Talk:Political status of the Palestinian territories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

What happened in the West Bank *between* 1967 and 1993? -"mitch"

Thousands of Palestinians have died in this struggle, including hundreds of children. Muhammad a-Dura has streets named after him in Palestine and Jordan. Scenes of his death, captured on film, spurred on the Intifada. This obsession with a naive, blonde American girl, who came to "help" and actually got caught up in the violence is ridiculous. It is an affront to the many people who had no choice but to be there, and who paid for it with their lives. How ironic that her death is being identified with the tragedy of the Palestinians, and not the hundreds of other deaths that occur almost daily. Danny

How about you write what you want to write about, and I write about what I want to write about, and we get on with the business of creating the world's largest free encyclopedia rather than criticising each others choice of subject matter? Martin

While plenty of snide remarks crop up in my mind, I will put them aside and simply point out that you haven't actually responded to my comments. Nevertheless, I will answer yours. An encyclopedia is supposed to describe historical events that took place. History is an interesting thing. It is easy to falsify--people do it all the time. I do not mean putting false facts either. History can be distorted by omission--discussing American history without mentioning the Civil War is a distortion by omission. There are also distortions by exaggerating the importance of events--debating the ethnic origins of Copernicus (Prussian or Polish) while barely delving into his contribution to science is just such a distortion, and it has happened. You seem to want to write about the Intifada. Fine. Just don't distort the importance of events. How many people actually died in the Intifadas in Rafah, Khan Yunis, Gaza, Deir el-Balah, etc.? What were the causes of their deaths? That is why Rachel Corrie and others were there in the first place. Your writing has given me a far greater understanding about why Malcolm X didn't want help from white people. Danny

I thought it was a valid response, though perhaps slightly tangential. Ahh well.

Thousands of Palestinians have died in this struggle, including hundreds of children.
I know. Thousands of Israelis, too.
Muhammad a-Dura has streets named after him in Palestine and Jordan.
I didn't know that. I find that interesting. You may be interested to know that I've seen unconfirmed rumours that the same may happen to Rachel Corrie. Didn't seem important, though - I assumed that happened to all the Palestinian "martyrs".
Scenes of his death, captured on film, spurred on the Intifada.
I've seen the photos - in fact I remember one of them winning the prize for best photo at the "what the papers say" awards in the UK. I wasn't aware that they exacerbated the Intifada, but it doesn't surprise me.
This obsession with a naive, blonde American girl, who came to "help" and actually got caught up in the violence is ridiculous.
My approach to writing about the Israel-Palestine conflict is generally to work from the bottom up, writing about specific details, incidents, people, etc. Corrie is one of these details. I find that approach neither obsessive nor ridiculous. Indeed, for a non-historian like myself, it makes a lot of sense to concentrate on specific incidents that can be more quickly understood, rather than thinking that a total novice can accurately summarise a long and bloody conflict.
I guess these are the points that I find most contentious, so I will answer here. Yes, details are important, but for them to be dealt with adequately, they have to be put into the proper context. When details overshadow this context, history is distorted. Furthermore, the problem is that you have chosen this specific incident as a focus of concentration. If anything, it is anomalous to the conflict--Israelis and Palestinians fighting over a piece of land. You are taking it from the perspective of someone who was not intrinsically involved in the conflict, who chose to get involved, and who died as a result. The fact that it was newsworthy at the time, more than any of the other people, both Israelis and Palestinians, who died, indicates that it is the exception to the rule and not indicative of what the conflict actually involves. As such, it doesn't contribute very much to understand the issues at hand. Furthermore, as "novice," I hope you were referring to yourself. I spent twenty years living in the region, speak Hebrew and Arabic (Palestinian, not classical), and spent more than a little time in Gaza. I've also researched and written extensively on it and met most of the key players and plenty more lesser known ones. But you're right, a novice cannot accurately summarize this long and bloody conflict. Earlier you talked about writing an encyclopedia--one of the keys to doing that successfully is accuracy. Danny
Novice = absolutely myself. I'm not a historian, and the closest I've physically come to Israel was a year in Cyprus.
It is an affront to the many people who had no choice but to be there, and who paid for it with their lives.
I don't see that writing about the death of one person is offensive to other people who have died. If I felt that then I'd never write about anyone's death, and surely that would be a bad thing?
How ironic that her death is being identified with the tragedy of the Palestinians, and not the hundreds of other deaths that occur almost daily.
I believe that the wikipedia articles in question do not identify Corrie's death with the tragedy of the Palestinians. Do you believe that they do? Or are you making a larger point about the wider coverage?

That clarify things at all? Martin

I've just realised that this text (taken from the CIA factbook) is in fact a carbon copy of the same text of the West Bank. Minus my and your additions, of course. I'm now unsure how to proceed - do we need a seperate article on the history of the Strip, or can the info be distributed between articles such as Gaza Strip, Palestinian Authority, Israel, etc? Martin

Zero, please explain the reason behind removal (not even moved to talk) the following paragraph: --- As a result of 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria and called it the West Bank. Jews and Christians were forbidden to visit their holy places. Ancient synagogues were razed or used as stables filled with dung-heaps, garbage and carcasses. Libraries and centers of religious study were ransacked and destroyed. In Jerusalem, The Western Wall is turned into a slum. The former main synagogue of Jerusalem Hurva Synagogue was dynamited. On the Mount of Olives, 38,000 tombstones were removed from the ancient Jewish cemetery and used as paving stones for roads and as construction material, including use as latrines. Parts of the cemetery were converted into parking lots, a gas station, and a hotel. Jews were not permitted to live in Hebron, nor visit or pray at the Jewish holy sites in the city. The Jewish Quarter was razed, the Jewish cemetery desecrated.

--- The accusation of "101%" POV doesn't really work against photos and facts. I can collect more. Thanks. Humus sapiens 10:33, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sure, I'll explain. The title of the article is History of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It is not Vitriolic attack on all the terrible things done in Yesha by the Arab animals. Hundreds of thousands of people were living their lives out and the only thing worthy of reporting is the fate of cemetaries and synagogues. Meanhile Israel was busy destroying or taking over hundreds of Arab villages, all of which had cemetaries and many of which had mosques. At least one hundred mosques (some say 300) were destroyed and quite a few (some major) were taken over for secular use. You are right: the destruction of ancient structures like the Hurva Synagogue was a major cultural crime, but both sides did it. You can show me a photo of a synagogue turned into a stable? I believe you. I can show you a photo of a mosque turned into a bar. What I'm saying is that your paragraph is unacceptably partisan. It also has a sort of hysterical tone that doesn't belong here. --Zero 11:33, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Here is an article from Haaretz on this subject. --Zero 11:55, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Partisanship, hystery and bad wording are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Proven facts should be stated in concise neutral language and links shoud be given. Perhaps accounts from both sides? Simply removing big chunks of text with links is not constructive, as well as denying historical facts and govt. policies. This is the reason why there is Talk page. Humus sapiens 23:10, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That something is a fact is only one of the necessary criteria for its inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. There is also the issue of omission, context and balance. Read what Danny wrote in the top half of this page. The trouble with facts is that the supply of them is almost endless. How about the thousands of pages of statistics that UNRWA produced listing the refugee camps in the WB with countless details of the housing, nutrition, education, health, etc etc of the refugees? Should that be included? Military and paramilitary developments? Raids on Qibya and Samu? What about the relationships between the refugees and those that were there already? What about Jordanian-Israeli intrigues? Did you know that there was a British plan to attack Israel if Israel tried to take the WB by force (early 1950s)? The Palestinian-Jordanian interaction was very complex and more important historically than sacred sites, which is not to say that the latter is not important. Concerning the matter of destruction of buildings and cemetaries, because it occurred mostly in the context of a war and was done to all parties (Christian too) by both sides, it belongs in an article that deals with the war. Otherwise the context is lost. That's my opinion. --Zero 04:35, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Since when is the "political status" of a territory the same as its "History"? I came to this page (redirected from "History of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip") because I was really interested in the more detailed history of these territories in the 1940s... Quite disappointed by what I find!! 195.92.168.166 01:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Missing the[edit]

Should the title be "political status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" instead? — Instantnood 17:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many times "West Bank and Gaza Strip" are used as a phrase, so I think that's the way it was used here. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this Page[edit]

This page should be deleted and merged into the West Bank page.David Betesh

Approved barrier route[edit]

Uhm, Jack? It might have slipped your mind that the barrier is still under construction and thus the "barrier route" is not the correct term. "Planned" would be more appropriate, "approved" even more so. In any case, the map is outdated and the one from Israeli West Bank barrier should be used at least. If there is no opposition, I will change this.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 23.04.2008 12:50

I don't object replacing the map with a newer map. I'm not sure the wall map should be at the head of the article, but rather in it's own subsection that links to the Israeli West Bank barrier article. A more neutral image would be possibly, one by al-Jazeera (or other pro-Palestine source) with the word "Palestine" replacing Israel, placed next to one by a Zionist group with the word Israel covering the entire territory. Thoughts? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the one from Israeli West Bank barrier should work just fine. I'll replace it. Any change of heart on the wording of the caption? pedrito - talk - 23.04.2008 13:19
This article is about the disputed territories of Gaza and the West Bank, not about the separation between Israel and the Fatah Authority. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but that's what the picture shows, which is why the caption has to explain it. Do you still oppose the wording "Israeli Government-approved"? If so, for what reasons? This is what this discussion is about. pedrito - talk - 23.04.2008 15:00

Merge proposal[edit]

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 merge request was: not merged.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Status of territories captured by Israel covers the same ground (so to speak) as this article. While this article focuses on history and that one on the dispute over descriptions ('occupied' or not?), they're both arguably about the same subject - the 'territories captured by Israel' usually refers to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I realise it includes the Golan Heights as well, which is covered in that article but not this one; but is that enough of a reason to have two separate articles on such similar subjects? Robofish (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Marokwitz (talk)


Yup, I'm not sure why this page exists. It's important to address all angles of an issue but the idea of the territories as 'disputed', as opposed to 'occupied', is a definite minority opinion, not even endorsed by Israel. Giving it a separate article gives the perception that the governments involved actually disagree on the matter. It's worth mentioning in the main article but not worthy of its own. Merge into [[1]]Sol Goldstone (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to oppose this, Status of territories captured by Israel covers the Golan Heights and Jerusalem as well, this article presumably does not. If there should be a merge it should be the other way around. un☯mi 09:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Unomi. The United States considers this to be a separate country from the Golan for political, legal and other purposes. The EU and US consider Palestine a separate trade zone from the other areas that Israel captured. harlan (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 2012[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip → Political status of the Palestinian territories – Support To match the rest of Wikipedia. The other articles about the West Bank and Gaza Strip have "Palestinian territories" in their title, not "West Bank and Gaza Strip". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - If I understand correctly, the current is the most accurate term. --Nouniquenames 17:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That wouldn't be keeping with the normal titles for WB/GS articles, so are you saying that WB/GS articles in general should have "West Bank and Gaza Strip" instead of "Palestinian territories" in their titles, or that we should make an exception in this case? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Palestinian Territories is the term for the West Bank and Gaza strip used by academic, media, diplomatic and legal sources. E.g. International media organizations [2], [3], academic literature [4], the UN[5], [6], EU [7], individual Governments such as the UK[8] and US[9], international human rights organizations [10], [11], the International Court of Justice [12], and the International committee of the Red Cross. [13]Dlv999 (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - most commonly used phrase for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (including EJ) is the Palestinian territories. Though Status should be lowercase in the title. nableezy - 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Split[edit]

It seems to me the political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip today is so different, that it is a very incorrect thing to treat them as one unit Pt, which is also very much ambiguous. For example the West Bank has a separate page by CIA [14], with this of Gaza Strip [15]. They are also de-facto ruled by different administrations and the political situation is now completely different in both. I herewith propose to split this article to "Political status of the Gaza Strip" and "Political status of the West Bank".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2007, as you have said, the status of West Bank and Gaza Strip became sufficiently different, even though you really like to use the Pt word.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Formally it is a single territory. Ultimately, the existence of two Governments is not the reason for the existence of the two articles about political status. Moreover, both articles would be factually heavily overlap. Jan CZ (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both west bank, and gaza (borders after 1967 war) are considered in all universal and global standards as the Palestinian territories, the split is only a try to remove the word palestine or palestinian, an israeli POV. Schmiegestestor (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is clearly no support, so i'm removing the tag.GreyShark (dibra) 12:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move reverted[edit]

I have reverted a move to Political status of Palestine [16]. This should be taken to RM if it's to go ahead. Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Rider ranger47 Talk 16:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

Political status of the Palestinian territories → Political status of the State of Palestine – Due to the UN change of Palestinian mission from "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" to "Palestine, State of" in 2013, gradual adoption of the new title by the UN and international organization and due to similar renames of several articles on wikipedia (like this), it is now relevant to refer to the Political status of the State of Palestine --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC) GreyShark (dibra) 12:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a state in most ways and sources have switched. Support, though I'm not married to it if someone can raise a point that I'm missing. Red Slash 22:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Political status of a State of Palestine, for one I am not sure whether "the State of Palestine" has defined borders. Many local Arabs, Armenians etc. may say that the State of Palestine fills all of the territorial region between the Jordan river and the Med. In regard to independence, borders are yet to be negotiated. Also, WP:NPOV indicates that we should not pick sides. Yes, most of the world may describe it as the State of Palestine but I am guessing that Israel do not consider it this way. I don't know if can assert that it is a definite state in Wikipedia's voice. GregKaye 22:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My reasons are largely procedural. The lead topic is Palestinian territories and if the desire is to amend the name it should be made there. This article is a subset of the main, about the political status of the state entity. If you want to change the name of said entity do it on the main page.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Labattblueboy IF I have got this right, I think that you are confusing issues. The Wikipedia article that you mention is entitled Palestinian territories (plural) and the article content specifies geographic boundaries which may or may not be used in perhaps hoped for partition. The UN document made a change from reference of, as far as I can tell, a non geographically specified "Palestinian territory" to a reference to "State of Palestine". Within an article i think that reference could be relevantly made both to "a State of Palestine" and to "the State of Palestine" but I think that the former should be used in the title. Pinging, GreyShark, Red Slash GregKaye 08:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clearly about the political status of the current entity common known as the Palestinian territories. Using the term State of Palestine, doesn't seem appropriate as there is no indication that that is the common name. Likewise, "a State of Palestine" doesn't work because it's not a certainty, or widely accepted, and thus a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I've left a note on Talk:Palestinian territories in case any of those editors care to participate as it's clear to have implications there.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully commend that, Labattblueboy. I hope we get a much wider audience for this discussion. Red Slash 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also leave a notification of this discussion at the State of Palestine talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 09:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear, I:
  • Support a move to any title incorporating the text including the text "State of Palestine" which I think is very clearly warranted. My proposal only went as far as to question which would be the best form that this title will take. Note, if rejected I predict that this move request will be one of those that will be made on repeat. GregKaye 08:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The UN has recognized the PLO for some time as the "representative of the Palestinian people". Later, the PLO became the PA. Now it calls itself the State of Palestine. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip remain "Palestinian territories" in most modern speech. The UN's use of "State of Palestine" is in regard to the rump state currently in control of parts of the West Bank. The article in question is referring to the political status of the land itself, not the name of the organ that represents it in international bodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSWP1 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with GregKaye, and I Support a move to a title incorporating the text "State of Palestine", which I think is very clearly warranted. “Palestinian territories” is old British colonialist speak for what is now known by the majority of the international community (including the UN General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the International Criminal Court, and the vast majority of human rights organizations) as the State of Palestine. One solution might be to merge this with the "International recognition of the State of Palestine" article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Palestinian territories", namely West bank and Gaza and the self-proclaimed State of Palestine are two separate entities. One is a piece of land that may some day, partly or in full, be controlled by this state, and another is a de-juro state that currently has partial control of small parts of the land. This rename will serve a specific agenda, namely that the state controlling the land is a fact and not only a declared goal of some people. “WarKosign” 20:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Palestinian territories is the most common name. Besides, the issue itself is complex, both legally and on the ground - this complexity should be discussed in the article neutrally rather than a given conclusion presupposed in the title. JDiala (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Are there compelling reasons not to just merge this relatively short article into State of Palestine? I'm sensitive to the argument that the State is a political entity while the territories are a geographical area, but an article about the political status of the geographical area is basically an article on the history of the State. We don't have separate articles for "history of the USA" and "history of the bits of North America now governed by the USA." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The split is rather common when it comes to articles that have previously, or currently, involve territorial disputes. So there is History of Ireland and History of the Republic of Ireland, same goes (to some extent, for Cyprus and Kosovo or Western Sahara.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WarKosign. And I'm not quite sure how to word this, but the current title just sounds more logical. It makes more sense to discuss the political status of a geographic entity than a political one. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Political status of the Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be moved (somewhere)[edit]

This is almost a stub, its content can easily go in State of Palestine or in Legal status of the State of Palestine or even split between the two and delete this.Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article deals with the Palestinian Territories and not State of Palestine, it can be merged into Palestinian territories. You may have noticed above that a proposal to merge this into Legal status of the State of Palestine was rejected previously. Has anything changed since ? It seems like you are WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since you began this discussion here in parallel to Talk:Legal_status_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Merge, without mentioning either on the other venue. “WarKosign” 20:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up forumshopping, I am not doing that, I gave my reason on this page about this article ie it's virtually a stub sitting in space doing nothing and ought to be somewhere else, I don't really care where. If moved to Palestinian Territories then that solves the other problem as well (where I supported the merge for the same reason, to get rid of this page), 2 for price of 1.Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does absence of comment equate to agreement? How would one go about merging here with Palestinian territories?Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_status_of_the_Palestinian_territories&oldid=1200551632"