Talk:Israel/Archive 53

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Occupied territories

These lines arent exactly accurate:

Israel has applied civilian law to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, incorporating them into its sovereign territory and granting their inhabitants permanent residency status and the choice to apply for citizenship. In contrast, the West Bank has remained under military occupation, and Palestinians in this area cannot become citizens. The Gaza Strip is independent of Israel with no Israeli military or civilian presence, but Israel continues to maintain control of its airspace and waters.

They imply, through using in contrast and using incorporating into its sovereign territory, that the Golan and East Jerusalem are not occupied. Yes, Israeli civil law has been applied to those two territories, but no that does not mean they are no longer held under military occupation. Id like to correct that. nableezy - 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It implies nothing but what is written. You should stop projecting your own agenda on the text. It is very clear and neutral. Benjil (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, we can add "occupied" just before "Golan".

Pluto2012 (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Sorry, but this is relatively simple to follow, and if you cant do so without saying I am projecting an agenda then I really dont know what to do for you. But to the point, when you write in contrast, the West Bank has remained under military occupation you are making a comparison between the West Bank and what had previously been mentioned (EJ and the Golan) and saying that the difference is that one is still under military occupation and the others are not. That is what is written, and that is incorrect. Im going to change that. nableezy - 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not under "military occupation", it is part of the Israeli territory. That the annexion is not recognized is an important issue, but you cannot on the other hand change the reality on the ground. There are no soldiers patrolling the streets of Jerusalem or even "East-Jerusalem", there is no difference between this part of the city and the rest or any other city on this respect. So no. Benjil (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there IDF barracks at East-Jerusalem ? So, it is under "military occupation". But I din't see why it would be important here. According to the Security Council Resolution, East-Jerusalem is an occupied territory. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not what military occupation means. So yes. There are countless sources on this subject, and they make abundantly clear that the international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. Occupied Palestinian territory, not "part of the Israeli territory". nableezy - 19:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There are IDF barracks in all Israel, where exactly should they be, on Mars ? By the way, which barracks in Jerusalem ? And yes that is what military occupation means: *military* occupation. Anyway Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not take side in a conflict. The article does note that most of the international community does not recognize the annexion of East-Jerusalem, it does not have to support (or not support) it. Benjil (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but again no that is not what military occupation means. It means that Israel exercises effective military control of territory that is outside of its sovereign territory. And neutral on Wikipedia means fairly and proportionally reflecting what reliable sources say on the issue, and besides you would have the article take the side that EJ and the Golan are not occupied by Israel but instead a part of it. Which, by the way, is a minority position. nableezy - 21:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Definition of MILITARY OCCUPATION

control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/military%20occupation

Now this does not apply to East Jerusalem nor the Golan that are not under no military government. The issue of the majority or minority view of the international community has nothing to do with the facts on the ground. You are trying to push your POV. Benjil (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No, and I can just as easily reply saying you are trying to push a POV that the "facts on the ground" overrule the status under international law. Again, that is not what the term military occupation under international law means. See for example the ICRC: As explained by President Maurer in his article, the ICRC as well as the international community in general, regards east Jerusalem as no less ‘occupied’ than any of the other areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Having boots on the ground and martial law is not the determinant of whether a territory is held under belligerent occupation or not. The point is that Israel exercises effective military control over a territory that it is not within its sovereign territory. East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip are widely considered occupied territory despite Israel not having its soldiers enforcing martial law in those territories. NPOV means including all views in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources. nableezy - 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not know that Wikipedia as supposed to rule about international law. Yes the facts on the ground are more important than whatever some people in a committee decides because reality is not decided by a vote. You spoke of "military occupation" and I showed you that, contrary to what you claim, "having boots on the ground and martial law" is indeed determinant of whether there is a "military occupation". Nobody debates the fact that area B and C of the West Bank are under military occupation. Not Jerusalem and the Golan and of course not Gaza that is under no occupation but that of the Hamas. NPOV means giving all the relevant viewpoints as viewpoints, not adopting one because it is "the majority". Benjil (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You did not show me anything, you gave me a dictionary definition of a topic so complex that there are countless reference works discussing it. I gave you an actual source, specifically about East Jerusalem. Whether or not Israel "debates the fact" is irrelevant, what we do is show what the sources say, and they say that EJ is held under occupation, as is the Golan. Im not arguing this point with a random person on the internet, I brought a source, I can bring several more. You brought a personal opinion masquerading as definitive proof. nableezy - 08:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You dropped "military" in the middle of the discussion. Which was the whole point. Nobody is contesting the fact that these territories are considered as occupied by most countries. The article says it. So what exactly is your issue ? If you do not want to argue with " random person" (no more than you by the way, who do you think you are ?) do not come here. Benjil (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two types of occupation in international law, occupying terra nullius and belligerent occupation. My point on not arguing with a random person on the internet is that I dont care what you feel or think about a topic, all that matters is the sources you bring. And you havent brought any, youve just said no. Im not going to pay much more attention to that. East Jerusalem is considered occupied, and saying that it is not by contrasting with the West Bank and claiming it was incorporated into Israel's territory is pushing a minority POV as fact. Ive already corrected that issue, so unless you have something besides personal opinion to offer the discussion I think Im done here for now. nableezy - 17:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You have not brought any source but a document about the ICRC whose opinion is absolutely irrelevant. I am also understanding that you seem to voluntary ignore the first issue that we were discussing inc you were proven wrong: that Jerusalem is under military occupation. This was easy to check since this is an objective condition, and it appears that Jerusalem and the Golan are not under any military occupation. Now the second issue is: should Wikipedia take side in a conflict ? You suggest that it should go with the "majority opinion", I think it should be neutral. We are not dealing with a scientific matter where we have published papers in peer reviewed journals but purely political issues where this is no "truth", just interests and points of view. So once again, reach a consensus here before you make any change. Benjil (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The ICRC is irrelevant? Interesting. Here: UN, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (im going to include a quote from that one): since 1967, the UN including the Security Council, has repeatedly stated that east Jerusalem is occupied territory subject to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. It is indisputable that the international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. That is a significant view that must be reflected in the article per NPOV. Your belief that anything that does not toe the official Israeli line is irrelevant is actually irrelevant. nableezy - 02:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If you use straw man arguments and are generally of bad faith, I will indeed stop the discussion. Just read what I already wrote, there is nothing more to add. Maybe some other people can also write what they think. Benjil (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There was no straw man, I quoted your argument. You dont like how that quote reads back it may be wise to reconsider making the argument to begin with. I see you still have brought no sources, or even responded to the ones I have provided. nableezy - 20:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If somebody steals your car, he has the control of it. If he parks this at his home, you cannot go and takes this back. You need the support of the police. But it is still your car and he is still a thief, even if he is unarmed. It is possible that the thief claims it is his car. It is the case on the ground : it is in his garage. But tt doesn't change anything on the legitimy of your ownership.

It is false to claim that the annexion of East-Jerusalem is not recognized by ~"all the nations". This annexion is recognized by absolutely nobody. The Security Council, whose resolution have a binding value, stated that East-Jerusalem was an occupied territory. (Note they didn't state a Palestinian occupied terrotory.) It means that whatever Israel claims or could say, whatever the situation on the ground, East-Jerusalem is not part of Israel. It is an occupied territory. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not all nations call Jerusalem occupied. Goalie1998 (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying that Jerusalem is not part of Israel is like saying that the stolen car is not in the thief's garage: it is a false statement. Perhaps it is illegal and it shouldn't remain so, but at the moment Jerusalem is a part of Israel. Of course disputed legality must be noted.

Note that car theft analogy implies that Israel stole Jerusalem from state of Palestine who is its rightful owner, which is incorrect. Israel did not take Jerusalem from SoP and controlled it long before the state was declared. International consensus does not accept either side's claim on Jerusalem and its final status is to be determined by negotiations. “WarKosign ” 09:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, that's a very unconvincing argument. Was Japan part of the United States from 1945 to 1952? Zero^talk 10:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Was Japan administered by USA and populated exclusively by USA citizens or permanent residents ? Was it normally refered to as part of USA ? If the answer is no, then no - Japan was not part of the US. Since the answer about Jerusalem is yes - yes, it is part of Israel for any purpose except international law. “WarKosign ” 11:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that editors avoid original research and analogies and instead stick to on-point reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources about what ? What is the discussion ? That the international community in majority thinks that at least East-Jerusalem is "occupied" (meaning not part of Israel's recognized territory) ? Everybody agrees about it. The discussion was started when Nableezy insisted that Jerusalem and the Golan were under "military occupation", which is not the case, factually. So what are we arguing about in fact ? Saying that Jerusalem is part of the Israeli territory ? Well the solution is easy: it is de facto, de jure by Israeli law, and not according to most countries. Do we need something else ? Benjil (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No Benjil, de jure, East-Jerusalem is an occupied territory because the Security Council Resolutions have a de jure international value higher than any local Law. But it is de facto occupied, controlled and administered by Israel, indeed.

See eg here : United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 Pluto2012 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I am no expert on international law, it would be preferable for someone who is to answer here. I seem to remember than only resolutions under chapter 7 are binding, the others have just a declaratory value or something like that, I studied these things over 20 years ago. Anyway, my wording was not clear, so let's me rephrase: Jerusalem is de facto an Israeli territory and de jure according to Israeli law only, while most other countries do not recognize that fact. Since this is what the article already says, what exactly is the discussion about ?Benjil (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Luckily we dont need you to be an expert in international law, because we have sources that are. You do not understand what the term military occupation means, and I dont see the point in restating it. It does not mean troops patrolling the streets. My problem was with the article stating that the West Bank is under occupation and in contrast East Jerusalem and the Golan are not. I already corrected that issue, so I dont see a point in arguing about this, especially when the argument is filled with fallacious opinions backed by no sources. We use reliable sources here on Wikipedia, not arguments developed from thin air (eg is it administered by Israel and populated by its citizens and permanent residents) or false premises (it is not under military occupation because there are no soldiers enforcing martial law). The sources are clear on this issue, and thats what counts here. nableezy - 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is one source that states that Israel executes de-facto control over Jerusalem. I couldn't find many sources that bother to state this simple and obvious fact, I suppose it's because there are no sources insane enough to claim otherwise. Scholars are typically concerned with supporting or rejecting legality of this reality. “WarKosign ” 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that Israel has control over Jerusalem. Occupied kind of implies that Israel controls it. I dont see what the point of saying that Israel has control over it, that isnt in dispute. But if you read your source youll quickly see that the control it has over East Jerusalem is called by a certain name. And, you guessed it, that name is occupation. Youll also see that it says "effective control" is the legal measure of occupation. Saying East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel does not in any way dispute that Israel controls East Jerusalem, in fact it acknowledges that control. nableezy - 22:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

- "Quod approbo non reprobo". One can not approve and reject at the same time. It was claimed here that although china conquered Tibet, it is not under military occupation because it was annexed to China. By the same token, Israel annexed the Golan Heights, hence it is not under military occupation. Either both Tibet and the Golan Heights are under military occupation, or none of them. The article should be consistent. Ykantor (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:OSE, so Im going to completely disregard any comparison to another Wikipedia article. As far has the Golan or EJ been annexed, that depends on who you ask, as both laws specifically do not include the word annex. Regardless of whether or not Israel claims both those as being a part of their territory, theirs is not the only voice on the matter, and the international community in rare displays of near unanimity have consistently said that neither the Golan or EJ are Israeli territory and both remain under military occupation and subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention. nableezy - 22:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ykantor. As described at Military occupation:

"Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.[2][5][6][7]"

I have always understood the GH and EJ to have been annexed. Whilst these annexations are legally disputed internationally, that is also the case for many other annexations around the world (e.g. Tibet). What matters is whether in practice they are now annexed - i.e. control is intended to be permanent, is primarily civilian in nature, and citizenship is conferred upon the population. The only one of these three I am aware of not being in place is citizenship in EJ, but I have been led to understand that this is available to Palestinian residents of EJ should they wish to take it up (e.g. [1])

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Although.... The article Has_Israel_Annexed_East_Jerusalem? suggests that there is room for interpretation here. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And in any way, the cases of EJ and GH are different.

The state of war between Syria and Israel never ended, which makes the occupation to be legal. But I don't see how it could be stated it is not a military one, given the state of war...

Sharon Korman in The right of conquest: the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice, Oxford University Press, 1996. pg. 265 writes : "The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognized by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, on a self-defence basis. Israel, on this view, would be entitled to exact as a condition of withdrawal from the territory the imposition of security measures of an indefinite character--such as perpetual demilitarization, or the emplacement of a United Nations force--which would ensure, or tend to ensure, that the territory would not be used against it for aggression on future occasions. But the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory which it occupies, or to act beyond the strict bounds laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international community--no less by the United States than by any other state."

Pluto2012 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think people are focusing on the word military in military occupation and assuming it means something that it does not. Here is a good overview. The army need not be enforcing martial law over a territory for it to continue to be held under belligerent occupation (and yes that term is equivalent to military occupation). This should be clear from the view of the UN, the ICRC, etc. that Gaza continues to be occupied by Israel. The essential condition be that a state exercise effective military control over territory that outside of its sovereign territory.

But again, this is all ignoring the thing that we are supposed to be paying attention to, reliable sources. I do not understand why people think that their own arguments on these topics matter, mine certainly dont. What matters is what the sources say, and they say that the international community does not consider either EJ or the Golan Heights to be a part of Israel and that instead they continue to be held under occupation. That is what the article should say, and last I checked it does say that as I corrected the false comparison to the West Bank that existed when I opened this section. nableezy - 22:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Does "reliable sources" means source that supports your views ? We gave you many sources that say otherwise. I would say in fact that the UN for example is the least reliable source in the world, this is a corrupt, politicized institution. We gave you plenty of sources stating that your definition of military occupation is wrong. And here is the funny part - I just read the changes you made, you yourself differentiate between the West Bank under military occupation (in fact only Area B and C, we need to correct that) and Jerusalem and the Golan which are clearly not according to what you wrote yourself.Benjil (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, reliable source means meeting the requirements of WP:RS. You have not given me a single source saying anything, you gave a dictionary entry on a topic of international law. Reliable sources routinely say both EJ and the Golan are occupied (BBC on Golan, BBC on EJ, I can give a thousand more). As far as Area A not being occupied, thats not the view of nearly every competent body on the planet. Im sorry that reliable sources disagree with what you think, but they do. Your personal feelings on the UN are not exactly relevant to the discussion. nableezy - 19:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Area A is considered to be occupied as well. Sure they have some civil control, but they are surrounded by and ultimately subordinate to the Israeli military. It's the same reason by Gaza is considered to be under military occupation.

I think we should explain that the West Bank and Gaza are widely considered to be under military occupation, and whilst EJ and GH were considered to be under occupation from 1967, many sources now claim that these areas have been annexed.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel will never claim that East Jerusalem has been annexed, because their view is that any thought that East Jerusalem isn't already part of Israel - and hence needs to be annexed - is absurdly incorrect. Goalie1998 (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Gaza is under military occupation is beyond ridiculous and absurd. Gaza is surrounded outside of its borders. But it's just one of many ridiculous claims in this conflict. Goalie1998 I do not understand what you mean. Israel annexed Jerusalem in 1967 when the city was reunified, Israel is not saying otherwise. Benjil (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my point was that Israel does not see a separate East and West Jerusalem, just Jerusalem. It never has, and it never will. Goalie1998 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. There is also the issue of what one means by "East-Jerusalem" since it can mean three different things: the part of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967 (original meaning), all the territories beyond the green line that are part of the municipality of Jerusalem (usual international meaning), the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem (usual Israeli meaning). Benjil (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Benjil, your comments calling the views of major international law scholars and international organizations "beyond ridiculous and absurd" simply undermine your credibility. I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. Fight facts with facts, not with hyberbole. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It really does not matter if you think something is beyond ridiculous and absurd, actual experts in international law say that Gaza remains occupied as Israel continues to exercise effective military control of the territory through controlling its airspace, territorial waters and nearly all border crossings. Oncenawhile, that line is not accurate. Israel has played coy as to whether or not either of those territories are annexed, presumably to ward off serious sanctions and give the US an excuse to veto several UNSC resolutions on the matter. But regardless of that, the application of Israeli law to both those territories was condemned by the UNSC and ruled null and void, and the international community continues to consider both occupied by Israel, not a part of Israel. nableezy - 19:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, you make an important point here. If Israel has never confirmed its annexation of these territories, then they could be technically in legal limbo - neither "occupied" or "annexed". It could be this greyness which explains all the conflicting sources above.

The best thing to do here is to explain this clearly in the article. We shouldn't say it is occupied or annexed, but instead explain the complexity of the middle ground. Assuming we have high quality WP:RS which support this.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

But that kind of misses the point Im trying to make. It doesnt really matter if Israel claims to have formally annexed either EJ or the Golan. The international community regards both as occupied regardless of the Israeli stance on the issue. It isnt if Israel annexed it is not longer occupied, there are security council resolutions specifically denouncing the application of Israeli law to both those territories and holding any attempt to change the status of either as null and void. The international community considers both EJ and the Golan occupied territory, the end. Whether or not Israel claims to have annexed the territory does not have any impact on its current status under international law. nableezy - 22:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the issue may be what is international law and what actually happens sometimes are very different. International law can say that the occupation/annexation is illegal, but if the laws on the ground in Israel (local government laws, government, taxes, education, police..., unrelated to international laws ) are applied such that the territory is for all intents and purposes annexed - it doesn't really matter what organizations with no policing power say. As another example, Russia annexed Crimea which also disputed and viewed as illegal by most, but their views are irrelevant because Russia has established its rule of law. The annexation becomes nothing more than a foreign relations issue. Countries can issue sanctions, blockades, protests..., but as long as the area under question is under control of a government it is that country's territory. Short of war, there is nothing anyone can do to change it.

Now onto the heart of the matter. It is best to describe with balance and impartiality the situation on the ground in Israel. Israel is in control of the areas in question, does not view any of them as occupied, completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip.... but most of the international community believes otherwise. This is much too complex a subject to just say that the areas in question are occupied (militarily or otherwise) or not. Goalie1998 (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that Israel is in control of the territories. As far as completely withdrew from Gaza, well I'd say re-deployed its ground troops, because its forces are still in Gaza's territorial waters and it does still control its airspace. For the line but as long as the area under question is under control of a government it is that country's territory, no that simply is not true. Control does equate to title. I dont disagree with most of the last paragraph, though Id remove most and change the order as Israels position is very much a minority one. nableezy - 01:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Israeli position is not a minority one, it's the position of the main party involved. Basically you want to force the POV of one party in the article since the beginning when most of us here want the article to be balanced and impartial as noted above. The article does not have to give preference to any narrative, whether of Israel or of the "international community" (whatever this is).Benjil (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The main party. Interesting. nableezy - 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Benjil, you should stop now.

It is even less than a minority position. It is the position of the thief compared to the one of the judge... It has no weight. And this is attested by Reliable Secondary Sources (WP:RS).

As you now, WP:NPoV doesn't mean 1 minute "for the Jews and 1 minute for Hitler". Each pov is given its due:weight. And in the current case, the International Law (Security Council), reported by all 2nd sources, states these are occupied territories and not Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

- @Nableezy: Yours:"WP:OSE, so Im going to completely disregard any comparison to another Wikipedia article". Please read the link again. It is compared to the same article, which is the "Israel" article. Is it acceptable to claim in the same article that:

---- A territory is not occupied anymore since it was annexed. (e.g. China and Tibet)

---- A territory is still occupied although it was annexed. (e.g. Israel and the Golan heights)

Does it make sense? Ykantor (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

China and Tibet are not this article. Whether or not it remains occupied is not up to the Israeli government. nableezy - 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

- @Oncenawhile: Yours:"Benjil, your comments calling the views of major international law scholars and international organizations "beyond ridiculous and absurd". Unfortunately international law and justice are not necessarily identical. Did the International Court of Justice referred to:

----- The Invasion of Grenada by the U.S.A ?

----- The July 2009 Ürümqi riots in China?

----- The Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. During 1991, The Iraqi army retaliated swiftly, battering Kirkuk with artillery. ? Ykantor (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, please note that your tu quoque argument re the ICJ is by definition a logical fallacy. It is also known as whataboutism. Anyway, this is a bit of a tangent from the point. The reality here is that the legal status of the territories we are discussing are complex and grey, and we should describe them as such. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is that nobody knows any more what we are discussing about.

I suggested 5 days ago to add "occupied" in front of Golan in the lead in order to solve what I thought is the issue.

It extended its laws to the [occupied] Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the West Bank.

But what was the point at the end ? What is the concrete issue ? Pluto2012 (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding "occupied" to Golan heights and East Jerusalem isviolates NPOV - it represents a single POV on a complicated issue in wikipedia voice.“WarKosign ” 06:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly and Pluto2012 you are the one who is going to stop with your "thief" analogy that defies reason and of course neutrality. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote your views. Benjil (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Nableezy caught this one, a casual reader might in fact get the impression that E-Jer is Israel's "sovereign territory". We could amend e.g. "incorporating them into its sovereign territory" to "claiming them as Israeli territory" and then remark that also these territories are in fact (considered to be) under occupation. --Dailycare (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Benjil, how do you want to call somebody who doesn't respect the (international) law and to analyse the due:weight of the pov of this somebody in front of the (international) Law ? A North Korean ? Pluto2012 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the thing is not everybody agrees about these issues of who respect or does not respect international law. The issue has not been decided by an agreed upon tribunal, and anyway, international law is not really law, it's pure politics serving particular interests. So, once again, your opinion is just that - your opinion. Benjil (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm sorry, but thats nonsense. And again, avoids what reliable sources say. I for one will no longer entertain WP:OR masquerading for fact. Israel is not the arbiter of the status of these territories, and reliable sources overwhelmingly agree that they are occupied by Israel. Thats what counts here. nableezy - 14:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You are the one masquerading POV pushing as fact since the beginning. So you will now stop and you will not touch this article without the agreement of the others.Benjil (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Uhh no, Ive brought sources. You havent. Thats what counts here, sorry. Ive already corrected the article, I did it a long time ago. nableezy - 02:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You brought no relevant sources but the funny thing is that your changes were in perfect conformity with what I am saying and not what you say in the discussion. You seem to be very confused. Benjil (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Uhh no, to every part of that comment. The sources I brought were specific to the topic of this article. I think Im done arguing over this, so long as the article does not imply that EJ and the Golan are in Israel or that they are not occupied territory I dont have much interest in this article. nableezy - 15:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This conversation has moved well away from improving the article. No more changes have been requested. I suggest the two of you suck it up, accept that you will never agree, and move on. Goalie1998 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The original edit has been returned, it remains inaccurate. Jerusalem is not in Israel's sovereign territory, and the in contrast still makes a differentiation between the West Bank and EJ/Golan that doesnt exist according to the international community. nableezy - 19:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect the stance of the international community is well established through United Nations sources, and that stance is covered in this very section and throughout the article. Israel considers the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as part of their territory, and this position is reflected in this language, as is the international communities' position afterward.WikiMania76 (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What Israel considers is not what is. You cannot insert a minority view as though it were fact in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 18:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel that you don't understand what I meant to say, so I'll frame my point in a different manner. As per WP:IMPARTIAL, the language I have used neither endorses nor rejects any position, be it the United Nations position or Israel's position. It simply puts Israel's position out there, while maintaining that it (extending sovereignty to GH and EJ) was a unilateral undertaking; and no matter how minor you think that view is, it needs to be included. It does not matter what you think "is not what is" because having a neutral approach to all views within highly contentious articles is essential. Thank you. WikiMania76 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it absolutely does endorse one view, the use of in contrast endorses the view that the Golan and EJ are not under occupation. And it is curious that a "new" editor will restore wording exactly as it was prior to their signing up, but thats best left for another forum. nableezy - 14:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And to the point, there was consensus for this change, if you want to change it again youll need to establish a new consensus. nableezy - 14:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus for this change, but you have your own strange warped reality where your POV is fact. So I support Wikimania76, and agree with what he says. In fact he is reverting to the former text that you changed without consensus. So you are the one who needs to establish it. So I revert you. Benjil (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You agreed to it, whats wrong with you. But fine, Ill open an RFC. nableezy - 16:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"State of Palestine"

I'll let (the revert of) my edit speak for itself per WP:BRD. I know it's pointless to waste much time on this because it's already a battleground but it at least deserves a discussion. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. I have another concern - it is much too simple to talk about a land border between Israel and the Palestinian territories / State of Palestine, because (a) Israel has full unilateral control of them, unlike all the other land borders which Israel shares bilaterally (note the word "shares" in the sentences below), and (b) land border implies something very different to the reality on the ground between Israel and the West Bank. I have put the three proposals side by side below:

BATAAF PROPOSAL: It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, the State of Palestine[7] (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the east and west, respectively), Egypt to the southwest
WARKOSIGN PROPOSAL: It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip[7] to the east and west, respectively, and Egypt to the southwest.
PROPOSED MIDDLE GROUND: It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, and Egypt to the southwest, and holds a disputed relationship with the neighbouring Palestinian territories, which are partially recognised as the State of Palestine.

Thoughts? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a "WarKosign proposal", it's the previous version of the article, and unless there is a consensus for a new version it's the version that shall stay according to the policies.

Second, as long as State of Palestine doesn't control all of West Bank, it's wrong to say that Israel borders it. The state claims the territories, but while some members of the international community recognize the state and the fact that it claims the territories, they also recognize that the eventual borders will be set by negotiations. This is what all the other articles dealing with this subject say, and there is no reason to write anything different here. “WarKosign ” 11:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The State of Palestine is a legal definition of nationhood and to remove this is to considerably reduce the acadcmic and legal integreity of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge and information. The Wikipedia page State of Palestine sums this up nicely. Sakimonk^talk 19:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Also please see: this article http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121129 and this one http://www.3news.co.nz/world/live-stream-palestine-asks-united-nations-for-a-birth-certificate-ahead-of-vote-2012113010#ixzz345WDjipj Sakimonk^talk 18:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You are missing a crucial point: State of Palestine is a de-jure entity without any lands. It claims the whole West Bank and Gaza, and in reality it controls small portions of these lands. Even those who recognize this state, do not recognize that it will actually control all this land, so saying that Israel borders the State of Palestine is factually incorrect and contradicts the sources. Israel does border the West Bank and Gaza and these lands are often called Palestinian Territories, and this is exactly what the article says, backed up by sources. “WarKosign ” 09:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How about saying: "Israel neighbours the declared borders of the State of Palestine." Oncenawhile (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Or my proposal above "and holds a disputed relationship with the neighbouring Palestinian territories, which are partially recognised as the State of Palestine".

I presume you agree that both of these statements are factually correct, and of top level notability. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

See State of Palestine#Declaration of Independence (1988): "The borders of the declared State of Palestine were not specified". This invalidates the first version.

I don't know what the second version means. How does one hold relationship with a piece of land ?

I think it's best to keep "... the Palestinian territories comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the east and west, respectively" since this is a simple geographical fact. We can add that these territories are claimed by the state of Palestine. I'm not sure how to phrase these two statements so they would fit with the rest of the text. Would "... the Palestinian territories (which are claimed by the State of Palestine) comprising the ..." work ? “WarKosign ” 20:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a sensible compromise. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

On this basis, and to incorporate other points raised above, does the following work:

It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, and Egypt to the southwest. It also neighbours and partially controls the Palestinian territories, which are claimed by the State of Palestine.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This is correct, however it removes the facts that the territories consist of West Bank and Gaza, and that they are located to east and southwest of Israel. It's a problem of trying to fit too much information into a single, already overly complicated, sentence. “WarKosign ” 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. I agree we should keep the east and southwest points, as it fits the descriptive tone. But specifically naming the two parts of the PT seems unnecessary detail. How about:

It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, and Egypt to the southwest, and neighbours and partially controls the Palestinian territories which are situated to its east and southwest and are claimed by the State of Palestine.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging: @WarKosign:@Prinsgezinde:@Sakimonk: for comment. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your version obscures the fact that West Bank and Gaza are two isolated pieces of land bordering Israel from two different sides. It is obvious for anyone looking at the map, but the prose should be conveying its meaning without visual aids.

How about keeping the existing sentence and adding the partially controlled bit in the comment ? "It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories (which are claimed by the State of Palestine and are partially controlled by Israel) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the east and west, respectively, and Egypt to the southwest." ? “WarKosign ” 07:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My opinions on this are not very strong either way, but just to be clear - isn't Gaza entirely governed by Palestine (Hamas)? Regardless of their legality and any of our opinions on their governance, this would mean that Gaza is de facto and de jure "Palestine", no? I know it's not all that simple, but we could always specify that the Gaza region is an enclave with Egypt that falls under the State of Palestine. The West bank, on the other hand, is partially controlled by Israel but claimed by the State of Palestine. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No - see note 4 at: Gaza_Strip#cite_note-occ-4, which explains the continuing areas of control. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Some consistency, please?

When I google "Capital of Israel" I get a box from Wikipedia stating that it's Jerusalem. When I google "Capital of Palestine" I get two little boxes from Wikipedia that say Ramallah and East Jerusalem.

I propose that the information for Israel's capital be changed to "Western Jerusalem", or "Jerusalem (proclaimed)", or something of the sort. It's simply not factually correct to say that Jerusalem as a whole is Israel's capital, it's not recognized as such. 80.6.70.42 (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like your complaint is with Google, not Wikipedia. The "infobox" at the top right of this article says that Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel. The article's first paragraph describes Jerusalem as Israel's "designated capital and the most populous individual city under the country's governmental administration" but the next sentence says "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed."

By comparison, our article about the State of Palestine says in its infobox that its proclaimed capital is "Jerusalem (East)" and the first paragraph describes Jerusalem as Palestine's "designated capital". The two articles aren't equivalent, but neither is the situation in Israel and Palestine. I think we've done a pretty good job of staying neutral. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Ramallah (originally far into the original UN designated area for an Arab state) and East Jerusalem (in the UN designated area for an international city) are both to the East of the Green Line. West Jerusalem (also in the UN designated area for an international city) is to the West of the Green Line. All claims to Jerusalem are questionable but Zionist claim to East Jerusalem seems to me to be the least justified of all. template presentation of Jerusalem as being the Largest city in Israel, even with the "this is disputed" footnote remains, to my mind, a travesty of truth and a product of pov pushing Wikipedians. International governments do not accept the West Bank as being in Israel and the UN has declared "Jerusalem Law" as null and void. The article remains tainted with spin and bias. Greg Kaye 18:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't see why the 1947 UN plan should have any relevance since it was rejected by the Arabs and never implemented and is null and void. None of the parties is asking for its application today. Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel today, it is just a fact, not a claim and your personal opinion does not really count. East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, is part of the State of Israel de facto (and de jure in Israeli law), and this annexation is disputed. These are the facts and we should stick to them. Benjil (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"(and de jure in Israeli law)"

That's what I'm talking about. Most Arabs don't even think Israel exists, but we don't indulge their personal opinions. Why would we, as an intellectual body, care whether the party that has annexed Jerusalem thinks it's justified. It is NOT de jure according to international law and this should be reflected in the Wikipedia article, not some petty PC POV pushing. If Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital... then it's not recognized as Israel's capital. This is the fact that we should stick to, not some primitive brutish "de facto" view. 80.6.70.42 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This shouldn't be an article based on conjecture. Israeli POV is Jerusalem is the capital, the entire international community doesn't recognise this as being the case except two states. Hence I believe that a two tier definition should be utilised; UN recognised capital Tel aviv and the self-designated capital jerusalem. This is a compromise that is both factually correct and respectful for both parties. Sakimonk^talk 16:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't decide that Tel Aviv is the capital and add it to the article just because you feel like it, you need sources. Meanwhile, sources says that Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel. “WarKosign ” 17:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, Jerusalem certainly is not the capital of Israel under any circumstances. Putting as the "disputed" captial gives some merit to the claim when in fact every single sovreign nation in the world bar two has rejected this claim. The poltiical capital is in fact Tel aviv as every foregin nation's embassay is situated there except a few in Ramat Gan or Herzliya. As I've said the compromise appeases the totally baseless claim of israel as Jerusalem as its capital and the reality of Tel aviv as its capital. Sakimonk^talk 17:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter where in your opinion Israel's capital is. Tel Aviv is not the capital and nobody (apparently except you) claims that it is. Israel does claim that Jerusalem is its capital, this claim is not universally accepted, and this is what the word "disputed" means. See Capital city - it says nothing about UN resolutions or location of embassies as a criteria for a certain city being a capital. It does say "...usually as its seat of government. A capital is typically a city that physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of its respective government", which is true for Jerusalem. Note that applying these (or any other) criteria is WP:OR and can't be used in the article anyway, we only report what the sources say. “WarKosign ” 17:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, The Washington Post, BBC worldserive, CNN and the Wall Street Journal all refer to Tel Aviv as the capital. The UNSC 478 resolution rejected the move from Tel aviv to Jerusalem hence according to the United Nations tel aviv REMAINS as the recognised capital. I cited the resolution AND an article by Rabbi Shraga Simmons discussing this. Sakimonk^talk 17:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you're calling WP:OR on using the national media's position as a source? Are you being serious? Or by me directly souricng the UNC resolution this is OR? No I don't think so. Actually you are violating regulations on WP:POV due to taking the stance of israel. I can claim the moon is my home and you're going to write Sakimonk's home is the moon (disputed) no you're not. Similarly the entire world doesn't recognise Israel's claim of Jerusalem and hence WP doesn't. Sakimonk^talk 18:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you say, only what the sources matter. You provided 3 sources that explicitly contradict your claim:

"This has created a situation whereby politicians, the media, and the world at large routinely ignore the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel".
"Some, especially in the mainstream media, pretend that not Jerusalem but Tel Aviv serves as the capital of Israel."
"The British Guardian newspaper on Wednesday acknowledged it was wrong to call Tel Aviv Israel’s capital".

While I wouldn't call any of these sources a particularly good one for such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, at least they should be supporting and not contradicting it. Please stop pushing this baseless claim, or I will have to report you on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also please avoid violating WP:1RR. You need to gain consensus for changes that you propose and not try to force them into the article. “WarKosign ” 10:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that by presenting it as Jerusalem (Disputed) that implicitly supports the view that Jerusalem is the Capital because it gives that view primacy. I'm sure the people arguing for Jerusalem to be listed as the capital would be equally put out if it listed Tel Aviv (disputed) there instead. I've looked at the only other roughly comparable situation that pops to mind which is ISIS/ISIL. I know the comparison stinks, but off hand what other states don't have their Capital recognised by the entire international community? In the wikipedia article for them is lists what would normally be the Capital City as the Administrative Centre. I think this would be suitable here. There can be no dispute over that being the case while on the other hand the debate over the capital City being Jerusalem depends on whether you give primacy to the Government of Israel as the occupiers or the rest of the countries of the world, the Palestinians and international law.

There doesn't seem to be any naming convention in place for this at the moment and personally I'd give primacy to the Tel Aviv if we have to decide. Israel is a member of the UNSC so has agreed that the instructions of the UNSC on it are legally binding and override its own laws and as per UNSC 478 the Security Council does not accept the annexation. If we can't agree with that though, Administrative Centre seems like a fair solution. It is not biased, it does not give primacy to one side of the debate by only giving one option and mentioning in subtext that it's disputed, it is consistent with the only other vaguely relevant Wikipedia article and it can easily be agreed to be truthful and accurate by all sides. --OverheadS (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any source saying that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital ? Some sources say that Jerusalem's status as a capital is disputed and that many embassies are located in Tel Aviv or other cities, but as far as I know nobody ever claimed Tel Aviv is the capital. “WarKosign ” 17:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Israelis did actually claim Tel Aviv as their Capital themselves before they moved it to Jerusalem though. You do have a point though, although countries treat Tel Aviv as the capital they don't say it as a matter of politic. You can find sources which state that is what countries are doing but the countries don't say it themselves. Still, even if you don't agree with putting it as Tel Aviv, using 'administrative centre' seems like a fair Gordian knot style solution to the problem and the only one that meets Wikipedia's criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverheadS (talk • contribs) 10:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear definition of what makes a city a capital and "recognition by the international community" is not part of it. Jerusalem is the seat of the government therefore it is the capital of Israel. Tel Aviv is not and the international community has absolutely no say in this. The issue is the recognition of part or whole of Jerusalem as Israeli territory, not it being Israel's capital, because, it is, as a fact. Tel Aviv is just another city. {{Benjil (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This clear definition is where? If anything the only clear and overriding statement on the issue is from UNSC 478: "Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;". It is literally against international law for Jerusalem to be the capital and by joining the UN Israel has agreed to abide by such UNSC resolutions, allowing them to take precedence over its own laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverheadS (talk • contribs) 10:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The clear definition in any dictionary. The international law has nothing to do with defining where a capital is. The resolution is about the annexion of East Jerusalem not about the city being Israel's capital.Benjil (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OverheadS, the United Nations does not recognize the imaginary State of Palestine. By your logic, Wikipedia should not have an article on the non existent so-called State of Palestine.--Avner Kushner (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The capital issue was the subject of a major RFC exercise instituted by the arbitration committee, the procedure and resolution can be looked up here. In a nutshell, it is not neutral to refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital without presenting the issue as a claim that is not recognized. Further, the Palestinians also claim Jerusalem as their capital, and in fact have more international recognition for their claim than Israel does for it's. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

International recognition about a capital claim is absolutely irrelevant since the only criteria to design a capital is that it is the seat of government. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it is not the capital of Palestine. But I agree that the article has to present the facts that there is another claim and an international debate.Benjil (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

so according to you Mosul really is the capital of ISIL. their seat of government is there after all... Sakimonk^talk 19:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If ISIS is a real State and Mosul is the seat of the government and they say that Mosul is the capital, yes. Benjil (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Avner Kushner, you're a little out of touch? The UN recognised The State of Palestine as an observer state 3 years ago... Sakimonk^talk 22:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a very interesting example that illustrates exactly what we are speaking about. There is an entity called "State of Palestine" that is recognized by over 150 countries in the world, UNESCO and a few other organizations. Yet we are still hearing about the "Peace Process" between Israelis and Palestinians that supposedly should lead to the creation of a Palestinian State, meaning that there is no Palestinian State today and no "State of Palestine". This State is a purely virtual construction exactly like most "international community" talks. Presenting this virtual reality on en equal footing with the "real" reality is at best a distortion of the truth and probably worse. Benjil (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hundreds of countries don't recognize Israel and correctly refer to it as occupied Palestine. If ISIS is not recognized as a state, I see no reason to recognize Israel, which is a far less legitimate, colonial entity with an expiry date.--ChahatKi (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Peace process will continue until occupation ends, and foreign settlers are expelled from all parts of Palestine.--ChahatKi (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Palestinian" means "foreign invador", so your trolling may mean exactly the opposite of what you intended. “WarKosign ” 09:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Benjil, just those kind of arguments were discussed at length in the RFC to which I provided the link. You'd do well to familiarize yourself with that and the outcome. Individual editors can't decide content, but consensus has to be built concerning correct application of wiki policies and relevant sources. --Dailycare (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Language section

"English was an official language in Israel during the British rule and after the creation of Israel the status droped out but the language remained De-Facto official language as may seen in road signes and official documents."

Even without the typos, this is an awkward sentence. Could someone with access to the article please clean it up a bit? 75.90.0.148 (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome to point out the typos and suggest a better sentence. “WarKosign ” 20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Report that "Israel plans to demolish 17,000 Arab buildings in West Bank, UN says"

The report makes this claim. How does this type of activity fit in with the self governance within the West Bank? How would this type of information be best presented in the article? Greg Kaye 06:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC) link correction. ty Kingsindian for the correction below. Greg Kaye 21:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a single word about Israel or West Bank in this article. “WarKosign ” 07:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the link GregKaye wanted to talk about is this. This might be worth including in the Israeli Civil Administration article, among other places. Actually, I have plans (not sure how soon I will be able to fulfill them, someone else is welcome to do it first), to write an article about Area C. A couple of sources are this and this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)