Talk:West Bank/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

Area's A, B and C

Hi all, firstly let me say I think this is an excellent article. There is a section where areas are discussed (A, B and C) from what I read I see that they vary in Israeli / Palestinian population densities for me I thoght it would be useful to have a map of some kin clearly colour coded with these regions on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.156.106 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They're on the UN OCHA Closures map in the article, for example. High resolution version --JWB (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bethlehem christians

I removed an unsourced and frankly apalling paragraph which concluded that 'Arafat flooded Bethlehem with Muslems[sic] from nearby villages and Hevron[sic]. As a result of rape, assault, and murder, Christian Arabs in larger numbers felt compelled to leave the city. As of 2003, Christian Arabs comprise a mere 20% of Bethlehem.'

I cannot find any sources outside of Christian Zionist activism websites which make these bizarre claims; indeed, a Bethlehem mayor Elias Freij was cited as begging for Israel to save him from Arafat's attacks, when in fact his New York Times obituary notes that he was "a confidant of the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat" who "maintained close contact with the P.L.O. during the exile years" and later served as Arafat's tourism minister.

Whatever ethnic / religious tensions may exist in Bethlehem, they aren't serious enough to warrant attention in the article West Bank, and the article Bethlehem already deals with them in a much more neutral and factual manner. For example, it notes that in a poll of Bethlehem's Christians, "78% attributed the ongoing exodus of Christians from Bethlehem to the Israeli travel restrictions in the area." (Bethlehem's Christians had been very hard hit by the collapse of tourism in Palestine since 2000.) <eleland/talkedits> 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

British Mandate Palestine

Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) -->, you reverted my edit correcting the information regarding British Mandate Palestine. Though it is true that at the San Remo Conference in 1920, the British Mandate in Palestine was to comprise territory in modern-day Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in 1921, the Transjordan was split off to be administered separately.[1] This move formalized by the addition of a September 1922 clause to the charter governing the Mandate for Palestine.[2] Further, the British Mandate in Palestine officially began in 1923, and at that time the Transjordan was not a part of it. Would you mind restoring my edit please? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was incorrect - there was no such thing as a 'mandate of Transjordan'. It is true that the transjordanian part was administered under a different regime (which is what I noted in my edit summary), per the 1922 clause allowing this, but there was only one mandate handed out - for Palestine.Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"also known as Judea and Samaria"

All sorts of groups and individuals prefer the term "Judea and Samaria" to "West Bank", it's not just "Gush Emunim" or "the settler movement". It is, after all, officially Israel's seventh administrative district, which is why you'll find the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs referring to it that way,[1] the Jewish Agency for Israel,[2], non-governmental sources like The Jerusalem Post,[3] academic sources published by American university presses,[4] etc. Please stop inserting demonstrably false material into the lede, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Some cites were added by User:NoCal100 to bolster that exact claim, and they were by the IDF and Gush E — which is demonstrably true, not false, as you claim. I have no problems at all with adding the Israeli government, the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and certain Israeli scholars to the list of "J+S" users. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You've violated 3RR here. Please revert yourself and work it out on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
All sorts of people and groups use the term; your attempts to insist that the phrase is only used in Israel, or is only used in a biblical sense, are misleading. It is used by Americans and American groups,[5] Canadian groups,[6]. U.K. newspapers,[7] etc. Please stop inserting misleading qualifiers into the phrase and the lede. Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The Jewish Chronicle online blog post you have cited also refers to (inverted commas in the original) "Israel proper". Now do we add that sarcastic description to every mention of the Israeli state within the Green Line? And are you seriously trying to suggest that the Zionist Organisation of America is just some random, politically neutral "American group"? Amusingly of course your citing of what that group - as well as the Israeli MFA and the Jewish Agency for Israel - prefer to call occupied territory captured in war merely reinforces the point about what we are dealing with here. To give equivalence to the phrase "Judea and Samaria" (rather than simply, openly and accurately explaining that it is a minority description, used primarily by the occupying power) is fraudulent and dishonest, as you surely know unless you are simply stupid, which I doubt. This fatuous dispute has now been spread across up to five pages now, while you and others refuse to accept what is surely obvious to any rational, objective and independent observer, seemingly because it contradicts a limited and closeted view of the world. It is precisely this kind of propagandistic, ethnic-religious-nationalist-statist cr#p that bedevils Wikipedia and renders it sadly but frequently unreliable. --Nickhh (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Nick, you don't appear to be addressing the point I've made, and instead have engaged in uncivil personal attacks. Please try again. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, Jayjg, you may add "The Zionist Organization of America" [8], "B'nai Brith" (an Israel-lobby group in Canada [9]), and the former literary editor of the Jerusalem Post [10] to the list of "J+S" users. Haven't I said already that I have no problems with adding Jerusalem Post?
If, as you claim, "all sorts of groups and individuals prefer the term "Judea and Samaria" to "West Bank"", one would think it would be easy to find examples of such groups and individuals that aren't a) Israel-based or b) affiliated with Israel lobby groups or Zionist organizations. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence should probably be changed to read "The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎, aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä, Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎, HaGadah HaMa'aravit), also known variously as "Judea and Samaria" and "Palestine," is a landlocked territory on the west bank of the Jordan River in the Middle East." I'll get the necessary cites and fix the opening sentence.--G-Dett (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated, but please take a look at this first. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Definitely better in terms of balance, but in my view we would still need some form of brief qualification added (and that would apply to any reference to "Palestine" as well) to make clear that there are political issues lying behind the phrase "Judea and Samaria", and that it is used by a minority viewpoint, and predominantly within Israel. User:Jayjg continues to assert that it is used everywhere as if on a par with the standard "West Bank", but after 10,000 words has yet to come up with any convincing evidence to show that. And if one makes the point that the sources provided so far as support are weak and appear to in fact back up the "within Israel/minority" qualifier, he doesn't address that point. By contrast, the sources accumulated by MM and others are, well, pretty overwhelming in terms of comparative numbers, as well as in terms of those which describe and analyse what sits behind the "J&S" designation. I mean come on, even William Safire's given up on this one.
It may well be instructive to look at the WP pages for some other equivalent situations, where you have a standard term or description and secondary ones. Now I've alluded to some of these previously, and of course those pages aren't necessarily perfect examples of how to solve the problem, but they do appear to provide a broad consensus and some sort of precedent ...
  • Northern Ireland could immediately tell us that it is "also known as Ulster", as if it were simply an equivalent, alternative name. I mean the former main Unionist party in the province even calls itself the "Ulster Unionist Party", and various of the paramilitary factions (UDA, UVF etc) also use the word "Ulster", all partly in a bid to stress their "separateness" from the Irish Republic/Republic of Ireland. But the article doesn't do that - it merely notes at the end of the first paragraph that the province consists of 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster proper.
  • Scotland could say it is "also known as Northern Britain". By comparison to the above, this is an extreme minority and/or anachronistic or historical usage, but it is not unheard of even today. The page however simply notes that Scotland occupies the "northern third of the island"
  • The Falkland Islands could say "also known as the Malvinas" to acknowledge the Argentinian claim on them. Er, it doesn't, and simply notes that Islas Malvinas is the Spanish name in the usual parentheses
  • Cornwall could say "also known as Kernow" in a sop to Cornish nationalism, but instead follows the pattern above, simply noting instead in brackets that it is the Cornish language name for the county.
  • Devon could simply say "also known as Devonshire", but instead gives some detail as to in what context that alternative name is used in or suggests.
  • Mumbai could say "also known as Bombay" .. but it says "formerly known as Bombay". Same for Chennai/Madras. See also Sri Lanka/Ceylon, Bangladesh/East Pakistan, California/Northern Mexico etc
Apologies for boring everyone with mostly UK-related analogies and examples (I could go on you know, and did at least try to go a bit global), but as far as I can see the simple and unqualified "also known as ..." formulation is something that we should be trying to avoid - and which it seems is rigorously avoided on other similar pages here. Instead, if there's a former, secondary or minority-use alternative name, the lead will - if it mentions it at all - make clear that is what we are dealing with. As opposed to appearing to suggest that it is an equivalent, second name for exactly the same thing, magically free of any history, politics or other baggage. --Nickhh (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, here are anyway the choices regarding the lead:
  1. Provide alternate names ("Judea and Samaria," "Palestine," etc.) with references to their political implications
  2. Provide alternate names ("Judea and Samaria," "Palestine," etc.) without reference to their political implications
  3. Leave discussion of alternate names and terminology out of the lead
Which option do you all think is optimal?--G-Dett (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have left out the other option, leave the lede as it is, since the alternative terminology is also the official government terminology. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
It's the official Israeli government terminology; the official Palestinian government terminology is different. Why would we offer one "alternative name" and not the other, given that both are disputed?--G-Dett (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Israel happens to be the country that controls the territory; quite legally too, from what I can tell. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Is your position on the editing dispute at hand a function of your opinion that Israel's control of the West Bank is legal?
More broadly, is it your position that NPOV terminology is set by the party "that controls" a disputed territory?--G-Dett (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is set by Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which insists that multiple views be sought. The terminology here hasn't been "set" by the party that controls the territory; rather, the article uses multiple terms, per NPOV. And I haven't been trying to insert the term into all sorts of articles; rather, in the half dozen or so articles where it was already found, I objected to the attempts of an SPA to purge Wikipedia of the term based on faulty original research and blatant political POV. And finally, if you want to compare it to the term "Palestine", when we're down to a half dozen or so articles using the term "Palestine" on Wikipedia, as opposed to the several thousand or so that link to it now, then we'll be discussing a comparable situation. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your broader thoughts and feelings; right now, however, I'm just trying to understand why we should use one "alternative name" and not the other, one "government terminology" and not the other. You say the reason is that the "Israel happens to be the country that controls the territory." What I want to know is why you think our NPOV terminology should be a function of who "controls the territory."--G-Dett (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
My argument is an argument in full, with all of its details and nuances, set in a very specific context. I'm not really planning to co-operate with your attempts to reduce a complex, contextual argument to a simplified caricature. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I asked you why NPOV should prefer one vocabulary to another; you responded succinctly, saying that your preferred vocabulary was used by the party "in charge." I'm not asking you to make your position any simpler than that first articulation; on the contrary, I'm asking you to elaborate.--G-Dett (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I've explained my views quite clearly here. My argument is an argument in full, with all of its details and nuances, set in a very specific context. I'm not really planning to co-operate with your attempts to reduce a complex, contextual argument to a simplified caricature. Now, a question for you; are you proposing that all terminology that you consider to be biased, including "Palestine" and "Samaria", be removed from Wikipedia articles? Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
No. I am proposing that terminology used by a small minority of sources and widely considered to be ideologically loaded should not be used in Wikipedia's passive voice.
Also note that when you make a strawman of what I say, I pay you (and everyone else following the dialogue) the courtesy of specifying exactly in what way you've either misunderstood or misrepresented me. That way, I avoid giving the impression that I'm simply pressing the word "strawman" as a panic button when I find myself socratically checkmated.[11]--G-Dett (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL! "Socratically checkmated". Fantasies aside, please desist from uncivil comments, and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If you were not socratically checkmated, but in fact were misunderstood and/or misrepresented, then I trust you'll specify exactly in what way. Fantasies aside. Regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please understand that accusations about "strawman" arguments impute dishonesty to the accused. This is a serious matter, all the more serious when the accusations are routine and robotically repetitive, and consistently unaccompanied by clarifications of the supposedly misunderstood/misrepresented position.--G-Dett (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Do you have anything you wish to add regarding article content? Any comments or points regarding article content that you have not yet already made? Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Sigh indeed. The question is not whether I have anything to "add," but whether you have an actual, substantive response to my question[12], beyond pressing "strawman" as a panic button.--G-Dett (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any new comments or points relevant to article content that you wish to make? Jayjg (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Do you have an actual, substantive response to my question[13], beyond pressing "strawman" as a panic button?--G-Dett (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already given substantive replies, several times. Please desist from asking loaded questions, making straw man presentations and from deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Do you have any new comments or points relevant to article content that you wish to make? Jayjg (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
New? No. If novelty of utterance were the operative test you'd have stopped posting to this page six weeks ago. But again, regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please understand that accusations about "strawman" arguments impute dishonesty to the accused. This is a serious matter, all the more serious when the accusations are routine and robotically repetitive, and consistently unaccompanied by clarifications of the supposedly misunderstood/misrepresented position. As for your reference to "deliberately asserting false information," you've provided zero evidence of that, so I can only assume you're trolling and making gratuitious bad-faith personal attacks. Try to avoid that in the future.--G-Dett (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you are asking loaded questions and making straw man presentations does not impute dishonesty to you; you may be doing so for other reasons, including, among others, the very reasons you have falsely attributed to me. Nevertheless, your questions have been answered, and I am not not really planning to co-operate with your attempts to reduce a complex, contextual argument to a simplified caricature. In the future, please desist from making uncivil comments, and Comment on content, not on the contributer. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If you feel a question is loaded, say exactly why; if you feel a position of yours has been misunderstood or misrepresented, specify how. These terms ("strawman," "loaded question," etc.) are not talismans to be waved around or panic buttons to be pressed in an argumentative impasse. Again, I suggest you revisit the tone you take with me; unanswerable imperiousness does not yield fruitful discussion, and sarcasm cuts both ways.--G-Dett (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) The constant "Strawman!" accusations, as well as the frequent rather childish repetition of other editors' phrasings back at them (on this page and elsewhere) helps no-one. Nor do the constant firing off of WP civility rules at other editors, while skirting on the limits of them yourself, per the above. As for the lead .... as noted above, although I generally prefer to avoid importing the detail of debates into lead sections, if we are going to have "also known as J&S" here, we need qualification. Otherwise the article is simply misleading (I'll row back from "fradulent and dishonest" here), and gives the impression of false equivalence. As I also noted above, most WP pages where there are similar issues don't present alternative names as synonymous, especially in the first sentence, and nor should this page. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration listing piqued my curiosity. In the (non-Israeli) news, it is nearly always the "West Bank", Judea and/or Samaria more in historical documentaries. To most, the latter have become historical/Biblical, not contemporary, terms even though "West Bank" is only a recent term. As unjust as it is to the true names of the region, here is no denying how deeply the term "West Bank" has taken root. That said, it's quite untrue that "Judea" and "Samaria" are only Israeli terms, that's a patently false contention.
   Furthermore, it's painfully obvious that the introduction dances on heads of pins to avoid using the words Judea and Samaria at all costs--that is totally inappropriate. The article can stay titled as "West Bank" since that's most likely how the historically uninitiated will look for it, but it can't ignore Judea and Samaria in the introduction. PetersV       TALK 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

The whole terminology issue is handled in the main text body, and it is stated quite succinctly there that it is a sensitive issue. Removing it from the first sentence is therefore not deleting it from the article.

Since the nomenclature is discussed in full in the body -- it even has its own sub-section --, there is no need to put it (and all the pretty sources surrounding it) in the lead.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.12.2008 09:28

I am fine with moving it out of the lead and into the body. What I am not going to agree to is the ridiculous re-insertion of a demonstrably false claim - that the WB is know only in Israel as "Judea and Samaria" , when even the first line of the first reference used for this false claim says "Only some right wing Jewish media in Israel and abroad". NoCal100 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, then it looks like we have an agreement. I will remove the sentence from the lead and move the source to the sub-section West Bank#Political terminology, where you can work out the exact wording (e.g. nobody ever said that it was known as Judea and Samaria only in Israel). Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.12.2008 15:47
That is what is implied when you say X (also known as Y in Z). Have a look at Gricean maxims. NoCal100 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion

15% are Jews? in the West Bank and Gaza? and the referrer link is not working btw! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.9.89 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A note on the terms "Judea" and "Samaria"

Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View. [14][15] A large body of evidence [16][17] has been collected during extensive discussions (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding.

Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):

MeteorMaker (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

how about U. N. resolution 181 as a source - the proposed arab state refers to the "hill country of Judea and Samaria" [[24]] - in 1947, Jordan didn't control the West Bank, because it wasn't even named yet. Yosef.Raziel (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this issue has been the subject of a long and bitter dispute that recently led to 8 editors being indefinitely banned from Israel/Palestine-related articles. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria. You are advised to not start the dispute again as the Arbitration Committee is likely to take a very dim view of it. DIscuss it as you wish, but don't start inserting such text into articles until a consensus has been reached. You can be sure that your ideas (including res 181) have been discussed ad nauseum before, see all the links above and the arbitration committee minutes. Also note that the Arbitrarion Committee asked us to make a consensus before disruptive editing. Zerotalk 12:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph needs editing

This paragraph under the "annexation" section appears to be incomplete:

"The importance of demographic concerns to Israel's leadership are evidenced by an interview that Yediot Aharonot gave to the Christian Science Monitor in which he told Cameron W. Barr: "I'll never give up democracy, I'll never give up the Jewish majority. With difficulties and pain, I compromise the land."[citation needed]"

Yediot Aharonot is a newspaper, not a person.[[25]] Perhaps this quote was coming from an editor at the paper?

Beauzzard (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was Avraham Burg. Here's a ref if you want it and the full quote is "What do you give up - assuming you can't have them all - land, system, or majority? I'll never give up democracy, I'll never give up the Jewish majority. With difficulties and pain, I compromise the land". I think it's originally from an article by him published in Israel (maybe in Yediot Aharonot...don't know), translated, picked up by the international press etc. Not as witty as "I do not believe in stick and carrot, I believe in carrot and carrot". I haven't fixed the article because I'm not convinced it belongs in this article (maybe the peace process one) but the ref is here if anyone wants it. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

click edit to copy neat version <ref name="burg-demog">{{cite news |url=http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/About/Press+Room/Jewish+Agency+In+The+News/2003/Israels+Cloud+Of+Demographics.htm |title=Israel's 'Cloud Of Demographics' |last=Barr|first=Cameron W. |date=2003-12-15 |publisher=[[Christian Science Monitor]] |language=English |accessdate=2009-07-10}}</ref>

Better Map

I propose that we find a map illustrating the surrounding region, to give readers without a firm geological grasp of where the West Bank is a better understand of its location. Preferably, this map would be a supplement to the current map. Elfred (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Tanakh ?

Prior to its capture by Jordan and the subsequent renaming, parts of the West Bank had been called Judea and Samaria for more than 2000 years, according to the Tanakh.

How can the Tanakh say this as it was written more than 2000 years ago ! I guess the author wanted to say that is was name Judea and Samaria between some point in history (3000 years ago ?) and 1947. Again, there are many sources outside Tanakh that talked about Judea and Samaria well before "2000 years ago" (greek, roman, assyrian,...)

I propose :

Prior to its capture by Jordan and the subsequent renaming, parts of the West Bank had been called Judea and Samaria for more than 2500 years, according to jewish and non-jewish sources. --Squallgreg (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point is good but your solution is not perfect I think. The names "Judea" and "Samaria" have existed since biblical times and still exist (they didn't stop existing in 1948), while other names have been used for other periods. Think Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, as well as Jordanians and UN officials. It is normal for places to have multiple names. This sentence in the intro seems out of place and I suggest removing it. The subject is raised better in the History section. Zerotalk 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

West Bank, Judea, Samaria, and "Judea and Samaria area"

Hi. I have some questions regarding these terms: 1) West Bank     2) Judea     3) Samaria     4) Judea and Samaria Area .

Regarding their geographical areas,

a) What's the difference between 2&3 combined, and 4?

b) What's the difference between 2&3 combined, and 1?

c) What's the difference between 1 and 4?

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading the articles should explain it. In brief, the "West Bank" is a territory mostly under Israeli occupation, "Judea" and "Samaria" are ancient geographical names and "Judea and Samaria Area" is an Israeli administrative district. "Judea and Samaria Area" is in the "West Bank", which is in the areas of "Judea" and "Samaria". OrangeDog (talk • edits) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the historical terms "Judea" and "Samaria" actually cover areas somewhat larger than those currently designated by these names. Samaria was the biblical "Northern Kingdom" and Judea was the biblical "Southern Kingdom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.189.116 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fact tag re use of Judea and Samaria under Mandate.

I've added this tag as I think the claim is questionable. My understanding is that the terms Judea and Samaria overlapped what is now the West Bank but also included much land beyond it. The implication in the article that this is therefore a continuous usage is misleading. However if some can come up with a reference which indicates a close similarity between the use of the terms then and their use now, I'll change my view.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Source added from United Nations.

  • Part II. - Boundaries
The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the Sub-Districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin. +more... --Shuki (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Population centre figures

The figures most recently added to the table are those for the governates. The popultion figures for the individual conurbations wich is what I would understand by the term "population centre" will be less. If the figures used in the table are for the governates, then we should make the heading of the table clearer.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Ah..glad someone knows what is going on. The edits by 86.108.58.32 here and elsewhere caught my eye and seem to have opened a bit of a can of worms. I tried to figure out and ask the IP where they were getting their numbers but they didn't respond so I just used the 2007 survey that was already being referenced. I didn't pay enough attention to notice any centre vs governates issues. I think all of the figures in the table and the related articles need reviewing. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The figures I had been reverting to match those in our articles above the conurbations. That's why I settled on them. I think that using those would allow for the listing of both Israeli settlements and Palestinian ones in the same table. Otherwise we are compring apples and pears. And then there is the question of East Jerusalem which is a retty big opulation centre in what most of the international world regards as part of the West Bank.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check recent edits

The recent edits by User:71.252.165.10 are, at the least, full of orthographical errors. I would fix those, except I suspect there are problems with the substance as well. Someone who has been more involved in the article than I should have a look. - Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

British recognition and Geneva Convention

Unlike the rest of the article, which is actually fairly balanced, the opening paragraph is dreadfully one-sided. This ought to be rectified by a senior editor. As for British recognition of Jordanian annexation as opposed to occupation, this was limited to de facto recognition, not extended to de jure recognition. The same was done with lands occupied by Israel and not designated as part of the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan. If you want the original document, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UKrecognizesIsraelJordan.pdf

I suggest you read the document more carefully. UK gave de jure recognition except in the case of Jerusalem, for which it gave de facto recognition (both for Jordan and Israel). Zerotalk 07:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

During my university studies on this issue, I have also run into references about Pakistani recognition of Jordanian annexation. I have however so far failed to find an official government document extending such recognition in either English or Arabic. Perhaps there is an internal Urdu document, but I do not know Urdu. Perhaps someone familiar with Pakistani government archival databases may add to this discussion.

I added a citation on this. Zerotalk 07:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the comment concerning concerning the Fourth Geneva Convention, it may be of value to add that the issue at hand is contained in an additional protocol, to which Israel, among several other countries, including the US, is not signatory. The standing of this additional protocol is unclear at best. In addition, international law does not differentiate between Israeli military occupation and Jordanian military occupation. Suggesting a line of reasoning where any and all Israeli migration to the West Bank and construction would be categorically illegal, would at once make several groups of Palestinians into illegal settlers according to this convention. This would include 1) Palestinians who took up residence in the West Bank after the armistice talks of January 1949 who were not resident there prior to the fighting, 2) Any foreign national who took up residence since 1949 (Mostly Jordanian citizens, but also Egyptian and assorted others. 3) Arab Israelis who moved to the West Bank since 1967. The convention is also unclear as to differentiation between areas from which Jewish refugees were removed in 1948 by force at the hands of the Jordanian Legion (Kfar Etzion and the Jewish Quarter in East Jerusalem for example) and those with no Jewish population prior to 1948. These matters are definitely contentious, but that is exactly why readers of Wikipedia ought to be able to see all sides of it, reaching an informed decision. Any rational observer would see then, I think, that neither the Israeli, nor the Palestinian position is wholly and categorically defensible. 132.229.189.116 (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The relevant text is Article 49 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which was fully ratified by Israel on 25/07/1951 to take effect 06/01/1952. [26] Zerotalk 07:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You sound like someone who would be a useful contgributor.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes I quite agree that the opening is heavily biased, but the rest of the article approaches neutrality. Also, the article does not appear to make any mention that some of the settlements are reconstructions of previous Jewish residences that were expelled by Jordan between 1948 and 1967. This would include Gush Etzion and Kiryat Arba near Hebron. How can it be illegal to rebuild what was there prior to 1948? Metallurgist (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
And wouldn't an occupation require a country or part of a country to be occupied? As the Jordanian claim to the WB was never recognised by the UN nor the international community, AND the WB never was a country, what are Israel occupying? Jordan? They have waived their claim. A part of Britain? They recognised Jordan's claim, which was later waived. The Ottoman empire? Long gone. I think the first paragraph must be rewritten, but not by me. I'm biased. Letriste1977 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No, see the ICJ opinion in the Wall case. Some relevant quotes:

(p. 35) The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

They go on to reject the specific argument that because Jordan's sovereignty over the West Bank was not recognized that Israel is not the occupying power in pages 39-45. nableezy - 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph of History section

This is getting more and more garbled and uses a reference which goes to a dead link:

Contrary to popular belief the West bank was not officialy annexed by Jordan.,[3] assumed to have recognized it also).

So did Jordan annexe it or not and who recgnised it if they did?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The IPs edit is incorrect, Jordan did annex the territory but it was only recognized by the UK and by Pakistan. See [27]. nableezy - 16:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this, Nableezy.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually it seems to be a myth that Pakistan recognised it. Adding cite... Zerotalk 06:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

We should add an infobox with details on the area, population etc. of the West Bank.Bless sins (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

request for change

how come the pic at the top of the article says palestinian authority governance and dosen't show the israeli settlements, and how come it makes it seem as if the palestinians control jerusalem. it also makes it seem that he palestinians control all of the west bak when truthfully they only control some areas. i think that this pic is misleading and bias and should be replaced.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get a better image. I remember seeing a CIA produced, 2008 interpreted map from SPOT 5 data over the whole West Bank a few weeks ago. Their data is very high quality and public domain. I'll put it in commons once I've found it and converted it from the jp2 format they use. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Got it but jp2 -> jpg takes it over the commons 100mb limit at 122mb. Converting at 90% quality takes it to ~46mb and it looks fine to me so I'll upload it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The map is now available in commons.
Suggested caption, something like...
"CIA, SPOT 5 remote sensing imagery acquired July 2004, created/published July 2008. Map shows areas interpreted by the CIA as Israeli settlements, Israeli claimed settlement municipal areas, Israeli-military installation areas, Palestinian-populated areas and UNRWA refugee camps together with the West Bank barrier and the various 'Areas of control'[4]"

Image could be used in addition to the existing one or the one in Template:West_Bank could be replaced with this one. Note that I included a ref in the suggested caption. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

i think this is a much better pic.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew name

The Hebrew name in the introduction section was recently changed by Lionessofgd (talk) from "הגדה המערבית" to "יהודה ושומרון" (The West Bank and Judea and Samaria, respectively). Both names refer to the same area, but have different political values. I asked an Israeli, and according to him (supported by the article Judea and Samaria) the latter is the commonly used term in Israel, especially among right-wing people, whereas Hebrew speaking Palestinians and left-wing people use the former.

Which name is more appropriate to use in the introduction section? The name used by Hebrew speaking people (i.e. Israelis) isn't necessarily the proper Hebrew term. Given the controversial status of the area, I thought it might be a good idea to discuss this. ~ HannesP (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Some way of including both seems appropriate. Zerotalk 04:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
They don't refer to the same area. The West Bank includes East Jerusalem. J&S doesn't.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it back for now. There is a question whether we need a Hebrew expression at all. The terminology clearer comes from the Arabic expression adopted by Transjordan. If the Israelis avoided referring to the whole West Bank as such, then why include a term they don't use?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Geda Hamaaravit is the literal translation, so can be mentioned as such, but in fact this area is widely referred to as Judea and Samaria, even though the actual borders of Judea and Samaria do not follow the 1949 ceasefire green line. I doubt anyone can show what percentage of the population uses either terms, there is also another 'neutral' term used as well - central mountains. FWIW, the Judea and Samaria administrative 'Area' does not include 'East Jerusalem', but Jerusalem is in fact in the Judean Mountains. --Shuki (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
That's why I wonder whether including a term in Hebrew may confuse the issue. Prior to 67, then there wasn't much doubt what Geda Hamaaravit referred to. According to someone who contributed to the J&SA article, J&S was already used to refer to the West Bank at that time (but I would like a reference there). If it was, then I assume that Israelis at that time would have agreed that Jerusalem was in J&S. However, nowadays I expect that politics influence how people in Israel would interpret the term. I suspect that those who believe in a form of land for peace that does not involve returning East Jerusalem to Arab control would exclude Jerusalem from J&S per the boundaries of J&SA, that the left wing might include it all in Geda Hamaaravit, and I'm not sure how the far right settlers would decide. Unless we have reliable sources which indicate a consensus term (or choice of terms) for referring to the whole of the West Bank in Hebrew and not to something that is widely understood to exclude anything in the Jerusalem district then I think it best to avoid misleading the readers by implying that there is a Hebrew term for the West Bank. Instead, the text should clarify that the terminology in Hebrew is different.
Actually I've noticed another issue with this article and Jerusalem District. The Jerusalem Law dates to 1980. It would be good if it were made clear in both these articles that that was when the official Israeli boundaries changed. Or am I mistaken about the date?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Certainly including one Hebrew term is confusing, but removing it would imply further bias on the page that already exists. The neutral compromise might be to include both terms and with the follow up in the lead paragraph, the reduction of scientific accuracy could be tolerated. --Shuki (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by your argument, but having followed the in other languages link, I see that the Hebrew article gives both "West Bank" and J&S terminology, the latter being the article title. The map matches our one. So, unless there is an edit war, the J&S term does refer to the whole West Bank and not something less as I thought. Looking at the Hebrew link from J&SA, I see that the article has, as expected, a map excluding Jerusalem but the term is not Ezor J&S. Is this an error in the English article or the Hebrew? I thought it was specifically an Area not a District.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No argument at all, I'm here for the discussion. I find you a reasonable editor that is usually open to discussion, collaboration, and wanting to reach true consensus, especially without the warriors chiming in. Now, I was surprised to find the Hebrew WB article to be labeled J&S, given that I left the HE wiki a couple years back because it was frankly literally controlled by left-wingers, something I doubt has changed. I don't know if J&SA should be J&SD for more accurate translation. Certainly, the acronym 'ayosh' (with ezor/area) is used widely, almost exclusively, rather than 'mehoz'/area. --Shuki (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Last edits

Supposedly either correcting inaccuracies or reverting inaccuracies. Palestinians in East Jerusalem were not offered citizenship only permanent resident status (with permanent having a meaning that cannot be found in a dictionary), so the first IP was correct to remove that line. The name "Judea and Samaria Area" is not however completely synonymous with the name "West Bank", the prior does not include East Jerusalem. The PNA did not "assume authority" per the Oslo accords, they gained limited control over certain areas, the sentence read as though they gained some aspects of control over the entire territory. Some of the changes made by the first IP should be reinstated, others are typical POV nonsense (such as removing the word "occupation") or OR and should be not be. nableezy - 23:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Every permanent resident of Israel may apply for full citizenship according to the Israeli law. Being granted permanent residency status is, in a way, an invitation to apply for citizenship, though there is a change of refusal. I agree with you that there is a tacit status quo of "don't ask, don't grant" regarding IL citizenship to E Jlm Palestinians, namely the Palestinians permanent residents refuse to apply for citizenship, and Israel is quite relieved by this refusal, but this is all informal conduct. As far as the law is concerned, they have been offered citizenship. Note, that "permanent resident" is an internal Israeli legal status which means someone who lives in Israel with all the rights and obligations of a citizen except having Israeli passport and voting in the general elections. Unlike citizenship, this status is revoked once the "permanent resident" leaves Israel for a significant period of time.
As for the PNA, what exactly do you mean by "limited control", can you be more specific? 79.181.9.231 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Last things first, the sentence as you wrote it implies that some of the military's responsibilities were transferred to the PNA, not that some of those responsibilities in some parts of the West Bank were transferred to the PNA. For "permanent resident", "significant period of time" is a definition that varies considerably depending on whether the "permanent resident" is Arab or not. There are reports of Arab residents of East Jerusalem being barred from returning to their homes after attending weddings in the WB outside of Jerusalem. nableezy - 10:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, if you must know all about Israeli technicalities, there is a definition for the significant amount of time I've mentioned above. Permanent residency can be revoked once you move the center of your life away from Israel. Israel does not regard the WB and Gaza as part of its territory, but it does regard East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as such, certainly for this purpose. As far as I know, the criterion for having your center of life in Israel is having a permanent address in Israel and staying in Israel for at least half of every year in the last five years or so (I don't believe it is necessary to look for the exact definitions). The well-known problem is Jerusalemite Palestinians who move to the outskirts of Jerusalem beyond its eastern/southern municipal borders. They are risking losing their permanent residency status, and they are quite angry about the IL Ministry of the Interior for revoking their status on this account (rightfully angry, if I'm allowed a personal opinion). Then again, since the Jerusalemite Palestinians never challenged the Israeli authorities by applying for IL citizenship (as they are entitled to by law), the Israeli policy in such case remains a mystery, and your guess is as good as mine. As for the PNA - Civilian authorities and some policing authorities have been handed over to it from the Israeli military administration. This handover is indeed limited to certain areas (the most populated areas of the WB) and was suspended for a while during the Second Intifada (for about two years, but I need to check), but you cannot say that the PNA is a puppet at the hands of the Israeli military administration. 79.181.9.231 (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

79.181.9.231, regarding this edit, please could you review WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, you were reverted. That means you need to go to the talk page rather than revert the revert. Please don't do that kind of thing. It leads to articles being protected to prevent edit warring. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

correcting some inaccuracies

  1. The Hebrew term "Ezor Yehuda ve-ha-Shomron" (lit. "The Area of Judea and the Samaria" has not been used until the late 1970s. This is obvious from reading official Israeli documents and newspapers dated to the ten years after the June 1967 war or so. However, from the late 1970s onward, only the that term is used officially, while "Ha-Gada Ha-Maaravit" remained in unofficial use. It has regained popularity since the Oslo Accords, but is still not used in official documents (I'm afraid seeing that requires basic knowledge of Hebrew, at least being able to recognize the letters). The correspondence between Begin and Carter clearly shows the Israeli switch from one name to the other and the ambiguity it created for a while, but it is also clear from this correspondence that Israeli authorities regard the terms as equivalent.
  2. Israel indeed held the West Bank under occupation (i.e. a separate territory under the jurisdiction of the Israeli army with a legal system based on the pre-1967 laws with additional army-issued ordinances), and yet, please be accurate about the terminology. "Occupation" is a concept, its implementation is "military administration". It is a bit like the difference between "precipitation" and "rain". The former is the general concept, its realization is (most commonly) rain.
  3. The area known as East Jerusalem became part of the Jerusalem Municipality. Naturally, this municipality belongs to the Jerusalem District, but since the entire de facto-annexed territory was placed under the municipality's jurisdiction, there is no need to mention the district.
  4. "(if they should decline Israeli citizenship)" - This is an unclear sentence, which seems redundant, as the whole issue is explained in the following lines.
  5. It is a bit strange to mention the condition of relinquishing other citizenships for achieving Israeli one, since most of the Palestinians in East Jerusalem are nationless. Actually this is a major problem of theirs, since Jordan gradually revoked the citizenship of most of them since 1987, as part of it disengagement from the West Bank. Most of them refuse to apply for IL citizenship despite this problem, but "relinquishing" a citizenship they no longer have is not the issue here.
  6. Note that the issue of whether the territories under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority are "occupied" is a matter of controversy. While some features of the previous Israeli military administration remained in place, one cannot ignore the assumption of authority by the PNA in many fields. So again, a reserved phrasing is required here. 79.181.9.231 (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Aha, Number 79! We meet again!
  1. Israel uses "Judea and Sumeria" but they don't have the authority to actually rename outside territory. Let's use West Bank as that's the title of the article.
  2. Occupation is the word most sources are using. It's the word the Israeli HCJuses and deviating from it to use "military administration" seems unwise without further reference to their equivalence.
  3. East Jerusalem "was placed under the Israeli civilian law" is ambiguous. Did the UN place it under civilian law? An agreement with some Palestinian political group? The highly controversial Jerusalem Law is, like the Golan Heights, a de facto annexation not recognized internationally.
  4. The occupation isn't over. We have the HCJ referring to the occupation in 2004 (above) and I think it still does as do most governments and the UN.
  5. They were Jordanian citizens and Jordan revoked their citizenship? Very interesting, this should be explored in the East Jerusalem article. Could you put a source in for it? Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Mister Goldstone, indeed we meet again, and again you are trying to politicize a discussion about facts. BTW, is Goldstone you real name, or are you implying.... never mind...
  1. We are not talking about "rights" and who possess them. We are talking about facts. The fact is that Israel uses this term, and that's what matters. China, backed by the UN, believes that the term Republic of China must never be used, and yet it exists and used on WP. Are you going to take action against this too?
  2. You may write: "Israel placed the territory under its civilian law" if you think it's clearer. We will keep this "error" of mine between us, eh? Don't tell Ban-ki Moon in your next meeting.
  3. WP doesn't follow HCJ rulings. HCJ gives legal advices, based ONLY on legal documents as interpreted by judges with legal training. These people are not historians, geographers or sociologists, and their rulings are NOT phenomenological researches.
  4. There is a law of the US congress recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and diplomats do come to Jerusalem for official meetings and ceremonies with Israeli officials, so the situation is not clear-cut as you wish to present it.
  5. Apparently you are not acquainted with the facts at all, so it doesn't surprise me that you make poor claims. See here: [28], [29]. BTW, it puzzles me why HRW regards this as a violation of the Jordanian law, considering King Hussein announcement in 1987. It might be a violation of international treaties, though. 79.181.9.231 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's possible to politicize any I/P issue anymore than it already is :P. My problem with ambiguous language in these articles is that it confuses the novice on the subject (as I was recently and still somewhat am).
  1. Germany also calls itself the 'Bundesrepublik Deutschland' but that's not the common reference name in English. Nor do we call it 'Allemagne' like the French.
  2. That's almost the exact same sentence and tells the reader nothing about how it happened or the controversy surrounding it. Don't worry, I'll keep quiet about it with Ban-Ki when I see him at dinner tonight . . . er, I mean, I don't know what you are talking about!
  3. It's the highest legal authority in Israel. You contradicted the HCJ without sources, claiming the occupation ended in '94. You might want to inform the Justices about their mistake.
  4. Which would nicely settle the question except that Congress can't dictate foreign policy to the executive branch (At least not in this area).
  5. Yes, that's why I didn't actually make any claims regarding Jordanian citizenship issues. Thanks for the links though. It's a violation of nationality rights under Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other bits of international law. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. In any introduction to an article about geographical or geopolitical units, WP brings various local names to help a reader who searches information about the place in its local languages. Now, Hebrew is definitely a relevant language in this context, only it has two names for this territory used interchangeably. The reader of this article has to know that Ezor Yehuda ve-ha-Shomron is the same in most contexts as Ha-Gada ha-Maaravit (I can think of only one specific context where only the former term may be used and it has a slightly different meaning than the usual - Meħoz Yehuda ve-ha-Shomron is an Israeli administrative district that governs the settlements in the West Bank, but not the Palestinian locales). BTW, I wasn't able to trace the exact date, but the term Yehuda ve-ha-Shomron is not used in Israeli official documents dated until the late 1970s, and yet since that time onward, Ha-Gada ha-Maaravit appears only in informal contexts. Another interesting point - There was an attempt by the PNA to use the name "Northern Palestinian Districts" instead of "West Bank". There are a few PNA official documents that use this term, but it did not catch, so I'm not sure it is worth while mentioning it.
  2. First you describe the facts on the ground, then you describe what people/states/organizations think about it. That's the way you write factual information - first let the reader know what IS, then what SHOULD BE, according to various opinions.
  3. You might want to read these texts [30] and [31]. I think the position of the US about Jerusalem is not that clear-cut as you think.
  4. The highest legal authority in Israel is the Israeli Supreme Court in Givat Ram, Jerusalem. I did not contradict the HCJ. I said there is a limit to the relevancy of its ruling in the context of writing a WP article. HCJ has made all kind of ruling about the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict too, and yet WP prefers to describe the facts on the ground rather than go along HCJ rulings.
  5. As you can see, the Jordanian law contradicts international treaties. In fact I don't know of a country that follows these treaties strictly (maybe Lichtenstein). Anyway, it does not matter to our point. If a person is stateless, he has no citizenship to relinquish. The fact that his citizenship should have been retained per international treaties does not matter much. 79.181.9.231 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Mr. Numbers! Hello again.*twirls mustache*
  1. Mentioning the name is great.
  2. And the facts on the ground are "held" and not "occupied"? Why exactly?
  3. The US position, maybe not, but the US's official position hasn't changed. Due to our constitutional separation of powers, Congress has as much authority over international relations as your local PTA. They can try to enforce their decrees with fiscal consequences but the executive branch is the policy maker.
  4. Let's be honest, you said the occupation ended in 1994 with no sources. Fortunately, someone else reverted it already. It's true the HCJ are neither historians nor geographers which would be bad news if they were supposed to be explaining historiography or maps. Fortunately, they are legal experts ruling on the fundamentally legal nature of territorial questions.
  5. It turns out the Jordanian view is that Palestinians, at least some from the West Bank, aren't Jordanians because Jordan gave their territorial claims to the PLO in 1988 and recognized Palestine as a country. I don't think that let's them run around stripping people of citizenship but that's a research question for later. Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Legality Confusion

Excuse my ignorance, but this paragraph makes no sense:

The current status arises from the facts (see above reference) that Great Britain surrendered its mandate in 1948. Since the area has never in modern times been an independent state, there is no "legitimate" claimant to the area other than the present occupier, which currently happens to be Israel.

So is this paragraph supposed to suggest that only an existence of a modern state would allow the Palestinians a claim? This seems to contradict the claims that many Israelis have towards Israel as a land that belonged to them since ancient times. Also, is this supposed to suggest that the state of Palestine was neither modern nor a state dominated by Palestinians? Also why is legitimate in quotations? This entire paragraph seems to imply that after the British left, they left behind a vacuum, which would have allowed any nation to stake a claim on it regardless of its past history.

Hmm... (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The state of Palestine was not only not modern, but also nonexistent. The green line is simply the cease fire line from 1949. These are all facts, but none of them mean that the Palestinians don't deserve to call themselves a nation. TFighterPilot (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The neutrality of this is highly suspect: "Although international law (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) prohibits "transfers of the population of an occupying power to occupied territories", media outlets often interpret the law to incur a responsibility on the part of Israel's government to prevent Jews or non-Arab Israeli citizens from voluntarily residing in the West Bank, including cases where Israelis seek to restore Jewish communities destroyed by Arabs prior to Israel's statehood, such as in Hebron and Gush Etzion.[7][8][9]" It's not simply media outlets interpreting the law this way, and the discussion of past communities is misleadingSol Goldstone (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC). I'm for deleting it unless someone can come up with a more neutral phrasing.

Voluntarily residing in the West Bank? Wow. Yeah, that needs to be removed. john k (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, I'm not really sure where you both guys going with that. Maybe you should consider neutral copy edit based on provided WP:RS. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interrupt away. I'm not sure how "voluntarily residing" violates NPOV but the article under-represents the majority interpretation of the GC. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

Happy September 1st, everybody. Sorry, I've missed beginning of this discussion. I'm not sure about this edit. The content is based on secondary source. Maybe it is a good idea to dig also for primary ones? Agree pushing it into the lead like this appears peacock-like. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Those edits werent based on any sources much less secondary sources and replaced the language used in secondary sources (occupied) with those that a certain banned editor would rather have had. You need to establish consensus for such changes. There was none there. nableezy - 15:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New Article On The Killing of 4 Iraeli's on the West Bank. Discuss.

Do you think we should put down a page on the murder of the four israelis on the West Bank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

drork's changes

Shuki, you have now twice re-reverted to include the edits of a banned editor without once appearing on the talk page to justify this. The edits have been discussed in the section #Last edits. Besides the sock of a banned editor, not one person, yourself included, has made any attempt to justify the edits. Would you care to try now or would you rather simply continue to proxy revert for a banned user? nableezy - 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not relevant what banned editor put inside, I am taking responsibility for it now. Please stop whining about banned socks. Do you wish to continue now? --Shuki (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It matters when you refuse to justify repeatedly reverting. The material was discussed here and no editor supported it. You have multiple times reinserted it without any reason being given on the talk page. nableezy - 19:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

New Version of Map

There is a 2010 version of the settlements/roadblocks map available here. I don't really know how to convert PDF to JPG or mess with commons images very well, so if someone else could upload it, that would be awesome. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory information

"Jordan's claim was never formally recognized by the international community, with the exception of the United Kingdom. The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty."

So which is it? Was the UK the only country that recognized Jordan's claim, or did the US as well. If the US did as well, it should say "with the exception of the United Kingdom and the United States". Kaldari (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. The source shows that the United States acknowledged de facto Jordanian sovereignty. This is not the same thing as recognition, and, in fact, the source shows that the United States refused to formally recognize the Jordanian annexation. This is the reason you can't find any authoritative source stating that the US recognized Jordanian annexation. The sentence should be rephrased as "Jordan's claim was never formally recognized by the international community, with the exception of the United Kingdom." If you can find more examples of de facto acknowledgement (I'm sure there are), then a sentence should be added stating "However, many states (such as ...) acknowledged de facto Jordanian sovereingty."Knowitall369 (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I'm going to change this to "Jordan's claim was never formally recognized by the international community, with the exception of the United Kingdom." If someone comes up with additional de facto acknowledgements, I'll add the second sentence stating that "However, many states (such as ...) acknowledged de facto Jordanian sovereignty."Knowitall369 (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Former Israeli-Jordanian no man's land

Hey everyone, I was just reading a bit of the article and came across a phrase that seems to break the flow of the lead: "former Israeli-Jordanian no man's land" (appears twice in the second paragraph). I'm not knowledgeable in this area, so I was curious if anyone could suggest a better alternative to this. A No man's land is disputed territory, so perhaps something like "formerly disputed Israeli-Jordanian land" would work, but that doesn't really sound much better to me. Perhaps there is no better way to describe this area at all, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case you folks could think of a better phrase to put in its stead. Thanks, all! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 16:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also under "Political positions" we have "Many Israelis and their supporters prefer the term disputed territories, because they claim part of the territory for themselves, and state the land has not, in 2000 years, been sovereign."
I could put a [citation needed] on this, but I can't imagine any acceptable source - is this left over from the "some people believe" days? Any objection to deleting it?

Fourtildas (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No objection here. --Dailycare (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Balance

The history section reads like a press release from the Israeli ministry of propaganda. They did everything they could to prevent conflict - before launching an unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression. Reads rather like Von Ribbentrop's missives in 1939/40. A little more balance and objectivity would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


The entire article is biased... It's funny how it says that the West Bank was called Judea and Samaria during the 400 years prior to the fall of the ottoman empire... The truth is people from Nablus, Jericho, Ramallah never used these artificial names to describe themselves.... This is pure distortion of history...

Almost all articles that talk about any thing that has to do with Arabs or Muslims are biased and based on Jewish/ Western anti-arab sources..... Arabic sources are never used although you are talking about Arabs!!! This is like writing about London and describing London from a French perspective without allowing any British sources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.238.186 (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting some particular edit? --Dailycare (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Population of the West Bank not clear

Trying to figure out the population of the West Bank from this article is confusing.

It says: Its population is 1,714,845 (June 2010)[10] according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).

but the only citation leads to the CIA World Factbook which actually says:

2,568,555 (July 2010 est.) country comparison to the world: 141 note: approximately 296,700 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank (2009 est.); approximately 192,800 Israeli settlers live in East Jerusalem (2008 est.) (July 2011 est.)

Later the article says under ==Demographics==

In December 2007, an official Census conducted by the Palestinian Authority found that the Palestinian Arab population of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) was 2,345,000

and it also says

These data sets suggest that the Palestinian Arab population of the West Bank in 2007 was approximately 1.5 million

Perhaps the article should give a range of figures rather than multiple conflicting figures. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Distinction between opinions within Israel

I think it is worth distinguishing between opinions of different parties in Israel, rather than referring to "Israel's position". Currently, when the right wing is in power, it is clear that "Israel's positions" are determined by the Likud and Israel Beytenu. But only five years ago, these positions were very different. It doesn't make sense to rewrite the entire article whenever the government changes in Israel... Wabbit73 (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


Nonsense article

Pmurnion (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC) This article is of such a poor standard that it damages the whole wikipedia project; at a time when wikipedia is seeking donations? The section "Settlements and International Law" puts forward as equal and opposite views, on the one hand "the United Nations and others" (what others: martians?) and on the other hand an Autralian academic! This is nonsense. We could all find obscure academics to support any position. The puropse of an encyclopedia is to describe the consensus. This article fails miserably on this criterion. The solution is simple. Describe the international consensus, the if you must list the individual detractors.

Israel/JNF owns land in West Bank

Someone should add information because it is missing from the article but very relevant. Specifically, page 8: http://www.iasps.org/policystudies/ps49.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.77.156.152 (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

explain deletion

I deleted "The legal status of the 'West Bank' is derived from the definition of Israel that originates from the 1897 Basle Program" and so on for a paragraph of pure rubbish cited to the extremist Howard Grief. A Zionist convention in 1897 determined the legal status of the West Bank now??? This is extreme even for the most fanatical of commentators. I don't think this sort of WP:FRINGE material belongs in the article at all, and absolutely not as if it is factual. Zerotalk 07:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted a chunk of text as well, there were several issues the most important being that claims by the Israeli right wing were presented in a neutral tone. That view is now included in the text, along with what consensus opinion thinks of it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

inventions

I have no idea how this was put in the article to begin with, but nothing in David Newman, The Renaissance of a Border That Never Died: The Green Line between Israel and the West Bank, in Alexander C. Diener and Joshua Hagen, eds., Borderlines and borderlands : political oddities at the edge of the nation-state, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010, p.92 comes anywhere close to supporting any part of the text it is citing. The article says

The creation of the segregation area on the West bank of the Jordan river by the Trans-Jordanian negotiators commenced with the Armistice Demarcation Line separating the State of Israel and the territory occupied by the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan through the Rhodes 1949 Armistice Agreements and the modus vivendi in which it placed Israeli-Jordanian diplomatic relations, and therefore having the status of a "disputed territory".

The source never mentions the words disputed territory (a different chapter in the book says the words disputed territory between Argentina and Brazil). The rest of the paragraph is similarly invented. Later, the article now says that the dispute over the West Bank of the Jordan is one between Israel and Jordan and that this "dispute" has been "settled" through force of arms. The one part of this that even pretends to be sourced is completely invented as the source supports none of it, and the rest is an unsourced POV polemic. nableezy - 23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Merge. The Geography of the West Bank article is merged into West Bank.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The article on West Bank is defined as an article on the "geography and demographics" of the area, so apparently this one is WP:FORK and is completely redundant and overlapping. It should be clarified that articles on "West Bank", "Gaza Strip" and "Palestinian territories" deal with geography, while "Palestinian National Authority" and "State of Palestine" are articles about political entities. Please vote Merge or Keep whether to merge "Geography of the West Bank" into "West Bank", providing an explanation for your choice.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The present article is just a dump of the CIA Factbook (except that the "land use" section seems to contradict it). So I support the merger. Zerotalk 07:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Merge; agreed, seems to be redundant Caduon (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Demographics

Several media outlets have suggested that PCBS data inflate the 2007 census figures by 30%, contradicting both the Palestinian Ministry of Education's enrollment data and actual emigration growth documented by Israeli Border Police, which in 2006 observed 25,000 Palestinian Arabs emigrating from Palestinian Authority-controlled territories.

If this is the case, this needs to be documented by citations that back up the statement, not by one single citation that does not make the claim that several media outlets have suggested... Failing that, it needs to be rewritten that one media outlet has suggested... Skinsmoke (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The text here is quite a mess and needs a complete revision. The newspaper story mentioned is just a report on the "million person gap" paper which is cited in the previous sentences, so it shouldn't be presented as if it is a separate study. Those previous sentences are also unsatisfactory for several reasons, among them (1) it is falsely claimed that the World Bank agrees with the "million person gap" paper, but that paper itself says (page 1, also note 2) that the World Bank accepts the PCBS figures. (2) No contrary opinion is presented. The best discussion of this issue on Wikipedia at the moment is in the Demographics section of Palestinian people; it could be used as the basis of a rewrite here. Zerotalk 03:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

new additions

This source is more than a year old and refers to a quarry near Beit Fajar. It might possibly be useful in the Beit Fajar article but it is far below the radar here. This source, as far as I can tell, does not say that the High Court is discussing anything but only says that a petition was submitted to the High Court by the activist organization Regavim. Given that tons of petitions are submitted to the High Court every year, it isn't clear why this one deserves a mention. If it is, alas, mentioned, the mention shouldn't use words like "settlement", which are claims made by the petition, as if they are true. Zerotalk 14:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to include the information it might be more balanced to include a wider discussion of Palestinian building restrictions in area C, rather than just concentrating on a single petition to the High Court. There was an 2009 UN report for instance. "The report stated that due to the severe Israeli restrictions, Palestinians have no choice but to build without permits. In 70 percent of Area C (44 percent of the West Bank), Palestinian building is entirely forbidden, as this land is earmarked for the settlements, the army, nature reserves or a buffer zone around the separation fence. In the remaining 30 percent, construction is theoretically possible, but getting a permit is so difficult as to be practically impossible. Hence effectively, Palestinians can build freely on only 1 percent of Area C - most of which is already totally built over." [32]. There is also a EU report dealing with the issue, and the consequences for a future Palestinian state [33]. B'tselem have also covered the issue [34] Dlv999 (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
From the oslo page Area 'C' (72.2 percent of the West Bank) - Full Israeli civil and security control, except over Palestinian civilians. These areas include all Israeli settlements (cities, towns, and villages), land in the vicinity of these localities, most roadways that connected the settlements (and which Israelis are now restricted to) as well as strategic areas described as "security zones." it would be great to link directly to there instead of adding the above text (as it is part of the aggrement).
And this issue is almost not covered by the media examples http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/237754 , a case study with information about illegal Israeli settlements and illegal Palestinian outposts http://www.haforum.org.il/newsite/new_adm/uplaod/regavim.pdf (English + heb source)
There is a ruling (בג"ץ 9715/07 + 9815/09) about that issues from 2011 that stated that all violating facilities will be cleared (If I understood correctly the 2011 ruleing). 109.226.26.76 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

International law and the Israeli settlements.

WP:UNDUE

  • Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.
  • it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it
  • Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view.

As the current section stands only the Israeli legal argument is explained, while the overwhelming majority arguments are not even detailed. Seems a clear NPOV problem. We do not elucidate the legal arguments of the International Court of Justice, or the International Committee of the Red Cross yet we have an extensive quote attributed to "settler activists" explaining why they think the settlements are legal. To give an example of the coverage in academic journals on the topic "The view that the fourth Geneva Convention is applicable, and should be applied, in all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 has been very widely held internationally. Indeed, a remarkable degree of unanimity prevails on this matter. Countless international organizations, both intergovernmental and nongovernmental, have taken this view" ( "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law 84 (1): 44–103.) Dlv999 (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem not only on this page, but others as well. It's an easy pitfall in a collaboratively produced text, as some editors naturally tend to produce more text than others and there is no centralized editorial oversight. If one of the more prolific editors happens to be the one describing a minority viewpoint, it will receive undue weight. --Dailycare (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What is with this map?? And the biased introduction?

Considering the heavy bias that exists simply in the map, not to mention the introductory paragraphs, I don't even want to bother reading the article. The map contains purely Arab settlements, as if the areas containing the over 500,000 Jews do not even exist. I've seen probably about 100 maps of the "West Bank" at this point, and even the most anti-Israel contain at least some of the Jewish areas. Furthermore, the only legally denoted, or at least formally denoted regions have been designated by the Israeli government. That happens to be a fact, even if some people here don't like it.

The introduction here is cleanly and noticeably absent of certain major historical details. For example, that agreements such as San Remo, the last "internationally recognized" administration of the territory, guarantee free Jewish settlement in the region!! Perhaps just as telling, the "internationally recognized" name of this region was always Judea and Samaria, up until 1952. Is this a real encyclopedia, or one that edits out basic facts that disrupt the one-sided POV?

I am very familiar with this territory, and almost all of this area appears to be an integral part of Israel. I understand the dispute, as well as the Arab strivings for control. But to present the page in the manner it is presented, unfortunately, is a distortion of REALITY. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Has nothing to do with “anti-Israel” or “bias”. It's just that Wikipedia has an article about everything, and you will find the Israeli settlements under its own lemma, as well as the Judea and Samaria Area. But I agree with you that the map is wrong, not to mention the caption which IMO is even wronger. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian settlements (addition to above “new additions”)

But I'm actually here to post a note that I'm going to change the section Palestinian settlements, it's IMHO quite heavily POV-ish as it is now, including the heading. Ajnem (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

it should be renames as the term that was used by the media was illegal Palestinian outposts (at least for ynet like here and not Palestinian settlements 109.226.26.193 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The article is imo becoming quite a mess, with additions of unsourced material and misunderstandings. No, illegal Palestinian outposts is as bad, if not worse than “settlements”. “Outpost” is an Israeli term which designates an unauthorized Israeli/Jewish settlement in the occupied territories, usually built on privately owned Palestinian land, as opposed to an authorized settlement, i.e. illegal vs legal by Israeli law. For the rest of the world all Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal anyway, because it is a transfer of population from Israel into the occupied area, which is forbidden by the 4th Geneva Convention, wheras the Palestinians are the local population and illegal has a completly different meaning. It only means that they errect structures on their own land inspite of the fact that the occupying power doesn't give them the permits to do so, taking the risk that the Israeli security forces will destroy them, which they usually do rather sooner than later, and the Israeli right such as the National Land Protection Trust - even Yedioth Ahronoth, not exactly a left wing media, calls them “right-wing” [35] - sees to it that they don't miss one. And the Israeli left finds proof in the case of the Bil'in “outpost” that Israel tolerates illegally (by Israeli law) built houses when they are for Jews, and dismantles even a single caravan on privatly owned land with a permission from the village council when it is Palestinian [36]. The queries are oviously a pollution issue,[37] and the EU happens to think that they want their money to go where they think fit [38], and gets quite a bit pissed of when the Israelis destroy infrastructure projects such as wells for the Palestinian population, financed with EU taxpayers money, under the pretext that they were built without Israeli permission [39]. For the building-permits issue see above under “new additions”. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ian Lustick (1988). For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. Council on Foreign Relations. p. 37. ISBN 0876090366.
  2. ^ Ilan Pappe (2004). A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples. Cambridge University Press. p. 84. ISBN 0521556325.
  3. ^ Beyond the Veil, Israel-Pakistan Relations P. R. Kumuraswami.
  4. ^ "g7512w ct002357". CIA. 2008-07. Retrieved 30 April 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Bank/Archive_3&oldid=1137313962"