Talk:Palestinian territories

Views on whether Gaza Strip is occupied

The statement that "according to the international community, the Gaza Strip is still considered to be occupied by Israel" is unhelpfully vague (the "international community" by which definition?), and the section ignores the view of international law scholars who dispute that Gaza remains occupied. These include, e.g., Marko Milanovic, Hanne Cuyckens, Yuval Shany, Ruth Lapidoth, Eyal Benvenisti, Eugene Kontorovich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.237.210 (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Please could you provide links to each of these so we can see their stated positions? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you 2600:1700:9830:37C0:3CE7:6091:33FB:6854 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We can always use the language used at the Gaza Strip article, "the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel". and here's some refs:

CNN

"The U.N. position

In February 2008, Secretary-General Ban was asked at a media availability whether Gaza is occupied territory. "I am not in a position to say on these legal matters," he responded.

The next day, at a press briefing, a reporter pointed out to a U.N. spokesman that the secretary-general had told Arab League representatives that Gaza was still considered occupied.

"Yes, the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory. No, that definition hasn't changed," the spokesman replied.

Farhan Haq, spokesman for the secretary-general, told CNN Monday that the official status of Gaza would change only through a decision of the U.N. Security Council."

Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There has been no on-the-ground Israeli military presence in Gaza since the pull out in 2005. 2600:8803:C7DC:2100:19C4:7134:CB66:BE64 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There have been a range of incursions actually, including 2006 Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun and March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes, but that somewhat besides the point. Gazans do not control their land borders, their territorial waters or their airspace. A prison is still a prison even if the guards aren't patrolling the yard. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above, though the OP is correct the language is a bit vague. "Majority of governments" would indicate all governments expressed an opinion, and the majority said it is occupied. So I agree with Iskandar323 that the outside control is so tight as to make it, in effect, an occupied area. No dispute from me there. We could be a bit clearer on who says so. Jeppiz (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but why have the Israelis been monitoring the airspace and conducting military operations in the region? You think it might have something to do with the fact that rockets and mortars are frequently launched from Gaza into civilian territories in Israel? Nothing to do with anything?

I honestly do not believe much of this article is neutral but I do not have the time or interest to try and propose any changes. But just in terms of common sense, responding to missile/mortar attacks and terrorist attacks is not generally what comes to mind when one hears the word "occupied". Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Reasons why it is occupied do not alter its state of being occupied. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

These territories are widely referred to as the Occupied Palestinian territory (OPT or oPt) and which is defined as the West Bank including EJ and Gaza. I will check to see whether that is commonname in recent times or whether the anachronistic Palestinian territories still holds. Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you 2600:1700:9830:37C0:3CE7:6091:33FB:6854 (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to Jonathan 2600:1700:9830:37C0:3CE7:6091:33FB:6854 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Gaza governance

The map should be updated to show that the Gaza Strip is not governed by the Palestinian government Shaked13 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Himma (al Hamma) region

It seems that al Hamma was a Palestinian territory under Syrian military occupation till 1967. It's mentionned together with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the Palestinian covenant of 1964 (art. 24 of the covenant). Hence this area should technically be included in the "occupied territories" considered by resolution 242 of UN Security council. Unlike West Bank and Gaza strip, it's not included in the Arab state according to the Palestine plan of partition dated 1947, but UN SC resolution 242 does not refer to this previous plan of partition. Today is called hamat Gader. Pinji (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

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)

 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)

Article title

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)

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)

We could solve the RS issue through a redirect. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

So would I. Misha Wolf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

I've added a Clarify template to that sentence. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It should just say referred to or some such language. Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

I edited it, it's not necessary anyway, there are plenty of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Done! Misha Wolf (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)