lot of good polling data on Israeli attitudes on this question. I think this may merit several citations, a statement of the range of numbers that have shown up in polls depending on wording, and perhaps a "note" near the bottom of the article (using Template:ref and Template:note) listing what each cited source says. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• • I think it's sufficient to just link to the sites where we got the poll data. Brevity is important. I'm going to introduce my change to the West Bank page. We can edit from there as more or better data becomes available. I doubt there'll be much controversy, as it's an incredible stretch to include the very questionable Gaza Strip data from 2005 at in a West Bank article at all. This is a compromise position and I don't forsee Jayjg starting an edit war. I'm going to quote this conversation on the West Bank talk page, and then make the change. --joveis 23:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The polling company themself said the first poll wasn't properly conducted, and did two others. It's hardly "cherry-picking". And 3.5 year old polls simply aren't relevant any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the text to make it accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• A 2002 poll is relevant to views in 2002. If it is labelled as such, it should be fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. As for the quality of the poll, that's another question, on which I have no view. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• • Since the 2002 and 2005 polls were conducted very differently and solicited two very different "numbers" on very different data, it was POV to refer to "the number" dropping to 30% - the 2005 poll excluded the West Bank from consideration and only included transfer as a multiple choice option. Your version attributed the difference solely to time elapsed, and that's clearly original research on your part. In an attempt to compromise further with you I didn't revert, since part of your concern might be to clearly link the poll numbers to the dates on which they were conducted, by including each poll in a different clause. This sacrifices brevity but as you seem to insist I've preserved this in my current version. --joveis 22:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

2002 was a very different time than 2005. Relevant context has now been provided. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who added the statement about "tiny minority". I agree now that it was not proper. However, many polls during a long period of time show a wide support in the first view, for example (taken from http://www.mifkad.org.il/en/more.asp) : The Center sor Middle East Peace and Economics Cooperation commissioned Dahaf, the most respected Israeli public opnion research firm, to ask Israelis the following: if the government of israel brought to you a referendum on a peace agreement based on the following principles, would you support it?

- Two states for two peoples

- Right of return of the Palestinian refugees only to the new state of Palestine.

- The Palestinian State will be demilitarized, and its borders will be based on the June 4, 1967, lines with 1:1 territorial swaps, so that the Palestinians state will have the equivalent of 100% of its pre-1967 terriory, and so that settlements close to the 1967 line would become part of Israel.

- Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem will come under Palestinians sovereighty and the Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereighty.

The Temple Mount will be without sovereighty, and all people- Jews, Muslims, Christians and others- would have free access to the Temple Mount.

- A solid security fence would be built along that border.

- The United States and Israel would enter into a mutual defense agreement

Total support for this proposal was 76%, only 21% were opposed.

I added a note about this in the article, but as english is not my mother tongue, I will be grateful if someone can fix it to be expressed properly and add a link to the website it is taken from (I don't know how to do it). (unsigned approx 8 Oct 2005)

Surely, as a final note, the Israeli people just elected a governmnet committed to a total withdrawl from Gaza and at least a partial withdrawl from the West Bank, to create a Palestanian state. This surely wouldn't have happened if ethnic cleansing in the West Bank was considered a mainstream political idea. The idea may have been banded around in Israel in the past, but is clearly (and thankfully) dead. --Indisciplined 18:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Conditions on west bank roads

Conditions have improved dramatically for Palestinians from how theyr were 2 years ago. Anyone who would object to that statment I would start dounding if they really live in the west bank (just kidding) anyhow, apart for my own observation about the situation (which are OR and thus not included in the article) there are the UN reports which clearly demonstrate the new reality. As much as I like Btselem, their report is no longer current. Many checkpoints have been removed since they did the research (2 years ago) for the report published last year. Let's refelct the current situation in this article. Historic data on how the roads were between 2000-2004 belong in an historic overview of what the Intifada caused the Palestinians people. Zeq 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying you want to remove the link to the map? Or you also want to remove some text? In your edit, you quoted the most current August 2005 UN report. Is there anything in the text you object to? Ramallite ^(talk) 17:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you please revert to my version (and take out the Btselem map if you want), but I corrected a lot of English and you just blindly reverted. Yours is not different than mine, it is just constructed better. I used your references. Can you PLEASE READ what you are reverting BEFORE you revert it? Ramallite ^(talk) 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The situation has very improved. The lack of Palestinian violence has virtually reduced all restrictions on vehicular travel on the roads. (Many checkpoints still exist though). In the past, there were serious restrictions of cars with green/white plates, but this was in the past. The second paragraph explains the alleviation of the readiness. The first paragraph which might have been relevant in it's current 'general' description, is no longer relevant today on the vast majority of 'Jewish' roads. Every road I have traveled on in the past year on the West Bank and Gush Katif has been open to Palestinian-licenced cars, except those roads that are inside the gate of a settlement itself. It would do justice for the first paragraph to be updated and put in context. --Shuki 07:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not speak from personal experience (which contradicts yours by the way), but we can only use published materials on Wikipedia and not original research, as you know. Very recently, there were articles from Israeli outlets about how Nablus is cut off from Tulkarm, how the northern West Bank is cut off from the southern, and how the Jordan valley is actually being closed off as well. This article has links to most of the claims made, so if you have newer links could you update them? You should be aware of two things (for your info only): Many roads in the West Bank are indeed open, but connecting roads are not, so for example, Palestinian cars you see on a highway most probably needed to access a dirt road (or the people were driven to one point, got out and climbed a hill, and then got into another car on the other side). In other words, clips of roads are open, but it is extremely difficult for one vehicle to make one trip, you need to make multiple 'stop and goes' with a lot of walking in between. Second, absolutely no way a Palestinian from the West Bank can fly out of TLV (unless in extremely rare circumstances like a medical emergency, but even then it usually isn't allowed unless somebody is close friends with Captain Shlomo). Believe me, I would generally be in a much better mood if I could fly out of TLV, I would much rather get humiliated by Israelis than be dicked around by Jordanians. Did you ask this group you saw if they are from the West Bank or just assume? There are 3 kinds of Palestinians who can use TLV: Israeli Arabs, Jerusalem Arabs who do NOT have Palestinian Authority IDs, and Palestinians from abroad who have foreign citizenship but no Palestinian ID. If a Palestinian has foreign citizenship AND a Palestinian ID card, TLV is off limits. If the group you saw was going to the West Bank, they are most definitely foreign passport holders visiting relatives in the West Bank. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lokiloki, only last Thursday, two days after the article is dated, did I drive on Route #90 through the Jordan Valley in both directions and did not pass one checkpoint (other than the permanent(?) de facto border crossing in the north near Mehola). Your BBC article comes up with this 'new' idea/accusation of 'annexation' (what's the difference between now and in 1967?) and relies on an anonymous Israeli soldier and another 'spokesman' as authorities. No Israeli government spokesman is asked for comment (fair respectable journalism or something with high school level?). Dore Gold is an ordinary Israeli with his own opinions. I wish you could provide more references than BBC.

Ramalite, I cannot confirm the residency/citizenship of that family. They were travelling towards Shechem, and I was watching them try to get an estimate on taxi ride, and definitely going to get screwed. Some drivers don't even want (not obligated either) to take settlers in that direction, but there have been several stories lately of taxi drivers getting 'hijacked' in the area near Marda, so another 'worry' was in the equation. --Shuki 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Shuki, The BBC is a well-respected news source; and while your personal experience is interesting, such original research shouldn't form the basis of disputing cited facts presented herein. Lokiloki 20:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The newer link is much more comprehensive, thanks. BUT, 'slightly' misleading. The symbol for checkpoint is a 'no entry' sign, while the actual checkpoint itself does not mean the road is closed to Palestinian traffic. For instance, at Tapuach and Gitit, the checkpoint might not even be manned occasionally, and again, traffic is allowed through, nonetheless a checkpoint I do not deny this. You'll claim that this is "OR", but for the UN to lump 'prohibited' and 'restricted' roads in the same colour is also misleading. Why are routes 505 and 5066 in blue. White/green license plates can travel freely, for instance, on these roads from Marda to Ginsaput and further with no checkpoints or restrictions. But since I can't find a reference in English, this remains 'OR'. --Shuki 21:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Palestine

Isn't Jordan (formerly known as Trans-Jordan) 80% of the territory known as Palestine(administered by Ottoman Turks until 1919; administered by British until the land-for-peace partition of 1922). If so, I question the history of the 'west bank':

..."While a Palestinian Arab state failed to materialize, the territory was captured by the neighboring kingdom of Jordan."

If Jordan is 80% of Palestine, then the Arab state did indeed materialize in the form of Jordan in 1922 (a.k.a. Trans-Jordan). It would be reasonable to say: ..."while a second Palestinian Arab state failed to materialize, the territory was captured by the neighboring kindom of Jordan." —the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.50.51 (talk • contribs) 17:27, November 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Characterizing Trans-Jordan as a "Palestinian Arab state" might be correct or might not; the Hashemite rulers of Trans-Jordan might not characterize it that way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Although I have grave concerns regarding Britain's installation of a Hashemite king (King Abdulla I)as the dictator of Trans-Jordan, it doesn't negate my claim that Trans-Jordan was cut from the fabric which we call Palestine, and that it's citizens are 99.9% Palestinian Arab. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.50.51 (talk • contribs) 20:13, November 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I agree. But in the time period the paragraph refers to, it was not by any means a "Palestinian Arab state", any more than apartheid South Africa was a "Black African state". But maybe some other phrasing, omitting the question entirely, might be better. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. I believe countries are defined by their citizens and not by their leadership. Iraq is an Arab Mesopotamian State, even though King Faisal I (Faisal bin Husayn) was Saudi Hashemite, etc. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.50.51 (talk • contribs) 21:33, November 21, 2005 (UTC)

The PLO agreed with you (anon), and in fact tried to do something about it in the early 70s and failed. Of note, the Jordanian government does not agree that Palestinians constitute a majority in Jordan (which is what I assume you are alluding to), and everything we read about that are estimates, not based on any official census. Jordan right now is not a "Palestinian Arab State" but a "Hashemite Kingdom", so it would not be accurate to say that a "second Palestinian state failed to materialize" because there wasn't a first one to begin with. In any case, by your definition, how would you have defined Palestine in 1935? And how would you define the non-sovereign areas between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river now? :) Ramallite ^(talk) 21:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, let's go back to my previous analogy. Though the Palestinians might have been a majority, population-wise, they were utterly powerless -- as were the vast majority of South Africans during apartheid, or for that matter the citizens of any colonized territory. Perhaps this gets into the distinction between state and nation. The Palestinian nation lived (and lives) in a Hashemite state. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I agree that Jordan isn't a democratic Palestinian Arab state, nor is it governed by a representative government, the land is Palestine, and it's citizens are predominately Palestinian Arab ( Arab 98%, Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%) (sources:British mandate (1921-23), League of Nations; CIA World Fact Book 2000). I welcome data that counters my position.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.9.158 (talk • contribs) 05:21, November 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Neither source specifies the population as "Palestinian Arab", this is your invention.
• Transjordan was administered separately since 1922 and was not referred to as "Palestine" since then, certainly not at the time the sentence in question refers to (Transjordan became independent in 1946).
• Transjordan's native population has never been referred to as "Palestinian", the Palestinian population of Jordan today stems from refugees of the 1948 war and internal migration during 1948-1967.

Thus your assertion that the Hashemite Kingdom was or is a Palestinian state is not based on any facts.--Doron 06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. In several cases, I cannot work out who wrote what here, or even which paragraphs are written by the same person. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The monarchy of Jordan isn't going to broadcast Jordan is a Palestinian State. It simply isn't in the king's best interest. Therefore, I decided to investigate raw data. In order for my position to remain viable, two assumptions must remain true: 1)the majority of Jordan is Arab AND 2)the land we call Jordan today was part of the territory Palestine pre 1922.

Hence my references: CIA World Fact Book 2000 (yields population characteristics and population strata); British Mandate (1921-23), League of Nations deals with land/border issues.

I'll continue to search for more references. I did find some interesting quotes allegedly made by kings (even former king of Jordan), politicians, political activists in the region, referring to Jordan as Palestine, but I'm afraid quotes are notoriously poor sources. If anyone is interested in verifying them I can post. (MO)—the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.9.158 (talk • contribs) 05:21, November 22, 2005 (UTC)

The majority of Jordan is Arab, but not necessarily Palestinian Arab. If you are arguing that they are Palestinian Arab for the sole basis that at one point in time the area where they live was called "Palestine", then there are many peoples of the world who would need to change the name of their nationality because of a different name given by some other power at a point in history to the land where they live. Second, I suspect most Arabs in Jordan who you call Palestinian would actually refer to themselves as "Jordanian of Palestinian origin" or "Jordanian of Palestinian ancestry" but Jordanian nevertheless. You wouldn't call Boston an "Irish city" now would you? Yet a significant proportion of its population is of Irish origin. Since the conflict began at the turn of the century, I guess one can argue that the native population of the land of Palestine took the name "Palestinian" once their nationalism and striving for self determination rose up, right along with everybody else's nationalism in the area. This label did not stick on the other side of the river. So it is very possible to argue that the modern day usage of "Palestinian" is not directly derived from the geographical location per se but to a number of other factors as well, most of which do not apply to modern-day Jordan. In any case, your attempts to pass off Jordan as a "Palestinian state" is highly POV (not to mention original research) and probably won't pass muster with most other editors around here. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• And please, anonymous user, sign your posts with ~~~~. It makes it a lot easier to follow the conversation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The admission that Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania is predominately Arab, and that it's citizen's feel they are "of Palestinian origin" is progress. Rome wasn't built in a day. I'd like to address some of the other issues you raised, by focussing our attention briefly on another country/state, within the British Mandate Palestine territory (Pre- 1922): Israel. Israel's populations is composed of Jewish Palestinians, Arab Palestinians, Circasian Palestinians etc. (Jewish 80.1% (Europe/America-born 32.1%, Israel-born 20.8%, Africa-born 14.6%, Asia-born 12.6%), non-Jewish 19.9% (mostly Arab) (1996 est. CIA World Fact Book 2000). Simply changing the name of Israel, doesn't change the status of the country. It would still remain a predominately "Jewish Palestinian State." Likewise, the name modification of Jordania to Trans-Jordan and finally to Jordan (British Mandate Palestine east of the Jordan river), also doesn't alter it's status as the predominately "Arab Palestinian State." Citizens of Israel identify themselves as Israeli's. Citizens of Jordan identify themselves as Jordanians. National identification is independent of the historical status of these two sovereign countries. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 216.58.9.158 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That some of Jordan's citizens may regard themselves as "of Palestinian origin" is not an admission, but a mere fact, just as Senator Ted Kennedy claiming to be of Irish ancestry would not be an "admission". As for the rest of your paragraph, I don't quite follow, except to say that your last sentence actually sums up why your own argument that started this discussion is unsound! Ramallite ^(talk) 20:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

To summerize: Israel is predominately a "Jewish Palestinian State" and Jordan is predominately an "Arab Palestinian State" regardless whether the inhabitants identify themselves as Israeli in Israel's case, or Jordanians in Jordan's case. Therefore "a Palestinian Arab state did materialize in 1922, and the statement: ..."While a Palestinian Arab state failed to materialize, the territory was captured by the neighboring kingdom of Jordan." is in question.216.58.9.158 21:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)MO.

• I do believe strongly that the terminology you are suggesting, though it could be construed as accurate (as indeed you are doing), would only serve to confuse the reader, for whom "Palestinian state" means what the rest of us are saying: a state of and for the people known nowadays as the Palestinian people (as opposed for a state that happens to be in the historic land some call Palestine.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. The term "Palestinian" refers to the peoples that have lived in this territory (British Mandate Palesine and preceding). Palestinian's can be Jewish, Arab(Muslim or Christian), Circasian, etc. Actually, pre- 1948 the term Palestinian referred to Jews. Today the term is typically and commonly used to refer to Arab Palestinians, but it's important to recognize/acknowledge equally the other Palestinian communities and ethnicities as well. Furthermore, Palestine is simply the territorial land (British Mandate 1919-1922). Palestine is analogous to Antarctica today. Antarctica is a territory, not a country. A country called Antarctica doesn't exist! Like Antarctica today, Palestine too was a territory. Two sovereign countries have emerged out of the territory (20th century). One sovereign country is Israel and the other is Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania. Jews of Palestine (Jewish Palestinians) have their county (called Israel), and Arabs of Palestine have their country (called Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania). 216.58.9.158 21:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)MO.

And the article Palestinian would be a good place to have that discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon, I think what you really mean is that Israel and Jordan are Canaanite states.--Doron 07:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. Due to the vast number of peoples who have lived in these lands: Canaanites, Jews, Ancient Egyptians (they were not Arab),Assyrians, Babylonians, Maccabees ,Romans ,Byzantines ,Caliphates (were Arab), Crusaders, Ottoman Turks, and British, this land will have more than one name. For simplicities sake, let's call this land British Mandate Palestine (though many other designations are equally correct) Note: if I've left any societies out my quick list, I apologize.216.58.9.158MO.

No, I see no reason why choose a name that was relevant only from June 1922 till September 1922 (or till 1946 if you want to be strict). To call the native population of Jordan "Palestinian" just because their land was included in the Mandate is slim. It is certainly not factual.--Doron 09:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Following this territory pre-1919 British Mandate leads directly to the Ottoman Turk Empire (incidentally,they too were not Arab). Even during the 400+ years this land was administered by the Ottoman Turks, the peoples living in this territory remained reasonably static: Jewish, Arab, Circasian, etc. See Ottoman Turk Census for this region (yes, I know the census records are poor, but unless you can offer an alternative source...)216.58.9.158 18:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)MO.

The demographics are not disputed here, your designation of Transjordan and its population as "Palestinian" is what's being disputed.--Doron 11:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm just curious. Who did you think the "Jordanians" were?216.58.43.81 23:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)MO

Let's see, many were indigenous nomads, some came from the peninsula, many came from across the river... Wait, are we talking about Jordan, Hungary, or Belgium here? I lost my train of thought... Speaking of Belgium, we should probably rename it Netherlands Part II or something, since the Flemish majority are of Dutch origin... :) :) :) Ramallite ^(talk) 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL... --Doron 08:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

By nomads, you refer to the Bedouin(desert-dwellers) (I personally met a tiny Bedouin clan in 1988; very hospitable). Analogous to the nomadic native tribes of North America, they, like their North American counterparts, traditionally make no claims to land. Until the 50's and 60's they migrated throughout the desert (Sahara, Sinai, Arabian, and Negev). Bedouin lived as a nomadic people both inside British Mandate Palestine and outside. They are not a defining characteristic of Jordanian Palestine. I reiterate my position: Jordania/Trans-Jordan/Jordan is Arab Palestine because 1)it was cut from the same territory of 'Palestine' (as was Israel and the land between Israel and Jordan; sharing the same territorial history), and 2) it's population is predominately Arab (same language, traditions, religion, history and ethnicity as Arabs who live west of the Jordan River). Israel is a sovereign Jewish 'Palestinian' country, and Jordan is a sovereign Arab 'Palestinian' country.216.58.42.49 05:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)MO.

No. Jordan was not called a Palestinian country. Israel is certainly not a Palestinian country. This is entirely your invention.--Doron 07:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Since never in recorded history has a country called 'Palestine' ever existed, I'm forced to apply the term 'Palestine' to the territory British Mandate Palestine/Ottoman Emipire territory (only a segment of Ottoman Empire). Therefore, both Israel and Jordan emerged from the territory known as 'Palestine'. Israel is a Jewish 'Palestinian' country and Jordan is an Arab 'Palestinian' country.216.58.10.18MO.

Two questions (not for sake of argument as much as curiosity): First, what term would you be forced to apply to a- The territory of the West Bank and Gaza, b- The natives of the West Bank and Gaza, and c- a future country established in the West Bank and Gaza? Second, why are you 'forced' (i.e. who is forcing you)? Ramallite ^(talk) 20:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The land between Israel(Jewish Palestinian country) and Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania(Arab Palestinian country) is remnants of the same British Mandate 'Palestine' territory/Ottoman Empire territory. By definition, the land remains simply 'territory.' Until I find credible data to the contrary, I continue to support my position.216.58.10.18 23:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

You can call it whatever you like, Wikipedia reflects what is acceptable, and to say that Jordan was a "Palestinian state" in 1948 is false.--Doron 06:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Jordan was 1) cut from the same British Mandate 'Palestine'/Ottoman-Turk Empire territory and 2) it's citizens (predominately Arab) have the same language, religion, history, and ethnicity as other Arabs living in British Mandate 'Palestine'/Ottoman-Turk Empire territory, until I see credible evidence to the contrary, Jordan is an Arab 'Palestinian' country.216.58.9.221 20:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

You've said that over and over again, and that does not make it any closer to the truth. Please cite a credible source that explicitly refers to Jordan as a Palestinian state.--Doron 20:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Several references that suggest emphatically that Jordan is Arab 'Palestine' follow: 1)Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 9, 1916(see land assigned to Britain) maps available at:http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/graphics/sykespicot.jpg; League of Nations 2)British Mandate 'Palestine'territory (1921-1923); also see League of Nations Mandate for Palestine,1920. 3)see: mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. 4)see British alterning of Mandate 1923 (Creation of Trans-Jordan from Palestine west of Jordan river) 5)see Ottoman Turk Empire (1481-1916); maps available at:http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/ottoman_empire_1481-1683.jpg 6)history of Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania: "At the end of World War I, the territory now comprising Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem was awarded to the United Kingdom by the League of Nations as the mandate for Palestine. In 1922, in an attempt to assuage Arab anger resulting from the Balfour Declaration, with the approval of the League of Nations, the British created the semi-autonomous, Arab Emirate of Transjordan in all Palestinian territory east of the Jordan river." Wikipedia history of Jordan. 7)CIA world factbook 2000:see Jordan's population and borders (cross reference with Ottoman Turk maps above and British Mandate Palestine) 8)see Flag comparison: Jordans vs. 'Palestinian' Arab Flags: image of Jordan's flag at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Jordan.svg. Palestinian Arab proposed flag:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Palestine.png. 216.58.9.243 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

• Please cite a credible source that explicitly refers to Jordan as a Palestinian state. I don't quite get the point of the maps. What does a map of the Ottoman Empire in 1683 have to do with anything? That shows the region in question as "Syria". What does the Sykes-Picot map show besides a big crescent labelled "B Zone under British influence"? At any rate, you are coming to the conclusion that Jordan is a Palestinian state. That's just fine. But your opinion and your conclusions are original research, which is why we keep asking for a cite that explicitly refers to Jordan as a Palestinian state. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The maps indicate that the territory that became Trans-Jordan (Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania did not exsist before 1922) was that of the British Mandate 'Palestine'(1921-23) and British Mandate territory outlined by Sykes-Picot Agreement (May 9, 1916). Also, the same land was Ottoman-Turk Empire territory(1481-1916); without distinction from any other land within Ottoman-Turk Empire/ British Mandate 'Palestine' territory.216.58.9.243MO.

• Please cite a credible source that explicitly refers to Jordan as a Palestinian state. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As per your request, Jpgordon, some quotes worth further investigation/verification:

• Concerning Palestine East Of The River Jordan

On August 23,1959, the Prime Minister of Jordan stated, "We are the Government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine."

Each day brings me closer to the realization that Palestine, as it wants to exist within the boundary of Israel, and impose this view on the world community, is a farce... an imaginative place with imaginative people. History proves over and over again that JORDAN IS INDEED PALESTINE.

• "Palestine and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country."

- King Abdullah, at the Meeting of the Arab League, Cairo, 12th April 1948

• "Let us not forget the East Bank of the (River) Jordan, where seventy per cent of the inhabitants belong to the Palestinian nation."

- George Habash, leader of the PFLP section of the PLO, writing in the PLO publication Sha-un Falastinia, February 1970

• "Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate."

- Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2nd February 1970

• "There is no family on the East Bank of the river (Jordan) that does not have relatives on the West Bank ... no family in the west that does not have branches in the east."

- King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2nd February 1972

• "We consider it necessary to clarify to one and all, in the Arab world and outside, that the PALESTINIAN PEOPLE with its nobility and conscience is to be found HERE on the EAST Bank (of the Jordan River), The WEST Bank and the Gaza Strip. Its overwhelming majority is HERE and nowhere else."

- King Hussein, quoted in An-Hahar, Beirut, 24th August 1972

• "The Palestinians here constitute not less than one half of the members of the armed forces. They and their brothers, the sons of Transjordan, constitute the members of one family who are equal in everything, in rights and duties." (Quoted by BBC Monitoring Service)

- King Hussein, on Amman Radio, 3rd February 1973

• "There are, as well, links of geography and history, and a wide range of interests between the two Banks (of the River Jordan) which have grown stronger over the past twenty years. Let us not forget that el-Salt and Nablus were within the same district - el-Balka - during the Ottoman period, and that family and commercial ties bound the two cities together."

- Hamdi Ken'an, former Mayor of Nablus, writing in the newspaper Al-Quds, 14th March 1973

• "The new Jordan, which emerged in 1949, was the creation of the Palestinians of the West Bank and their brothers in the East. While Israel was the negation of the Palestinian right of self-determination, unified Jordan was the expression of it."

- Sherif Al-Hamid Sharaf, Representative of Jordan at the UN Security Council, 11th June 1973

• Past "President Bourguiba (of Tunisia) considers Jordan an artificial creation presented by Great Britain to King Abdullah. But he accepts Palestine and the Palestinians as an existing and primary fact since the days of the Pharaohs. Israel, too, he considers as a primary entity. However, Arab history makes no distinction between Jordanians, Syrians and Palestinians. Most of them hail from the same Arab race, which arrived in the region with the Arab Moslem conquest."

- Editorial Comment in the Jordanian Armed Forces' weekly, Al-Aqsa, Amman, 11th July 1973

• "With all respect to King Hussein, I suggest that the Emirate of Transjordan was created from oil cloth by Great Britain, which for this purpose cut up ancient Palestine. To this desert territory to the bast of the Jordan (River)., it gave the name Transjordan. But there is nothing in history which carries this name. While since our earliest time there was Palestine and Palestinians. I maintain that the matter of Transjordan is an artificial one, and that Palestine is the basic problem. King Hussein should submit to the wishes of the people, in accordance with the principles of democracy and self-determination, so as-to avoid the fate of his grandfather, Abdullah, or of his cousin, Feisal, both of whom were assassinated."

- Past President Bourguiba of Tunisia, in a public statement, July 1973

• "The Palestinians and the Jordanians have created on this soil since 1948 one family - all of whose children have equal rights and obligations."

- King Hussein, addressing an American Delegation, 19th February 1975

• "How much better off Hussein would be if he had been induced to abandon his pose as a benevolent 'host' to 'refugees' and to affirm the fact that Jordan is the Palestinian Arab nation-state, just as Israel is the Palestinian Jewish nation-state."

- Editorial Comment in the publication The Economist of 19th July 1975

• "Palestine and Jordan were both (by then) under British Mandate, but as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs, they were hardly separate countries. Transjordan being to the east of the River Jordan, it formed in a sense, the interior of Palestine."

- King Hussein, writing in his Memoirs

• "...those fishing in troubled waters will not succeed in dividing our people, which extends to both sides of the (River) Jordan, in spite of the artificial boundaries established by the Colonial Office and Winston Churchill half a century ago."

- Yassir Arafat, in a statement to Eric Roleau

• "Palestinian Arabs hold seventy-five per cent of all government jobs in Jordan."

- The Sunday newspaper The Observer of 2nd March 1976

• "Palestinian Arabs control over seventy per cent of Jordan's economy."

- The Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram of 5th March 1976

• "There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people."

- Farouk Kadoumi, head of the PLO Political Department, quoted in Newsweek, 14th March 1977

• "Along these lines, the West German Der Spiegel magazine this month cited Dr George Habash, leader of one of the Palestinian organizations, as saying that 70 per cent of Jordan's population are Palestinians and that the power in Jordan should be seized." (Translated by BBC Monitoring Service)

- From a commentary which was broadcast by Radio Amman, 30th June 1980

• "Jordan is not just another Arab state with regard to Palestine but, rather, Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan in terms of territory, national identity, sufferings, hopes and aspirations, both day and night. Though we are all Arabs and our point of departure is that we are all members of the same people, the Palestinian-Jordanian nation is one and unique, and different from those of the other Arab states."

- Marwan al Hamoud, member of the Jordanian National Consultative Council and former Minister of Agriculture, quoted by Al Rai, Amman, 24th September 1980

• "The potential weak spot in Jordan is that most of the population are not, strictly speaking, Jordanian at all, but Palestinian. An estimated 60 per cent of the country's 2,500,000 people are Palestinians ... Most of these hold Jordanian passports, and many are integrated into Jordanian society."

- Richard Owen, in an article published in The Times, 14th November 1980

• "There is no moral justification for a second Palestine."

- The Freeman Center (September 3, 1993)216.58.9.243MO.

• Which of those refers to Jordan as a "Palestinian State"? (We can't use our own inferences; that's original research.) I might have missed it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they all do, but some more directly than others. Direct references were made by: 1)Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2nd February 1970 2) (August 23,1959) the Prime Minister of Jordan, King Abdullah, at the Meeting of the Arab League, Cairo, 12th April 1948 3) Editorial Comment in the publication The Economist of 19th July 1975 4)King Hussein, writing in his Memoirs 5)Marwan al Hamoud, member of the Jordanian National Consultative Council and former Minister of Agriculture, quoted by Al Rai, Amman, 24th September 1980.216.58.9.243 05:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

• What you (or I) interpret them as saying or not saying is irrelevant. What not one of them uses is the expression "Palestinian state". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

More quotes for your viewing pleasure:

"We don't need two states of Palestine" declared Dr. Kadri Toukan, a former Jordanian Foreign Minister on December 9, 1970.

Anwar Nusseibi, a Former Jordanian Defense Minister, on October 3, 1970 stated "The Jordanians are also Palestinians. This is one State. This is one people. The name is not important. The families living in Salt, Irbid, and Karak maintain not only family and matrimonial ties with the families in Nablus and Hebron, they are one people."

Ahmad Shuqairy, the first President of the PLO told the Palestine National Council, May 1965, that " Our Jordanian brothers are actually Palestinians."

The following is excerpted from a speech, delivered by Yosef Tekoah, Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. November 13, 1974. These comments precisely describe the status of the two Palestines:

"No nation has enjoyed greater fulfillment of its political rights, no nation has been endowed with territory, sovereignty and independence more abundantly, then the Arabs. Of common language, culture, religion and origin, the Arab nation stormed out of its birth land in the seventh century and conquered one people after another until its rule encompassed the entire Arab peninsula, the Fertile Crescent and North Africa. As a result of centuries of acquisition of territory by war, the Arab nation is represented in the United Nations by twenty sovereign States. Among them is also the Palestinian Arab State of Jordan. Geographically and ethnically Jordan is Palestine. Historically both the West and East Banks of the Jordan River are parts of the land of Israel or Palestine. . The population of Jordan is composed of two elements - the sedentary population and nomads. Both are, of course, Palestinian. The nomad Bedouin constitute a minority of Jordan's population. Moreover, the majority of the sedentary inhabitants, even of the East Bank, are of Palestinian West Bank origin. Without the Palestinians, Jordan is a State without a people. "216.58.9.243 06:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

• Good! One quote calling Jordan a Palestinian State...Now, consider the source, and see if we really want to use that characterization. Good research, by the way -- I was hoping you could come up with the example we were asking for. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The first two quotes (King Abdulla and Jordan's Prime Minister) are reasonably definitive. Furthermore, I attempted to search "sovereign Jordan" and was unable to find a emphatic quote. Yet, I think you would agree, there is enough indirect evidence to suggest Jordan is indeed a "sovereign country."216.58.42.30MO.

First of all, we are talking about 1948, so none of the later quotes are relevant, because in 1950 Transjordan annexed the West Bank and renamed itself "Jordan", after which a large percentage of its population was indeed Palestinian. This, however, was not the situation in 1948. The 1948 King Abdullah quote (which is missing) is "Palestine and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country", by which King Abdullah merely claims Palestine as part of his domain -- and he clearly distinguishes between "Palestine" and "Transjordan" (one is the coastline and the other is the hinterland), he does not claim that Transjordan "is Palestine" or "is Palestinian".--Doron 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the significance of 1948, other than a second sovereign county (Israel) emerged from British Mandate Palestine/Ottoman Turk Territory (Jordan being the first to rise (1922) from THE SAME British Mandate Palestine/Ottoman Turk Territory). In addition, aside from the small number of installed Hashemite royal clan, the entire population of Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania (pre and post 1922) was Arab, Jewish(until 1948), and Circasian 'Palestinian.' Altering the name of this land to Jordania/Trans-Jordan/Jordan doesn't change the history of the land or its' people.216.58.42.30 07:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

• Nope, it doesn't. But nobody described Trans-Jordan as a "Palestinian state", so Wikipedia doesn't get to either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

....more quotes, still, suggesting Jordan is Arab Palestine:

"The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture."

Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980

"Palestine has never existed - before or since - as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire, and briefly by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. There was no language known as Palestinian. There was no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a Palestine governed by the Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc."

Joseph Farah (Arab-American columnist)216.58.10.48 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)MO

How would you incorporate this into an article called 'West Bank'? The article 'Palestine' does debate what the terms 'Palestine' and 'Palestinian' mean. This has meant different areas at different times. Jordan was only considered to be part of 'Palestine' for 4 years under British rule, before it was separated as a different masndate. Jordanians, unless they are descended from Palestinian refugees, do not generally consider themselves Palestinians. Personally, I think it's like saying that the Belgians are Dutch, and that Belgian is the second Dutch state, because they were part of the Netherlands for 15 years, and that their country had been referred to as part of a vague area called the 'Netherlands' for many years before that. We CAN debate what the term 'Palestinian' means, but that debate should be had as part of articles on the Palestinians or Palestine. This is an article about an area of territory - The West Bank. --Indisciplined 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Should the Palestinian authority be mentioned in the first paragraph? It is mentioned, in a somewhat abrupt yet detailed way, in the second, but is there space for a line like "The autonomous (semi-autonomous?) Palestinian authority exercises varying degrees of control in some areas of the West Bank"? Palmiro | Talk 13:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

limitedgeographicscope

Could someone please explain why {{limitedgeographicscope}} is on this page? This is an article on a specific geographic location. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

demographics

The "team of American and Israeli researchers" who authored the study which was excessively quoted just now seems to be composed of known right-wing activists. You can put any of their names into Google and find previous political activism in support of the Israeli right wing. For example "historian Roberta Seid PhD" doubles as executive director of StandWithUs. So presenting this "study" as if it is by objective scientists is clearly a deception. It deserves a much briefer mention as a claim made by a right-wing group. --Zero 05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the numbers have not been proven falsified. The political opinions of the authors is noted but is not the issue here. No one has disputed the objectivity of the Palestinian authors who continue to record people who have left the areas, and other irregulaties. --Shuki 11:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ramalite, agree on correction. --Shuki 15:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Of note, many (and I venture, the vast majority) of Palestinians who have left the area do not really have citizenship elsewhere, they are either on extended work visas in some Arabic-speaking country (where they would never be given citizenship) or out for education or work elsewhere. I was not there during the census, but I was counted, and rightfully so, since I was only getting my PhD on a student visa elsewhere, but I do not have any permanent residency of any sort anywhere else other than Palestine. The economic and educational conditions in Palestine make it standard for people to be gone for extended periods of time, as long as they can secure visas which is getting harder and harder these days. So the arguments these people are making are not really sound. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No doubt. But international standards for censuses say that if someone is more than a year away from their "usual" home, they should be counted in their "temporary" residence. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, so I appreciate the info. There are so many aspects of 'international standards' that are severely lacking in this part of the world, unfortunately....And as is the case for almost everything else, even a basic thing as a census becomes a topic for a political dispute, evidently (sigh). Ramallite ^(talk) 04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How do the Arabs call it, then?

Different names in different languages for that same little strip of land are discussed in great detail (and quite rightly so) -- but Arabic is oddly missing. There must be some Arabic name, right? And I do think it's relevant, given the demography of the territory in question. Taking Ramallite's contrib's to the discussion as a bona fide source, I'd suggest adding some text to the 3rd paragraph (introduction) like:

[snip]... some English speakers use the equivalent Judea and Samaria. In Arabic, preference is given to the term Falestin (Palestine), but West Bank is also used. The name Cisjordan ... [snip] (Preferably with Falestin + West Bank in Arabic letters) + something along the same lines in the section "Political terminology"

I'm sorry for possibly heating up an old debate, but I think this way it would be quite NPOV: Some call it like this, others call it like that. Nuf said. --DerHerrMigo 10:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone calling the West bank by itself Palestine. Palestine, in Palestinian usage, refers either to the whole of historic Palestine, or to the Palestinian territories. The West Bank in Arabic is الضفة الغربية or often for short just الضفة. Palmiro | Talk 11:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I live in the US and so far I have never heard of the name Judea and Samaria. Not in the news, or papers or radio, so I think that name should be stated: used by Pro-Israeli. Messhermit 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Replacing faulty summary of history

The following is not up to standard. My comments in (itals in parens):

After World War I, and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, a Jewish-Arab agreement (the Faisal Weizmann Agreement) was signed by Haim Weizmann (later the first president of the state of Israel) and Emir Faisal (later the first King of Iraq) in which the Emir pledged to support the 1917 Balfour Declaration regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. Both men disregarded the wishes of the Arabs in Palestine. In exchange, the Arabian Peninsula was to form an Arab kingdom. (There was nothing in the agreement about the Arabian Peninsula, and Feizal expected a much bigger area than that.) This agreement was ratified during the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. (Feisal and Weizmann signed it for the first time while they were both at the peace conference, but the conference itself did not ratify it. Both the timeline and the facts are wrong here.) However, the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 between the United Kingdom and France ultimately took precedence, and the arrangement was short-lived.

As well as the errors, there is no cause in an article on the West Bank to start with the Feizal-Weizmann agreement. It had no practical effect on the history of this geographical region. Better to just refer to the other articles where the early history is explained better. --Zero 22:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

History Update

Should mention of the dismatling of settlements be added to the history here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.157.136.113 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2006.

external links make a joke of wikipedia

One of the links in this article (American thinker opinion article) is from a contributing editor of FrontPage magazine, a US neo-con propaganda rag dedicated to zionism and removal of Arabs from "Jewish" territories. I'm totally in favour of free speech (unlike the US government which has recently closed down a satellite TV company in New York for distributing Hezbollah TV). I have no problem with US neo-cons setting up their own web site advocating the "removal" of palestinians etc. The question is, how does linking to people like that help wikipedia in its mission to inform? It is true that Frontpage has something to say about the situation in the Occupied territories. But i'm sure that Volkischer Beobachter did too. Should we get some references in from them as well? Pmurnion 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not annexed

The reasons included are written very well and clearly. Most of them are confirmed all throughout Wikipedia's articles. Some of them were on this page long before I touched them (I personally added a 'citation needed' to the first world insurance part. In addition, here are some more sources.

• http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/israel-palestine.php A Muslim site founded by a Palestinian
• http://palestinefacts.org/what_occupation.html
• http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_territories.php
• http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_jordan_annex.php

I also have some personal e-mails from Mitchell Bard, a prominent historian:

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:26:31 EDT Subject: Re: West bank info

"Not sure I understand what was in the original. Israel did not award citizenship to anyone in the West Bank because the territory was never annexed to Israel. Palestinians who live in Israel have full rights"

Sincerely, Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D. Executive Director American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:40:07 EDT Subject: Re: West bank info

"Short answer is that Israel believed part could be exchanged for peace with Arabs, it was what they agreed to in UN Res 242 and they couldn't remain a democracy and a Jewish state if they incorporated more than 1 million Arabs into Israel."

Sincerely, Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D. Executive Director American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)

Again, the rest is mostly made up of facts and a lot of which is on Wikipedia. You can find wuotes from Arab leaders all over the net. Also, the subject is very relevant and it clearly states that none is formally confirmed by the Israeli government, but that historians and analysts have studied the history and issues. --Shamir1 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

These sections consist entirely of unsourced material or material not supported by the references given. --Ian Pitchford 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian, Youre being stubborn. --67.120.168.41 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Ian, I explained it. It says historians and analysts established it, TRUE. All the rest I have given sources for (the "vote Israel out of existence" was written by a Palestinian Muslim as a fact by the way). The only naked one would be the first world/insurance part which I added a +ref to. These words anyway were on Wikipedia before, I didn't put them there. Is it true that there had been an overwhelming number of non-Zionist Arabs whose allies were sworn to the destruction of Israel? Yes, 100%. Is it true they feared they would outnumber them? Yes. Anyway, it says all of them are a POSSIBILITY laid out by the pros. No argument. --Shamir1 02:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Shamir1 you really need to read and re-read WP:NOR. The text you didn't write but are re-inserting says "however, historians and analysts have established a variety of such" but proceed to not enter a single reference, and come to the talk page and cite obscure people who are neither historians nor analysts. It is extremely simple, so let me break it down for you:

1. Reluctance to award its citizenship to an overwhelming number of non-Zionist Arabs whose allies were sworn to the destruction of Israel. Here, you would need a reliable, notable, and verifiable source by a historian or analyst who states that Israel doesn't want to give citizenship to "non-Zionist Arabs" and that the reason for this is that "they have allies sworn to the destruction of Israel". We can't embellish article text with our own emotions.
2. Fear that the population of Palestinian Arabs would outnumber the Israelis, appeal to different political interests, and vote Israel out of existence; eliminating the concept of a Jewish state So find a notable, verifiable quotation by a historian or analyst who makes the statement that Israel didn't annex the areas because of these reasons. Many arguments against the right of return have used these lines, so I'm sure that it must be mentioned with regards to annexation... somewhere...
3. To tote the bill for First-world Social insurance for the local Third world society[citation needed] if citation is not present, do not add it. In actuality, Israel provided insurance to all the inhabitants of the areas, with our tax money, up until the Oslo accords. So this one is BS. But in any case, yet again, find a reliable, notable, and verifiable source by a historian or analyst who states that Israel did not annex the territories because it did not want to pay insurance to a "third world society" (the prejudice and racism this implies should be appalling to you by itself).
4. To ultimately exchange the land for peace with neighbouring states again, provide a.... you get the idea, and make sure it mentions "with neighboring states" or some derivative thereof.

Ramallite ^(talk) 04:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, you really need to read and re-read the sources I gave you.

1. Reluctance to award its citizenship to an overwhelming number of non-Zionist Arabs whose allies were sworn to the destruction of Israel. Where they non-Zionist? Yes. Where they Arabs? Yes. Here is a direct quote from David Bamberger's book: "Then came the Six Day War, and Israel conquered the lands where refugees were living. After the war, Israel expected to return the conquered lands as a part of a general peace treaty, but the Arab states refused to negotiate. And so Israel, against its will, found itself governing nearly two million Palestinian Arabs whose allies were sworn enemies of the Jewish state" (128). Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, who declared: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.” The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini stated: "I declare a holy war my Moslem brothers ... Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" I can give quotes all day, but just remember the ONLY goal Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and others had in mind when they attacked Israel: to destroy it, completely. They don't deny it.
2. Fear that the population of Palestinian Arabs would outnumber the Israelis, appeal to different political interests, and vote Israel out of existence; eliminating the concept of a Jewish state Yeah, read the freemuslims.org site I gave. It was written by a Palestinian Arab Muslim. David Bamberger and Mitchell Bard's words also support it.
3. To tote the bill for First-world Social insurance for the local Third world society[citation needed] I did not write this, nor have I heard of it, nor did Mitchell Bard mention it in his e-mail back. So I added the 'citation needed' note since it had been on Wikipedia beforehand. That's all. If you want to take it out, I don't mind.
4. To ultimately exchange the land for peace with neighbouring states Not only is there an article here on it, but Mitchell Bard as well as David Bamberger said this.

All done. --Shamir1 18:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Annexation

The word "conditional" does not appear anywhere in the cited source. It is a POV edit apparently meant to belittle the Israeli actions. the fact is that all these palestinian residents were offered citizenship, and if they rejected it (as many did, for political reasons) still allowed them to remain as permanent residents - a status equal to citizenship in all rights and obligations except the right to vote. This is a common status in all countries, and all of them (as far as I know) require you to pledge your loyalty to the new country. Including the list of "conditions" that the Palestinians must meet (which is th esame as when any other non-citizen applies for citizenship in a new country) is a form of well-poisoning. It has no place in the article Former user 2 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Israel would be so bold as to say that they are 'allowing' the native population of Jerusalem to stay in their own homes and lands that they've lived in for generations, and calling that a favor to them, is kind of arrogant of the state, don't you think? Ramallite ^(talk) 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what your point is. Israel annexed the territory, and offered the residents 3 alternatives: (1) They could become full fledged citizens of Israel. (2) They could retain their previous citizenship and legal status (i.e: refuse both Israeli citizenship and permanent residency) or (3) They could become permanent residents, without becoming citizens. What else should they have been offered? This is the epitome of good will, and yes it is a "favor", because it didn't have to offer all these options. To see why that is so, consider the alternatives. Israel could have forced the residents to take on Israeli citizenship (as the Chinese did to Tibetians). It did not do that. Israel could have prevented them from acquiring Israeli citizenship (as it does in the rest o fteh West Bank). It did not do that. It could have forced them to become permanent residents. It did not do that. Not to mention the fact that it could have expelled them (as the Czechs did to the Sudetn Germans). It gave them the full spectrum of opportunities -and left it up to them, at the individual level, to choose whichever option they want. They can stay in their own homes and lands that they've lived in for generations, they can even retain their citizenship and loyalty to an enemy governement. Former user 2 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ramallite, Jerusalem has maintained a Jewish majority since the 1870s. In addition, the Israelites are the native people of the region, and their descendants are the Jews. Jewish claims to the land predate the Arab invasion by over 2 and half milleniums. Arabs rejected the peaceful Partition Plan, went on a violent rampage, Arab states attacked the tiny State of Israel from all corners, encouraged the Arabs to leave to make way for invading armies for a "quick and easy victory", thus causing the refugee crisis. Don't blame the Palestinian problems on Israel. They managed to achieve statehood without violent means. After 1948, the Arabs who stayed in Israel's borders were equally eligible for citizenship. During the twenty years Jordan had the West Bank and Jerusalem (and restricted any entry to Jews and Christians) and Egypt had the Gaza Strip, there was NO attempt or talk of creating a Palestinian state there, and there was no rebellion against Jordan or Egypt, the latter of which denied the Strip's residents of citizenship and insurance. Meanwhile Israel has accepted and offered a Palestinian state, and in the 50's and 60's contributed more to refugee relief than most Arab countries. Neighboring states hesitated to relieve the situation, as they wanted to keep them as political pawns.

From the Oscar-nominated film Munich, Ali: "Eventually the Arab states will rise against Israel -- they don't like Palestinians, but they hate Jews more."

The passage from the source reads: Permanent residents were permitted, if they wished and met certain conditions, to receive Israeli citizenship. These conditions included swearing allegiance to the State, proving that they are not citizens of any other country, and showing some knowledge of Hebrew. For political reasons, most of the residents did not request Israeli citizenship. This is pretty clear to me. Your edit changes the sense of this. If you want to go ahead and delete the specific conditions, I'll leave it to Ramallite to continue the argument on that point. But for now I'm reverting back. Please don't change the sense of well-sourced material. Dasondas 05:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

the pledge of allegiance and all that doesn't belong here. I'm not even sure it's true. Most countries have much more strict conditions. Check out what Canadaians have to say: [3] Anyway this exists in the whole world and obviously doesn't belong here, see: Oath of citizenship Amoruso 05:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't appreciate the thoughtless changing of well-sourced material. I've said twice that I agree with you two about the relevancy of listing the specific conditions, but I don't see why you can't remove that extraneous information without changing the sense of the cited material. It is not credible to claim that it is not a serious source; it most clearly is and it should be treated that way whether we agree with it or not. Dasondas 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you truly don't appreciate the thoughtless changing of well-sourced material, I wonder why you are reverting. Until today, the relevant section read "Israel has only annexed the parts known as East Jerusalem; its residents have been offered Israeli citizenship, although many refuse and settle for permanent residency. " This sentence is entirely accurate, and was changed today to a claim that they are "regarded as conditional permanent residents" - sourced to an article that does not use the word "conditional" even once. That same edit claimed in it's edit summary that "it's residents weren't exactly 'offered', see source. Also, it is rare for a Jerusalem Palestinian who applies for citizenship to get approved." - the latter part was completely unsourced, and the first part says the opposite of what the cited source said, which is "Permanent residents were permitted, if they wished and met certain conditions, to receive Israeli citizenship." Today's changes are clearly POV, attempting to paint a normal, common way for non-citizens to become citzens as some sinister plot by the evil israelis, who insist on restrictions and conditions. Former user 2 05:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That was in the edit summary, but not part of the article. You are reverting under false pretenses then. because yes I did complain in the edit summary, but the actual edit I made, which was sourced, was not related to the edit summary, and you know that. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that concerned about what another editor put in his edit comments; I'm concerned about what shows up in the article. Right now, the word "conditional" does not appear in the article so I don't know why you are so worked up about that word. I'll say again, for the third time, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT LISTING THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. Did you get it that time? So go ahead and delete them if you want -- just don't change the sense of the well-sourced and cited material. If you have information contradicting that source, then you need to include it and cite it and note the discrepancy within the body of the article. You can't just go around changing or deleting well-sourced and cited material. And while we're on the subject, the rest of the material in that section has not yet been sourced or cited properly even though several editors, including myself, have been complaining about it for days. I don't care how true the information is, if you want it to stay then source it. I am surprised that you want to apply a different set of rules to the part of this section you agree with than to the part you disagree with. This isn't a rhetoric club; it's an encyclopedia. Dasondas 05:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And one more point I forget to mention in the heat of argument --

Even though I do agree with you about it being unnecessary to list specific conditions for citizenship, I think it would be inappropriate to assume that a Palestinian having to swear allegiance to Israel is being asked to do the same thing as a Mexican farm worker in San Diego, for example, who wants to become a US citizen. We need some perspective here as well; all situations are different. Dasondas 05:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

MY BAD. I just noticed the word "conditional" in the first sentence. Sorry, now I know what you were getting worked up about. I hadn't even focused on that sentence; I was concerned about the rest of the section. I'll take a look now. Sorry again. Dasondas 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Read my comment in my list below regarding the word "conditional". There are strict conditions to maintaining permanent residency in Jerusalem if you happen to be Palestinian. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] If I may weigh in...., the word "conditional" actually does appear in this latest edit. [that was before I see your current comment after edit conflict] I actually think the bulk of Dasondas' edit listing the conditions for acquiring citizenship should be left intact. The only change I suggest is removing "conditional" from "conditional permanent residents" unless that phrase is used in the source (I didn't see it). As far as the conditions of citizenship, they look to me to be relevant and sourced. Many countries allow dual citizenship with allied entities, so of course there is somewhat of a predicament for Palestinians who must choose between Palestinian citizenship and Israeli citizenship. It's understandable that Israel might impose this condition with the current political situation, but the resulting predicament for Palestinians certainly warrants mention. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the word "conditional" and added a cite for the full sourced document rather than the inadequate summary that was provided previously. I hope this is OK with (almost) everybody. Dasondas 06:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

many countries allow dual citizenship, and Israel is among them. This dual citizenship is usually the result of a child being born to parents of different citizenships or being elligble for dual citizenship under two sets of laws (e.g: by birth to a citizen of one ocuntry, and by geography to another). Most countries I am aware of require a naturalized citizen to renounce his previous citizenship. The US for example requires that a naturalized citizen "To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:

   * support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S.;
   * renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title;"

So, there is nothing unique about the Israeli requirement. Former user 2 06:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

When people become naturalized citizens, they generally immigrate from somewhere else. The case of East Jerusalem Palestinians is unique because it is not that they have immigrated, but their place of residence came under Israeli jurisdiction when it was annexed. While their families in the next town (not some far off country) are Palestinian citizens, they must choose to forfeit that citizenship and become isolated and cut off from the rest of the Palestinian community in order to become a citizen in the place where they already reside. At least this is my understanding, is this not the case? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Note, the US does not require naturalized citizens to give up citizenship of the country of birth, and US citizens do not lose citizenship by being granted foreign citizenship unless they also voluntarily choose to give up their US citizenship.[4] --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. I have quoted the US requirement verbatim to you - Naturalized citizens are required to "renounce any foreign allegiance". The source you are quoting says that your US citizenship is not lost if you acquire a foreign one through naturalization, but the converse is not stated there, and is not true. See [5] Former user 2 17:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The converse actually *does* apply and explicitly states so in the Department of State link I gave above, which is the authoritive source. It says, a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. And I personally know several people who have become naturalized US citizens who hold dual citizenships with Israel, with Holland, with Venuzuela, with Ireland, with South Africa, and with Germany. I don't know for certain, but it doesn't appear there is a requirement to even give up citizenship to an enemy government to the US, though I'm sure citizens of enemy foreign governments would not be permitted to naturalize in the first place. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, this "converse" example has to do with the possibility that a naturalized US citizen may not be able to give up his foreign citizenship even if he wants to. The foreign government may not permit it. When you read the text surrounding this paragraph in the State Department document cited, I think it becomes clear. Dasondas 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If naturalized citizens actually did renounce any foreign allegiance then so many Israelis would no longer be Israeli citizens. Yes, the US does require new citizens to renounce foreign allegiance, but the US does not enforce this since dual citizenship is not illegal under US law. As your source shows, the old country in most cases does not recognize a renunciation based on a "routine" pledge printed on a routine application form (provided the old country accepts dual citizenship). That is why all new US citizens retain their original citizenship except where the original country doesn't recognize dual citizenship (e.g. India, Norway). Some countries (e.g. Spain) require it's citizens to apply for reinstatement of citizenship should a citizen be naturalized elsewhere, but that's just a routine procedure that takes a few weeks. Other countries (e.g. Denmark) will insist on proof that a naturalized citizen has renounced his/her previous citizenship, and in cases where the home country refuses to recognize such renunciation, the applicant is stuck as a permanent resident in the host country. But the bottom line regarding the US is that, as long as the original country recognizes dual citizenship, naturalized US citizens retain their old passports. But none of this is comparable to Jerusalemites, since Palestinians from Jerusalem are not immigrants, but are treated as such nevertheless. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

user:Isarig is right about the oath of citizenship requiring a renunciation of "foreign allegiances", although technically I don't think this necessarily means giving up a foreign citizenship. Giving up the citizenship is an issue between the citizen and his (former) country; the US doesn't require proof that the person actually formally renounced citizenship of the other country; it only asks for an oath renouncing allegiance to that (and any other) country. However, I think the main thrust of the source that user:MPerel is citing has to do with the fact that the country which the new US citizen is abandoning might still consider that person to be a citizen even if the person doesn't any longer desire to be. In other words, he might not be able to give up his prior citizenship even if he wants to. Dasondas 17:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you see the distinction between the law and its enforcement. The US (and Israel, and many other countries) require a naturalized citizen to renounce a previous citizenship. That is why the Israeli requirement of Jerusalem Palestinians was not unique, and there's no need to mention it in this context. The US (and Israel, and many other countries) have no way of effectively enforcing this requirement, and so their naturalized citizens often reatin their dual citizenship. The same holds true for the Jerusalem Palestinians. Those who chose to do so could have renounced their Jordanian citizenship, gained Israeli citizenship, yet keep their Jordanian passports and ermain Jordanian citizens (assuming Jordan allows it). Yes, the Palestinians from Jerusalem are not immigrants - but what other option could Israel have given them ? They coudl becoem citizens, they could become residents, or they could remain as-is. Former user 2 17:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli requirement of Jerusalem Palestinians IS unique in that, as you acknowledge, they are not immigrants and are yet treated as such. What other option could Israel have given them? Well, according to International Law, upon annexing the territory Israel must give all residents automatic citizenship, not just the option. This is complicated for 2 reasons: 1- The same international law doesn't recognize Israel's annexation, and 2- the Palestinians themselves don't recognize the annexation. Israel has placed them in an impossible situation: "Love us or we'll kick you out of your homes" - now that's not really a common situation. The Palestinians, by the way, are NOT Jordanian citizens, but are eligible for passport-style travel documents- that eligibility is lost if they attain Israeli citizenship. Now why anybody would want to keep a Jordanian passport is beyond me, but considering that the alternative is de facto recognition of an illegal occupation, subjugation, and humiliation in their own city (again, not my words, that's how they see it), perhaps its understandable why they wouldn't want to be Israeli. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do tone down the hyperbole, this is not a usenet forum. Your claim that the option Israel gave them is ""Love us or we'll kick you out of your homes" is false. The options were "become our citizens" , "become our permamnent residents" or "stay as you are". Choosing any of these options would not result in anyone being kicked out of their home. Your claim that

"The Palestinians, by the way, are NOT Jordanian citizens" may be true today (since Jordan unilaterally revoked their citizenship in '88), but was not true at the time of the annexation - they were most certainly Jordanian citizens at that time, and could have chosen to retain that citizenship. I fully understand why they may not want to be Israeli citizens - and they were offered the option of not becoming ones. What I don't understand is the bitching about being given all three options, as if there was yet another option not given to them. Former user 2 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'hyperbole' is just a summarization of the B'tselem article that documents evidence of 'silent expulsion' as they call it. Also, I don't know what the "stay as you are" option is, they only had two options, not three, and the 'bitching' stems from the fact that the Palestinians do not believe that Israel, as an occupying power, has the moral or legal authority to demand any options/choices of Palestinians at all, especially when it is the government's policy to limit the growth of their population in order for it to remain a comfortable minority (sounds creepy). Saying that the "become our permanent residents" option "would not result in anyone being kicked out of their homes" is apparently false, as evidenced by numerous human rights groups. Lastly, the Palestinian population of Jerusalem will have almost doubled in another few years relative to 1988, meaning that a significant percentage of Jerusalemites alive now were not born in 1988, so what the Jordanian government did back then is slowly eroding in relevance. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The b'tselem article did not use the phrase "Love us or we'll kick you out of your homes", and your characterization of that statement as a "summary" of the article is disingenious. This is hyperbole, nothing more nothing less. The "stay as you are" option means - don;t becoem a citizen, don't become a permanent resident. That is the same status as the rest of the Palestinians in the non-annexed West Bank. Surely you are not suggetsing that someone creeped up on those who refused Israeli citizenship and forced then to carry an Israeli ID card in their pocket?. The "evidence" by "numerous human rights groups" is an unsourced claim, by a single group (B'tselem) that Israel has a secret plan, whose details are unknown to cuase permanent residet to lose their status. The "evidence" produced is that those who actually stopped being resident (ie, moved abroad or to other parts of the West bank for long periods of time, established their lives abroad etc...), found that , surprise, their residency has been revoked. This is a totaly common and expected outcome. In the US, for example, permanent residents may lose that status if they "Remain outside of the US for more than one year without obtaining a reentry permit" or "Remain outside of the US for more than two years after issuance of a reentry permit". In fact, such loss may occur for periods much shorter than even a year: "in determining whether your status has been abandoned any length of absence from the US may be considered, even if it is less than one year. "[6]. For some strange reason, human rights groups don't consider this a sinister plan to kick people out of their homes. Former user 2 19:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay okay I'll drop mention of the love talk if it makes you uncomfortable. As for the US, again you are mixing and matching contexts in order to create a convenient analogy - remember in the US they are immigrants applying for a green card, in Jerusalem they are already in their own homes and lands. As for your third option of "stay as you are" by your definition, such people would NOT be allowed to stay in Jerusalem. And in fact they are not. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The relvant issue is whether or not Israeli permanent residency requirements are unique or not. CLearly, they are not. If anything, they are far more lenient than comparable US requirements. After settling in the US (a pre-requisite to gettign a green card) the immigarnts are surely living in their own homes and lands, and if they leave, they are subject to losign those - ditto for Palestinains. And you are wrong regarding the "stay as you are". The article you are using as a source say that these people "lose their rights as residents" - not that tehy are kicked out. They lose the right to Israeli social security, they lose their right to vote in the Israeli municipal elections, etc.. - but no one is preventing them from living in the city, in their home. Former user 2 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is not the requirements that are unique - it's who they are required of that's unique. As for losing residency rights, yes of course that means they are no longer allowed to live in the city and are kicked out. You obviously have not been to any West Bank checkpoints lately (and let's not make this a new prolonged debates about checkpoints). Ramallite ^(talk) 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But "who they are required of " is not unique. It is true of Palestinians who became PR in Jerussalem, and it is true of Australians who became PR in Tel Aviv, and it is true of native Hawaiians who became PR in the US. I have a (non-Palestinian) relative who is a PR of Israel. Were he to leave his current hoem in Jerusalem and go live in the US for a few yeras, he'd liekly lose his PR status jsut as much as a Palestinian who does the same. You can assert that "course that means they are no longer allowed to live in the city and are kicked out" until you are blue in the face, but it is not true, and is not claimed in the article you are using as a refernce. Former user 2 20:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we have entertained our audience enough; I'm not sure why you don't realize that an Australian - born and raised in Australia by a family who was present in Australia for generations - moving to Israel and obtaining PR there, is not the same thing as a Palestinian - born and raised in Palestine by a family who was present in Palestine for generations - not moving anywhere but having PR imposed on him in Palestine. I'd say that's a huge difference. I have nothing else to claim for the moment, because I'm not here to convince you or anybody because it's not really my priority, especially as whatever you or I think is not going to change anything on the ground. And one last thing, I never get blue in the face. Sometimes I get a little bit of purple around my navel, and on occasion my toes will start to itch, but no, can't say I've ever had the blue in the face syndrome. Regards, Ramallite ^(talk) 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think is unfair Mperel ? If you think about it, you are right... he has to choose whether he wants to be a Palestinian or an Israeli ! He doesn't have to move from Jerusalem of course. He gets all the rights inside Israel as a permanent resident and he can go vote for the Palestinian government. But if he wants to become an Israeli citizen then it means he sees himself as an Israeli and needs to think of Israel's interests - you see ? Sounds very obvious to me. Btw, U.S law is similar to Israeli law in one important aspect. You do realise that the Hamas governmnet in the Palestinian "state" at the moment is at a state of War with Israel. Countries certainly do not have to accept dual citizenships from enemy states and no country in the world does accept it.... so even in that sense, there's no problem here. It's really quite a basic demand, that if one wants to become an Israeli then he will show that he really wants to become an Israeli. These Arabs ARE immigrants to the Jewish state - if they want to remain Palestinian/Jordanian citizens they certainly can and they'll also remain living where they are. I don't see how that obstructs on them in any way. Amoruso 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

restarting indent. It's not about what I think is unfair, the unique predicament of Palestinians in East Jerusalem having to choose between citizenships due to the political situation should be noted in the article, that's all. If they want to vote and have any say in the government that governs them, they are essentially required to alienate themselves from their own surrounding Palestinian community. It's a unique situation not common to citizens of other countries. Israelis who immigrate to the US are not required to give up their Israeli citizenship and they can vote in both US and Israeli elections, as can US citizens who make aliyah to Israel, but then of course yes, the two countries are allies. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 11:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. also I think your last sentence is key in understanding the whole issue. Amoruso 11:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

btw, since east Jerusalem is part of Israel today, Arabs residents in Jerusalem that are born today and don't have another citizenship will automatically get citizenship if they wish without any other requirement. Amoruso 07:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, I wonder whether Jewish immigrants to Israel who get Israeli citizenship are required to renounce their previous citizenship. I think they aren't. So why should Arabs in East Jerusalem? To me it looks unfair and calculated to minimize the number of Arabs who get the right to vote in Israeli elections. Anyway, at the very least the fact that Arabs who desire citizenship are required to meet such conditions should be mentioned in the article. This is an encyclopedia. Well-sourced and relevant information should not be deleted. Let the reader evaluate the facts and decide for themselves whether this Israeli policy is fair or not. Dianelos 08:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's really rather simple. Israelis can get citizenship in numberous ways : (1) the law of return which applies to Jews - this is similar to the law of return of other countries like Germany. Obviously here you don't have to renounce other cititzenship and it's automatic. (2) if you were born inside Israel and you don't have another citizenship (3) if you were in the area made into Israel - this includes all Arab citizens of 1948 - you get it automatically and you don't have to renounce anything (4) by applying for a citizenship - then you have some limitations like oath and renouncing if you have different citizenship, similar to almost all the world's immigrant laws. (5) special permit from the ministry of interior if he wants to grant citizenship. Amoruso 10:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, to answer some questions above (all summarized from sources, these are not my own words):

• It's "conditional" because, according to the source, if the residents leave or live anywhere else for 7 years (usually less in practice but we'll stick to the source), the residency is revoked, even if the resident does not have actual 'citizenship' anywhere else (e.g. lives in the West Bank). Instead of explaining all this, I found it easier to just type 'conditional' and attach a reliable verifiable source (something I wish more people would do). But we can certainly add more detail if desired.
• Isarig's allegiance argument is not appropriate in this situation. When somebody chooses to move to a new country and chooses to become a citizen, that new citizen needs to swear allegiance, that's pretty common. But in this case, it is the State of Israel that came to the people, not the people who moved to the state of Israel. They have lived in Jerusalem for generations and generations and suddenly, they no longer had natural rights to their land where they were born, but became conditional permanent residents where anybody who dares study abroad or go a fellowship abroad or (G-d forbid) gets married to a non-Jerusalemite risks losing that residency right. There is something very unique about that.
• The Law of Return in Israel bestows automatic citizenship on Jews, ergo no oath of allegiance and no renunciation of former citizenship is required because no such ceremonials are necessary; the citizenship is automatic.
• By International Law, the occupying country is required to bestow automatic citizenship on the population of any territory it annexes after capturing it in war. The Israelis did not do that with Jerusalem, they placed the onus on the non-Jewish population on Jerusalem to apply if they wanted. But the Jerusalemites would have had to give up their Jordanian passports, which would cut them off from travel to certain countries where they have an interest in traveling to. (Note, they are not Jordanian citizens, but are allowed Jordanian passports to travel with).
• Although it is rare for a Jerusalemite Palestinian to apply for Israeli citizenship, from those who do, only a small fraction get approved anyway (after a very lengthy process compared to non-Palestinian immigrants).
• The Israeli system of discrimination has started to backfire. Thousands and thousands of Palestinians who lived in the outskirts of Jerusalem (in the annexed areas outside the main city) have been returning in droves to love inside Jerusalem proper, fearing Israeli severance of their right to be residents if they remain outside (or close to) the wall.
• As a result of the ensuing housing crunch, many Palestinian families have started moving into settlements in East Jerusalem, such as Pisgat Zeev and the like. Of course, landlords practice discrimination when it comes to renting or selling units to Palestinians (who they call 'those Arabs'), but it seems like Israeli policies, as usual, breed the grandest of unintended consequences.
• This stuff is all encyclopedic and relevant because it affects the real lives of thousands of people and is not 'routine' by any human rights standard. It doesn't have to be in this article necessarily, but this stuff is certainly relevant and encyclopedic - with good sources of course.
• There is no 'Palestinian state' that is at war with Israel. First, there is no Palestinian state, and second, nobody can declare a war without an army and sovereignty, and third, Israel controls the whole place anyway, so how can there be a war between Israel and territory controlled by Israel?

Ramallite ^(talk) 15:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On the "conditional" issue, I don't think that the "seven years away" condition is materially different than condtions that other countries place on permanent residency. We can do some research if you insist, but I think you'll find that permanent residents in other countries are subject to lose their status if they stay away too long, etc. Yet we don't call them "conditional". On the "oaths of allegiance" etc, one outcome of the prior discussions is that I have changed my opinion on listing these oaths, et.al. Having worked through the discussion and had a chance to read some of the sources I now believe that it is entirely appropriate to continue including those conditions of citizenship for pretty-much the reasons you just articulated; it is now my opinion that it would be more POV to exclude them than it is to have them included. (Hey, what do you know, Wikipedia can actually change a mind once and awhile...). Your point is interesting about the practical difficulties facing Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who actually want to become citizens of Israel; I don't see why that shouldn't be included in the article if we can source well. On the "Law of Return", as Amoruso noted above it is not fundamentally different than that for Germans or Japanese or a host of other countries. On the other points regarding demographic movements caused by specific policies, I think that is a big can or worms to open and will lead to a huge debate involving Jewish historical claims, legal rights and responsibilities of belligerent parties, etc. I would personally not want to start down that path in this article, but I understand completely if you feel differently. One thing I did find myself wondering after working through this debate is about the status of Palestinian babies born to parents without citizenship. It is one thing for an adult to choose not to have a country, but what happens to a child without a country who reaches the age of maturity and decides he wants to be a citizen somewhere and can't become one anywhere? (This is not an argument in favor of a Palestinian state, per se; it is an argument that perhaps at a certain age a child born in the territories should have a definite right to citizenship in Israel if he is willing to "take the oath of allegiance and renounce other citizenship rights, etc." It's not clear to me that this right is automatic for such children.) Dasondas 15:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the seven years thing, but the differences from normal situations are very clear in this source. You have to admit that this situation is not normal for democracies. The demographic movements thing I just added to the discussion above to reduce tempers on this page, but have no intention of adding it to this article. As to your question, no Palestinian 'chooses' not to have a country, but Jerusalemites choose not to recognize the annexation of their land by a foreign power (or to be NPOV, that's how they see it) where, even if they chose to become citizens, they would remain second-class citizens (can get the study-source for that if requested). Second, if the child is born to Palestinians, the child still has no automatic rights to Israeli citizenship. That's because Israel does not grant jus soli, so the child is whatever the citizenship that the parents are. Most countries (the US being one of the famous exceptions) no longer grant jus soli EXCEPT if the child is to become stateless otherwise. For example, as of 2006, New Zealand no longer grants automatic citizenship by birth unless the child will otherwise become stateless (i.e. is unable to apply for the parent's citizenship). For Palestinians living abroad on Israeli or Palestinian travel documents (neither of which are citizenship documents), this presents a dilemma, especially if the parents are from the West Bank or Gaza, because according to the Oslo accords the Palestinians are not allowed to have actual 'embassies' with consular sections or anything like that, so such a child would be stateless until s/he returns with the parents to Palestine, whereupon the Israeli military at the Allenby Bridge issue the child a special certificate through which the child can then be registered in the Palestinian population registry (which Israel controls). But how can the child fly back to Palestine without some kind of passport to begin with? That's a good question and would be interesting to find out... Ramallite ^(talk) 16:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, I agree that the information who mention above is encyclopedic and relevant to the section about Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. If you can supply good references I think you should include in the article the information that contrary to international law the Arab residents of East Jerusalem did not automatically receive Israeli citizenship after the annexation, and that they can only receive it after renouncing their current citizenship, in contrast to Jewish immigrants who automatically become Israeli citizens and can keep their previous citizenship. Also that the Arab residents of East Jerusalem, many of whose families have lived there for generations, can even loose their permanent residency status if they leave East Jerusalem for a number of years and not be able to move back to their homes. Only this shouldn't be more than a few lines of text in the main article. If you feel like it I think it would be worthwhile to write a specialized article about the status of the Arab citizens of East Jerusalem after its annexation. Dianelos 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Standardizing references

I'm going to standardize the references in this article according to this example, and also convert all the links into references. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• This ref was given as one of the sources for "Approximately 30% of Palestinians living in the West Bank are refugees or their direct descendants, who fled or were expelled from Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (see Palestinian exodus)." If someone could cite a specific document or web page at that site where that statistic is mentioned, instead of just referencing the whole website, that would be helpful. I'm sure it must be there somewhere but I looked for awhile and couldn't seem to locate anything referencing any statistics about refugees. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Under the Annexation paragraph, there is a reference to Bamburger and Bard. Can someone provide a page number for the Bamberger source, and we need the reference info for Bard as well. "Reluctance to award its citizenship to an overwhelming number of non-Zionist Arabs whose allies were sworn to the destruction of Israel (Bamberger, Bard)". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• In the Settlements and International Law paragraph, one of the references given for "Israeli settlements on the West Bank beyond the Green Line border are considered by some legal scholars to be illegal under international law." is Plia Albeck, but there's no specific article title given and it's unclear if the reference to the Times is for information about her death or whether it is actually a reference of something she said in support of the sentence: Plia Albeck, legal adviser to the Israeli Government was born in 1937. She died on 27 September, 2005, aged 68', The Times, 5 October, 2005, p. 71. Does anyone have more info on this? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not just "some legal scholars" who consider the settlements on the West Bank illegal. There is a unanimous decision of the International Court of Justice in this sense, several UN Security Council resolutions consider them "not legally valid" and "in violation of the Geneva conventions", the EU, the Red Cross, the World Council of Churches, the Palestinians, the Arab League of Nations, virtually all countries, several eminently neutral academic studies, some Israeli legal experts who worked for the Israeli government, and several Israeli and human rights and civil rights organizations, not to mention several Israeli journalists - all consider them illegal. I find it troubling that this hugely relevant fact is not clearly mentioned in Wikipedia. Here are some references you might find useful in your work: [7],[8](very good but requires a simple registration),[9],[10](this is International Court of Justice ruling),[11](EU's position),[12],[13](this Israeli prof has written a book about the issue),[14],[15],[16](,[17]( UNSC resolution 465),[18],[19],[20], [21]. As far as I could find out only Israel and exactly one scholar not related to the Israeli government (Eugene Rostow) claim that the settlements are legal: [22],[23],[24]. I find the "TWO-STATE SOLUTION ASAP" section in this essay by Zbigniew Brzezinski to be brutally clear about this issue. Dianelos 09:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While I didn't have time to review these as a whole, I noticed that the EU statement does not define settlements as illegal, but only the latest construction (perhaps in violation of the most recent agreements). Tewfik^Talk 05:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The relevant section reads as follows:

"In this context, the European Council is alarmed at the con­tinuing illegal settlement activities, which threaten to render the two-State solution physically impossible to implement. The expansion of settlements and related construction, as widely documented including by the European Union’s Settlement Watch, violates international law, inflames an already volatile situation, and reinforces the fear of Palestinians that Israel is not genuinely committed to end the occupation. It is an obstacle to peace. The European Council urges the Govern­ment of Israel to reverse its settlement policy and as a first step immediately apply a full and effective freeze on all settlement activities. It calls for an end to further land confiscation for the construction of the so-called security fence."

I understand you interpret "continuing illegal settlement activities" as "latest construction", but I don't see how such an implication is warranted. In any case, as international law has not changed lately, if the expansion of settlements and related construction violates international law (as the EU claims) then such expansion and construction was illegal all the time. The most fundamental point though that gets lost in all the legalistic talk is that the settlements are perceived as an obstacle to peace. (Incidentally I recently read a book by Richard Ben Cramer, who is a Pulitzer Prize-winner American Jew, titled "How Israel Lost" - meaning "How Israel lost the capacity to act in the national interest". It's a frank, funny, and intimate page turner, which gives the reader the picture behind the facade. Highly recommended.) Dianelos 17:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The cities nav box

What's the problem? Gaza and the West Bank are in the Palestinian Territories. What's wrong with having a nav box for them? Pockets23 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is titled "The West Bank". What's the problem calling the box "The West Bank" and limiting the list of cities to that area?Dasondas 01:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

to become "a national homeland for the Jewish people."

This phrase is incorrect and will be replaced with the appropriate "not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State" taken directly from the White Paper of 1939[25]. This document cites the 1922 Command paper. It was also written more than a decade after the split of Transjordan and Palestine, therefore the 1939 paper is not conflating transjordan in the following excerpt

"The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine. Their views and proposals are set forth below under three heads, Section I, "The Constitution", Section II. Immigration and Section III. Land. Section I. "The Constitution"

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will. "

No need to replace it, deletion is just fine. The issue is covered in lots of more relevant articles. --Zero^talk 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero -(remove political allegation in the form of historical distortion). Fair assessment of the reasoning to remove the re-post of "a national homeland for the Jewish people." However, I believe, this rationale to remove the political statement should have been applied before I presented facts that it was incorrect. At any rate, this momentum should continue. If these standards to remove political statements are applied to all arguments in this article that are used to legitimize or delegitimize territorial claims to the West Bank, its content would improve dramatically and its neutrality would improve.

what the hell??

i'm used to nearly everything in this area being disputed, but the idea that population figures can vary by nearly 50% (1.4 million vs. 2.4 million) is just bizarre, even more so when these disparate figures are quoted without any comment on this page. surely there should be an agreed figure? surely the israeli military, for example, has a very good idea how many palestinians there are in the west bank. and what do disinterested observers say?

Benwing 08:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the sources (http://www.pademographics.com/) explains it all. Click on the link following "Arab Population in the West Bank & Gaza: The Million Person Gap."

Also, Haaretz Daily (one of the largest Israeli newspapers, said recently that the West Bank's Palestinian population is around 2.5 million. That slightly exceeds Wikipedia's maximum estimate.

I m dude2002 20:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

pov tag: map

i think it's quite POV to put a map of "population areas where access is limited to palestinians" at the top of this article. (surely, for example, there must be many areas that are legally or practically unvisitable by israelis, as well.) consider this -- how many internationally recognized magazines or newspapers would use such a map to identify the west bank?

everything else in this map -- green line, boundary well, population/settlement areas -- is fine. the map should be redone in this fashion.

Benwing 08:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The image used to be neutral, some POVd it along the way. I've restored the original neutral image. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

40 Spheres of Civilian Authority, not 40% of the Area

The article states that "40% of the area ... is under the limited civilian jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority." The source states that "40 spheres of civilian authority [are under the control of] the Palestinian Authority." I don't know how that translates into percent of area. In fact I don't know how many spheres of civilian authority there are. Are "spheres" geographical, or are they spheres of legal power?

Myself, I can't find exactly what percentage of the West Bank is under PA civilian authority, because all the articles I can find use Wikipedia as a source.

That would be a good thing to find out.

I m dude2002 05:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)i_m_dude2002

I think it would be important too to find out what percentage of the land itself in the WB is under PA control. Off the top of my head I think it's something around 15%. I'll try to find a source. Also, I'm not sure if it's stated here, but the PA doesn't have full control, as said above, it has "limited jurisdiction" or "partial autonomy" for examples of accurate terms.

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=6035 This source says that Area A is 17% of the West Bank, This seems like a reliable source to me. I think this page should actually have a section discussing the differences between areas A, B and C, the origins of this system under Oslo and Wye River. I'm quite surprised this page doesn't discuss these issues.

A student of history 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Update on Population of Settlements

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1167467697743&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The Jerusalem Post published Israel's newest West Bank statistics.

Ma'ale Adummim has been overtaken by Modi´in Illit as the largest settlement in the West Bank, although I think this might include the entire settlement block (but I'm not sure either way).

I therefore ask the opinion, permission and blessing of Wikipedia readers and editor(s) to change the Ma'ale Adummim, Betar Illit and Ariel sections to reflect the new populations, and to comment as to their size relative to other settlements.

I would also like to see a section created for the largest Jewish community in the West Bank (Modi´in Illit), since it deserves some attention. If no one is interested in doing it... I would not mind. But I figure it's probably better if a Wikipedia editor did it.

It also might be useful to incorporate the growth rate of the West Bank's Jewish population into the article.

I m dude2002 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)i_m_dude2002

Merge Judea and Samaria Here

If you look at the Judea and Samaria page, it is a joke. As a neutral and non-politically oriented move, I recommend that Judea and Samaria be redirected to the West Bank page. The West Bank page, which I significantly helped establish, is a very neutral page, meaning not pro-Israelis and not pro-Palestinians. The name West Bank is very neutral; it merely refers to the geographical location of the territory. Please merge Judea and Samaria to the West Bank page and allow all efforts and improvements on the article to be focused on the West Bank page.David Betesh

I don't know which very neutral page you are referring to. This one is appalling. --Zero^talk 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to have three separate pages all referring to the same location. Why should there be both the Palestinian territories, Judea and Samaria page, and the West Bank page? We should all agree to merge all three of those articles into a centralized West Bank article. The West Bank page reflects reality to the best of my knowledge and is not biased in any way or form. Can someone help on this issue?David Betesh

West Bank is not a neutral term, whereas the names 'Judea and Samaria' have been around for thousands of years. If you recommend it, slap on the template and we'll only go through another merge discussion which will fail. Pleaes review all talk archives before suggesting this serisously. --Shuki 17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said Judea and Samaria hasn't been around for the past three thousand years! Just look at the Judea and Samaria page though. It is a joke. It is also offensive to have such a weak page representing that area. At least put some of the content on the West Bank page and paste it onto Judea and Samaria. Because of these conflicts of terminology, nothing ends up getting done or accomplished. David Betesh

"West Bank" is the most common English name for the region, and there's no reason why there should be two articles about the same region. "West Bank" is neither more nor less neutral than "Judea and Samaria".--Doron 22:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the three articles refer to three different ideas. "Palestinian territories" is the sum of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and "Judea and Samaria" refers to an Israeli administrative division that includes much [but not all] of the West Bank, as well as a discussion of the semantics surrounding the term. There might be some content that overlaps, but not to the extent that a merge is necessary. Tewfik^Talk 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinian Territories is a different matter, but I think "Judea and Samaria" and "West Bank" refer to roughly the same territory, the difference between them hardly warrants a separate article in my opinion. They both refer to a disputed territory whose boundary is also disputed, but it's still the same territory.--Doron 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria is currently the redirect for Judea and Samaria Area, an Israeli administrative division. I also don't see any benefit to merging all the information about such an important term. Tewfik^Talk 07:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. West Bank is the term used by the international community, including the UN. This is a POV-fork, and is not a demonstration of Wikipedian's capacity to work together. Tazmaniacs 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - the two articles are talking about the same piece of land regardless of its title. West Bank is the preferable title as that is how it is known to the majority of the world. Number 57 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Judea and Samaria, does not belong in this article except maybe in the history section. The west bank is an internationally recognized term used to refer to a land that be the basis of a Palestinian state. Judea and Samaria are a district of Israel. Not recognized internationally. Thus my answer would be, that it depends on the way the merger will take place.Bless sins 13:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Uhh No. I don't see what the problem with Judea and Samaria Area is. We have articles on Jammu_and_Kashmir and Northern_Areas which cover India and Pakistan's administrative districts over Kashmir. Same thing here. Also the article states clearly that it's status is disputed and refers everything else back to West Bank. <<-armon->> 05:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

A recent edit summary requested the addition of a map showing areas A, B, and C. There don't seem to be any, but some map representing the real human and political geography of the West Bank as it currently stands is obviously necessary. I have restored a map that was on this page until recently - it's the one discussed in the above talk page section entitled "POV map". Actually, it seems to me to be quite neutral itself (though I can see why it might be thought that having it as the first and only map wasn't), and if we are to believe the image details, was produced by the UN. Palmiro | Talk 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

98% of Palestinians in area A

I would like to see a better source for the 98% figure. From the source it is not clear that it refers only to the West Bank (in the Gaza Strip it's nearly 100%), it is not clear that it refers to area A (B is also under Palestinian jurisdiction), and it is not clear where this figure comes from. These points need to be addressed, because this author is hardly a neutral source.--Doron 07:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Administration of the WB" section that I started still needs a lot of work. I also do not like very much the source for this figure (I didn't add it). The source is not very good. As I understand it, 97-98% of Palestinians live in areas 'A' AND 'B', not 'A' alone. A student of history 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agreed initially, but this Electronic Intifada article confirms the JCPA implication. Perhaps someone can find a clearer source? Tewfik^Talk 17:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is there a confirmation? I don't see the figure 98% anywhere. The only thing coming close is the sentence "Oslo’s handing over of Palestinian towns representing 5 percent of the land but containing 95 percent of the Palestinian population, was a hand over of Israel’s crowd control problems", and this sentence shows absolutely nothing. Firstly, the numbers are probably symbolic rather than accurate (and I have a strong feeling this is also the nature of the 98% figure), the author, which appears to be a blogger, is making a political statement and gives us no indication that the figures are derived from any sort of official source. Secondly, he does not refer to area A specifically, nor does he refer to the West Bank specifically. If I missed a reliable reference to the 98% figure, please point it out.

I did some original research myself. I took data from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics 1997 census and using a B'Tselem map I started to sum the population of all non-area-A towns and villages. I reached 10% of the total West Bank population before I even finished with the Jenin, Tubas, Tulkarm and Nablus governorates (and there are seven more governorates left), so I estimate that at least 30% of the West Bank population lives in areas B and C. I can't imagine this percentage changed considerably since 1997. I could go on and complete the count, but of course this wouldn't be something I could put in the article, because it is original research. But my point is that the 98% figure is dubious, and should be confirmed from a reliable source that states it explicitly.

Oh, and even that is without counting the 200,000+ Palestinian population of East Jerusalem, which is certainly not area A, and is considered part of the West Bank by anyone that doesn't recognize Israel's de facto annexation, i.e., almost everyone. That alone is enough to rule out the 98% figure.--Doron 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight you are entirely correct that there is no way that 98% of the West Bank population lives in Area A - it must refer to Areas A and B. My apologies. Tewfik^Talk 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And hence the need to use reliable sources. I wish all editting could be this positive and constructive. A student of history 02:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything2

How is this a reliable source? It's somewhat like Wikipedia in a way; anyone can write articles there, no? What are the qualifications of benjya? Khoikhoi 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly fails the reliability test. It's more like an online forum than an encyclopedia. --Zero^talk 05:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, many of the 'articles' on this site are nothing but rants by anonymous people. This is like a blog or forum, this is definitely not a reliable source. A student of history

The site is moderated. I checked this with User:Anthony cfc, and its certainly not a blog or a forum. [26] --Shamir1 06:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I have changed the source to one undoubtedly reliable. --Shamir1 06:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Alan Lowinger is not a neutral source, either. Khoikhoi 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why should there be a reference there at all? That the West Bank was occupied by Israel following a Jordanian attack is a well known fact that appears in every textbook on the subject and in the Six Day War article, so why do we need to cite a source to support it? (and have an edit-war over it...) --Doron 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but "occupation" is an absolutely neutral term denoting the military act. It's also the most commonly used term to describe the current situation. Khoikhoi 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the reference Shamir1 has provided has no bearing on the usage of the term "occupation". It's not clear what exactly that reference proves. Anyway, this term is brought up at the end of the same paragraph, so there's really no need to insist on "occupied" in that sentence, "captured" is perfectly correct.--Doron 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The source was simply to source its following a Jordanian attack, not the occupy. Also, Jordan's rule was considered occupation and not recognized by the UN. Anyway, it already says which political bodies consider it occupied. There shouldn't be a dispute. --Shamir1 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, most articles seem to use the word "occupation" when it comes to the West Bank, so we should probably be consistent. Secondly, there's no need to state that there was a Jordanian attack here. If people want to know the details, they can just click on the link. Khoikhoi 19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1 is right, there shouldn't be a dispute. The term is occupied, that is the legal and de facto standing of the territories as accepted by the entire world. Captured and occupied should both be in the sentence. A student of history 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of text

The signing of the Oslo II agreement in 1995 by Yasir Arafat and Yitzak Rabin marked a change in the administrative policies in the West Bank. Nothing else links to Oslo II agreement, so i am wondering whether it is reliable? West Brom 4ever 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Added relevant wikilink.--Doron 13:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Israeli settlements language

I originally reverted a series of edits that removed the term "settlements" from the description of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, see this edit. After some discussion with Jayjg I now see that some other wording changes were caught up in that revert of mine and thus I have attempted to reintegrate them, see this diff. I think it is now correct. --Abnn 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there were a whole series of improvements to the writing intended to make it more readable, relevant, and interesting. The article still mentions settlements. If you feel you must sprinkle more "settlements" words in there to make some sort of point, start with my version and work from there. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to your last edit before you self-reverted before of 3RR violation as a good will gesture. Can I do that without violating 3RR or do I now have to self-revert as well? --Abnn 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be o.k. Thanks for doing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would dispute that Israelis "settled" part of the wb but there is a lot more diversity of the so-called settlements than is let on by the term. Some settlements are actually communities, suburbs, condo complexes not exactly what many hard core ideologues would have you conjure up. Bigleaguer 23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Israeli settlements has discussion of all of those issues and you are welcome to add more referenced information there. This doesn't change the standard term that has always been used to refer to them in English. --JWB 23:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Population centers

I wanted to know If I or we should rename the Abu Dis sub-section with East Jerusalem or Arab East Jerusalem, Arab Jerusalem etc. (whatever fits) which would include not only Abu Dis but also Beit Hanina, A-Tur and Shu'fat as well as other town or city neighborhoods in Jerusalem because they are all basicly a part of the same main locality a.k.a. East Jerusalem. - Al Ameer son

I don't think anything not in the pre-1967 borders of Jerusalem should be called East Jerusalem. Sanguinalis 02:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

East Jerusalem includes the former Jordanian municipality, as well as several villages that were not part of Jerusalem before '67. Abu Dis, however, is not one of them. There's no reason as far as I can see to include Abu Dis as part of East Jerusalem.--Doron 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to revert what I said, however I want to bring another solution to what we should put as the section title. We should remove Abu Dis which has a population of around 11 or 12 thousand and instead replace it with East Jerusalem which would include the town neighborhoods of Shu'fat, Beit Hanina, Jabal Mukabar, Ras al Amud etc.

East Jerusalem was a part of the population centers but was removed for a reason i dont know yet. With approval of members from WikiProject Palestine I will make the change. - Al Ameer son

Yes, certainly, East Jerusalem should be included.--Doron 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Sorry I misunderstood the original intent. Sanguinalis 01:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Its ok I made it unclear. Well since its alright I a going to begin on the section.

P.S. I should still remove Abu Dis, right? -- Al Ameer son

I just posted the section of East Jerusalem (Arab) in the Palestinian section now we need one on the Jewish portion of East Jerusalem -- Al Ameer son

There is no such entity as East Jerusalem in the way it was presented here. The paragraph is written about the term meaning the areas annexed to the Israeli municipality, however, as Sanguinalis pointed out above, the Jordanian municipality of Jerusalem is quite different. Places like Beit Hanina, Shuafat, and Jabal Mukaber were not part of Jerusalem until 1967. The idea that there should be an East Jerusalem (Arab) and an East Jerusalem (Jewish) highlights the problem in the new separation of cities into two groups. I've edited the section to address these problems, based on the recently FA and extremely succinct and neutral introduction to Jerusalem, which is basically the style on most of the cities. In truth, I question whether there is any point to this list of city summaries - wouldn't a short paragraph talking about all of them be a better idea? Tewfik^Talk 05:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I totally agree on that last point of yours -- that there shouldn't be all those sections about individual localities.--Doron 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree as well. A simple list or small table would suffice. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jerusalem, it's not part of the West Bank, and never was, but rather was part of the corpus separatum. Why is it on this page? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On that argument it's not a part of Israel either and would have to be removed from maps of Israel. --Ian Pitchford 07:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference being that de facto is has been part of a sovereign nation for almost 60 years, whereas "East Jerusalem" continues to be treated differently. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the right approach to present examples of bodies that regard EJ as part of the WB and bodies that don't? There is a difference of opinion on it and we aren't supposed to take sides. As an example of EJ being included, it is the normal UN position (see [27] as one of many examples); I presume someone can find an Israeli statement contrary to that. --Zero^talk 12:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he actually had to mention East Jerusalem specifically tells you something. He didn't say "the West Bank, including Hebron". East Jerusalem is also treated differently in all negotiations. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is certainly a part of the West Bank, it has been so since '49 during Jordanian administration and after '67 under Israeli and Palestinian administration. One can say however that East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel and its residents are offered Israeli citizenship but the Palestinian National Authority claims it as its capital for a future state and the extreme majority of EJ's residents refuse Israeli citizenship and particiapte in Palestinian elections. Thus, because of all of these factors, along with UN recognition of it being a part of the Palestinian state and the fact that it borders other West Bank towns and villages, it is a part of the West Bank. The "State of Palestine" isn't the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Its the Gaza Strip and the West bank. -- Al Ameer son 1 June, 2007 23:30 (UTC)

Look, if you insist East Jerusalem was part of the West Bank since '49, then by the same token it has been part of Israel since '67. You can't have it both ways. I'm going to have to hear some better arguments for East Jerusalem being part of the West Bank. Do you have any? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now on the matter of the list of city summaries, I think we should reinstate it. It gives the article a lot more meat than just simply listing the names of cities and settlements and giving their population (does not include Jericho (pop 25,000) but includes Ariel (17,000)?). I think its necessary to include a brief summary for each individual locality of the West Bank so that the viewer gains the basic knowledge of the area's major population centers without having to read the entire individual article on each locality. I also believe that Jewish localities and Arab localities should be in seperate sub-sections so the viewer knows that they are different in administration and ethnicity, and with a brief summary for each locality it will be guranteed that the viewer will know. -- Al Ameer son 1 June, 2007 23:41 (UTC)

Jericho was an oversight; I've re-instated it. Its population (according to the previous version of the article) was 19,000, just slightly more than Ariel. The individual cities already have their own articles, and there's no need to try to "beef up" this article by adding information copied from other articles, and that will just diverge from those articles. As for the population centers, they are population centers in the West Bank. For a while now it seems you've been trying to make some sort of ideological and/or political point with these separations. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The UN uses the phrase "West Bank, including East Jerusalem" in order to emphasise that East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank as far as they are concerned. That is the plain meaning of the word "including". Of course it is part with special circumstances, but still the UN considers it a part. If they just wanted to refer to East Jerusalem in addition to the West Bank they would say "West Bank and East Jerusalem". A problem with the arguments above is that "West Bank" is treated as if it is a political division. It isn't, it's a geographical division. From 1950 to 1967 it was de facto part of the political unit "Jordan", and from 1967 to now it was de facto part of the political unit "Israel". Neither of these disputed political claims, nor the fact that many regard it as part of the policital unit "OPT", effect the fact that East Jerusalem has often been regarded as part of the geographical division "West Bank". It isn't a political statement but a statement of common usage. --Zero^talk 13:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

However, when Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the United Kingdom recognized Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, it did not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am not trying to make some sort of political statement, I'm not saying "illegal Israeli settlement" which is probably what youre shooting at when you say idealogical or political point, if not please correct me. All I am saying is that when you put all of these population centers together in one single graph the viewer is unable to differentiate between the two (unless they have prior knowledge on the cities or on Hebrew or Arabic names which are both quite similar). They need to be categorized into two different sections which would do more good for the article. It would also justify Ariel being in the section, "significant population centers" at all. You see, when all of the cities are placed in one body there should be a standard for population. The smallest locality, Ariel has a population of around 17,000 while Jericho the second to last of the smallest has a population of 25,000. There is an 8,000 person difference. In this case we would have to add Qabatya, Tubas, and Zahiriya which all have populations ranging from 15,000 to 20,000. These three cities however are not vey important and are more like towns compared to the other cities in the list. If the list is split into two sections however, Ariel could be included with the Israeli population centers and there would be no need to include the other three Arab cities mentioned above.

P.S. I am going to add Yattah to the list which has a population over 40,000. Al Ameer son 01:11, 4 June 2007

The is a summary of the population centers, not of the politics. You even politicized a very simple section describing the geographical location of these population centers, adding many unnecessary words to make a political point, which I've now fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are good reasons to have separate tables. Palestinian localities are under the administration of the PNA, while the settlements are under Israeli civil administration. The distinction is manifested as a political, administrative, economical and military division. It would be misleading to present the list of localities as if it were homogeneous.--Doron 08:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But it is a section about geography and population, not about political arrangements, which are found in other sections. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I really think your'e over-exaggerating with this political POV thing, as I have said above, if we make two seperate tables for the two very distinct types of cities in the West Bank as Doron has described than we can better organize and clarify the section. We can then include Ariel with the Israeli localities without having to inlcude the cities of Tubas, Qabatya, Halhul, Zahiriyya and perhaps others to the list of localities as a whole. Al Ameer son 01:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm hardly "over-exaggerating with this political POV thing", considering that you're now saying we actually have to have two separate tables to list them! I don't care if you include Tubas, Qabatya, and Halhul, or even remove Ariel, but I'm not going to see this page further politicized. Now, the issue at hand is East Jerusalem; since it's not part of the West Bank, and is referred to separately, even by the sources listed above by Zero, I don't see how it can stay in the West Bank article. Are there any other arguments for keeping it? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The title of the discussion I brought up is population centers not just East Jerusalem. So on the matter of the making two seperate tables, its the only logical thing. I understand that the section is on the population centers of the West Bank but in the case of Israeli and Palestinian localities, they are practically two different countries, with Israel being in full and direct control of the settlements while the bulk of the Palestinian population centers are governed by the Palestinian National Authority. -- Al Ameer son 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The West Bank is defined as "The Jordanian territory west of the river Jordan which Israel captured in 1967." [28] East Jerusalem was part of the Jordanian territory that Israel captured.

Also see:

• "[The West Bank is] large irregularly-shaped territory between the Jordan River and Israel 's 1949 armistice border. About 3350 square miles (5400 square kilometers). It contains the parts of Jerusalem east of the 1948-49 armistice line."[29]

This is an Israeli source:

• "[The West Bank is] area of land unilaterally annexed by Jordan in 1949 - includes East Jerusalem." [30]

Thus East Jerusalem is part of West Bank.Bless sins 04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you stalked me here as well? I warned you not to widen this conflict. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg I've been interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for years (as it says on my user page). I'm not stalking you. On the contrary, what is your explanation for reverting me 3 times on in this article?Bless sins 05:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What is my explanation for reverting some of the typically outrageous whitewashing you tried on that article too? Well, the fact that I had been editing the article less than a month before meant that it came up on my watchlist, and that fact that you had edited it meant that there was whitewashing involved, so that pretty much explains it. Your explanation, on the other hand, is as lame as your recent 3RR report. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Hats off to who ever made the map at the top of the article (based on Image:WestBankGovernatesNonLabeled). Pretty neat. Perhaps we can make maps of other countries also this interactive.Bless sins 05:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Modi'in Illit, Beitar Illit, and Ma'ale Adummim are part of the Judea and Samaria District, while Ramallah, Hebron and Nablus are not. That is a justified geographical distinction. I see nothing that should prevent making this distinction in the article.--Doron 06:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• East Jerusalem is viewed internationally as part of the West Bank. Nobody disputes that it was part of the West Bank before '67 (am I wrong?), so how did it stop being part of the West Bank? What geographical phenomenon separated it from the West Bank? What is the difference between East Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adummim?--Doron 06:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Political districts are political districts, not geographical features. As mentioned earlier, East Jerusalem was part of the corpus separatum, which is why, when the U.K. recognized Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, it did not recognize its annexation of Jerusalem. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What's a geographical feature, Jayjg? How is UK recognition a geographical feature and administrative division not a geographical feature?--Doron 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the description of the population centers, it talks about things like "a mountainous spine, running north-south", "the southern edge of the Jezreel Valley" and "low foothills adjacent to the Israeli coastal plain". These are geographical features, not political ones, and they don't differ whether Arabs or Jews are living on them. However, the West Bank itself is a political designation; if we're going to describe the features of it, we have to draw lines some where. Otherwise we could include places like Afulah and Nazareth as being as much on the "West Bank of the Jordan river" as Tulkarm and Hebron - arguably moreso, since they're certainly closer to the Jordan river. Regarding East Jerusalem as being part of the West Bank: "...only two countries recognized this annexation, Great Britain and Pakistan, but Britain was at pains to exclude East Jerusalem from its act of recognition... the United States refused to recognize either the West Bank annexation or Jordanian sovereignty over East Jerusalem. The implication being that East Jerusalem was not part of the West Bank but a separate entity." (Michael Dumper, The Politics of Jerusalem Since 1967, p. 234). I'm not the first person to make this distinction. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "West Bank" defined as all the territory that was controlled by Jordan and which Israel gained in 67? I am not sure this is the case, but that's what I naively assumed. But if it is true, it means that formal recognition by other countries is irrelevant. nadav (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Britannica defines "West Bank" as follows: "area of the former British-mandated (1920–47) territory of Palestine west of the Jordan River, claimed from 1949 to 1988 as part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but occupied from 1967 by Israel. The territory, excluding East Jerusalem, is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria." nadav (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Administrative division is as much a geographical feature as topographical characteristics are, geography doesn't deal exclusively with natural features. Perhaps we should work out an agreeable phrasing, but I still don't see any good reason why not to give the administrative division with regards to localities. Arguing that this distinction is political is as valid as arguing that concealing it is political. I think this information is factual and neutral, and it is most certainly important for the understanding of the subject of this article.
• I fail to see how the recognition of the annexation of the West Bank and/or East Jerusalem is relevant. Neither annexations were recognized by the vast majority of the world's nations. The West Bank is not defined as the sovereign Jordanian territory occupied by Israel, it is the Jordanian-controlled territory occupied by Israel. If the "corpus separatum" is the criterion for defining the West Bank, then Bethlehem, Abu Dis, Beit Jala, etc., would be excluded. I don't think this is your intention.--Doron 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg I provided you wiht three sources that suggest East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank. DO you have any objections towards those sources?Bless sins 12:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just created individual tables for the population centers, seeing as the majority of us agree on it. If we come to a conclusion that the population centers should not be seperated then we will join them into one table. Al Ameer son 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I originally reverted back to the non-separated version is because Jerusalem was added to the chart. The 400,000 people living beyond the Green Line are 55% Arab and 45% Jewish, so classifying it as "Palestinian" doesn't make much sense, especially on administrative grounds, since it isn't part of any Palestinian administrative unit. By the same token, we can refrain from labelling it "Israeli" in single chart. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We can base the lists on administration (e.g., Palestinian-administrated and Israeli-administrated). East Jerusalem is Israeli-administrated.--Doron 04:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So East Jerusalem would go in the Israeli list? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is under Israeli administration, so yes.--Doron 04:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the non-separated version. For this particular article, it's best to focus on the facts on the ground - these are the places where people live - and not the political ramifications, which are better dealt with in other articles, like Israeli settlement, East Jerusalem, and Palestinian National Authority. Sanguinalis 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Live under very different administrations. Is there any reason why should the reader not know which locality is under which administration?--Doron 04:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're opening up a can of worms with little benefit. As soon as people see East Jerusalem in the Israeli list, they will try to remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't. Who's disputing it is administrated by Israel?--Doron 09:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about the actual facts, it's about bitter experience. If you put East Jerusalem under any sort of "Israeli" header, people are going to try to remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If this should be the case then we'll post it back up on the Israeli administration and if it is to continue then we can place some sort of lock on the article to non-users. Al Ameer son 17:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Jayjg on this. It's not worth it. I'm sure neither you nor Doron intend it, but I believe the separated tables could lead a casual reader, not thoroughly familar with the subject, to confuse "administered by" with "has sovereignty over" and conclude that the Israeli-administered localites are somehow part of Israel. On the other hand I don't see any neutrality problems with the non-separated table. I understand what you want to do, to indicated that people in the West Bank live under two sets of laws, but this topic can be tackled head on in the article text, in the "Administration" section. Sanguinalis 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute: "after a Jordanian attack"

As is quite clear, the reason Jordan signed a mutual defense pact with Egypt was because of a burst of Arab nationalism. Israel did its best to keep Jordan out of the war, and even after Jordan attacked Israel it still tried to keep Jordan out. POVing the lead by making other implications is not on for this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's quite clear that the reason Jordan and Egypt signed a mutual defense pact (as did Syria and Egypt) is because they each feared an attack by Israel and knew that they would have a better chance of withstanding such an attack collectively, rather than individually. It's not suprising that Israel hoped Jordan would renege on its promise to Egypt, and it proves nothing other than that Israel hoped to go to war with one (or perhaps two) Arab countries rather that three. We must depict all the significant views of the Six Day War or none of them. I find it strange that your last edit summary says this is an article about the West Bank, not the Six Day War, because you are the one who began inserting material about the Six Day War into it. It is perfectly acceptable to me to say nothing about the Six Day War beyond the minimum needed for this article, which is that Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan during it. What's not acceptable is cherry picking from the historical record those facts which support one POV. Sanguinalis 03:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense! The history of the war is clear; Egypt threw out the U.N. troops, blockaded the gulf, and massed troops on the border. You kept removing the obvious fact that Jordan attacked Israel first because you claimed it wasn't sourced. Then, when it was sourced, you removed it because you claimed the sources were bad, and "not everyone agrees with Oren". Then when even a revisionist like Shlaim turned out to agree with Oren, you actually added material from Oren himself, but in a way intended to mislead. Jordan signed a pact with Egypt because it went through a fit of Arab nationalism, when it thought it could get in on the final destruction of Israel. It attacked Israel, and even then Israel didn't respond, because Israel actually didn't want the West Bank. Stop trying to mislead the reader, please. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am prepared to respond to this, but before I do so, I want to change the heading for this discussion. The original heading, After Jordan attacked Israel, does not adequately describe the dispute at hand, which partly involves events (Israel's attack on Egypt, the Egypt-Jordan defense treaty, some others that you brought up) that happened before Jordan's attack. I changed it to a heading that simply quotes the exact article text under dispute. I will give you chance to revert to your original heading if you disagree. Sanguinalis 15:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your title is fine with me, I don't care to quibble about it. Regarding the events that occurred before that, they have little to do with the West Bank, since Egypt didn't control the West Bank, nor did Syria. What is critical for the West Bank is that Jordan controlled it, Israel didn't want it, Jordan attacked Israel, Israel asked them to stop, and they said no. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick recap of the issues in case anyone is wondering why the POV tag: Jayjg has inserted some material about the Six Day War into this article [31] and will not allow it to be removed. At nearly the same time, he has removed other material [32] on the grounds that "this is about the West Bank, not the Six-Day war" [33]. The question is whether Jayjg's edits are neutral.

Now to respond to Jayjg's accusations against me: I am not trying to mislead anyone. From the very beginning [34] I believed the best approach would be to avoid bringing up the events of the Six Day War in this article at all, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that is fair to all points of view, while the Six Day War article itself can treat all points of view in depth. However, you (and Tewfik) seemed insistent on bringing up the events of the Six Day War in this article. At that point I decided that we are going to describe the events of the Six Day War here, the material should: first, be adequately sourced; second, presented in a way which is consistent with the Wikipedia neutrality policy. You originally provided two sources, the HistoryCentral.com website, and a speech by Michael Oren. The HistoryCentral citation is worthless. The Oren speech is borderline. While it is true that Oren is a qualified historian, the reference was not to any of Oren's books or scholarly publications, but a speech he gave to Washington think tank. Such material should be treated like an op-ed piece: useful for referencing a point of view, but not sufficient to establish a statement of fact. Only the Avi Shlaim book (which you provided later) is really an acceptable source. (Micheal Oren's book on the war, as opposed to his policy speech, would have been acceptable too.)

Once you provided an adequate source, I inserted some additional facts about the Six Day War which are no less relevant those you provided. A reader unfamiliar with the events of the war who has read only your version of the text could easily get the impression that the war was fought between Israel and Jordan alone, and started with a Jordanian attack on Israel. Since you and Tewfik decided that the Jordanian attack must be mentioned, I felt it essential that the reader be informed of the context in which it occurred: Israel had just attacked a country which Jordan was bound by treaty to defend. All of a sudden, you discovered that this article was not about the Six Day War at all!

It is possible to present nothing but undisputed facts, and still have a biased article. This will happen if facts are selected to support one particular point of view, while facts that support other points of view are suppressed. In this case, your edits seem to designed to advance the theses that: (1) Jordan was the aggressor in the war; and (2) "Israel actually didn't want the West Bank". These are just points of view, though, and there exist other points of view. Sanguinalis 02:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, as regards the West Bank, Jordan was indeed the aggressor, and Israel actually didn't want the West Bank. That's what all reliable, non-polemic sources say. Regarding the larger context, the issues are much debated; while it is clear that Israel attacked Egypt and Syria first, it is also clear that they threw out U.N. peacekeeping troops, massed troops on Israel's borders, blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, signed "mutual defence" pacts, and made all sorts of belligerent public statements about destroying Israel. Apologists, writing decades after the fact, claim it was all a bluff designed for internal consumption, and that Israel all along wanted to "grab land". Realists, and those who actually lived through those times, recognize that Israel's attack was entirely pre-emptive. Regardless, the fact remains that Israel certainly didn't want Jordan to be part of the war, and didn't want the West Bank. The article needs to reflect these facts - as it is, it barely does so, and only in a footnote. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Avi Shlaim, in The Iron Wall, on the very page you cite in the article (p. 243), wrote this: "By throwing his lot with Nasser so ostentatiously and by his defiant response to Eshkol's suggestion, Hussein himself rekindled irredentist aspirations on the Israeli side." (emphasis mine) Shlaim seems to be saying quite clearly here that Israel did want the West Bank ("irredentist aspirations"), although Israel was at first not willing to go to war with Jordan to get it. Undoubtedly Israel did not expect all three Arab armies to collapse so quickly.

I am not trying to insert into the article, as an undisputed fact, the assertion that Israel went to war to grab land. All I am saying is that if we are going to describe the events of the Six Day War in this article, we must do so in an NPOV way. If we mention the Jordanian attack, and the Israeli communiqué asking Jordan not to intervene, that we must also mention the prior Israeli attack on Egypt and the Egypt-Jordan defense treaty (which was written as a defense treaty, your statement above that I quoted Oren's account of it in a way "intended to mislead" is unfounded). Your stated reason for inserting some of these facts and removing others, that some are relevant to the West Bank and the others supposedly aren't, I find extremely unpersuasive. I'm going to trying to see if other editors will be interested in commenting on this dispute. Sanguinalis 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should include the following facts: Israel occupied the West Bank. It was following a Jordanian attack. Jordan was responding to an Israeli attack on an ally. A preemptive attack, Egypt was going to war anyway. Because Israel was established in the Palestinian homeland. They were ready to share it with the Palestinians who rejected this proposal. They were unwelcome immigrants. They were returning to what they viewed as their ancestral land and they believed it was their historical right. They should never have left Mesopotamia. It's all because of Eve and the accursed snake.

Seriously, whatever one person views as context may differ from what another person may view as context. A balanced explanation of the context in which the West Bank was occupied would be too long for an intro, one could write a whole article about this. Historical details, such as whether Israel wanted to occupy the West Bank or not before the war are better left for the Six-Day War article. Let's not start revert-warring over who started it.--Doron 09:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Doron, I see your point. You're recommendation that we just leave historical details about the Six Day War out of this article altogether is a good one. In fact I have already accepted this option but unfortunately Jayjg has rejected it. Instead, he has inserted certain details that just happen to support the Israeli view of the war, and removed other details that he alone declares to be "irrelevant to the West Bank". He seems intent on reverting anybody who disagrees. What do you propose be done? Sanguinalis 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think both sentences deserve to be in this article. --GHcool 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Would you support this version [35] of the lead? Sanguinalis 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the following clause and sentence belong in the "History" section of the article: "... which started when the Israeli Air Force attacked Egypt.[3] A week earlier, Egypt and Jordan signed a mutual defense treaty in which they agreed to consider 'any armed attack on either state or its forces as an attack on both'.[4]" These two statements are not directly related to the West Bank, and only things that are directly related to the West Bank should be in the lead of the West Bank article. However, these sentences are necessary background for a greater understanding of the West Bank history and so I would support its placement in the History section lower on the page. --GHcool 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

HistoryCentral.com

I originally posed this question to Jayjg on his talk page, and he requested that I move it here.

Very well then, Jayjg: I asked you to not use HistoryCentral.com as a reference and to use only serious, academic sources instead. You have ignored my request and reinserted a reference to this web site. Is this because you do not agree that Wikipedia should only use serious, academic sources, or is it because you actually think HistoryCentral.com is a serious, academic source? Sanguinalis 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about the more important issues, your other edits, first. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Then don't reinsert it into the article in the meantime. Sanguinalis 04:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Get consensus to remove it first. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You are evading the question I asked. Either answer it, or delete the reference. Sanguinalis 15:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The organization, as I understand it, sells historical CDs; why wouldn't it be a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

According to their about page, both the web site and the CD roms are put together by two people, Amy Erani and Marc Schulman, who live in New Rochelle, NY. There is no indicated that Ms. Erani and Mr. Schulman have any training as historians, no do they appear to be recognized authorities on any subject. Anyone can start a company and sell CDs. Sanguinalis 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

O.K., do you feel the material itself is inaccurate? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I believe it to be a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV to allow it be the ONLY event of the Six Day War to be mentionable in this article, I grant that it is true that Israel asked Jordan not to intervene after it attacked Egypt. However, we still can't use this website as a source. Even if every word on the page were true (which is not the case), it still doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. My son may have worked very hard on his term paper, and every word of it may be true, but I still can't use it as a source for a Wikipedia article! I'm going to remove this source so we can focus on the other issues, which I agree are more important. As long as the POV tag remains on this article, in order to avoid an edit war, I'm going to refrain from reverting your other disputed edits while we work towards a solution. Sanguinalis 02:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we acknowledge that this is true, would you be okay with including it once we found an RS, and limiting the discussion to 2) Israel asked not to intervene 1) Jordan intervened, instead of going a further to 4) Israel preempted an Egyptian attack 3) Egypt and Jordan signed a mutual defence pact? It seems that the causality, and thus the neutrality are identical, and that more steps only increase the length, though I agree that they would be appropriate outside the lead. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 08:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First, we already have an RS: The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim, which I have never disputed. I think the reference to the speech by Michael Oren should eventually be replaced by a reference to Oren's book, but I am willing to leave it alone at the moment. As to the wording, it seems there are two issues, the wording in the lead of the article, and the wording in the History section. I gather that when you say "limiting the discussion", you mean the lead, as we probably have room in the History discussion for all of the above. Am I right about that? Sanguinalis 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. Are we in agreement/do you have a different idea? Tewfik^Talk 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I think the most helpful thing would be to see the exact text you have in mind for the lead. We probably have space for only one sentence (or perhaps two), and as I see it there are two main requirements: (1) It must be capable of standing alone and not rely on other parts of the article, as in WP:LEAD; (2) A reader with no prior knowledge of the Six Day War who reads only the lead of this article must not be given a misleading impression of that war. As I've already explained, the current version of the lead, It was captured by Israel after a Jordanian attack during the Six-Day War, is not acceptable because a reader could easily get the impression that the Six Day War was fought solely between Israel and Jordan and started with a Jordanian attack. You have brought up the word "intervene", which could be very useful, as it allows us to allude to the fact that the war had already started without getting into who started it. So perhaps we can avoid bringing up Egypt. I have some trouble with saying "Israel asked Jordan not to intervene" without mentioning the reason for Jordanian intervention, namely the treaty, which was also the reason Israel issued its communiqué in the first place. Sanguinalis 21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[At the risk of being repetitive] As I see it, the next level of causality should be discussed below, but provides an accurate, if simplified account. I don't worry as much about the reader since I fully expect her to follow any relevant links, while the Lead belongs to "West Bank", and not "Six-Day War". Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 04:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If we go on the assumption that the reader will follow any relevant links, there is no reason not to go back to the version of the lead as of one month ago: "It was captured by Israel after a Jordanian attack during the Six-Day War." Nice and simple, and the reader who doesn't follow the link but continues with this article will find the relevant details in the History section. We can move Jayjg's remaining references there. Sanguinalis 01:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what it says right now. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't, but I take this comment to mean you wouldn't object to restoring that wording in the lead. Sanguinalis 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By this most recent comment you imply that you wish to restoring that wording in the lead. I take "that wording" to mean your quote from 01:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC, when you wrote ""It was captured by Israel after a Jordanian attack during the Six-Day War." Nice and simple, and the reader who doesn't follow the link but continues with this article will find the relevant details in the History section. We can move Jayjg's remaining references there." Thus, "It was captured by Israel during the Six-Day War." is not what you wrote you would change it to. Smaug 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sanguinalis, it said it, and it still says it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, I see what you guys are saying now. I made an error, and copy-and-pasted from the wrong version of the article. I meant to say that "It was captured by Israel during the Six-Day War" is the wording I would change it to. I certainly do not believe that "It was captured by Israel after a Jordanian attack during the Six-Day War" is neutral wording, for reasons I have explained at length elsewhere on this talk page. Sanguinalis 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But my "follow the links" rationale, and indeed my whole point, has been about keeping causality. Your version implies Israel acted first, which you acknowledge is not totally accurate. You felt that "Jordanian attack" shouldn't be the first cause, since there was a treaty, but we all acknowledge that there was both an Israeli request of noninvolvement to Jordan, as well as an Israeli preemption of an Egyptian attack. The wording should not make it sound as if Israel initiated conquest of the West Bank, whether we decide to include many or few details. Tewfik^Talk 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in the wording sans "Jordanian attack" that suggests causality, it is the addition of the Jordanian attack that introduces causality. As pointed out earlier, causality is a matter of POV. It is a fact that Israeli captured these territories during the war, and any other additions are an attempt to explain the events, which is inevitably POV. As far as the West Bank is concerned, it was captured in 1967 by Israel, period. The purpose of the "Jordanian attack" bit is to explain Israel's motives, not to explain the West Bank.--Doron 08:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussing Israel's Aquisition of the territory in the Opening Paragraph

Jayjg has been writing in some stuff twice today and having it reverted by others. Given the nature of this article, I would guess that it is a constant rv war. I suggest putting it in the history section of the article instead of the introduction. I think this is a good solution. Dragon Smaug 18:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg's selective description of the Six Day War is unacceptably biased no matter where it appears in the article. Sanguinalis 02:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Smaug, my response above was written in a moment of frustration and on rereading it I realize it may have come across as curt and dismissive. Your effort to find a solution to the dispute between me and Jayjg is certainly welcome. I think it is going to require more than moving the disputed text to another part of the article, though. Some form of alternative approach is needed. Anyway feel free to bring up any further suggestions. Sanguinalis 02:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely astonishing

OK, this is actually (broadly) the same issue as above and in previous sections, but I simply cannot believe the content of the intro here. Where is the reference to Israeli occupation, which is surely the most immediately relevant point about this region? What is it with the reference to a "Jordanian attack", as if that started the 1967 war? Having said that, I don't know why I'm surprised anymore by what I find on Wikipedia. --Nickhh 22:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its because you have prejudged the history before studying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigleaguer (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

comments on my edits

A few errors. One editor wrote that 30 % of Palestinians in West Bank were refugees from 1948. Actually, they are mostly descendants of refugees, as the vast majority are not old enough to have lived through 1948.

The term Jewish "settlements" and "settlers" are highly charged terms conjuring up the Wild West, whereas in reality, many "settlements" are communities built on disputed land. It creates connotations that are unfounded.

Similarly, the term "East Jerusalem" is code for "should be entirely Arab" and was changed to "Jerusalem" and "Suburbs." The changed term does not prejudice any claims or counterclaims and is a more NPOV.

Finally, the statement about societies not socializing is confusing. What is intended? Jewish and Arab society? Israeli and Palestinian society? Are Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs not socializing? Or does that mean settlers (see above discussion) and "native" Palestinians (quotes are good for the goose, they're good for gander also) are not socializing? What about Westerners and Arabs in Jerusalem? ( I personally have been to plays shops, etc in all parts of Jerusalem). What is intended by the comment?

Bigleaguer 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As above, reverted to my edit as in 1967, Jordan was the authority in West Bank and therefore the residents of the West Bank were Jordanians. The PLO did not become "sole legitimate representative" until 1974, per the Arab League and Jordan did not accept that fully until 1988. In the period of 1967, international documents (eg. Res 242) referred to "refugees" and peace among "states" that had the right to "secure and defensible boundaries." Whereas at a later point it woull be incorrect NOT to refer to the Arab residents of the West Bank as Palestinians, at that time, the "mistake" was correct. Bigleaguer 01:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit re communities and settlements. You did not accept international documents that refer to "Palestinian refugees" and "Arab states" in 1967, but you do accept ones about "settlements" based on news reports and usage. Having visited the communities, I can attest that many of them are small cities rather than ragtag settlements, with trailers, etc. Also, having watched the news, I have seen how the term "settler" is used to dehumanize the jewish residents of the territory. It provokes a two minutes hate a la 1984. It also has very little to do with a young Israeli couple who may have bought a flat in Ariel because the prices were affordable, and in Tel Aviv they were not. However, the couple works in Tel Aviv and merely has an apartment or condo. There are also "settlers" in "outposts" another incendiary word. However, the majority of Israelis in ther territories at this time are not, in the dictionary sense of the word. I then have to ask why the news outlets and Yasir Arafat (when he was alive) and antiZionists use the word again and again. The answer is fairly clear-- bias. Bigleaguer 01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your modification to the 30 % refugees or descendants is better, although it would be truly acceptable if a citation were forthcoming Bigleaguer 01:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't defend the settlements in this article. However, that would be an appropriate task for someone because there are many incorrect assumptions and highly prejudicial language and non NPOV in many things written about the West Bank. Moreover, the communities are located within the West Bank (another term I don't care for but am using here deferentially) and therefore a discussion aboutthem would be appropriate for this article.Bigleaguer 01:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

These "communities" were built after 1967 on territory that Israel captured in a war. Israel built them for reasons of territorial expansion, in the face of condemnation from the UN and criticism even from US presidents. To use eupemisms like "communities" or "suburbs" is to disguise these facts.

And when it really counts, the government of Israel doesn't even try to pretend that they are not called "settlements". The Oslo accords, which were signed by Israel, state: "It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest." [36] And here [37] you can read Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, answering readers questions in an Israeli newspaper, using the term. You don't like the term, take it up with Ehud Olmert.

I don't see what's confusing about the statement regarding social interaction. In context, it is clearly stating that the Jewish settlers in the West Bank have little social interaction with West Bank Palestinians. If anything this is an understatement. It should be obvious that Israeli Arabs are not meant, since Palestinians living in the West Bank are not Israeli Arabs (a term which refers to Palestinians living within the 1948 borders of Israel and who have Israeli citizenship).

As for the term Palestinian, this article appeared on page 1 of the New York Times on November 28, 1966: "BEIRUT, Lebanon, Nov.27 - King Hussein of Jordan appeared today to have overcome the immediate threat to this regime posed by two weeks of demonstrations, strikes and riots by Palestinians on the west bank of the Jordan River." (I have added boldface which is not in the original.) Sanguinalis 01:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. But what is a "settlement" and what is not a "settlement" is not clear at all, to anyone. It is deliberately obfuscated in the documents referred to. Elon Moreh is, Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim are not. Jerusalem is not. If you ask many Palestinians Tel Aviv is a settlement. However, looking at it dispassionately, the real definition of settlement is a Jewish community in the West Bank that can be negotiated away and disbanded at any moment by a leftist Israeli government under American pressure. Think about the psychology of that life. No detail of size, population, industry, importance, length of existence etc. applies to the definition because there is not a standard usage. A community is harder to negotiate away (it can be done) because you have to think of the human cost of evicting residents of the city, which is not done with settlements. Eg., most of the former Gaza settlers are still homeless and jobless from what I understand, as are the Palestinians jobless who used to work there. Hey a job is a job.

re why Israel built them there are lots of reasons, not just one, ranging from politics (Peres v. Rabin), religious nationalism, defense and security, historical connection eg, Gush Etzion second generation, correcting an injustice (Jerusalem), oil (Sinai), etc. For some they were "negotiating cards."

The question of social interaction then depends which "settlers" are you talking about? Hebron? Netzarim? Each one in different and in some, Jews and Arabs attend each others' weddings and simhas. BTW I notice you said Jews don't interact with Palestinians not vice versa which is a little bit odd phrasing and based on not sure what.

Finally , in the face of criticism from the UN, they say "oom shmoom." (Hebrew for UN is "oom", rest is a putdown). The UN is a political body with over 30 Arab votes so of course it condemns Israel. So what? The US Presidents all have had nuanced approaches with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter who had a UN sort of approach (condemn Israel, coddle Pol Pot).

Have a GREAT day Bigleaguer 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The definition of settlement, as used by international bodies and human rights organizations, is actually very simple. If it's outside the Green Line, it's a settlement. If it's inside the Green Line, it's not. We're talking about majority world opinion, not fringe minority views like those who hold that Tel Aviv is a settlement. Please stop pretending that you are confused by this.

Of course Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim are settlements. Has it ever occured to you why a flat in Ariel is cheaper than one in Tel Aviv? It is because Ariel is built in a war zone (which you acknoweledge when you say the settlements are build for "defense").

Of course Israel ignores the UN. So does Sudan, Burma, and Iran. That's not a good reason to ignore UN resolutions when editing Wikipedia articles. There have been resolutions declaring the settlements illegal both in the Security Council (where there is only one Arab country represented at any time), and in the General Assembly, in the latter case by votes so lopsided that the resolutions would have passed even if all 30 "Arab votes" were counted on the Israeli side.

Ronald Reagan said the settlements were an "obstacle to peace" [38] (though granted he did not say they were illegal).

In one of your latest edits you wrote that Palestinians in East Jerusalem do not apply for Israeli citizenship because they fear retaliation even though there is NO evidence for this and the B'Tselem article that is listed as a reference does not say this. You seem to live in a fantasy world in which Palestinians living under occupation do not object to Israeli military or settler presence (only their "officials" do), are quite happy to go to weddings of the Jewish settlers who want to expel them from Eretz Israel, and secretly desire to be second class citizens of a Jewish state - although Israel would never allow more than a tiny number of them to do so, for reasons we all know to be obvious. Sanguinalis 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey sanguine one. I suggest you check a dictionary, as well as magazine and government usages of the term. Usually a "settlement" refers to a (newly) settled land, possibly without all the frills, ac houses, etc. Israel has built settlements on both sides of the Green Line (counting pre-Israel Palestine) for 100 years. I think you are trying to argue that Ma'ale Adumin is occupied, not that it is a settlement. The Old City of jerusalem has been around for 2500 years bt is on the wrong side of the Green Line so I guess it is a settlement too (or maybe the Jews are "settlers" and the Palestinians "natives" even though the jews have been there continuously except for right after the First Crusade and the brief period 1948-67. In your previous post you argued that the Oslo document (signed by israel and US as 2 of signatories) refers to settlements, whereupon I rejoined that those two countries don't accept your definition of "settlement" (or of "occupied") so you changed to using the UN. OOM SHMOOM YOU! Ariel is a war zone, but so is all of Israel. Two years ago, the whole north of the country was in bomb shelters. Today S'derot is even though that is on the correct side of the Green Line. I guess its those fringe elements again.

The fantasy world is yours. I did not say the things you said I did, just the things you can find here. The Palestinians do have death squads and summary executions and do not have a free press. Many Israeli Arabs do not want to live in Palestine. Remember Mohammed al Durah, the little boy shown huddling with his father before he was killed? Stephanie Gutman wrote a whole book about it and described how the father (who lived in the West Bank) attended bar mitzvahs and invited Israelis to weddings. Then, his boy was killed, probably by Hamas, whereupon he collected riches to travel and spout the Hamas line. I bet he would rather have his son back, although he would be killed if he ever said who really killed him. Why do you think everything you read about the evil "settlers" is accurate, or applies to more than a few hundred of the jews in the West Bank. As far as Sudan ignoring the UN, the last I saw they rotated through the Security Council , as has Syria and Libya whereas Israel never has. And, Sudan voted against Israel as did Iran. —Preceding

"We're talking about majority world opinion, not fringe minority views like those who hold that Tel Aviv is a settlement. Please stop pretending that you are confused by this." So is the Palestinian Authority a "fringe minority view" because their controlled tv station shows the whole of Israel as part of a Palestinian state? Or, is the Hamas view which is even more extreme the "fringe minority view." Either way, the Palestinian MAJORITY view holds that all of Israel is Palestine. http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_oct2007.htm#b171007

unsigned comment added by Bigleaguer (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bigleaguer: Since most of the problematic parts of your edits have now been reverted, and you are not reinserting them, we don't need to continue this argument. I just want to clarify a few things: (1) My "fantasy world" comment was based not just on what you wrote on this talk page, but also on your article edits, particularly the ones that were corrected by Tewfik on October 18. If anyone's interested they can read the edit history and judge for themselves if my comment was fair. (2) The majority international law view is that all housing and infrastructure built for Israeli citizens on territory captured in 1967 are settlements. (3) I never withdrew or backtracked from my point regarding the Oslo Accords, documents which you seem to be completely unacquainted with, since you apparently believe they were signed by Israel and the United States, when in fact they were signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. (4) When I wrote that the view that considers Jewish towns and cities within the 1948 borders to be settlements is a fringe view, I did not mean to suggest that it is a fringe view among Palestinians. I meant that it is a fringe view worldwide. Sanguinalis 02:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Do you think referencing 'occupation' in the first sentence is an encyclopedic way to begin an article? signed, somedude

would "israeli military jurisdiction" be preferred? or is it NPOV enough to just add a link to "israeli occupied territories" afterwards? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation" is the internationally recognised definition of the status of the West Bank. "Jurisdiction" is utterly inaccurate because it implies a level of legality.Nwe (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this page have an infobox?

I notice that the entry for the Gaza Strip has a "country or territory infobox" with information about population, area, etc. Should the West Bank have one too? Woood (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)