Talk:Palestinian land laws

Non-existing Land laws

This whole article consists of hot air. Not a single source refers to Palestinian land law(s). Only THIS article from a non-neutral source, not about the subject, mentions once: "In clear violation of these provisions, the Palestinian Land Law prescribes the death penalty to anyone selling land to Jews." Without giving any source or mentioning a particular law. In absence of a land law, I changed the title to Palestinian landownership. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

After a second thought, I changed it to Landownership in Palestine. Palestinian landownership can also refer to land outside the Territories. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on your logic, please point to the sources that use the term "Land ownership in the State of Palestine", the term you finally decided on. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You also made a lot of changes to the article without discussing it even once on the talk page. A lot of the changes are problematic including the overabundance use of http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/fact%20sheets/NSU%20Memo%20Txns%20Pal%20property%20FINAL%20%28Oct%202008%29.pdf (a dead link) the use of which appears to be original research. I'll put it back to the long standing version and invite you to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree please propose you changes here so we can discuss them.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As the few good sources in the article make clear, there is indeed no Palestinian Land Law of this nature. However there is a Jordanian law (actually several) which Palestinian courts have held to apply in the West Bank. (Note that Israel also applies Jordanian law in the West Bank when it suits.) The article at the moment is a mess built mostly from bad sources, or sources that are cited but ignored. Zero^talk 10:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The PLO-NAD source is excellent and in fact in accordance with general international views. Please give reliable sources that show that this information is wrong, and give reliable sources that show that there is specific Palestinian Land Law. I am not obliged at all to discuss here the removal of unsourced shit. The improper use of sources makes them invalid. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if we can work on this in an NPOV way. I'll ask the above question again. You moved the article from "Palestinian land laws" to "Land ownership in the State of Palestine" because "Not a single source refers to Palestinian land law(s." Before I begin defending the original longstanding name with reliable sources, I ask you again, what sources use the name to which you unilaterally moved the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I choose a neutral title, which provides the room for sourced material. The title itself does not need references, rather the content. It may contain a broader view than the one I pointed out in the next section on this talk page. As the current title includes all of the article's content, I expect you to agree with it. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course there are sources referring to "Palestinian land laws" but there are many which explicitly say that the laws are Jordanian. Even the fact of a dispute means that we can't choose the title to favor one side, even if it wasn't for the obvious fact that the "Jordan law" sources are substantially better. I don't mind the title somehow using the word "law", but it shouldn't state a falsehood. Zero^talk 00:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Manipulation of the article

Call the jinns. It is sockpuppet season; the first has already arrived. I expect at least the sleeper account that waked up a few months ago.

Back to the article. I ignore the intimidation of Shrike above, suggesting me to ask permission for changing the article. I also resist the shameless revert of Brewcrewer, who undid all my edits at once. Per WP:OWNER, I claim my right to edit the article.

I know, my edits are not in line with the intentions of the article creator. The sole purpose of original article was to spin an article about the prohibition of selling land to Jews, and the death sentences for traitors. An annual update with additional superfluous sections will appear if we are so lucky to see new death sentences, executions or assassinations. The article heavily leaned on a poor article PA: Death penalty for those who sell land to Jews in a strongly biased pro-Israel newspaper, which actually is about East Jerusalem. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

No consensus to move, despite extended debate on the topic. bd2412 T 13:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian land laws → Land ownership in the State of Palestine – This article, including its title, has been controversial from the very beginning. As pointed out on this talk page several times, there is not such as "Palestinian land laws", especially not within the Palestinian Authority. See als the arguments in the section above. Furthermore, the move is essential to distinct from historic Palestine for the scope of the article. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Wickey-nl (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree. Since many of the sources in the article say that the laws under discussion are Jordanian, the "Palestinian land laws" title unacceptably adopts the terminology of some fraction (a weaker fraction in fact) of the sources. Even if it was possible to argue that there is disagreement between the sources, the title must not reflect one side of the argument. It has to be neutral and respect both sides. People who argue against the proposed name should suggest a neutral alternative, since the present name most assuredly is not neutral. Zero^talk 14:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It is notable that neither Brewcrewer nor Shrike responded to the facts I mentioned. I suspect that is because there is no response. Btw, Weiner's article of fake concern for Christians is not a reliable source. Zero^talk 08:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate why its not neutral? There are Israeli land and property laws do you consider such title not neutral too?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That article is about laws passed by the state of Israel. This article is about laws passed by the state of Jordan, as shown in detail by the better sources. The situation is not similar. Some Palestinian courts have ruled that the Jordanian laws can be applied in Palestine, but I didn't see any good source showing that any Palestinian legislature passed a law which echoed or adopted the Jordanian laws. If I missed one, please let me know. Zero^talk 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is not neutrality, rather that Palestinian land laws is a non-sense title. Palestinian does not refer to a territory here, but to an ethnicity, and land laws do not exist. Moreover, the Jewish ethnocracy has destroyed the Palestinian democracy before it could develop. No functioning parliament. That is the reason why Palestinian land laws do not exist. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Palestinian Authority has laws and some of the laws pertain to land, hence the name of the article. I would perhaps entertain a move to Palestinian Authority land laws. However the proposed name is not supported by any sources, which strangely enough, the proponent of the page move finds to be problematic with the current name. More egregiously, the proponent claims there are no sources in support of the current name, of course after they remove the source stating as much. [1].--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Without supporting such a move, the only correct title within your scope would be: "Prohibition of purchase of land to Jews in the Occupied Palestinian Territories". You knew, a title sincerely reflecting the original article would have no chance, so you choose a covering title. If you want to write an article about a law, you should name that law, with sufficient sources. In fact, the PA has remarkably few laws.

As I argued earlier, the proposed name is a neutral title, which provides the room for sourced material. The title itself does not need references, rather the content.

The alternative is that I start an article with the proposed title, and then merge this one into it. This does not mean that the current unacceptable title may remain in the mean time. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The article talks about Palestinian land laws so the name according to the scope of the article so no need to change the name.Moreover where are the sources for the new name?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed title exceeds the scope of the article, which is limited to law alone. I suggest moving the page to the existing redirect, Palestinian Land Law, since the plural Laws is normally synonymous with Statutes in English, making the current title more restrictive than the article. G. C. Hood (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Agree I have only watched from afar, but the reasoning of Zero and Wickey-nl seems persuasive to me. If the proposed title seems too broad in scope, a somewhat better title can be chosen, which is less misleading than this one. Kingsindian (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Agree. As per wickney-nl and Zero, neither of whose various points have been addressed by those who oppose this.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that not one editor has proffered an iota of evidence that there is a concept of "Land ownership in the State of Palestine" that would allow a page to be moved to that name.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Even Israel excepts Palestinian private land. If we deny the existence of land ownership, we can delete this article, because there cannot be death penalty for selling land. I propose broadening of the scope, because we still do not have an article about the subject. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

For the 3462th time, where is your one source in support of your proposed rename.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, there is no rule that article titles must appear in exactly the same form in reliable sources so it doesn't actually matter how many times you ask. I don't understand your argument either. How can there be land sales without a concept of land ownership? The fact that the present title refers to a concept not covered by the article (except via poor sources) means it must be changed. But really it is "State of Palestine" you want to avoid, isn't it? Zero^talk 02:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is self contradictory and supports the position you're opposing. If there is no concept of land ownership why do you support moving the article to a name that includes that concept? You argue that the current name is not utilized by sources "except via poor sources" after arguing that "there is no rule that article titles must appear in exactly the same form in reliable sources."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the argument that you say is self contradictory. I never said there is no concept of land ownership; of course there is. It is you who is arguing against a title that mentions "land ownership". Since that seems to not be your problem, a reasonable hypothesis is that "State of Palestine" is the part of the proposed title that you don't like. Don't blame me for trying to understand your position if you won't state it clearly. Zero^talk 05:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"State of Palestine" is as much my problem as your sole interest in the rename, so let's move that herring to the side. To the extent your argument is coherent it is factually incorrect. The sources in the article (even after Wickey-n1's problematic primary sources stuff) are not discussing Jordanian law but Palestinian Authority law. There are 19 sources currently listed in the article and I don't even know one that you're referring to. To the extent Jordanian law is mentioned it is that the Palestine Authority adopted the Jordanian law as Palestine Authority law. This is typical for a country after it removes its former occupying power. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It is strange to hear that there needs to be proof of the concept of land ownership in Palestine. Must one provide sources to prove even such a basic concept? If so, perhaps this and this is useful to establish that there is such a concept as land ownership in Palestine. Kingsindian (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you responding to a point I made?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer: Yes, perhaps I misunderstood your point? Kingsindian (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incomplete

The article seems to be blocked for editing. I'd like to mark it as Incomplete (as you may note, I noted that the Hebrew translation of it is likewise incomplete). It focuses on one very specific aspect of Palestinian property laws. Some questions that are not answered:

• Where are lands registered?
• Is there a single registry for both the West Bank and Gaza?
• What laws are in place? I guess laws in the West Bank are based on Ottoman, British and Jordanian laws. What about the laws in Gaza? The same? Any newer legislation?
• In practice, what are the laws?
• Who may and who may not own a land?

Tzafrir (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence contains what is supposedly a quote o fa translation of the actual law, but the citations don't support it.

It should be changed so that it is clear that this quotation is not verified but actually just the alleged text of the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origninal Evade (talk • contribs) 04:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of bias in this article

There is a lot of bias in this article. I was referred to it by an external post the flaws seem quite plain:

1. When Israel took over the West Bank in 1967 it passed Military Proclamation Number 2 declaring that Jordanian laws present before the occupation would continue to have effect except where they conflict with military orders, including the Land Laws. This is not explicitly linked in either the description or the background and may be misleading.
2. Jordanian laws around land ownership, specifically banning the selling of land to Israeli citizens and agents of Israeli citizens, have never been repealed by Israel. This is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
3. The sentence "All Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (including those in East Jerusalem) are considered illegal by the international community, but Israel disputes this" appears in this article (and many others) and presents this as a dispute of the finer points of international law. This should simply state "All Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (including those in East Jerusalem) are illegal under International Law. The current statement as it is phrased is biased as numerous UNSC and ICJ legally binding rulings since then that have confirmed there is no dispute, it is illegal.
4. In the background section, "a Chief Islamic Judge of the Palestinian Authority reminded of an existing fatwa" but it doesn't name him (Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, apparently) and the linked to article doesn't have any information about any existing fatwas regarding the sale of land to anyone, just vague statements that they exist. There is a lot of bias in Israeli media - should they be used as a source when they are this vague?
5. The heading "Land sale to non-Palestinians" is misleading. In the context of the article it seems to refer to private sales, but is actually referring to the confiscation of land and sale or lease to non-Palestinians. The heading should be fixed to something more appropriate and neutral.
6. In the same section there is no reference to the confiscation of land in either East Jerusalem or the West Bank and examples and references should be included for completeness.
7. The section "Property transactions under Palestinian law" is extremely vague. It talks about a Palestinian, no name, being convicted for a sale of land with no details of the land or the buyer, and the link to the Jerusalem Post article is broken. There is a link to a Haaretz article that is almost as bad - few names are mentioned, just "a Palestinian" and "a man" referring to the court and the defendant. (This is almost as dehumanising as "the Arabs" in most articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
8. The Effects section has missing citations as noted.
9. The third paragraph of that section refers to Christian intimidation by the PA and muslims, including refusal of land sales to Palestinian christians, however the reference used does not support that statement or any of the other explicit or implied statements in that paragraph and appears to be a complete fabrication.
10. The next paragraph in that section links to a paywalled article in Isareli newspaper Haaretz and is impossible to verify without a subscription.
11. The "Events in 2009" section seems to be mainly a repeat of previous statements in the article and their flaws, and has out of context links. When talking about demolishing homes it doesn't provide a reference to that but to reference 3, the Jerusalem Post article about the trial of the individual who sold land to Israelis. The whole section needs a serious re-think.
12. There are a few broken links that need to be fixed or the contents of the sections reassessed in the "Events in 2014" section.
13. The "See also" section should include links to land confiscation in the West Bank and Jersusalem, links to the Israeli annexation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and links to the settlements' legality.

Additional Issues and/or errors:

• Plia Albeck's page appears to be gone. The link does not work and a search for Plia Albeck does not return a page to her bio.
• The sentence "All Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (including those in East Jerusalem) are considered illegal by the international community, but Israel disputes this." erroneously has a reference to BBC article "Palestinian Handed Death Sentence."
• — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryRKJ (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

--HarryRKJ (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

References