Talk:Israel/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 → Archive 60

RFC on occupied territories

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus in this discussion. The viewpoints are evenly split and good arguments are presented on both sides of the debate.AlbinoFerret 01:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

At issue is the change in this diff, specifically the inclusion of unilaterally incorporating them into its sovereign territory and the in contrast when referencing the West Bank as opposed to the Golan and East Jerusalem

  • Proponents of removing those two lines argue that sovereignty is not recognized by the international community for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and in fact has been specifically rejected (United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 for East Jerusalem and United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 for the Golan Heights) and that the in contrast implies that while the West Bank is held under military occupation neither East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights are. That is an extreme minority position among reliable sources and the international community as there is wide consensus among sources and the international community that both the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are occupied by Israel and not in Israel and that the term military occupation does not mean martial law is imposed but rather that Israel exercises effective military control over territory outside its borders.
  • Opponents of removing those two lines argue that those territories are in Israel and that the territories are no longer militarily occupies the territory because they are not under military rule.

Nableezy 16:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • As discussed above, using this language promotes the minority view that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are not occupied by Israel, a view repudiated by the international community and by an overwhelming majority of scholarly sources. This violates WP:NPOV, and as such those phrases should be removed. That Israel says they are no longer occupied or that they are in Israel does not mean that they are or that Wikipedia should promote that view over the countless reliable sources that emphatically say that they are occupied and not in Israel. In sum, remove both phrases. nableezy - 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove both - Per nom. Frankly, this strikes me as mostly a non-issue as I'm finding it challenging to see how the "language promotes the minority view that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are not occupied by Israel". This seems like hyper-fixation on semantics. But then, I guess this is what one should expect from IP issues....... sigh. NickCT (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment RfCs are supposed to be worded neutrally, which is not the case. It is evident by the room allocated to representation of the proponents vs opponents POV. In fact, the opinion that the territories are not occupied but rather annexed is well supported by endless sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Positions on Jerusalem is a complicated matter that has a dedicated article describing the different POVs.
This comment is very strange. Not "occupied" but rather "annexed"? Annexation is roughly permanent occupation, to the extent of incorporating territory. If a state only temporarily occupies another territory, it is called "occupation". If it permanently incorporates that territory, it is called "annexation". One cannot have annexation without occupation. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
So annexation is a form of occupation ? Then why does the lead say "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times." ? There are earlier (and therefore longer) cases of Annexation. “WarKosign” 11:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Include, per WP:NPOV. There are several POVs and wikipedia's policy is to describe the different positions rather than choosing the "correct" one. Of course, as per NPOV, the opinion that the territories are occupied should be represented as well. “WarKosign” 08:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It isnt being included as a "POV", it is included in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. A fact that is in actuality a minority POV. As far as "neutrally worded", I included all the arguments listed in the section above. And you should probably read over your sources, the Guardian says Israel's annexation in all but name. And the CIA World Factbook which you oddly reference to support the notion the Golan is annexed both does not include the Golan in its map of Israel and flat out says Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied. And the NYTimes likewise calls it occupied. As does the Guardian. As does the BBC. As does the Washington Post. And as do nearly every scholarly source out there. There are countless sources that demonstrate the overwhelming majority view that those territories remain occupied by Israel, and you can see those at Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. nableezy - 15:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's see what you missed in each of these sources:
  • the Guardian: "Israel's annexation in all but name of the Golan Heights..." means that Israel annexed the Golan Heights without saying so explicitly. Indeed, Golan Heights Law did not use the word annexation but it is what it actually did.
  • I quoted CIA world factbook for the fact that Jersualem is the capital of Israel (no mention of east or west)
  • NY times: "Golan Heights formally became part of Israel today"
  • BBC: "Israel captured the whole of Jerusalem in 1967 and extended the city's municipal boundaries, putting both East and West Jerusalem under its sovereignty and civil law"
Certainly there are plenty of sources that call these territories occupied, and it is a fact that they are often considered occupied. As I demonstrated (and you chose to ignore, again) there are plenty of sources saying that Israel annexed the territories, and they are a part of Israel for any purpose except international law, and it is also a fact that has to be represented in the article. I see no problem in mentioning both facts in wikipedia voice. “WarKosign” 07:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
in all but name means not formally. And besides, that doesnt even matter, Israel doesnt have the only say in the matter. As for NYTimes, Ive given you more recent sources from that say that the Golan remains occupied, and the same for BBC, and it is trivial to bring more from them on EJ. There are some sources that do not call it occupied territory, however the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do, and it is widely accepted neither of these territories are a part of Israel or in its sovereign territory .nableezy - 18:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Include, this is just a factual description of the reality, as it should be, it does not promote anything. Benjil (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove both per Nableezy. This sets up a false dichotomy between the West Bank and Golan/East Jerusalem, where both are occupied. I hope that is not in doubt. One can easily provide sources attesting to this. I would add that the subsequent line about Gaza also does not make it clear that Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza even after withdrawal of troops, but that is a matter for another time. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There is dichotomy: Golan and East Jerusalem were declared annexed while West Bank was not. While the legality of the annexation is not internationally accepted, you can't argue that it had a profound effect on the annexed population and on how Israel handles each territory. “WarKosign” 15:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That isnt as cut and dry as you claim it to be, see for example here. nableezy - 18:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
It is as cut and dry. Just board a plane and see for yourself, you do not need "sources" to see with your own eyes I hope. Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are not separated at all from the Israeli territory and dealt as if they were part of it. The West Bank is not dealt the same way. You need to pass a checkpoint to enter (or exit, it depends) the West Bank, not East-Jerusalem, not the Golan Heights. Israeli laws regulate these territories, Israeli police and tribunals are in charge of the law, not the army or a special force, Israeli citizens an residents live there, not non-Israelis. So obviously the status of these two territories is very different from the status of the West Bank, and saying otherwise would be a lie and political propaganda. Benjil (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid the status of territories under international law does not depend on WP editors claiming something is obvious, otherwise international law lawyers would be out of a job. Whatever Israel chooses to do with different territories under occupation does not change the status of all of them as occupied. That should be made clear and not false dichotomies drawn like this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The status of these territories is disputed, the annexions not recognized by most countries, meaning, they think Israel had no right annexing them, not meaning that Israel did not annex them. Do you understand the difference ? By the way, this has nothing to do with real law, this is just politics. If a country would decide it is his interest to accept the Israeli annexion then he would accept it and that's all. Now Wikipedia is not a tribunal of international public law, and does not decide what is legal or not, but states the facts in a neutral manner. Your own opinion is just your own opinion. Benjil (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The status that wikipedia reports is the status of the Law, not the claims of the thief.
These territories are occupied and settled unlegaly. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell everybody agrees that the status of the territories under international law is occupied and it should be stated. The question is whether we should conceal the equally undisputable fact that the territory has been declared as annexed by Israel and is administered as part of Israel. “WarKosign” 10:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
We must absoluteny not hide the undiputable fact that the territory has been delcared as annexed by Israel. That's is not the question. When this precision is undue (because we don't have to explain this at each line) we have to talk about occupied territories and we should not refer them as part of Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove, per WP:NPoV and WP:Undue. The position of the International Law and the whole international community have much more weight than the one of the Israeli governement. Giving the same weight to both these points of view is equivalent to giving the same weight to a Tribunal and a burglar. The sources are very clear and some make references to the Israeli interpretation:
    Yoram Dinstein (en), The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, Oxford University Press, p.20 writes : "But, even if the annexationist interpretation of the Israeli domestic legislation is correct, this would have no impact on the status of the Golan Heights persuant to international law. In Resolution 497 (1981), the Security Council determined that 'the Israeli decision to impose its law, jurisdiction and administation in the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect."
    Pluto2012 (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said that that the annexation had international legal effect. You are, however, pretending that since it's considered illegal it isn't real. By the same logic, other wikipedia articles should say that no law violation ever occurred anywhere in the world and certainly did not affect anyone. “WarKosign” 14:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say and don't pretent that it is not real. It is illegal that's all.
If somebody steals your car (it is illegal); then claims it is his car ; but then a Court states it is not, then nobody would give both points of view with the same weight -> it is your car and it was stolen. One time we can explain that the thief claimed that the car was his car but no more than once, with huge details if required.
The Golan Heights are Syrian occupied territories and should be talked about as such. One time we can explain that Israel annexed them and that under their Law these are theirs. That's not an issue to do this once in full details.
Yoram Dinstein (en), The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, Oxford University Press, p.20 writes : "But, even if the annexationist interpretation of the Israeli domestic legislation is correct, this would have no impact on the status of the Golan Heights persuant to international law. In Resolution 497 (1981), the Security Council determined that 'the Israeli decision to impose its law, jurisdiction and administation in the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect."
But each time we refer to Golan Heights we just talk about Syrian occupied territories. It would be wp:undue to remind each time that Israel behave like a rogue state in front of international Law and keep claiming that these territories are Israeli or illegally disputed (such as your stolen car will never be the one of the thief and it would not reflect reality to dispute this).
Pluto2012 (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You keep using the stolen car analogy which doesn't work. With modern vehicle registration physical possession of the car doesn't matter as long as it remains registered with the original owner. Ownership of lands, however, regularly changes as a result of armed conflict. The fact that many states consider annexation of Golan and East Jerusalem illegal must be noted, but you can't discard the reality only because it's illegal. For any practical purpose Golan is part of Israel, and saying that it's part of Syria is misrepresentation of reality and sources. “WarKosign” 12:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I repeat: Is it acceptable to claim in the same article that:
----It was annexed. Hence the territory is not occupied anymore (e.g. China and Tibet)
----It was annexed. But the territory is still occupied (e.g. Israel and the Golan heights)
- One can not approve and reject at the same time. It is claimed in this talkpage 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) 18:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: To Ykantor's point, I've been thinking about this apparent contradiction in WP:RS for a while, and finally have an answer. It is the difference between de facto occupied / annexed and de jure occupied / annexed. The WB and GS are de facto occupied, whereas the GH and EJ are de facto annexed but de jure occupied (per international law). The international law situation re Tibet is less clear, but Tibet is de facto annexed (all its citizens are Chinese citizens). Oncenawhile (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
And yet the lead contains the phrase "Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times". East Jerusalem is de-facto annexed, similarly to Tibet, and Tibet is in this state for far longer, so it is factually incorrect to call EJ "world's longest military occupation".“WarKosign” 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, we tried to figure this out in the #Occupied territories thread above, but it petered out. The nuance seems to be that Israel has not officially annexed EJ, whereas China has officially annexed Tibet.
My view of all of this is the "world's longest military occupation" point is a top level notable fact in which the length is the notable piece, not the exact territories, so we can remove EJ from there without really impacting the meaning. As to the broader description of WB, GS, EJ and GH, this needs to be nuanced in the article to reflect the complexity and diversity of opinion expressed in these discussions, for each of these four territories. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove both as per nableezy. Khestwol (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove both per Nableezy and NickCT. The wording may indeed give the impression the annexation is a "done deal", whereas sources in fact say the opposite and emphasize that the annexations are disputed internationally. One fix would be to say "claimed as its territory" instead, which would be gentler than removing. --Dailycare (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Include - per NPOV; maybe rephrase to show that the annexation in unilateral and not recognized by most international community.GreyShark (dibra) 06:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain both I think every editor here is almost certainly well aware of the history of the land involved in the extant article, and in the history of the countries involved, so this should be a no-brainer. The Israeli terrorist State and the United States is undeniably holding a military occupation against the people of Palestein, and the extant article should be remis to even remotely suggest that stark reality be ignored just because Isreal and the U.S. have the military power to avoid having their occupation overthrown. Much like Putin's invasion and military occupation of the Ukraine, let's persist in calling military occupations what they are and not cave in to public relations propaganda. Damotclese (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ive restored the edit under discussion here, seems to be a fairly clear majority in favor of the change. nableezy - 20:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep both, modify the first: the NGO section is terse and important. The UN section is also important, but I would change "Israel has a track record of United Nations violations" to something possibly less confrontational, like "The United Nations have passed resolutions declaring Israel to be in breach of UN accords, mostly citing rights violations against the Palestinians," or something similar. -Darouet (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have reverted the edit made by Nableezy for two reasons. One is that it is a fact that East Jerusalem has been incorporated into Israel's sovereign territory; it was absorbed into the Jerusalem Municipality and is run completely by Israel. This is a fact and it needs to be conveyed. The same applies to the Golan Heights vis a vis the Northern District. Two is that there has not been a clear majority view in favor of changing the agreed upon consensus. However, as per the suggestions made by Darouet, GreyShark and Dailycare, I have added more wording that stresses that those moves are not without international dispute and arguable legality. I feel this is a more appropriate middle-of-the-road approach.WikiMania76 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely not, there is a clear majority as anybody can look at the above discussion. And second, no, East Jerusalem is not in Israel's sovereign territory. We had an RFC on this, and guess what, your favored phrasing was rejected by the majority of users. nableezy - 14:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and the idea that the change you originally made was the "agreed upon consensus" is laughable. It was challenged a day later, and you have every once in a while come back to restore it without ever having consensus for it. nableezy - 14:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
You're not being helpful, you're only pushing your pov on the article. I don't care if you think east Jerusalem isn't controlled by Israel; this is an encyclopedia, not your own personal blog. I don't appreciate the tone you've taken throughout your edits on this section.WikiMania76 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I am being helpful, I am helpfully preventing the misrepresentation of facts in an encyclopedia article. Nobody said East Jerusalem is not controlled by Israel, I said it is not in its sovereign territory. I'll be reporting the 1rr violation, another part of being helpful. nableezy - 16:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@WikiMania76: I do not agree with Nableezy, but you're in violation of WP:1RR here. You should self-revert for now. It doesn't matter too much what the article says at the moment, let the RfC finish and it will determine what the stable version will say. “WarKosign” 17:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Thank you, I've done just that.WikiMania76 (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The RFC been finished, the bot removed the tag a while ago, it lasted 30 days. And, as a point of fact, there was never consensus for inclusion of that material to begin with. And including it is a straightforward violation of WP:NPOV, you have us presenting as fact that East Jerusalem is in Israel's sovereign territory, which is a perfectly valid statement if it were attributed to the Israeli government, however saying it in Wikipedia's narrative voice is giving it the imprimatur of Wikipedia as undisputed fact, where it is in fact a minority opinion that EJ is part of Israel and not occupied Palestinian territory. nableezy - 17:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
RfC tag has been removed, the RfC hasn't been closed. It is a sensitive issue and seems like quite a close call, so it is not a good candidate for non-admin closure, and certainly not by one of the involved editors and especially not by the nominator. Your made your position quite clear, it doesn't become any more correct by repeating it over and over again. Of course the annexation is considered illegal, it doesn't mean the territory wasn't annexed. “WarKosign” 20:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The fact that the de jure and de facto positions differ doesn't mean the latter shouldn't be described. Genocide is illegal under international law, but we shouldn't use that as a pretext for describing its consequences. We should the situation here similarly to the way we handle Crimea and Tibet (and probably the way we'll need to treat the Chinese artificial island situation as that develops), and the disputed text does that better. There's like room for significant improvement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem with that is that the text is making a statement on the de jure status of the territory, that it is within Israel's sovereign territory. And the statement that it is making is a minority view. That is apparent to anybody who does even a cursory look through the vast majority of sources. The de facto status of the territory is administered by Israel as though it were a part of Israel. Saying, in Wikipedia's voice, however that occupied territory is now incorporated in to Israel's sovereign territory goes well beyond that into taking a minority position on the de jure status and presenting it as a fact. nableezy - 04:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, the strawman about not describing the de facto situation is kind of quickly knocked down in the article. The next paragraph of the text says The status of East Jerusalem in any future peace settlement has at times been a difficult issue in negotiations between Israeli governments and representatives of the Palestinians, as Israel views it as its sovereign territory. nableezy - 04:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is left out by saying that Israel treats it like it is its territory while it isn't recognized by the international community as that. Saying it is Israel's territory, as the former wording did, is another thing and can't be concealed by saying it is the "de facto situation".
Your comparison is not good. This occupation is nearly 50 years old and therefore a bigger consensus has been built up (the occupation of Crimea is 1,5 year old), in addition to there being more countries supporting this view and more importantly: UNSC resolutions. Tibet is not viewed as occupied (and neither is Jaffa or Shefa-'Amr for you who think this is double standard). --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose the phrase "unilaterally incorporating them into its sovereign territory" is ridiculously POV and it is shameful, IMO, that this is even being discussed. This is not a done and dusted actuality. Everything beyond lands allocated in the partition plan have been occupied. Israel has no right to Golan and East Jerusalem and they are occupied territories. No negotiations have resulted in agreement and, prior to peaceful settlement of the dispute, we cannot state situations that don't exist. It is not sovereign and before agreement is reached there is nothing here that either side can bank on. GregKaye 18:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The partition plan was never implemented, that's not a basis to go by.WikiMania76 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
A partition plan was proposed within the context of the UN and it provided as a basis for both sides to go on. GregKaye 06:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The partition plan was rejected by the Arabs 68 years ago. It is absolutely irrelevant to the situation today, and in fact has been irrelevant since one of the parties rejected it. This is no basis for nothing and nobody even speaks about it but you. Benjil (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "A partition plan was proposed within the context of the UN and it provided as a basis for both sides to go on." It is the only documentation that has had wide international agreement. All other developments have progressed as a result of military advancement. On what point am I wrong? GregKaye 06:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
UN passed a resolution proposing a partition plan. The plan was rejected. It is no longer relevant. “WarKosign” 07:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blanking of section "Israel's Standing with the United Nations and International Community" by user:Ykantor

Hi user:Ykantor, you removed the entire section which was referenced and placed appropriately in the Politics section of the Israel article. This section is necessary and directs readers to the extensive section in Wikipedia covering the UN violations by the state of Isreal of which the reader is in fact READING about.

Your objection to this section was given as "douse such a paragraph exists in other Country's articles?" this is an unacademic and unobjective stance to take and it is based on your farcical argument of "other country's" not having this. For your information, if other countries were to perform a series of UN resolutions violations (like israel has and continues to do so) this WOULD in fact definately be documented in their wikipedia page. This is a significant aspect of the state of Isreal, that it has persistently violated the UN resolutions since its inception. It is a small section that directs the reader to the full article. It is not biased and it is fully sourced. Sakimonk talk 18:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You created a new section. Your edit was reverted (challenged). Per WP:BRD, you do not re-instate your edit without gaining a consensus on the talk page, something which you failed to do. I agree with Ykantor that this section, at least the way it was written, is unbalanced and does not belong in a wikipedia article. “WarKosign” 21:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
-@Sakimonk:I repeat: Sorry, but you are not aware of Wikipedia rules. Will you please have a look at wp:bb :"Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said, "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity."[1] Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war....If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes" So, please WP:Assume good faith on my part, undoing your edit, and discuss it in the talk page. thanks Ykantor (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

These are pov cherry-picked details of conflicts and relations that can go in their own related articles.--JudgeJason (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm afraid both "sides" focus on the wrong aspect. WarKosign and Ykantor are perfectly right concerning WP:BRD. But WP:BRD cannot be invoked to WP:OWN a page without any further arguments. Neither of the users have presented any. Nor has Sakimonk presented any arguments for the inclusion. I would encourage all users to present the relevant arguments, instead of reverting and calling out others for reverting. Jeppiz (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously nobody OWNs the article and BRD cannot be used as pretext for not letting an editor to add material that meets wikipedia policies.
I believe that this addition does not match this criteria. Telaviv1 reverted it with the comment "Blatant POV + poorly written and contains misleading information.", Makeandtoss decided to reinstante the edit without any discussion contrary to WP:BRD, so I undid it. Maybe I would've used different words than Telaviv1 but I agree with the gist of it, and apparently so do several other editors. WP:ONUS is on the editor making the bold edit to convince others that the addition is worthy. “WarKosign” 20:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jeppiz, Ykantor and WarKosign; I believe a section discussing Israel's place in the international community is very apt and very much needed as there have been a historically significant series of United Nations resolutions and Amnesty International reports issued regarding this nation state. Moreover, this is a very current issue wrt to the Gaza siege of 2014 with AI's very detailed investigation. I think totally ignoring this is disingenuous and doesn't create an informative article. Perhaps there may be NPOV issues with what I've personally written but wikipedia isn't about one person's viewpoint! You are ALLL more than welcome to balance it out, and please do! If you're able to find anything "positive" coming from the UN or other international bodies that is. Deleting it and removing it under the pretext of saying it isn't balanced isn't the right thing to do. Secondly, saying that there are OTHER articles on wikipedia that satisfy this need is a farcical argument. An anology would be Richard Nixon, say we have his biographical article that is nicely fleshed out and so on... then we have another seperate article discussing the watergate scandal... and nothing on this on the Nixon article itself... This would be a very poor article indeed and unfair on the reader. Isn't it fair on the reader to actually have a section on the Nixon article briefly discussing this and POINTING OUT THE READER to further reading (as I have done with Israel and the UN)? As I've said please include my edit but you're more than welcome to correct for WP:NPOV. Sakimonk talk 00:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


I've incorperated the bare essential points from the previous text without violating WP:NPOV. These are necesary edits but need to be fleshed out. Sakimonk talk 00:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you please explain how in your opinion the edit doesn't violate WP:NPOV ? It represents a single point of view (that Israel committed war crimes and regularly violates international law) without giving any room to opposing opinions (that Israel keeps the international law more than any other country in similar situation and that most of the criticism directed at it is a result of political maneuvers). “WarKosign” 07:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright I'm going to get the viewpoints of other editors on this matter so please bear with me. Sakimonk talk 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


I am raising this this diff as a matter for urgent input regarding the Israel article.

  • As an aspect of the nation of Israel I believe that the significant number of UN resolutions (they've issued 232 resolutions with respect to Israel since 2003, representing 40% of all resolutions issued by the UN over the period) should be at least briefly mentioned under the politics subheading however this is being opposed as violating WP:NPOV. This isn't a matter of NPOV this is simply a matter of fact and it is unfair on the reader to not at least mention this and provide the See also tag which directs the reader to the actual articles that deal with this issue. Some readers on wikipedia might only visit the Israel page looking for what NGOs or the UN have done regarding the actions of the state which we all see in the news. By constantly suppressing this information I believe opponents to this edit are violating the guidelines of wikipedia because they're literally concealing information regarding a subject which is fully sourced simply because they don't like what the facts are. I've said multiple times that they can add whatever they want to it to "balance" it out but blanking the text and removing the edit it is a shockingly poor attitude to take. Sakimonk talk 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sakimonk talk 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

POV should always be blanked. (Personal attack removed) Misdemenor (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the issue. Nobody said that Israel-UN relations should not be mentioned. The text that you tried to push several times did not attempt to describe the situation in a neutral manner, instead it made of point of making it obviously clear that all the resolutions were justified and that Israel was guilty of terrible crimes against humanity. The reality is not as simple is that, there is an article dedicated to the subject.

Also, please do not remove comments of other editors from the talk page only because they happen to disagree with you. “WarKosign” 07:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol, I'm not removing it because he "disagrees" with me, the guy has just been bugging me and following my edits but he has calmed down now. He isn't actually involved in this discussion at all. Anyway, since you say that I am going to incorperate it in the most neutral way I can imagine. Sakimonk talk 22:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement "Israel has a track record of United Nations violations", sourced to an original research compilation of UN resolutions against Israel is hardly NPOV. At most you can state that there have been xxx number of resolutions against Israel, alongside a balancing sentence that says Israel and its supporters view this as proof of the systemic bias in the UN against Israel. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Here come the Suns, here's my view on the situation 1. as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I'm entitled to make the edit as per the talk (which you weren't involved in) 2.The The Security Council report - this is not WP:OR as this is an officially published document 3. The phrase "track record" is may not be in line with WP:NPOV So I've listed them as you've said. I also included a balanced statement. Thank you for your much needed input! Sakimonk talk 16:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you misunderstand WP:BRD. The idea is that once an edit has been reverted, one does not attempt to re-instate it unless there seems to be a consensus on the talk page. BRD and 1RR do not "entitle" you to push the same edit with slight variations over and over again, it is called edit-warring. “WarKosign” 11:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment as an uninvolved editor (who has been brought by Sakimonk's other edits), I certainly don't think that an entire section on a country's article should be devoted to essentially UN resolutions/violations irrespective of RS/NPOV.--Peaceworld 13:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, why is it that North Korea has an entire section devoted to Human rights and it is clearly stated "North Korea has been sanctioned under United Nations Security Council resolutions 1695 of July 2006, 1718 of October 2006, 1874 of June 2009, and 2087 of January 2013." yet is has LESS violations and LESS than israel does? This NEEDS to be mentioned on this page. It is a very significant thing that this country has been repremanded several hundered times by the UN / Gen. Ass. has been accused several times by multiple NGOs of war crimes and it needs to be mentioned. Sakimonk talk 23:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
And it's clearly stated what exactly it has been sanctioned for. I'm sure that if there were sources providing any other opinion on these sanctions (for example that North Korea didn't perform the nuclear/chemical tests, or that the tests didn't violate any treaties, or that the UN resolutions were results of politics and excessive obsession with NK), they would've been represented in that article as well.
Again, nobody disputes that the UN resolutions may be mentioned in this article along with the link to the more detailed article. The issue is making sure this mention is not WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. The content you are pushing is extremely one-sided and draws its own conclusion from partial facts. “WarKosign” 14:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I concur with WarKosign preceding me. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sakimonk and I disagree with WarKosign for the following reasons: To WarKosign - How on earth can you say that "...if there were sources providing any other opinion on these sanctions (for example that North Korea didn't perform the nuclear/chemical tests, or that the tests didn't violate any treaties, or that the UN resolutions were results of politics and excessive obsession with NK), they would've been represented in that article as well?" Yet you do not apply the same logic to Sakimonk additions to the article. In that case, could I not ALSO say that "...if there were sources providing any other opinion on these sanctions" (or violations) ON ISRAEL, "they would've been represented [by Sakimonk] in that article as well." In this regard, your logic is completely flawed, as you apply "NPOV" rules on North Korea, but not on Israel. PS - there are some cases whereby it is NOT POSSIBLE to provide a NPOV on certain topics, because there AFE NO other facts that can support an alternative view to allow inclusion of an alternative view and appear neutral!!! Regarding North Korea, by saying "...if there were sources providing any other opinion on these sanctions... they would've been represented" you are only proving my point that sometimes there ARE NO alternative point of views that exist and therefore a NPOV simply CANNOT be presented. Israel is a perfect example of this. Just as a random, unrelated exaple, if I were writing an article on a certain rapist who raped numerous women, would I be repremanded by Wikipedia editors for not being neutral if I did not include facts that didn't exist, to try and make the rapists victims look partially responsible for the crimes? What if they were ALL innocent victims and there was no evidence of seduction, consenting adults, or false accusations, would I then be biased by writing about the rapists convictions without including non-existant facts that partially diminished his guilt? Alternatively, should nobody write about the rapists crimes, because nobody can find evidence that some of his victims also commited crimes, or that some of the charges were dropped (when they weren't). This is almost what you expect of Sakimonk except it is not a rape, or a person, but a nation / government in question. I am horrified by the level of bias shown by Wikipedia editors in this regard.--41.146.141.254 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The point is, other facts exists aplenty, just have a look at Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations#Alleged bias and disproportionate attention on Israel and Criticism of the United Nations#Attention given to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I expect an editor not to ignore readily available material that happens to contradict the content they want to insert. Doing so is called cherry-picking and it's against WP's WP:NPOV policy. “WarKosign” 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your first link which states:
"These decisions, adopted with the support of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) countries, often criticize Israel for its "occupation of Palestinian land and its oppression of Palestinians." A number of observers have described this criticism as excessive. For example, according to the UN Association of the UK, General Assembly resolutions in the period 1990–2003 show bias against Israel, condemnation of violence against Palestinians, but only occasional discussion of violence against Israelis.[5] In addition, the UNHRC was criticized in 2007 for failing to condemn other alleged human rights abusers besides Israel."
There is no contradiction to speak of. Who is the "UN Association of the UK" and who do they represent (how many people, how many countries, etc.) This is precisely the type of propaganda that gets accepted onto Wikipedia as fact with regard to Middle East affairs in order to create an illusion of large amounts of international support for Israel, when a minority of countries actually support Israel. According to their website they are: "... a charitable company limited by guarantee (no.1146016). UNA-UK is not part of the UN." - http://www.una.org.uk/content/about-us. Another tax free, pro-Israel front / lobby group?? (notice the question marks). "In addition, the UNHRC was criticized in 2007 for failing to condemn other alleged human rights abusers besides Israel." Criticized by whom? This is a classic example of exaggerating claims of the amount of bias against Israel by the international community. Even if the head of the UN says that Israel is being criticized too harshly, he does not represent the UN member states, or even a significant part of them. Most of the UN member states agree that Israel HAS acted too harshly against the Palestinians and violated international laws numerous, numerous times. That is all that matters as far as opinion goes - what the majority of people think and what the majority of countries in the UN think. If the UN thinks that Israel has violated international law, then they should be held to account for that, whether or not a minority disagree with that fact.
There is no contradiction to speak of, the UN is a democratic organization and the article is about Israel, not Palestine and other countries. If the article is about Israel, not other countries, and if an editor inserts a section on human rights violations by Israel, or UN violations by Israel and not those of any other countries there is nothing wrong with that, as the article is about Israel and not other countries. Other countries have their own Wikipedia pages where their own violations can be mentioned. This is NOT an article on the Arab Israeli conflict, or on the UN, it is an article of every aspect of the present and the history of ISRAEL.
Lastly, if Israel is being very harshly criticized compared to other countries, that does not necessary mean the criticism is biased. If Israel engages in more violations than other countries, then it deserves more criticism than other countries.--41.146.141.254 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
PS - Regarding your second link:

There are large parts that are not true and here is just one example of a contradiction of that article - from Wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262--41.146.141.254 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to make it simple:
  1. UN passed multiple resolutions against Israel.
  2. UN has been criticized for dealing obsessively with Israel and passing unjustified resolutions.
Saying 1 without 2 misrepresents the reality. It's up to the reader to decide whether the resolutions were justified and Israel deserves the negative attention or the UN was abused for political reasons, but we need to present both views on the situation. “WarKosign” 05:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

3,5 millions more jewish in a census by spain

3,5 millions more jewish in a census by spain. In a french website Atlantico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.128.210 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Word "and"

Hello, could you please check the use of the word "and" on: "At the other extreme, more mountainous regions can be windy, cold, and sometimes snowy and areas and, at elevation of..."? It doesn't sound good to me and I don't know if there is need for a correction, Thanks. --UAwiki (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree it was bad. I hope my edit improved it, anyone is welcome to improve it further. “WarKosign” 12:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't edit it because my native language is not English and I was not sure :) --UAwiki (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Atheists and non religious

I think the Religion paragraph should be improved with data about atheism and not religious people in Israel. Take a look here: http://www.wingia.com/en/news/losing_our_religion_two_thirds_of_people_still_claim_to_be_religious/290/ An astonishing 65% claimed to not religious or atheists. 78.159.216.4 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

According to all studies about the religiosity of Israeli Jews, there are fairly religious relative to western standards and the number of atheists is around 20% (see the article). The source you bring is confusing because in Israel "religious" means "ultra-orthodox or religious-zionist", not believing in God. 35% is about the rate of ultra-orthodox and religious-zionist or traditionalist-religious according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, so I think there is no need to add this data. Benjil (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Declaring sovereignty on the basis of armistice?

I am unsure of the use of the word "sovereign" in the section at Israel#Geography which has a second paragraph that currently begins.

  • "The sovereign territory of Israel (according to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements and excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War) is approximately 20,770 square kilometers (8,019 sq mi) in area,.."

I recently added the "(according to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements and ...)" text here.

However, in the context that the international community has previously made the unanimous decision not to even place embassies in West Jerusalem and that it is only the U.S. has belatedly chosen to move its embassy, I get the impression that "sovereignty" (at least as a decided fact) is internationally disputed.

It would be more neutral to present "The territory of Israel ..." than "The sovereign territory of Israel ...". Readers should be left to make up their own minds.

GregKaye 10:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is correct, and your addition is redundant, since the sentence already excludes anything captured during the 1967 war, so your comment about West Jerusalem is irrelevant. Israel is recognized as a sovereign state by pretty everyone who isn't an annihilationist; the country's borders may be in dispute, but the sovereignty of the pre-1967 state is a fact. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
--jpgordon The many nations that agreed to the formation of a Jewish sovereign state (who even gave support to the 1947 partition plan) are certainly not "annihilationist" and this despite their very clear political stance in their refusal to place embassies in Jerusalem. Please do not attempt to bring WP:DRAMA to the page. Given Israel's military domination over the Palestinian's and its possession of powerful weaponry, where is the threat of "annihilation"?.
The question here is not about Israel being a sovereign state but about the extent of sovereign territory.
I have proposed no addition to the page.
The UN has agreed to and the supported the existence of a Jewish sovereign state and this was ratified in the presented 1947 plan. What has not been agreed with any degree of finality is any extent of sovereign territory beyond that. Certainly issues are made complicated by the initially intended "Corpus separatum" of Jerusalem and certainly territories are up for debate but that's exactly what it is, a debate. It is not Wikipedia's place to declare in its own voice which territories are sovereign. We have to stick with neutral wording. It is more than sufficient to say:
  • "The territory of Israel (according to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements and excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War) is approximately 20,770 square kilometers (8,019 sq mi) in area,.."
A neutral presentation of "The territory of Israel" better presents all views on the situation. GregKaye 05:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
See Sovereignty#Different approaches. All 4 approaches clearly apply to 1949 lines. 3 of the 4 also apply to Golan and East Jerusalem, but due to NPOV let's not call them part of sovereign territory. It would be more correct to say "Internationally recognized sovereign territory of Israel (according to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements and excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War) is 20,770 square kilometers (8,019 sq mi). The total area under Israeli law, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, is 22,072 square kilometers (8,522 sq mi)". “WarKosign” 07:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not see that "international legal sovereignty – formal recognition by other sovereign states" applies when other states refuse to place their embassies even in West Jerusalem. This is yet another unnecessary POV push. It is more than sufficient simply to put "territory". GregKaye 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NPoV doesn't mean if we see 3 criteria out of 4 fit a definition we have to nuance our analysis of this. WP:NPoV means that if WP:RS disagree between themselves on an analysis, we have to report all of them with their due:weight.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

when israel was establish category

in the category i noticed that it saying israel was established on 1948 but the true is that she was establish on 1 may 1949 there was independent war in the middle and she was only declared in 1948 please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.165.130 (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

May 14 1948 is the date the state was established. This year Israel celebrated 67 years of independence which also fits the date. If you want to change it, you need to provide some very reliable sources that support your position. “WarKosign” 19:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
no you wrong may 14 1948 is the day israel was declared indonesia also celebrating this year 70 although she was establish on 1949 the celebrating always going by declaration and not by establishment here you go "Yom Ha'atzmaut (Hebrew: יום העצמאות‎ Yōm hā-ʿAṣmāʾūṯ lit. "Independence Day") is the national day of Israel, commemorating the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha%27atzmaut it even saying it going by the declaration and not by establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.165.130 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It appears that as far as these categories are concerned, establishment doesn’t require all the legalities or formalities to be complete. The USA is in the 1776 cat, when it had just declared independence, but the Revolution wasn‘t over until 1783, and the constitution came several years later. Canada is in the 1867 cat, but only became fully independent in 1931, and until 1982 had no constitution (which has yet to be fully ratified). This doesn’t seem unreasonable to me; I think most readers would be thinking of the widely commemorated dates, rather than those of the formal inauguration or recognition of the states.—Odysseus1479 05:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
ok you right but you forgot the part that usa revolution and canada their declaration defined the exact borders they would be even after the war israel declaration was based on the un partition plan and her borders after the independence war do not fit to her borders when it was declare i would agree with you for 100% if her borders after the war would fit to her borders on her declaration but it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.165.130 (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Continuing with the same examples, neither the USA nor Canada started with its present boundaries; their original territories were both comparatively small regions of eastern North America. Both countries expanded several-fold by a mixture of conquest, purchase, and mutually-agreed absorption of other nations and territories. Canada didn’t reach its present extent until 1949, and IIANM the USA not until 1898. And anyway I don‘t think territorial changes per se really bear on the meaning of establishment.—Odysseus1479 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise one could say Israel wasn't established until 1981 or even 2000. “WarKosign” 07:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
ok but you forgot the part that usa/canada would had the exact same borders today even without the wars they had in the middle israel would had the partition plan borders until today without the independent war huge different not to mention that usa and canada also did not need recognition like israel israel would still had the same borders on the partition plan without recognition from the un therefor it is more fair to claim israel was establish in 1949 than 1948.
"usa/canada would had the exact same borders today even without the wars they had in the middle"? Y'wot? No they wouldn't. They have both expanded massively. See Territorial evolution of Canada and Territorial evolution of the United States. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Israel was not declared within the borders proposed by the UN partition plan, they intentionally left the borders vague in the declaration. “WarKosign” 10:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
the different is that this were wars when usa/canada started israel independent war was a war which the arab states started and if they were not started it the borders would remain the same as they mention on the partition plan if the independent war was war which israel started to expend her borders i would be fully agree with you and i also mentioned they did not had recognition like israel i also want to mention for the other one that the declaration did mention the borders in the partition plan "On the border issue, the original draft had declared that the borders would be that decided by the UN partition plan" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Final_wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.165.130 (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"the original draft", not the final declaration. Anyway, whatever your opinion is - here we go by sources, and by far most of the sources say that Israel was established in 1948. If you want to change it, you need to find very reliable sources that say otherwise. “WarKosign” 11:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ok here you go Israel at the Polls: The Knesset Élections of 1977 page 93 "Paradoxically, at all of the elections held since the establishment of the state, a small proportion of Arab (especially Druze) voters have supported Herut candidates" and this is known that arabs start to support this party only since her second election now you can fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.165.130 (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not think you understand what is considered a reliable source. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Even assuming that the book that you quoted was peer reviewed, and that the author is an expert on Israel's history during the years of its establishment, drawing a conclusion as you did from this quote constitutes original research. To support your statement one ideally needs a reliable source that says explicitly "Israel was established on 10 March 1949 after 1948 Arab–Israeli War (or The War of Independence)". Even then it is a matter of WP:WEIGHT, this opinion must be prominent enough to be represented along the common view that it was established in 1948. At the moment it seems to me that it falls under WP:FRINGE, that is it's an opinion held so few that it shouldn't even be mentioned. This kind of things are determined by consensus, so if there are many editors who will agree with you on this talk page - sure, we'll change it. “WarKosign” 11:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"The world's longest military occupation in modern times"?

Indonesia has been occupying West Papua since 1963. China has been occupying Tibet since 1951. The claim that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times is false. It gives readers the wrong idea that Israel is a brutal occupier when in fact the Palestinians living in these areas have de facto independence. I request to remove this sentence from the article. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thisissparta12345: We've been over it several times. There are many sources that prove that some ongoing military occupations began before 1967, so one can draw a completely reasonable conclusion that alleged occupation of West Bank and Gaza is not the longest in modern times. Unfortunately drawing this conclusion constitutes original research which is something we are not allowed to do. There are sources that claim that occupation of West Bank and Gaza is longest. If you are able to find reliable sources that contradict the claim we can remove it or at least change it to being presented as one opinion among several. “WarKosign” 09:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Not only does saying West Papua and Tibet are still under military occupation constitute original research, it is also wrong. We have discussed Tibet above, and for West Papua, see Act of Free Choice. Tibetans are Chinese citizens today and West Papuans are Indonesian citizens. We can dispute the legality of the annexations, but they are both de facto annexed territories. To understand why this sentence exists in this article, one needs to understand the difference between annexation (whether de facto or de jure) and military occupation.
Who is occupying who? The whole application of the term occupation here is wrong. You have two competing national groups here making overlapping claims on the land, the stronger one by the Jews, and the weaker and newer one buy the muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Oncenawhile (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
annexation and occupation are not mutually exclusive terms. Or are you suggesting that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are not occupied? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The occupation of West Jerusalem has been ongoing since 1948. --Dailycare (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Since East-Jerusalem has been annexed de facto, by your own logic it should not be here. And the claim that the Gaza strip is still under Israeli occupation is not a consensus and is highly biased. The Gaza strip is "de facto" independant. Benjil (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no "occupation of West Jerusalem". West Jerusalem is recognized by most of the international community as part of Israel. East Jerusalem is the disputed area, which, as opposed to the West Bank, was annexed by Israel and therefore should not be mentioned as one of the territories under Israeli military occupation. The Arabs of East Jerusalem were given the choice to become Israeli Citizens, and most of them did. So at least eliminate East Jerusalem from the occupied territories list. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, east Jerusalem is still considered to be part of the West Bank and a future capital for the Palestinian state. Israel does not contain east Jerusalem, at least not officially. --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, West Jerusalem is not recognized as part of Israel by even one single state. It's non-recognition as Israeli predates the occupation of East Jerusalem. We've been through this many times already. As to East Jerusalem, it's explicitly mentioned as occupied Palestinian territory in countless resolutions, so no, there is no way it will be considered as anything but occupied until Israel withdraws its forces from it. --Dailycare (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Both East and Western Jerusalem, aside from being illegally occupied since the Roman times, was given to the Jews in San Remo in 1920

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2010/July/San-Remo-Resolution-Revisited/ http://jcpa.org/article/israel-as-the-nation-state-of-the-jewish-people-from-the-san-remo-conference-1920-to-the-netanyahu-abbas-talks/ http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Forget-politics-Who-has-legal-right-to-Jerusalem http://jcpa.org/article/israel-as-the-nation-state-of-the-jewish-people-from-the-san-remo-conference-1920-to-the-netanyahu-abbas-talks/

the real question is, does any of these groups have the right to give up the Sovereign claim of the Jewish People over ALL the land, which has been illegally occupied for about 2100 years. Probably not. All the land is Jewish and only the democratic representative of the Jewish people, which is probably the Israeli Knesset, can give up any of the sovereign claims.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_54&oldid=1136828399"