Jump to content

Talk:Palestinian territories

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


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

[edit]

Change Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 and has since maintained control to The Gaza Strip has been under the de facto governing authority of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) since 2007 Aicnem.4202 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Today's Advisory Opinion by the ICJ uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory", as does the ICJ's 2004 Advisory Opinion. I see that the article says that this term has been used, for many years, by other international bodies and national governments and that the UN used it till 2012, when Palestine was admitted as a non-member observer state, under the name "State of Palestine". Should we change the article title to either "Palestinian territory" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory"? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article title is an antique, a hangover from the days of yore, difficult to get rid of because so many RS still use the term, even now.
The "territories" have long been legally considered as one territory and that was reiterated at the ICJ today.
And we now have the ICJ opinion that the occupation is itself illegal (apart from all the other illegal things).
If it was down to me, I'd put Illegally occupied Palestinian territory :/ Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could solve the RS issue through a redirect. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would absolutely support a move to Occupied Palestinian Territory, it is overwhelmingly used in legal sources—which is what the article is about. (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would I. Misha Wolf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can we progress a change of title? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question. Stepping back for a moment, let's look at the ICJ opinion (there are sufficient RS covering it so we we can speak to it directly here). A couple of things in there, first the legal position that Gaza and the West bank (incl EJ) are a single territorial unit (equivalent to the territory claimed by the SoP). The current title implies separateness but this only true in a strict geographical sense and a narrative promoted by Israel/US (see CIA "fact"book for example).
Secondly it was determined as a matter of law that the entire territory is occupied even if the Gaza occupation is of the functional variety.
Thirdly the ICJ uses, just like most authoritative sourcing does, the name Occupied Palestinian Territory as well as determining as a matter of law, that said territory is illegally occupied.
So, to reiterate, in my view, the current title is an historical anachronism and should be changed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely potentially merited. Ngrams shows the proper noun phrase (in both singular and plural) holding up well against the generalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, because this phrase was used for so long (such that some RS style guides mention it), there is an inertia factor at work, that's why the ngrams hold up for Pt. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I ran out of space in the Ngrams search bar, but some "Palestinian territories" hits are also for "occupied Palestinian territories" (sentence case) – which, if run separately, implies that "Palestinian territories" actually falls well below OPT(s), both individually in the singular and certainly collectively. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Ahem, and that's before we even count the Wikipedia mirrors.) Iskandar323 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we move this along? It's nearly 25 years since the UN and ISO adopted the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (in October 1999). I know that we want to avoid Recentism, but 25 years should be long enough. I know that the UN and ISO have since moved on to "State of Palestine" but that describes the political entity as opposed to the geographical area. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to define it in purely geographical terms, there is nothing wrong with the current title. But given the scope that is clearly not the intention. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. I'll rephrase that as "[...] but that describes the proposed political entity as opposed to the existing mess." Misha Wolf (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing to do is put up an RM -> Occupied Palestinian territory No? (it's aka oPt as well so that would work or we can consider OPT as a "name" in which case capitalize everything. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is a name. Indeed, ISO 3166-1 Newsletter No. V-2 of 1999-10-01 (cited source [10]) states in row 2 "Official name [...] Occupied Palestinian Territory".
In cited source [15], the EU also treats it as a name , eg in "European Union, Trade in goods with Occupied Palestinian Territory".
As I expect that you are far more familiar with the RM process than I am, would you be willing to do it? Misha Wolf (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! -- Terminology used in the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 2004

[edit]

I've just noticed that the lede states that "The International Court of Justice has referred to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as the Occupied Palestinian Territory, adopting this term as the legal definition in its advisory opinions of July 2004". Earlier today, I appended "and July 2024", but have only just noticed that the statement is incorrect at least as far as today's ICJ Advisory Opinion is concerned as the latter explicitly includes Gaza in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. I've tried checking the 2004 Advisory Opinion to see what it means by Occupied Palestinian Territory but am having trouble finding a definition. Please could someone else check. As things stand, the statement in the second para of the lede is incorrect, at least as far as the July 2024 Advisory Opinion is concerned. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Clarify template to that sentence. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wall did not affect Gaza (this point was also mentioned again in today's opinion) so the 2004 opinion didn't specifically address Gaza because the wall didn't go there. so it isn't precisely wrong as the WB/EJ are "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The OPT is "defined" (referred to might be better) as 67 borders in lots of places but let me see if I can find an initial determination, it's possible it might have evolved by way of UN resolutions, I'll look. Selfstudier (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier, the article currently states clearly that "The International Court of Justice has referred to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as the Occupied Palestinian Territory, adopting this term as the legal definition in its advisory opinions of July 2004". I'm not questioning the origin of the term, I'm questioning the statement in the article. I've just searched the 2004 advisory opinion again and found no evidence for the claim made in the article. While I haven't found a statement including Gaza explicitly in the OPT, I have found a statement which indicates that, within the context of the 2004 proceedings, Gaza was considered to be part of the OPT. Paragraph 90 states:

Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the other participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In particuilar, in paragraph 3 of Annex 1 to the report of the Secretary-General, entitled "Summary Legal Position of the Government of Israel", it is stated that Israel does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention "is applicable to the occupied Palestinian Territory", citing "the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt" and inferring that it is "not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention".

It is my understanding that the mention of Egypt demonstrates that Gaza was within the scope of the ICJ's deliberations as it was Egypt that controlled Gaza prior to 1967 and Egypt did not control the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The High Contracting Party business was about refuting Israel's contention that there was no prior sovereign/the so called missing reversioner (see Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967#Range of Israeli legal and political views.
I still think we need founding statement(s) if we are going to look at a page move, so I will keep looking. Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ISO source takes us back to 1999 for "Occupied Palestinian territory", that might be enough but just to satisfy my curiosity, I will look some more. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re the High Contracting Party stuff, I agree, but consider that the mention of Egypt indicates that Gaza was seen as within the scope of the OPT.
Re a page move, I see that as a separate matter from (correcting) the text of the article. The statement "adopting this term as the legal definition" is a very strong one. If it is untrue (or if there is no evidence for it being true), it should be removed. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading to the extent that it was "defined" before that, in 1999 and a little earlier, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should just say referred to or some such language. Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Selfstudier, I have not found any evidence that the ICJ's 2004 advisory opinion said anything explicit about Gaza being part of, or not being part of, the OPT. So the statement should be removed (unless such evidence can be found). Misha Wolf (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it, it's not necessary anyway, there are plenty of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier, we don't seem to be understanding each other. You've written something along the lines of:
[Body][Verb][List of areas][Name]
where [Body] is "ICJ", [Verb] is "referred to", [List of areas] is "West Bank, including East Jerusalem" and [Name] is "Occupied Palestinian Territory".
I dispute that expansion of the term [List of areas] as no-one has provided any clear evidence for the exclusion (or inclusion) of Gaza by the ICJ in its 2004 opinion. I am not (in this thread) concerned with the [Verb], eg whether it should be "defined" or "referred to". I very much am concerned with the [List of areas]. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just edit it as you like, I am not really interested in this article at all, other than moving it to a more sensible title. Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Misha Wolf (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some progress elsewhere, one can now write Palestine and it will redirect to SoP (before it threw an error for ambiguity). Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good but we now have a circular reference as the "About" template contains "For other uses of Palestine, see Palestine." Misha Wolf (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there needs to be consequent change around the place. That should be Palestine (disambiguation). Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And then there is Palestinian territories (disambiguation) /: Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the phrase going back to 1990 at the UN and in books, the problem is that its just a phrase rather than OPT, think people would just use it instead of Israeli occupied territories, which was the more common usage back then and included the Golan. It says there "The first conjoined usage of the terms "occupied" and "territories" with regard to Israel was in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242,..." so I am still thinking it was more of an evolution rather than someone sitting down one day and saying I hereby define... Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 August 2024

[edit]

Palestinian territories → Occupied Palestinian Territory – This terminology has become standard across all official sources, the United Nations, itself and in its resolutions, and at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in 2004 and reaffirmed in 2024, the EU and in many secondary sources. The ICJ concluded that the West Bank and Gaza are a single territorial unit However, the Court recalls that, from a legal standpoint, the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes a single territorial unit, the unity, contiguity and integrity of which is to be preserved and respected. Thus, all references in this Opinion to the Occupied Palestinian Territory are references to this single territorial unit. Although still used in sources, and should remain as an aka, the existing title is currently an anachronism. Note that the OPT is also equivalent geographically to the area claimed by the State of Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_territories&oldid=1238738676"