Talk:West Bank/Archive 4

Occupied?
The rhetoric of this page contains heavy use of POV. Any uses of the term "occupied" should be replaced with the word "disputed". As an example of POV the other way it would have to simply call the West Bank, Israel. "Disputed" would be a good non-biased term. Eagle-eyedsteve24 (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, please read WP:NPOV. The term "occupied" is what sources use, so we can't do otherwise as that would be counter to WP:NPOV. --Dailycare (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "disputed" would be the technically correct term. However, for all of the accusations of the Israeli government being right-wing or in any way in favor of settling the territory, they don't seem to have really pursued the legal arguments for the usage of this term.  It will probably take a while for the legal justifications to come out to the extent that it would take to balance this out.  However, a summary of the legality of this term would have its place in this article and numerous sources abound.  I'm a little too pre-occupied with other things to take the initiative but I will whole-heartedly support its inclusion. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * “Occupied Palestinian territories” is what it's called by virtually every country and organization including the USA, the EU, the UN, the ICRC, the ICJ, just to mention a few. I'ts a question of International law: legally the territories are occupied by Israel, which Israel doesn't dispute, it only disputes that they are Palestinian territories. “Disputed territories” is something else, if it exsists as a legal term at all. The way it is in the article is correct, it mentiones the Israeli stance which differs from the rest of the world, a stance Israel has “pursued” time and again to no avail, dear Accipio Mitis Frux. No need to reinvent the world anew. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except for Jerusalem, the official position of the Israeli government is that the West Bank is held in "belligerent occupation", which is the proper legal expression. They might not use the phrase in public pronouncements, but in venues where spin won't work (such as arguing before the High Court) they don't deny it at all. The whole legal system in the West Bank as applied to Palestinians is based on this (for example, that's the legal excuse for trying civilians under military courts).  Countless rulings of the High Court confirm it. East Jerusalem could be called "disputed" since Israel claims it is sovereign Israel territory, even though almost nobody else agrees. Zerotalk 12:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Weight and the priority should quite obviously be given to what is the clear international consensus, outside of the Israeli government's claims, and that international consensus is very clearly that Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and that all Israeli settlements (whether in Al-Khalil/Hebron or East Al-Quds/Jerusalem) are entirely and completely illegal and are to be removed. That is again the completely international position and consensus (even the US government doesn't accept or believe that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal, although the US may tread lightly and not raise to large a fuss most often about the illegal settlements [] " 'We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity and we oppose any effort to legalize outposts,' State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters in Washington Monday in response to an Israeli finding West Bank settlements cannot be considered illegal.")

So literally the only party trying to claim the Israeli settlements in the West Bank aren't entirely illegal is the Israeli government alone.Historylover4 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a mix of issues here. The UN security council decisions relate to the west bank as disputed and calls Israel not to attempt to change the status. The security council's decisions do not claim that Israel is illegally occupying the area and that is surely not the position of the US and most other western countries. The position they hold is that the status of the area should be resolved in negotitations.
 * The position that these are "Palestinian territories" is surely not a world consensus. In fact, in 1979 nobody saw the West bank as a palestinian territory, as Jordan claimed the right to the west bank.
 * As to the settlements, that is a different issue. The potsition of the US, since the time of president Reagan, is that they are not illegal, only illegitamite. This is not just semantics. The US does not believe that the question is a legal one but a political one. Tht is also the position of many experts in international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by עדירל (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple noes. The last official judgment by the US Dept of State called the settlements illegal, a judgment that has never been overturned, see here. And the UNSC regularly refers to the territories as both occupied (see for example United Nations Security Council Resolution 446) and as Palestinian territory (see again 446). The US position is that the settlements violate international law, though they have danced around the issue. The overwhelming majority opinion among scholars of international law is that the settlements violate GCIV, and plainly do so at that. "Disputed" is not a status, and for the people that keep pushing this, do you actually realize what it would mean if the West Bank is not occupied territory? Every single action of the Civil Administration would be null and void, every bit of land confiscated by the IDF, always based on the idea of "military necessity" and upheld by the Supreme Court because of that, would have to be returned. Nearly every action that Israel has committed in the West Bank is based on the premise that it is the occupying power. Take that away and you leave Israel in one of two impossible positions. The first, all Palestinians in the West Bank must immediately be granted full citizenship and hundreds of cases decided in favor of the state based on the military commander's claims of military necessity would need to be re-heard, or 2, you have an official policy of apartheid.  nableezy  - 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that Nableezy is arguing in support of Israeli occupation. Cute. 74.198.87.48 (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the article you brought. First, the term "illegal" does not appear there. What it says is " inconsistent with international law". There is a very big difference between these phrases especially when talking about international law which is more amorphic then state laws and is very much affected by policy. Second, the article clearly shows that the opinion has been ignored ever since Reagan became president. The question of whether an official tribunal gathered to vote against the opinion, which in the first place was never adopted officially, is meaningless. For over 30 years the government of the United States ignored the report and said the opposite. Clinton clearly said it: "not illegal". That is quite a clear statemenmt of the policy of the state department. Third, and most important: The opening paragraph of the wikipedia article on the West Bank peresents Israel as standing alone in its claim that the settlements are not illegal, presenting the position of the Wikipedia as "settlements are illegal". That is an outright lie. Very many notible experts on international law, the US giovernment for the past 30 years and many others do not consider the settlements Illegal. This must be corrected.
 * The claim that "The overwhelming majority opinion among scholars of international law is that the settlements violate GCIV" - is unsourced and to the best of my knowledge is simply incorrect. The question of illegality resides on several questions and is quite complex. I have seen very few opinions on the issue which discuss the details and they are balanced.
 * The fact that the West Bank is occupied is not under dispute. It has nothing to do with the issue of legality of the settlements. עדירל (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is simply untrue that the US government position is that the settlements are "not illegal" (and it was Reagan that said that, though State never reversed its finding) . The only argument offered by Israel or supporters of the settlement program for its not being illegal, and this is true of the Levy report, is that the West Bank isnt really "occupied territory". The overwhelming majority view is that the settlements are illegal, and several scholarly sources can be cited that say that "the international community considers settlements illegal", countless more can be cited for "the settlements are illegal", and not one single reliable source has ever been brought that disputes that phrase "the international community considers settlements illegal under international law".  nableezy  - 18:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This source used terminology like "overwhelming", "widely acceted" and "Almost the entire international community". --Dailycare (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the claim that the settlements are illegal is the position of almost the entire international community. I, however, do not believe that this opinion is based on a legal analysis of the situation, but rather it is based on political stands. In general, Israel's positions are not accepted by almost the entire international community. But the question is not is Israel's position that the settlements are legal widely accepted. The question is - is Israel's position a position held only by Israel. This is clearly not the case, regardless of whether the United States has or does not have an "official" position on this point. All the administrations of the United States, since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, have taken the position that it is not a legal issue and vetoed UN security council decisions using the term "illegal". That is why the sources continuously refer to 1979 decisions (the last ones the US allowed to pass).
 * contrary to your statement that the only claim to legality is that the territories are not occupied, the claim that the settlements are illegal is based on the following prongs:
 * Israel does not have a proper claim to title of the area under the internationally recognized British Mandate of Palestine
 * the convention applies to areas that were occupied from states that did not have a recognized claim to the area.
 * the Hauge convention forbids voluntary movement of citizens to occupied territories and is not limited to "deportation"
 * The decision of whether international law is breached is not to be made by the country involved
 * There exists an international authority which can declare an act of voluntary movement of citizens to occupied territories as illegal (This is to differ from the widely accepted position that mass masacres are violations of international law that are to be tried by international institutions).
 * Israel's position disagrees with all these assumptions and there are prominent scholars of international law who agree with Israel's position. I suggest that the article be corrected to state that the overwhelwing majority in the international community declared the settlements are illegal, but this position is disputed by Israel and the US administrations since Reagan.
 * I found in English two important articles siding the Israeli position:
 * Eugene V. Rostow, Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies
 * Michael Curtis, International law and the territories
 * Undoubdetly there are articles with the opposite position. The Wikipedia should fairly present the different views on the matter. Stating that the settlements are illegal as wikipedia's position is contrary to wikipedia's basic policies. Hinting that Israel is alone in its position that the settlements are legal is a lie. This should be corrected for example using the language suggested above. עדירל (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of Rostow's position, however that remains an extreme minority position. It is simply not true that each US administration since Reagan has taken the position that this is not a "legal issue". The US ambassador to the UN, after the veto, did not make any such claim. She said the veto was used because in the view of the US the resolution would only lead to a hardening of positions and not contribute to any prospect of peace. That was obviously BS, the US vetoed because of political (domestic and international) considerations. But the US has not said, barring Reagan's statement, that the issue is not one of legality but of politics. I'm sorry, but yes, the only argument given is that the territories are not occupied. The "prongs" you listed are well-settled. See for example the ICJ's opinion in the Wall case. Or read, for example, :"p. 84-85: The growth of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, which has been most marked since 1977, has similarly fueled fears of mass expulsions. At the end of 1976, after almost a decade of occupation, there were an estimated 3,176 Jewish settlers in the West Bank. By April 1987, there were approximately 65,000 Jews living in the West Bank, and 2,700 in the Gaza Strip. As with deportations, so with settlements: there have been some claims that Israeli practices are compatible with international norms, including those of the fourth Geneva Convention. A distinction has been is forbidden under Article drawn between the transfer of people-which it-and the voluntary settlement of nationals on an individual basis; and has been asserted that there is nothing wrong with settlements in the sense of army bases where soldiers are engaged in agriculture for part of the time. Civilian settlements have also been called necessary for the occupying power's security, and therefore essential if the occupying power is to preserve public order and safety. Such arguments are far from convincing. In particular, even if voluntary settlement of nationals on an individual basis were permissible under Article 49, the ambitious settlements program of the 1980s, which was planned, encouraged and financed at the governmental level, does not meet that description. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the settlements program was primarily intended to contribute to the occupying power's security and whether, in the event, it has contributed to that end; by causing friction with the Palestinian inhabitants of the territories, the program may even have added to the work of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The settlements program is quite simply contrary to international law. However, it is now so far advanced, and so plainly in violation of the Geneva Convention, that it actually creates a powerful reason for Israel's continuing refusal to accept that the Convention is applicable in the occupied territories on a de jure basis."The only argument that gets any traction is that the territory is not occupied and thus GCIV does not apply. This is why the Levy commission had to make the leaps that it did. Because a plain reading of GCIV outlaws the settlement program, and only by stepping around GCIV can somebody claim that the settlements are legal. This is why Israel says that it does not accept, de jure, the applicability of GCIV. Finally, you write Wikipedia should fairly present the different views on the matter. That is correct. We present all views, giving them due weight. You just said I tend to agree that the claim that the settlements are illegal is the position of almost the entire international community. That being the overwhelming majority view necessitates Wikipedia giving it more credence than the extreme minority view that settlements are legal.  nableezy  - 16:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not brought any sources to support your claim about the US position. On this page: http://www.fmep.org/analysis/analysis/israeli-settlements-in-the-occupied-territories, you can see the positions of Reagan and James Baker (The secretary of state of Bush the father). You can also see the clear summary at the beginning: "President Reagan’s policy has been sustained, implicitly, by subsequent U.S. administrations, all of whom have declined to address the legal issue". The current administration's position is also very clear: David Jackson, Clinton says Israeli settlements are 'illegitimate,' not illegal, USA Today, February 19, 2011. I cannot imagine how someone can be clearer than that. As to your interesting explanation of the veto, it does not agree with the sources. Human rights watch, for example states: see here "UN sources told Human Rights Watch that the US government attempted to persuade the Palestinian Authority to forgo a vote on the resolution by offering to support a statement from the Security Council president condemning settlements as "illegitimate," instead of clearly identifying them as "illegal," as provided in the resolution". I am sure there are many more sources, but await your sources stating this is not the reason. To summarize so far, major figures in the US government, support Israel's position that the settlements are not illegal. To meet any standard of NPOV this must be stated in the article if it is not intended to deceiving the reader to believing that Israel stands alone with its claim.
 * As to the opinion of experts in international law, Rostow and Curtis are not alone. There are many more. I assume Robert Adams is also not alone, but I do not think it is resonable to claim that Rostow's opinion is a clear minority, without bringing evidence to this effect in an article listing the criteria of who is an expert and counting their opinions. Bringing a critque of Israel's policy who states that its supporters are in the minority, without any explanation of methodology, is rediculous.
 * I understand that the prongs I listed do not convince Robert Adams, but that does not mean the issue is settled. Far from it. Curtis relates to the subject in length and has his arguments. They should be brought in a lengthy discussion of the subject.
 * All I request is that this article give due weight to the position that the settlements are legal. I request that the article be changed to state, along with the statement that the International community views the settlements as illegal, that the US administration since Reagan does not agree with this position or any other language that makes clear that prominent figures in the US support Israel's position that the settlements are legal. I think that Clinton's position is worth due weight. עדירל (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You may have missed the link I brought in one of the earlier comments on the US position, but here is what I was using as the source for the current US position. I also brought a source, and quoted it, that specifically says that the view that the settlements are illegal is held by "the majority of legal scholars."  nableezy  - 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you didnt miss it. I see you argue that "inconsistent with international law" doesnt mean "illegal under international law". I dont think there is much merit to that argument. That said, I wouldnt be opposed to saying something like "violates Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention" instead of "illegal under international law", though I think that is an unnecessary obfuscation.  nableezy  - 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a source on the US position being that the settlements are "illegal":"Since the first Jewish settlements were established in territories occupuied by Israel in the 1967 War, the United States has considered these settlements illegal under international law (specifically Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which states that an occupying power may not transfer its civilian population into occupied territory)." nableezy  - 20:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And one last thing. Clinton did not say "not illegal". She said "illegitimate", she did not say "illegal". That is not the same thing as saying "not illegal".  nableezy  - 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct as to my misreading the title into Clinton's words and also that the distinction between "inconsistent with international law" and illegal is immaterial, as up to 1980 the US administartions did use the terms illegal. I will concentrate on a single important issue below in a new sub-section. עדירל (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One last last thing: writing
 * "I tend to agree that the claim that the settlements are illegal is the position of almost the entire international community. I, however, do not believe that this opinion is based on a legal analysis of the situation, but rather it is based on political stands."
 * Means no editor, other than Nableezy, is going to read further. You confuse the determination of internationl law, which is that Israel is in comprehensive violation of its obligations, and the determinations of the international community in forums like the UN. The former is not a political position. The latter is dependent on the former. The US position is 'political', as blind Freddie and his dog can see. Nishidani (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not really understand your note here. Representatives of 164 countries or so voted for a statement saying that the settlements are illegal under international law. That is a fact. It does not mean that the settlements are actually illegal under international law. In 1975 the UN general assembly voted with a great majority that Zionism is a form of rasicm. That is also a fact. In a later vote they cancelled that decision. People make mistakes. People declare things which are not true and in international forums people sometimes vote not on the facts but rather according to political views. עדירל (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Duh. Israeli law is not applied to the West Bank because Israel itself admits that it is a belligerent occupant. Israel does not dispute that it is a belligerent in occupation of enemy territory, indeed the whole legal machinery of settlements works out in terms of military law. The utter absurdity of your position is to assert that, against Israel's own position, all this is subjective, that Israel disputes what it in practice consistently affirms. You don't appear to be reading what many have said here.Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you totally do not understand the Israeli position and do not understand what I wrote here. You can read here: Israeli Settlements and International Law, May 20, 2001, Israel Ministry of Foreign affairs, about the Israeli position. All what you wrote here has nothing at all to do with my arguments. What has the question of whether Israeli law applies to the west bank to do with the question? Where in the world did you get the idea that if Israel acts in the west bank in a legal framework of "belligerent occupation" that it agrees that the west bank is enemy territory? But all this has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is the incorrect statement in the article which presents the position "settlements are illegal" as the unanimous position of the whole world against Israel. That is incorrect as I have showed in length. There are prominent professors in the relevant field who agree with Israel and the US administration for the past 30 years has a position of not taking a stand. These two important factors must be given due weight whether you like them or not, whether you think they are absurd, rediculous, unsustainable or whatever. The wikipedia cannot just erase the position of the US government for over 30 years. עדירל (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As several have said, you don't know what you're talking about. This is not a forum for blogging.Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That does not seem to be a strong argument. עדירל (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Hello. I'd be surprised if my changes in the lead will make everybody happy. I not only removed repetitions and changed the picture and the heading, but tried to make it more NPOV-ish. I hope it meets with the approvement at least of some users. Ajnem (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

focusing the discussion
The article now states:

"in settlements considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes their illegality."

I have two major issues with this statement: 1) since there is a dispute over whether the settleemnts are illegal under international law, the Wikipedia should state who says that they are illegal under international law. The article should therefore be corrected to state: "in settlements declared by the international community as illegal under international law". That declaration is the strongest basis to the claim and is what the international court referred to.

2) The statement hints that only Israel disputes the declaration of the settlements as illegal. This is clearly not the case. Whatever the US position is for the past 30 years, it surely includes a substantial element that does not agree that the settleemnts are illegal. Among US professors of international law there are at least a few major professors who disagree. The article should therefore, to avoid confusion, state something like: though Israel disputes their illegality and some professors of international law agree with the Israeli position. or though Israel disputes their illegality, and the United States government, since Reagan's administration, has avoided taking a stand on the issue".

In the discussion above, it is claimed that the support of Israel's position is so small that it is not worth mentioning. This claim however, was only supported by general statements of the proponents of the "illegal" position. Not one of these sources brought any attempt to evaluate the number of proponents of each side. None of these sources explains why the positions of Julius Stone, Michael Curtis (Professor of political science rutgers University), Eugene V. Rostow, Ronald Reagan and others, should be totally ignored. This is not a case in which there is a clearly scientific stand and the proponents of the other position are widely ridiculed. It is not up to the wikipedia to decide who is correct in a dispute between scholars of international law and the complex US position cannot be ignored. עדירל (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just a courtesy, since this argument is dead. See
 * 'The U.S. Government and the larger international community view these settlements as "illegal" under international law.'(note 8)
 * "Official U.S. policy holds that these settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and are 'inconsistent with international law.' Excerpts from the State Department's findings may be found at http://www.fmep.org/documents/opinion_OLA_DOS4-21-78.html. While political language has softened over time (e.g. settlements as 'on obstacle to peace'), the United States has never repudiated its formal opinion that such settlements are illegal and, indeed, has reconfirmed it on a number of occasions at the United Nations. President Bush's April 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon indicated that a final negotiated peace would likely leave in place some Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but did not renounce the official legal opinion set out above.' David Gompert, Kenneth Shine, Glenn Robinson, Building a Successful Palestinian State, The Rand Palestinian State Study Team,Rand Corporation, 2005 p.16."
 * There are limits to the amount of blogging blather permitted to people here, and you are exceeding them. If you are worried about this, write to the State Department and the Rand Corporation to get them to alter their opinions.Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The United States has purposely not made a formal statement on the issue for the past 30 years, except for Reagan's statements that the settlements are not illegal. RAND corporation has its interpretation to this fact, while others to which I brought links above have brought their interpretation, which is different. The article as it stands now, falsely presents a consensus that does not exist, presenting Israel as standing alone with its claim to legality. עדירל (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

the United States has never repudiated its formal opinion that such settlements are illegal and, indeed, has reconfirmed it on a number of occasions at the United Nations. Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In closing, thanks for the guided trundle down Memory Lane, with its deceased politicians and lawyers, R.I.P. I was tickled pink by the tongue-in-cheek chutzpah of the Israel ambassador who, in challenging international legal theory, declared:
 * "Israel has never expressed any intention to colonize the territories, to confiscate land, nor to displace the local population for political or racial reasons, nor to alter the demographic nature of the area."
 * Quite true. The state has never expressed any such intention. It simply went along and did all four things. It's called, never letting your right hand (official statements) know what your left hand (actual deeds) is doing. It's rather like the thief's defence. When caught with the goods in hand, he denies that he ever told anyone that he intended to appropriate someone else's goods, and thinks that the absence of evidence of an explicit intention is sufficient to get him off the rap, based on proven possession.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can bring your quotes, I bring mine.
 * "The United States supported the applicability of the Geneva Convention and the unlawful character of settlements until February 1981 when President Ronald Reagan disavowed this policy by asserting that settlements are “not illegal.” President Reagan’s policy has been sustained, implicitly, by subsequent U.S. administrations, all of whom have declined to address the legal issue.". Foundation for Middle East Peace is by no means a less trustwiorthy source than RAND Corporation.
 * There is no dispute on the facts, just on their interpretation. The question of statements made by ambassadors is not an issue on this talk page. What is an issue, and should be corrected, is the attempt of opponents of Israeli policy to present the case as if nobody other than Israel considers the settlements as legal under international law. That is clearly not the case. The US government has a complex position on the subject and does not consider them "illegal" and some prominent international law scholars uphold the position. עדירל (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It simply is not true that the US government does not consider them illegal. Several sources have been brought saying that the official position of the US government is that the settlements are illegal. Those source say that the last legal judgment on the matter was by Carter's State Department and that this judgment has never been rescinded or modified. Yes, some scholars have an opposing view. However, and this is also sourced, the majority of legal scholars hold that the settlements violate international law. There are any number of sources that use almost the exact phrasing that we do, that being the international community considers Israeli settlements in the occupied territories illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.  nableezy  - 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I request your consent to change the article to the statement you presented above, as follows: "in settlements considered by the international community illegal under international law, though Israel disputes their illegality". That is much more balanced.
 * Second, it is quite expected that the proponents of a certain view will claim that the overwhelming majority agrees with their view. But that can be given very little weight without a source that acknowledges the opponents and explains how they are outweighed. You may be right to say that Stone, Curtis, Rostow and the Israeli acadamics and judges are a meager minority in contrast to thousands of experts who dealt with the subject and said the opposite. But bringing statements that claim to an overwhelming majority without listing Stone, Curtis, and Rostow and explaining why they are in the minority does not support the claim. If the Wikipedia wants to ignore promonent figures like Stone, Curtis, and Rostow there must be serious evidence that they are to be ignored, not general unsupported statements by their opponents.
 * Third, relating to the US position: no source was brought that even acknowledges there is a dispute on what the US position is. All we have is the Foundation for Middle East Peace that says the psotion is "not illegal" since 1981, RAND Corporation that says the position is "illegal" all along, and a Washington Post article by Glenn Kessler stating on the one hand that the 1979 was not revoked but on the other hand that: Despite repeated inquiries over the past week, State Department spokesmen declined to say whether the 1979 legal opinion is still the policy of the U.S. government. עדירל (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ill do it now.  nableezy  - 15:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yawn.
 * One presidential statement does not make policy. It refers, at most, to a position adopted by his administration, which happens both to conflict with the written obligations of the United States with regard to the violated conventions, and was also never converted into policy either by his or succeeding administrations. Were it US policy, Obama could not have got away with questioning the legitimacy of Israeli settlements.
 * Had Reagan's opinion become policy, then the US would have had no leg to stand on in protesting, as it has done several dozen times over the intervening period, at renewed settlement. If something is not illegal, it is within the law, and therefore Israel would be entitled to argue, in the face of repeated US assertions to the contrary, that the US has no legal objection to the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement.
 * The US can't openly state what is obvious, because to admit that their historic policy, never revoked, is to be formally changed would destroy the Middle East Peace talks, enabling Israel to push ahead with total settlement of the West Bank under formal US endorsement. It cannot reaffirm publicly the standing policy, based on technical legal grounds, because it would reinforce the position of those who say Israel must return to its legal borders, 1967. It satisfies neither Israel nor the Palestinians because its practical policy is that, since legality endorses the Palestinian viewpoint, but 'facts on the ground' mean Israel can't in terms of political realism, withdraw from all settlements, the legal side must be suspended, so that a compromise can be worked out This is the triumph of practical politics over legal policy. It's understandable, and, in any case, gives Israel the ace up the sleeve, by suspending international law in favour of a signed agreement between a massively powerful state, and the economically feeble, unarmed population whose territory it dominates, that will supercede that law. Get it, now? What the US thinks has nothing whatsoever to do with dissent over the international law-legal lay of the land.  Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your personal views with us. I assume the people from the Foundation for Middle East Peace were simply not fortunate enough to read your interpretation before presenting their opinion. I will not relate to your personal views, since they really are not the issue here. There is also no point in repeating my arguments. They are above and are waiting for an answer and agreement to change the article to a fair and accurate wording. עדירל (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sedatives yesterday. I slept like a log. One source doesn't trump dozens, nor does one editor. Must take another nap.Nishidani (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * עדירל is correct. Per NPOV the statement should say who considers the settlements illegal under international law and that Israel and some scholars (among others) dispute this. The sentence as it stands now is a flagrant NPOV violation. Maybe when Nishidani wakes up and feels less groggy, he can tell us why he thinks the issues mentioned above do not deserve inclusion in an article, citing wikipedia policy rather than his personal opinions on law. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The list of who considers settlements illegal under international law includes most scholars and would be, if we spelled it out, longer than the current article.  nableezy  - 15:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This work for you?  nableezy  - 15:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's better. It should also include the fact that some experts on international law also dispute it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rostow (whose personal advice influenced the uninformed Reagan, if you like to dig into the background), Stone, two eccentrically partisan viewpoints that are way WP:Undue. and well as, except for wikipedia, fossilized. He threw in two other names, a political scientist and Israel's former ambassador to Canada. This is a political position, not a tenable legal position, since whenever international law has been tried in the proper venue, the decision has dismissed this WP:Fringe argument. As to the US, the ICJ opinion, which no one reads apparently, wrote:
 * "All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”."
 * It was this which I had in mind in my comment above, which was dismissed as a personal view. The US happens to be in contravention of its undersigned obligations, as it was in the Nicaragua v. United States. I don't think political crap about the legal lay of the law has much if any relevance. Hardly any jurists take this seriously, as opposed to conspicuously partisan propagandists.Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And should it also include that even more experts say they are illegal?  nableezy  - 16:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It could say that the international community "and most legal experts", if you find a source for that. Ignoring what dissenting experts say just because you don't like it is not exactly how this place is supposed to work. If it was just one guy that's one thing, but there are several and their opinion is required for NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That source has been quoted on this page, is cited (and quoted) in the article, and is in the first sentence of the article International law and Israeli settlements. Im not ignoring anything, thank you very much. I havent put anything about what any experts in international law say. And if you want to expand on who dispute the view, I expect you also want to expand on those who say what you don't like as, of course, that is how this place is supposed to work. How about nearly every member state of the United Nations, the UN Secretary General, the UNGA, the UNSC, several UN organs such as OCHA, the ICJ, the ICRC, international human rights organizations such as HRW and AI, Israeli human rights groups such as B'tselem, the EU, the Arab League, the Committee of International Jurists, and the majority of scholars in international law consider Israeli settlements to be in blatant violation of customary international law, while Israel and some scholars dispute this? That work for you?  nableezy  - 16:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, since you bring it up, I do think that "the international community" should be replaced with "the UN" as that's really what it boils down to. I don't know if NGOs are considered part of the "international community" or not. So "the UN, various NGOs and scholars say..." would be more precise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Each of the cited sources says the international community, and by just saying the UN you leave out each member state and any number of mult-national organizations, as well as non-state actors such as the ICRC.  nableezy  - 17:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the first source, Adam Rogers, you'll see he breaks down what he (and pretty much everyone else) means by "international community". I don't have any hopes of this being changed, I'm just noting it would be more precise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's Roberts, as in Adam Roberts (scholar). But I'm not seeing what you are. At the end of the paragraph on "the international community"'s view is the line and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law. Earlier in that paper, in a section on the applicability of GCIV, he also uses the term international community with a meaning wider than "the UN". Here is that section:"The View of the International Community The view that the fourth Geneva Convention is applicable, and should be applied, in all the territories occupied by Israel since 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. Within the UN General Assembly, it has been upheld from the beginning of the occupation. Since 1973, Israel has completely lacked positive support in the voting on General Assembly resolutions on this specific issue. Since the beginning of the occupation, the Security Council has also consistently urged the applicability of the Convention."Note the line Countless international organizations, both intergovernmental and nongovernmental, have taken this view. (this is on page 69).  nableezy  - 21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the complexity of the subject, I am happy with the change. I would like to thank you all for this discussion. I have learned a lot on the subject and on the way of discussion and have had a very positive experience. I may even come back to visit the English Wikipedia again. עדירל (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I have, shockingly, a similarly positive view of this experience. Please feel welcome any time.  nableezy  - 21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
Shouldn't this page have an infobox? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

West Bank [...] of the Jordan River
Why does the lead say that this is the "West Bank [...] of the Jordan River"? The Jordan River extends north of the West Bank, and the West Bank extends south of the Jordan River. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The historical reason for the name "West Bank" is that it is on the east side of the Jordan River. But I agree with you; the lead reads like it is saying that "West Bank of the Jordan River" is the place's name, but it isn't.  I'm going to remove those words. Zerotalk 03:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Judea and Samaria Area
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: no consensus to merge.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This section was originally located at Talk:Judea and Samaria Area

Shouldn't this be a redirect to West Bank? I'm starting a new section because the last one (Talk:Judea and Samaria Area) is from years ago. Information on the settler/Jewish/whatever government can be covered on the West Bank article. What purpose does this page serve? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See earlier thread about the need to rename the category. This article is dealing with the administrative district - one of seven that Israel to-date has, which is called the Judea and Samaria District (parallel to Haifa District, South District etc..). Once the title of the article is changed accordingly the obscurity around the essence of the article will disappear and thence its eligibility to exist separately will become clearer. It's not about the West Bank - it's about Israel's 7th jurisdictional district. 31.210.184.76 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Those all about the district themselves, not just the district government or the name. This article is about Israel's 7th jurisdictional district: Judea and Samaria Area, aka the West Bank. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the same geographic terms (same physical area covered, that is), but different meaning: Try "Staten Island" and "Richmond County", for example. Whereas West Bank studies the area from most of the regards, you'd still need a separate page referring to the array of governmental subdivision of the State of Israel. One doesn't come at the other's expense. If discarded, we're left with an uncompleted Districts of Israel list. As the page is misnamed, correcting it will contribute to the understanding of whichever purpose and designation the article serves indeed. 31.210.184.76 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Richmond County, New York redirects to Staten Island. By your slandered, Arlington, Virginia is a Census-designated places, not a county, but it redirects to Arlington County, Virginia. Richmond County is Staten Island, Arlington is Arlington County, Judea & Samaria is the West Bank. Why would you need a separate page for the governmental subdivisions, the West Bank's governmental subdivisions (Israeli and otherwise) can go on the West Bank article. That list would still be contemplate, it would still list J&S. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides, those other district articles do study their areas from most of the regards, their not just about those district's governmental subdivisions. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that you mencon it the West Bank article doesn't discuss the West Bank's subdivisions (Governorates, Local councils etc.). I would think that this information ought to be added to that article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a section on Palestinian administration and a section on Israeli annexed areas], but nothing on Israeli administration of the non-annexed areas, which is a significant omission seeing as area C, under full Israeli military and civil control, amounts to about 60% of the West Bank.Dlv999 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I support the merge. this material should be covered in a section on Israeli administration of the West Bank, which will be split into two separate sections, East Jerusalem (which has been annexed) and the rest of the West Bank. (Post by user Dlv999).
 * Support merge: "Judea and Samaria" may well have some administrative meaning in Israel, however this has no whatsoever international recognition. Even more so, quasi all specialists in international law, see the (partial) integration as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Oalexander-En (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - West Bank is a geographic area, which borders is the 1967 border of the West Bank district of the Kingdom of Jordan. Today the former West Bank is divided between areas of Palestinian National Authority (40-45% of WB), areas annexed by Israel (about 5% of WB) and areas under Israeli military control which are the Judea and Samaria district and affiliated areas (about 50-55% of WB). @Emmette, you are clearly having a loose idea of what is happening in this area on the ground to claim the West Bank is a single unit. The West Bank is something of the past, which today exists only on maps as past borders (pre-1967).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Google maps calls it "West Bank" (when you zoom in), and plenty of other post-1967 maps do. File:Israel judea and samaria dist.png which is used on the Judea and Samaria Area article shows J&S as being the entire West Bank (minus East Jerusalem), not just area C. We already have an article about West Bank Areas. The article about the "Jordanian West Bank of the past" is Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, not West Bank, so I don't see what relevance the "Jordanian West Bank of the past" has to this discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing i can agree with you is that the map of the "Judea and Samaria area" is not correct - it is not synonymous to the West Bank, but only a part of it. I will hence delete the existing map (which is clearly the entire West Bank). Greyshark09 (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC) The current map is not the same as of the West Bank, due to exclusion of the Jerusalem area (annexed by Israel), but it fails to show the separation of Israeli controlled and Palestinian controlled areas. When better map is available we shall be required to update.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Greyshark, your definition of the Judea and Samaria district is not consistent with the lead of the Judea and Samaria Area article, which states that it is the whole of the West Bank minus EJ. You are saying that it is the parts of the West Bank that are under Israeli military and civil control, but have not been annexed by Israel (essentially Area C). In that case the material should be covered in a section on Israeli administration of the West Bank in this article (just like the Israeli annexed part of the West Bank is covered in this article. Your opinion of the West Bank only being a historical definition would not be supported by a survey of recent sources. Dlv999 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a source.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, wikipedia is not a source, but we are discussing a possible merger of that article so the scope of the article, according to the lead is relevant to this discussion. Don't you find it a little odd that your reasoning for keeping the article completely contradicts the lead of the article - what the article itself says that it is about? Dlv999 (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Grayshark changeed the lead to match his oppion. I reverted it an said to him to take it to the talk page before making such a huge change, but he reverted my revert. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason for you revert, except WP:IDONTLIKEIT?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You completely changed the meaning the article gave for J&S. Get conciseness on the talkpage that J&S only means Area C, then make your edit. Preferably bring some RS that supports your definition of J&S. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're aiming to redefine the entire article so that it would essentially be about Area C of the West Bank. There may well be enough material and RS coverage for such an article (that could be summarized in a section of this article), but the common name would not be the "Judea and Samaria Area", it would be Area C of the West Bank. Dlv999 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You could be right, we have to check whether "Area C" is exactly the "Judea and Samaria area" as defined by the Israelis - if so, and most sources agree on this as WP:commonname, i would support it.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is quiet weird that the "West Bank Areas" article was given such name just recently without any agreement, i renamed it back to its original title Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose J&S Area is the administrative name of an Israeli district. Its article should cover that. Not the West Bank. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's not an Israeli district, what they are referring to is an administrative name for parts of the West Bank under Israeli occupation. Dlv999 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that occupied area (without East Jerusalem) is governed as the Judea and Samaria Area. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Nableezy. Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - since this discussion is quiet incative for some time, i guess it is a time to finalize it -
 * Supporting the merge - Emmette, Dlv999, Oalexander-En
 * Opposing it - Greyshark09, Nableezy, Nishidani
 * Seems no consensus at this point, any final remarks before we close it?Greyshark09 (talk) 09:40, 23 December 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.

Palestine portal split
Recently user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman proposed to split Portal:Palestine and create Portal:Palestinian territories (see Portal talk:Palestine), with the rationale that Palestine is a geographic area without specific association with any people or politics, while Palestinian territories is about Palestinian people and modern Palestinian politics. Emmette also has already created a twin template to template:History of Palestine, named template:Governance of Palestine from 1948 to demonstrate this concept. Editor opinions are welcome on the issues of: Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Portal:Palestine content split (at Portal talk:Palestine)
 * Whether template:Governance of Palestine from 1948 should be separate from template:History of Palestine (at Template talk:Governance of Palestine from 1948).


 * That's not quite my rationale. My rationale is the same rationale that Palestinian territories and Palestine are separate articles, that they are not the same thing. Also formal template merge discussions are supposed to take place at Templates for discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

ICJ on the Israeli argument
Im having a hard time seeing how this could possibly be synthesis. The Court said In view  of  the  foregoing,  the  Court  considers  that  the  Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the  1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in  the  Palestinian  territories  which before  the  conflict lay  to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories. The Court explicitly and unambiguously rejected the Israeli argument. But to assuage any concerns, Ill modify the language slightly. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you refer to this edit. iirc it was I who added this section from the Palestinian territories article, but in between the edits it was moved under the Israeli position(from another source) and was added the words "rejected this argument" i.e. WP:SYN. Furthermore Dlv999 provided refernce to the same ruling in the previous paragraph so its repetition.(p.s. I didn't looked at your latest wording/edit yet).--Mor2 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal status
looking at this paragraph at the Legal status section:
 * "Since 1979 the United Nations Security Council,[123] the United Nations General Assembly,[14] the United States,[124] the EU,[125] the International Court of Justice,[126] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[15] refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. General Assembly resolution 58/292 (17 May 2004) affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over the area.[127]"

I noticed that none actually refer to the territories as "Palestinian territory occupied". UNSC refer to "Arab territories occupied", US/EU refer to "occupied territories", ICC refers to "Occupied Territories" only the UNGA refers to "Occupied Palestinian Territory". So it seems that the "Palestinian" addition is out of order. --Mor2 (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, the UNSC at least said in the cited source "Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The title of the ICJ ruling is "LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY". The contracting parties say "The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory", the US document mentions "Palestinian territories" and occupation (albeit not in the same sentence), and finally the EU document also says "Palestinian territories" and occupation, in separate sentences. Here the EU says "Occupied Palestinian Territory" very explicitly. --Dailycare (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, about UNSC and EU(i'll let US slide) thanks for double checking. Withdrawn.--Mor2 (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is another point about this section that could be discussed, namely the "last recognized sovereign". This sounds like something that comes from a source, could we find one? Something that comes to mind that touches on this point is that now several countries recognize the Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, doesn't that make Palestine the newest recognized sovereign? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mor2 wrote about this on my talkpage, I think saying that the recognition of Palestine has "nothing to do" with this isn't persuasive, since our actions need to be guided by what sources say. We don't have sources for the statement that Turkey would have been the last sovereign (at least, no sources published after Palestine's recognition by the countries in question) and no source has been provided to support the statement that these recognitions wouldn't be relevant.--Dailycare (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not certain what confuse you, its about "last recognized sovereign" (i.e. recognition + Sovereignty). Israeli, Jordan and brits has/had sovereignty, while Palestine has recognition, non of which had both since the Ottomans, as such your latest change  should be reverted --Mor2 (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The plain reading of "recognized sovereign" is that an entity is recognized as sovereign. Palestine is recognized (by some countries) as sovereign over the West Bank. For example Iceland recognizes Palestine as sovereign within the 1967 borders, which includes the West Bank. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't know anyone who recognize that Palestine HAS sovereignty over the west bank, but I am open to solutions as to the wording. Please pick whatever variant that works for you and says that they were the last who had recognition + Sovereignty.--Mor2 (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According the source above, the government of Iceland recognizes Palestine as sovereign in the WB. Concerning the wording, I think the current wording is in fact optimal as I don't see a real reason to say anything about historical sovereignty in the first sentence. The section is about legal status and saying the Ottomans had the area for centuries is a good bit of background for the present situation. We do mention toward the end of the section that some countries recognize the WB as part of Palestine nowadays. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with DC. We also mention the Israeli POV regarding the sovereignty issue later on in the passage so I don't see any reason to open that can of worms in the first sentence as we would have to discuss all viewpoints on the matter per NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a can of worms only to those who don't understand the term Sovereignty or blinded by nationalistic ambitions and thus dig for erroneous sources or those who misquote thing like the latest UN resolution that said that "the Palestinian people have the right..to sovereignty over their territory". Stop and think for a second, if what you claim is true, if Palestine had Sovereignty over the west bank i.e. they had independent authority, they wouldn't be occupied and would have a state! The reason why they are regarded occupied, is because right now they only have the powers that was afforded to them by Israel as part of the oslo agreements.
 * Furthermore that wording with dates that Dailycare used is what I put in the history section, where it is appropriate giving historical context. However, in the legal section, the second variant is better as it give legal context to the rest of the paragraph.--Mor2 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant quote in the Sovereignty article you linked is this: "Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or total occupation by another power...." Dlv999 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

They key difference is presented in the second half of the sentence i.e. this courtesy was afforded to the holy due its Sovereignty prior to the annexation(it had independent authority over a geographic area similar to ww2 governments-in-exile). More importantly we are discussing the legal section as such the only relevant quote "In international law, sovereignty means that a government possesses full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit". ETA: I just read more thoroughly the second paragraph in the section and finally figured out why you argue so much about this simple phrase and would like to note that unless you can come up with some better arguments, I consider this POV pushing. --Mor2 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't produced a source for the claim you want to introduce into the article so I don't know why I'm even wasting my time with this, but see e.g Quigley (2005) pp15 "The League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, which oversaw mandate administration, said that mandatory powers had no right of sovereignty but that the people under the mandate held ultimate sovereignty." Dlv999 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not certain what I am suppose to see, other than the difference between sovereignty de jure and de facto, we spoke about before. Lets try to focus the discussion, we both agreed that neither Britain, Israel or Jordan were recognized sovereigns in the area, right?(all had de facto sovereignty, not de jure). So the only issue is with your disagreement that currently Palestinians are not recognized sovereign. Considering that Palestinian do not possess de facto sovereignty, can you explain why you object to this wording and then suggest an alternative wording?--Mor2 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My position is this. Additions to the encyclopedia require a reliable source. You have not produced a reliable source for the claim that you want to introduce to the article. Therefore we have not reached the point where it is worth considering the claim for inclusion. Until you produce a source for the claim I have nothing more to say on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Dlv's point is doubly valid considering that Mor2 just removed some text from the article with reference to SYN. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dailycare, It is not SYN, because it doesn't change its meaning. not A + not B + not C = not (A+ B+ C). @Dlv999, I hope you have some other argument because finding a source that Palestinians do not possess sovereignty is easy... Also I have to say that I find your arguments more and more POVish, due how they sound rather than their merit. I suggest that you provide counter arguments instead, like in your recent edit, which was valid and good argument.--Mor2 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, we have sources that say Palestine's sovereignty in the area is recognized. There are no sources for what you're proposing to put to the article. Concerning the SYNTH issue, the notion that Turkey would have been the last recognized sovereign would be a new conclusion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are rehashing old arguments, as noted before don't confuse sources like the UN resolutions that say that:
 * "the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory" and later reaffirm its commitment/determination to their state...
 * or take sources that do not address this in clear maner out of context. As for your assertion that are no sources that state the obvious that the Palestinian do not posses Sovereignty de facto, I am not cetain who you are trying to convince but here is one for start:
 * "The newly formed Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is explicitly denied sovereignty in the accords of 1993-1995 ... and only has most limited forms of control over fraction of the territory."-Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness p.11
 * I specifically choose a more "POVish" source for you, but I can get with more formal ones if you wish. As for turkey you have a point there, which I can easily solve with readily available source. Any more objections you wish to pile up on grounds of "WP"? --Mor2 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just a few quick points, 1) that source pre-dates e.g. the Icelandic recognition, and 2) it doesn't say that the Ottomans were the last recognized sovereigns in the area. In fact that snippet doesn't as much as mention the Ottomans. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. we already had the de jure and de facto discussion, last time it was a couple of post before. As it was noted before there are multitude of sources that support/recognize Palestinian sovereignty, none that they actually an sovereign(de facto) and multitude that they doesn't.(I'll bet that even you agree with this 100%, but choose to look for disagreement rather than on what we can agree) 2. It doesn't have to, only that they possessed it(see previous post), but overall we agree(again see previous post) which I will produce(I don't have time right now to find in which treaty it was specifically referenced from ~1922) but regardless I can always replace them with "since 1917..."--Mor2 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm frankly not clear on why you feel the "de jure" and "de facto" issues would be relevant to this discussion, since the proposed text doesn't have either of them. The source says Palestine's sovereignty is recognized, therefore Palestine is (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) a "recognized sovereign". It really is as simple as that. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Numbers don't fit
"It has an estimated population of 2,622,544 (June 2012). More than 80 percent, about 2,600,000, are Palestinian Arabs, and approximately 500,000 are Jewish Israelis living in the West Bank, including about 192,000 in East Jerusalem, in Israeli settlements."

So either the total population is 2 600 000, or over 3 million. Which one is correct?--Seerus (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Forming the bulk of the Palestinian Territories
The first sentence in the lede now reads The West Bank ... is a landlocked territory, located in Western Asia and forming the bulk of the Palestinian Territories. In my opinion it should be The West Bank ... is a landlocked territory, located in Western Asia forming the bulk of the Palestinian Territories without the "and" before "forming", otherwise the recent addition "(and) forming the bulk of the Palestinian Territories" doesn't imo make much sense. But I'm not a native speaker of English. The other question is wether the addition is correct in the first place. Ajnem (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

International community
This phrase is very vague. Who does it refer to? The members of the UN? The EU? The Arab League? All of these are "international communities". Also, "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law," implies that the "international community" is unanimous. So Frederico1234 and Sean.hoyland, if it is "clear enough" and "doesn't need clarification here", then who do you think this refers to? It may be clear to you but it is not clear to me, nor to many others. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 20:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not just look in a dictionary: definition. --Dailycare (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that the "political leaders and important organizations from all parts of the world" are unanimous in this view? --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 21:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody should care what I think it means and nobody should be asking me the question "who do you think this refers to?" The phrase is sourced to 4 academic sources. The fact that you don't understand it and think it implies unanimity doesn't matter. You can go and educate yourself about all of the countries and international organizations that take the view that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Once you have done that you can consider listing them all in the lead for the few minutes they would be there before the edit is reverted and "international community" sourced to 4 impeccable sources is restored. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it is wrong. I am not saying the sources are wrong. What I am saying is that if no one can explain what it means, then it does not mean anything. It is better to use a term that has a meaning that people understand and we don't have to use the same terminology as the sources. I asked you what you think it means because you seem to imply that you know what it means. If we can start by giving it a definition on this talk page (and I don't mean listing countries as that is, as you pointed out, unhelpful), then we can decide whether the term is appropriate for use without definition in the article. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 03:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The term is appropriate for use without definition in the article because it is the term used without a definition by the 4 impeccable sources cited next to the statement (and without definition by countless other reliable sources when they describe views on Israeli settlements). It has a WP:V+WP:NPOV compliance of 100%. This level of policy compliance is independent of what you or I think about words and phrases. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing WP:V or WP:NPOV. I am trying to say that the word is not meaningful. Here's a quote from WP:NPOV: "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity." And here's a quote from WP:MOS: "Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible." Please stop avoiding my arguments and address the issue, which is the meaning of "international community". --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 14:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the issue in the way that is consistent with policy. I am deliberately not participating in a process that is inconsistent with policy. You want to have a discussion about the meaning of something, the phrase "international community", because you personally have trouble with it and think it lacks clarity or implies unanimity, while countless reliable sources do not have any trouble with it at all. That is not going to happen, not with me anyway. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I feel that you are not hearing me out, I have sought dispute resolution. Hopefully they can give us some fresh perspectives. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But meanwhile, maybe you can answer this question: Would clarifying the term go against Wikipedia's policies? --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you but I'm doing this for a reason. Let me ask you a question and perhaps you will understand why I will not engage in this process. There are literally thousands of reliable sources that use the term "international community" without definition in the context of the legality of Israeli settlements (and many other contexts of course), as you are no doubt aware. How will you decide, using an evidence based process, that the definition that you seek, is the same as the definition used by any given sampled source that does not include a definition ? Think about that and you will find the answer to the question "Would clarifying the term go against Wikipedia's policies?" Does a particular source whether it's a scholarly source or a media outlet, include for example, the ICRC in their definition of "international community" when they use that term without defining it or do they exclude it ? What do JTA mean when they say "The international community, including the United States, considers the Jewish settlements illegal." ? Or China Daily when they say "The international community views all the settlements as illegal."? Or AFP when they say "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including annexed east Jerusalem, to be illegal." ? Or the current scholarly sources we cite ? We don't know unless they tell us. And that takes us back to replacing the preferred undefined term "international community", preferred by countless sources, with a comprehensive list of the members of that named but undefined set according to sources that discuss those individual set members views, and that would certainly just be reverted and replaced with "international community" in the lead. From my perspective you are asking editors to engage in futile original research here, contrary to policy, to produce a statement purportedly to clarify but which in fact cannot be associated with sourced statements without employing WP:SYNTH. So, the discussion itself is inconsistent with policy and the use of the product would be inconsistent with policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally giving me a straight answer. I have just found we actually have a whole article devoted to this topic: International law and Israeli settlements. Perhaps we can revise that sentence to include a link to that article. I also now see that Israel is the only country to officially disagree. Would you be ok with this version: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, except for Israel who disputes this." The words "except for" clearly indicate that Israel is still part of the international community, which makes it clearer that "international community" refers to all countries. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 20:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't need to try to assess whether the information is true, all we need to bother ourselves with is whether it's reliably sourced. However, to the slightly obiter question I make two points in reponse: 1) the sentence in the article doesn't mention unanimity, and 2) yes, from all parts of the world - the Americas, Europe, Asia, etc. --Dailycare (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be entirely missing the point. Have you even read through this? --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 21:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really in favor of changing "though Israel disputes this" to "except for Israel who disputes this" because it strikes me as an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The word "though" doesn't indicate that Israel is not a member of the set of things that comprise the "international community". For example, the scientific community consider X to be the case, though disputes this. Would you think that implies that is not a member of the scientific community or that it implies the scientific community is unanimous ? I doubt it. Perhaps you process sentences related to Israel in a different way from sentences related to other things even when the sentences share the same structure. If that is the case you should have a look at the "Editors counseled" section of the discretionary sanctions that cover the WP:ARBPIA topic area. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say that "though" implies Israel is not a part of it. I only said that "except for" makes it clearer that it is a part of it. So unless you think there is something wrong with "except for", then I see no reason not to change it. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 14:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * W, I was responding to your comment to me. --Dailycare (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I apologize. This discussion has moved pretty far since that comment. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 22:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Jordan conquered/Jordan annexed
I've introduced Benvenisti here because wiki articles are dotted all over with this 'conquered and annexed' language, which is historically incorrect, and secondly Jordan did not conquer the West Bank. The Jordanian army withdrew and then re-entered that area, to defend the territory accorded Palestinians under the Partition Plan. Its brief was basically defensive, and the people in that area's villages were not 'conquered'. There is further a technical distinction between annexing territories of sovereign states, and claiming to annex territory that had ambiguous juridical status.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Economy
Under economy it states that the cause of the west banks depression is the occupation, and links to a World Bank Article which is no longer available. Assuming the claim can be verified, that still sounds like a controversial statement. Should it be made more neutral?


 * Asked and answered. Unfortunately we're talking about Wikipedia here where a large sub-set of editors are not interested in objective truth. Obviously it is a POV issue. "Israeli occupation of the West Bank has destroyed the Palestinian economy"??!! Destroyed, how? Destroyed relative to what? How destroyed is the West Bank economy relative to say Gaza? Objectively, I'd have no choice but to concluded the West Bank is absolutely booming compared to Gaza, as things stand now. Don't be afraid of the Wikipedians. They are much, much more bark than bite. Next time, sign your name. I'll see if I can't track down some more objective sources. In light of the current Gaza situation, I was interested as well in how things are going economically in the West Bank. 10stone5 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert or you will be reported

 * Ist revert
 * revert Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of all that, the long standing formulation is both accurate and neutral, whereas giving it as a common name when it's settler speak is neither. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)