Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:25, 26 September 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Western Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

The truth

As someone who lives in Israel, i will tell you something about those "Palestinians". They dont work, and live on the money of Israel. Israel offered them to completely become seperate (which means, to stop getting money from Israel), and they started screaming it's racism. First, there is no such people Palestinians. They are Syrian and Egtptian Arabs. Palestine is a historical name of Israel given' by the Romans. Where do Arabs get in the picture?? They were first refered to as Palastinians by Hittler. There was an Islamic and arabic leader, a total creep, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. He supported Hittler , who promised him: "Palestine will be yours", and he then starting to invent an identity Palestinians. Before that Arabs here were NEVER referd to as Palastinians. He vent to the Balkans with many Arabs from here to fight for a free arabic state here (the 31th already to the Arabs??) by murdering Croation Jews. Israel not only ain't brutal enough to the "Palastinians", but it is polite to them. They bomb out Sderot ands israel instead of Bombing the hell out of them, sends soldiers to die there so "inocent citizens" wont die. There in school from the age of zero they are tought they live to kill Jews and fight for the Jihad. Here in Israel they teach us noncense that we have to "respect them and try to achieve peace with them". M.V.E.i. 19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

More zionist propaganda. And only six sentences before a reference to "Hittler". Bravo. User:Anonymous 08:16, 22 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.109.93 (talk)

This wonderful tract exemplifies how Zionists rationalize their brutal subjugation of a people. By positing Palestinians as savage, barbaric, and altogether inhuman one can totally bypass any human rights issues. The familiar but tired refrain of anti-antisemitism is used to negate any valid criticism of Israel. I would expect a race that was barbarically persecuted by Nazi's to perhaps by mindful and sensitive to harming others. Unfortunately, the IDF actively engages in the genocide of Palestinians.

On subject of the Palestinian territories. The term is a subtle attempt to make people forget that Palestine IS a COUNTRY. The creation of Israel called for the simultaneous creation of an officially Western recognized state of Palestine. The idea of the country being barren is laughable considering that Palestinians still have their deeds predating the 1940's to land. The ancestral and biblical claims to the land by Zionists is puzzling. Last time I checked Judaism did not recognized Jesus as the son of God. But they are conveniently using the Bible as an authoritative text?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.238.80 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who also lives in Israel, I object to the racist rants at the top of this section. I also object to the throwaway statement that the "IDF actively engages in the genocide of Palestinians". There is no genocide either actively or passively engaged in by the army of the democratic State of Israel. There is no policy of genocide or indeed any policy at all against civilians. Hamas, on the other hand (Please note I say Hamas, NOT Palestinians) has a written charter calling for the destruction of all Jews and for the State of Israel to be removed from the map. In other words they have a clearly declared policy of genocide against the inhabitants of Israel. What would your government do if your government of your neighbor brazenly stated in its political charter that it wanted to murder your civilian children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.254.100 (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Charter about the 'destruction of all Jews' (which would be genocide, and, to boot, a violation of Sharia doctrine). What they call for is the elimination of Israel, a political entity, just as the Likud Party in its 2002 definition of aims denied the possibility that Eretz Yisrael, extending over the Occupied Palestinian Territories, could ever allow the emergence of a Palestinian state on that land. A lot of silly statements have been made in here and elsewhere, on both sides by people who do not read the texts, but are more interested in POVing the articles for one side or another. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hamas and PA charters don't bode well for the Jews or Israel if followed through.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." - Hamas Charter

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. " - Hamas Charter

The PA charter is merely the PLO charter with statements that the bad stuff will be removed. However claiming all of Israel as Palestine is futile to peace.

In essence the Palestinian government is very dangerous.--Saxophonemn (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This article still has problems

The lead needs to be rewritten. In contemporary usage, Palestinian Territories means the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That should be stated clearly right in the first sentence. No one uses the term to mean Areas A and B of the Oslo accords, as the second paragraph of the lead currently misleadingly suggests (Today, the designation typically refers to the territories governed in varying degrees by the Palestinian Authority (42% of the West Bank plus all of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip)). It should be noted that in the Declaration of Principles of the Oslo accords, it was agreed by both sides that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip consititute a "single territorial unit". It is true that Israel and the Palestinians disagree on exactly what territory is spanned by the West Bank. That should be mentioned also (and is).

Here are some sources that clearly use the term Palestinian Territories to mean the West Bank and Gaza:

• Netherlands Representative Office to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah
• BBC Country Profile
• Lonely Planet travel guide

The careful wording of the BBC profile (Palestinian Ministry of Information cites 5,970 sq km (2,305 sq miles) for West Bank territories and 365 sq km (141 sq miles) for Gaza) may be recommended as appropriate neutral wording for this article.

The whole bit in the article which claims that the term Palestinian Territories is used by "journalists to indicate lands where Palestinian people dwell" and "some Arab nationalists" is original research and plainly wrong, as the examples I've given above indicate.

Judea and Samaria does not have the same geographical meaning as Palestinian Territories. Judea and Samaria refers to the West Bank. Yesha does refer to the same geographical region as Palestinian Territories. A case can be made for merging that article into this one.

It needs to be mentioned, in the lead, that these territories are officially referred to as the Occupied Palestinian Territories by the United Nations. We can also mention in the lead that Israeli officials usually use the term "the territories", although as far as I'm aware the Israeli government has never made a formal objection to the term Palestinian Territories without Occupied in front.Sanguinalis 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

All true, but you'll never get it past the hasbara line touted by those who habitually edit here and control the page. The article is a confused midden of ill-digested POVs, which try to muddle the clarity of international law on these lands. THe best one can do is maintain the dispute flag on top. The bias is far too important to vested interests for them to allow a clear exposition of the subject matter. They even have an ex-terrorist like Katz cited as an authority on international law, though it violates undue weight for a fringe and eccentric opinion Nishidani 07:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following passage.

The term 'Palestinian' has its roots in the name of the ancient Philistines, a sea-faring people who settled in the Gaza area, adjacent to the Israelites. The Philistines were not Semites, did not speak a Semitic languague and were instead most likely of Mycenaean origin. Susequent to the full Roman conquest of ancient Israel and Judea, along with the Romans' 70 C.E. destruction of the Hebrew temple and capital in Jerusalem, and the expulsion of large numbers of the Jewish population, the Romans applied the Latin word "Palestine" to the entire area. This term was then periodically used in the Common Era to refer to the lands of Israel, Judea and Samaria, Gaza and the southern part of what was loosely termed Greater Syria. With the exception many smaller ethnic groups, including the indigenous Christians and Jews who continued to speak Aramean and Hebrew, respectively, Arabic became one of the dominant languages of the Greater Palestinian region after the Arabian Muslim conquests beginning in the 600-700s C.E.

I.e. the only other inhabitants were 'foreigners'. None of the identifications made are historically secure. Cf. Philistines as Greek speakers. The foremost scholar of classical Greek MR West says 'Philistine names contradict the notion that they were Greek speakers' (The East Face of Helicon , Oxford 1997 p.38 n.148). 'Palaistina' is furthermore not a Latin word introduced by Romans after Bar Kochba's revolt: it is attested as the ancient Greek term for the area in Herodotus, writing around 440 BCE. Palestine/Israel was an immensely rich mix of peoples and cultures, and to simplify it as a face-off between intruding Greeks and Hebrews is POV. Besides all this, the ethnic constitution of this part of the ancient Levant has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. Nishidani 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph provides the needed insight to demonstrate that the Palestinians aren't the descendants of the Philistines a common misconception.--Saxophonemn (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal status

This section and the one after it seem way too critical and biased against Israel. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Israel has NO legal claim to the land. Mnmazur (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Israel is the only sovereign nation to have a claim to the territories. Recall Israel was made out of the mandate, so all of the land would have been Israel. Secondly UN resolution 242 states that Israel has to give back some, not all of the territories liberated/captured in the 6 Day War. Thus they are allowed to keep as much as they need for a secure border. The entire green line border is merely an armistice line. People are merely miffed that Israel won the war that they can't stand the idea of Jews having more of their homeland. In a nutshell, "NO" is flat out wrong! -- Saxophonemn (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Israel has been the only sovereign nation-state to have a claim to the territories since Jordan gave up its claim, albeit to get rid of the matter and "make room" for Palestinian state, and not Israeli annexations. Moreover, Israel does have de facto sovereignty over these lands. However, this is not automatically de iure sovereignty, nor does it cancel the right of self-determination of the inhabitants. If it did, gaining independence and creating a new nation-state would be legally impossible in contemporary world.

2. According to what principle being made out of mandate gives Israel right to claim all of it? If we were to accept such a principle, wouldn't it give Jordan the right to claim all of the pre-1922 mandate, North Korean govt to South Korea, Serbia to all of former Yugoslavia?

3. What you claim according to UN 242 is false, just read it: there is a call for "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", which, due to a missing 'the' in front of territories, has been the basis of a disputed interpretation leading to land claims. Emphasizing both the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force and the right for peace and secure borders can hardly be considered as a statement calling for return of "some" territory. And really, liberated were the territories and their inhabitants, and for the last 40 years the level of freedom they enjoy is breathtaking :-/

4. Security reasons - if you think Israel has right to all of the former mandate, why even mention security reasons? Once you're a rightful owner of sth, you don't have to give further reasons for claiming it, do you? And, does one's right to security stand above others' right to self-determination?

5. Speaking of either former mandate or Palestinian territories as exclusively Jewish homeland is, to say the least, slightly inconsistent with the fact that other ethnicities have been living there as well: Bedouins, Druze, Palestinians and Samaritans (Source: Middleton J., Rassam A. (Ed.). (1995). Encyclopedia of World Cultures Vol. 9 - Africa & the Middle East. G.K. Hall & Company, New York). Psychopathologist (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong about number 3 (242) - there was explicit discussion of this point between the drafters of the proposal, and the word "the" was left out intentionally, with some powers pushing for it, and others against. This was explained by the very people involved. The drafters specifically explained the pre-1967 borders were not considered defendable, and they did not call for a return to them. okedem (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there is no call to withdrawal to the 1948 armistice line - but I have not claimed otherwise. My point is, the resolution cannot be interpreted as just letting Israel retain some of the territory. The principle of inadmissibility of land conquest and the call to withdraw the army combined with such an interpretation would make UN 242 self-contradictory. As the very people involved have explained, the reason for the lack of the definite article is to allow for redrawing the border, but never as a result of conquest and annexation (the resolution points to recognized boundaries). Technically speaking, this makes a possibility of Israel actually keeping some of the territories (as well as giving up some of its pre-1967 land, or even returning to the armistice line), but never through unilateral decision founded upon military victory. Psychopathologist (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. The point is - the resolution doesn't call on Israel to unilaterally return the land, nor does it say the final situation should be a full return to 1967 borders for peace. Instead it says that the conflict should be resolved by discussion and agreement between the sides, based upon recognition and peace from Arab states, and return of land by Israel. The resolution doesn't specify the extent of land return, leaving that up to the two sides. Just wanted to make that clear, mainly for the readers of the talk page, who might not be well versed in this matter. okedem (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Jews

Please discuss any changes here. Further reverts will be reported as WP:3RR violations. — ] (] · ]) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't say what documents are in the UN archives, but my parents own many records of "Palestinian folk songs" (i.e., pre-1948 Zionist folk songs).

Arise and Build, a 1960 history of the Labor Zionist youth movement Habonim, refers to "the Palestinian terrorist organization Irgun Zvai Leumi" (Irgun). The publication of Arise and Build was 8 or 9 years before Golda Meir's "There were no such thing as Palestinians" comment.

If necessary, I will find dozens of references to the Jews of pre-1948 Palestine as Palestinians. There was never any question that they were Palestinians. The word sabra didn't come into use until the 1930s, and it was a Hebrew word. In English, the Jews of Palestine were Palestinians. — ] (] · ]) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I can say what documents are in the UN archives. All the British Mandate reports all the white papers all the Royal Commissions as well as sundry telegrams. I've spent 18 months going through them looking for references to jews as Palestinians. The only description is to Jews in Palestine, and to Arabs. No Palestinian Post articles refer to Jews as Palestinians just again to Jews and Arabs the term Palestinian does not seem to have been used by any person prior to 1948. And that applies to both Jews and Arabs.

As to Golda's comment it is principally correct in that no body seems to have used the term.

Please find a reference because at the moment it looks to be a bogus claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious: what records does the UN (1945-present) have concerning the British Mandate (1920-1948)? Did the UN inherit the records of the League of Nations? If not, do the UN archives related to Mandatory Palestine relate to any period beside 1945-1948? (I'm not trying to be nasty, I'm just curious.) — ] (] · ]) 00:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: The appropriate way to deal with a "bogus claim" is to add a {{fact}} tag to it. Writing a paragraph speculating on what is "likely" or "unlikely" is considered original research and contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. — ] (] · ]) 00:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The UN has all the League of Nation documents in its archives. The term Palestinian was not used the phrase Jews in Palestine and Jews of Palestine, Arabs in Palestine and Arab of Palestine are the terms used repeatedly. I've gone from the Fisal letters to 1960 and there is no use of the term Palestinian for either Jews or Arabs in the UN docs. All the Palestine Post copies that are available on the net none again refer to Palestinians again in either context. The first use of the term Palestinian seems to have come in the early 60's and then when its use started to gain ground in use to refer to Arab refugees Golda then gave her quote about how she was a Palestinian. it is very difficult to prove a negative hence using "Bogus claim". nowhere have I every seen the claim substantiated.

If you do have any reference to its usage in the early 60's I would be very pleased to hear about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC) PS how do I sign properly??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The UN archives also has pre League of Nation Docs, principally McMahon-Hussein Correspondenceand Balfour Declaration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To sign (& date) your posts on talk pages, simply type four of these tildes (~) at the conclusion. Speaking of conclusions, what I object to most is the (il)logical leap characterizing some of your edits. You may have found no suitable reference at the UN, but the conclusion does not follow that "there is no evidence" or that "no document has ever referred to Jews in Palestine as Palestinian". It can be very difficult to prove absence, but the most we can say is that we have been unable to find any - and even that statement is unencyclopedic "OR". As Malik Shabazz mentions above, the need for a citation can be expressed by {{fact}}. Similarly, doubt can be noted by adding the template {{dubious}}, among others. I hope we will soon have one or more solid citations and be able to put this discussion to rest. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The earliest use of the term Palestinian that I have found is 18 July 1966 used by Syrian Delegate to the UN. "Syria emphasized that its Government could not be held responsible for the activities of El-Fatah and El-Asefa, nor for the rise of Palestinian Arab organizations." Prior to that it is as with the Christian Science Monitor of 28 October 1966 they all say "Palestine Arab."

The link with Palestinian in referring to Jews in Palestine I believe has only come about from the Golda quote. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the records of Palestinian music at my fingertips, but above I linked to a 1960 book — 8 or 9 years before Golda Meir's statement about Palestinians — that refers to Jews as Palestinians. Here are more references from the book:

• "our songs were, in ever increasing numbers, Palestinian" ... "A Palestinian teacher, Raphael Margolin, ... was consulted on Hebrew terminology" (discussing the period from 1930–1935)
• "The Palestinian and Yiddish folk songs and the labor melodies" (from 1935)
• "all began singing and dancing the Palestinian songs and dances" (the website says it's from 1915, but I'm it's a typo for 1935)
• "there was a dash of symbolism which the Palestinians took seriously" (discussing the period from 1945–1948)
• "There we met the Palestinians" ... "The camps were all administered by Palestinians" ... "an officer of the Hagana, who was assisted by two other Palestinians" ... "the "Joint" staff members were Palestinians" (discussing events in 1946)
• "the twenty-two young Palestinian Jews" (discussing events in 1941)

Again, keep in mind that this book was published in 1960 and the second reference ("The Palestinian and Yiddish folk songs and the labor melodies") is reprinted from a 1935 document. Your claim that references to Jews as Palestinians began with Golda Meir is demonstrably untrue. — ] (] · ]) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To add to Malik's list, look at the 1922 Churchill White Paper, which contains the phrase "Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status." If I recall correctly, the official announcement of the Balfour Declaration in Palestine in 1920 has some phrase like 'Palestinians, Jews and Arabs alike'. (Again, iirc, should be at the end of Stein's book on the BD, or the beginning of Christopher Sykes' book on the mandate.) This english word was used back then for both Jews and Arabs, there is no doubt of that.John Z (talk) ~05:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There reference to the Churchill white paper is to all the Citizens of Palestine not to one or other group but to the collective of both Arab and Jewish populations, it also occurs in one of the Royal Commissions as a collective for describing both groups together. When Arabs or Jews were mentioned as separate groups it was as Jews, Arabs, Jews of Palestine or Arabs of Palestine but never as Palestinians.

The cultural reference in "THE FOUNDING OF HABONIM (1930-1935") "It was decided to follow the Palestinian pattern and have a semi-formal gathering called pegisha". and your examples again refer to the practices found in the land of Palestine rather than to people. The Arabs had the semi-informal gatherings long before the Mandate period. Thanks for the sources, I shall go through them for provenance and context. 86.162.157.2 (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry I hadn't logged in, does anyone know what language the original was in?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a sort of anecdote to add here. I have a reprint of a letter by Chaim Weizmann concerning a relative of mine, Prof. Yehuda Hirshberg. The letter is dated 20th January 1930, and is addressed to Professor Speyer at the University of Brussels, where Hirshberg was doing his PhD work, and in it Weizmann asks Speyer if he can do something to help Hirshberg financially. The letter begins with this: "I understand that at the university of Brussels there is a Palestinian boy, a Mr. Yehuda Hirshberg, who is supposed to be a brilliant chemist."

When I first read this it seemed quite amusing to me, the use of "Palestinian boy", but this was not unusual for that time. okedem (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Y'all might want to check out Palestinian people#Etymology. Based on a 1930 report from the UK to the League of Nations (available here) it says: During the British Mandate of Palestine, the term "Palestinian" was used to refer to all people residing there, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and those granted citizenship by the Mandatory authorities were granted "Palestinian citizenship". Following the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people, the use and application of the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" by and to Palestinian Jews largely dropped from use. The English-language newspaper The Palestine Post for example — which, since 1932, primarily served the Jewish community in the British Mandate of Palestine — changed its name in 1950 to The Jerusalem Post. Jews in Israel and the West Bank today generally identify as Israelis. Arab citizens of Israel identify themselves as Israeli and/or Palestinian and/or Arab.

Hope that helps. Tiamut 13:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's more or less what I find. The Yishuv didn't seem to use the term Palestinian to refer to themselves and the term Palestinian was only used when referring to the whole population collectively.

On the "HaBonim Arise and Build" one of the articles is said to be dated 1946 yet I have it down as being written in 1985.

Engee Caller, “From Brooklyn to Palestine in 1939 (Kibbutz Kfar Blum, 1985) as quoted by David B. Ruderman and Guiseppe Veltri, eds. Cultural Intermediaries: Jewish Intellectuals in Early Modern Italy. Jewish Culture and Contexts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. 293 pp.

So I'm a bit dubious about the provenance of the "HaBonim Arise and Build"

The SHIMON KAUFMAN, Los Angeles, 1958 can also be found at http://www.dpcamps.org/illegalimmigration.html So the claim rests on one article by Shimon Kaufman an American writing in 1958 about his experiences in 1947. No much to base a generalisation on?

The other articles had the context of borrowing from Arab culture and should be dismissed as references to Geographical location rather than to people.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Habonim Arise and Build shows up some funny pieces:

in “Builders and dreamers: Habonim Labor Zionist youth in North America” By J. J. Goldberg, Elliot King Illegal Immigration SHIMON KAUFMAN, Los Angeles, 1958 becomes: Cyprus 1947 “The British scarcely provided the Red Carpet Treatment SHIMON KAUFMAN, Los Angeles, 1958 And “Illegal Immigration” Laying the groundwork Akiva Skidell, Kfar Blum 1985

Looks like "HaBonim Arise and Build" has been tampered with. This should make for an interesting chapter. Thanks for the heads up on the "Habonim Arise and Build"Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In HaBonim Arise and Build THE FOUNDING OF HABONIM SAADIA GELB, Kfar Blum. 1959

Becomes in “Builders and dreamers: Habonim Labor Zionist youth in North America” By J. J. Goldberg, Elliot King THE FOUNDING OF HABONIM Into the whirlwind of History SAADIA GELB, Kfar Blum. 1985

For HaBonim Arise and Build 1960 to have articles written in 1985 makes it well ahead of its time. I don't think HaBonim Arise and Build has a very good provenance.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Churchill White Paper says that every individual citizen in Palestine has the legal status "Palestinian". Every Palestinian Arab is Palestinian. Every Palestinian Jew is Palestinian. So there is no doubt that "the term 'Palestinian' had also been applied for many years to Palestinian Jews" (and Arabs too). Of course when someone writes about things that differentiate between two groups, he will use words that differentiate between them instead of using the same word, because to do otherwise would be incomprehensible. Humans are not Marklars. But all this disputation has nothing to do with this article at all, which supposedly is about Palestinian territories - about land, not people. Citations linking this statement to the article topic, not just citations for the statement itself are necessary. So in fact the earlier version, before Ashley's edits, with "Additionally, the term 'Palestinian' had also been applied for many years to Palestinian Jews in the same region" always was OR in this context itself, and we owe Ashley thanks for starting this debate, which highlighted this little piece of OR cruft.

The sentence that was above it, about Jewish objections, may need a cite too - it shouldn't be hard to find, but would probably help improve that sentence. So in light of this, I will remove the whole entirely misplaced discussion from the article.John Z (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Arise and Build is a history of the first 25 years of Habonim, and it was published in 1960, the 25th anniversary of the founding. Perhaps Kfar Blum, a kibbutz largely established by Habonim members, reprinted the book in 1985, the 50th anniversary of Habonim's founding.

Builders and Dreamers is a different book that was written for the movement's 50th anniversary. It may have reprinted some of the essays from the older book.

Re: the publication of Arise and Build, see this citation in Essays in Modern Jewish History: A Tribute to Ben Halpern (note 5, page 307), this citation in Envisioning Israel: The Changing Ideals and Images of North American Jews (note 42, page 102), and this citation in American Jewish Women and the Zionist Enterprise (note 2, page 217). The book was brought out in 1961, one year following the 25th anniversary, not 1960. — ] (] · ]) 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What was the original language of the "haBonim Arise and Build"?

Because in "Dreamers and Builders" it gives the essays as dated 1985, is this date of translation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.157.2 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to log in.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Captured/Liberated

Why was my edit rolled back? The current wording in the beginning is a biased POV as to what happened with the land. A Jew will say the 6 day war liberated Judea/Samaria and Gaza, while an Arab would say they captured those places. The only people who technically captured them were Egypt and Jordan. No sovereign country was ever conquered/captured. Relinquish is a word that plainly means let go of. The idea being that it's a neutral word for Egypt and Jordan no longer controlled the territories, and Israel now does. Further disputed territories makes most sense because if one group says one thing and another something else in which there is a dispute then they are disputed. Just because the whole world believes in one thing doesn't matter, the world isn't a democracy. --Saxophonemn (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Relinquish means willingly. If a country gains control of a territory by war, the territory was captured. While "liberated" is POV, as it expresses an opinion about the legal owner of the land, "captured" simply explains the facts. A POV phrasing from the other side would be, perhaps, "illegally captured", "stolen", or some such crap. okedem (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Relinquish does not mean willingly it's a very parev word for not theirs anymore. As a native English speaker and frequent user of a dictionary to verify definitions I feel this is the most appropriate word choice. The wiktionary is not the best dictionary in the world. Also for the first line there was a subject-verb disagreement 'are' not 'is' is the proper verb. - Perhaps a clarification is needed, to state:

"The Palestinian territories one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and occupied by Jordan and by Egypt in the late 1940s, and by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War."

Logistically the Israeli acquisition of the territories was the first time they were actually captured by a party that had a legitimate claim to them, though be it a 2000 year old claim. --Saxophonemn (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it means willingly. All dictionaries I consulted seem to support that. Oh, and your use of "Logistically" is, of course, wrong. okedem (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Of all these verbs meaning to let go or give up, relinquish is the most general. It can imply anything from simply releasing one's grasp (: she relinquished the wheel) to giving up control or possession reluctantly (: after the defeat, he was forced to relinquish his command)." --My apple dictionary's right word choice. The second definition of relinquish is "to give up"! Yielded would also be appropriate as well as surrendered. However all of those words throw in POV, after all they lost them to Israel in the most simplest terms. Yet, that wasn't stated either. Captured is probably the most poor word choice to describe what happened. They essentially willingly gave up the territories as well if you were to go that far as they wanted a cease fire to end the war instead of trying to get them back. Presently Egypt and Jordan no longer want them.

Um, yes with logistically it works how many people were involved involved it was a complex operation, despite Jordan doing its best to hand over Yehuda and the Shomron to Israel. Besides the point that's a non-issue, you seem offended, no offense was meant. My concern from a POV standpoint is that captured is not the most appropriate word. --Saxophonemn (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Much as I sympathize with your desire to make articles less anti-Israel (this article seems pretty much okay to me), relinquish typically, unless modified, implies giving something up voluntarily. Regardless of whether or not Jordan and Egypt had a legitmate right to the, what became, the Israeli Occupied Territories, Egypt and Jordan controlled them, and Israel captured them during the Six Day war. If you are implying that Jordan did truly voluntarily give up their lands, then I apologize, since this is something I am not aware of and I do not think is the consensus opinion of what happened. Sposer (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I ultimately figured yield works best, since it more strongly demonstrates unwillingness. Since yield is a milder form of surrender it works. The connotation of capture is negative in this sense because it equates the capture of Egypt and Jordan with the capture of the territories by Israel which should more aptly be captured back. The instance is ridiculous because of all of the area of Israel the region of Ju-dea has the highest connection to the Jews, with two of Judaism's holiest cities, Jerusalem and Hebron. --Saxophonemn (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the language is fine as it is. If anything, it's biased toward Israel. The Territories are described as "captured and occupied by Jordan and by Egypt", and then "captured by Israel". If I were you, I would leave well enough alone, before somebody adds that they were "captured and occupied by Israel". — ] (] · ]) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's biased towards Israel, the Israeli bias would be that they were liberated. Recall that the lands were promised to the Jews in the White Paper and further back. Things essentially fell a part when 80% of the mandate became Jordan. Hebron a city in a the West Bank is the second holiest city in Judaism, an often ignored fact, yet taking it back, ie liberating it is what happened. You're ignoring the equivocation of captured. That creates a serious ethical miscalculation. That is the issue!--Saxophonemn (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're reading equivocation where none exists. Capture simply means taking by force, which is what happened. Past promises are not the point here, nor is the holiness of certain cities. okedem (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the same word, thus an equivocation. The problem I see is that the Israeli acquisition of parts of Israel would need to say captured back. That is what is wrong with captured simply put. --19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxophonemn (talk • contribs)

When exactly, before 1967, were the West Bank and Gaza part of the State of Israel? In order to say that Israel "captured back" the Territories, one would have to demonstrate that they were Israel's in the first place. — ] (] · ]) 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The first charter for Israel was written down 3500 years ago in the Torah. If you think that is a bad comparison then think about how the France today is a different France from the first one. In that right we're in the post commonwealth/republic of Israel preceded the Temple Era governments. If you peel back the layers of History Israel was the only place to have owned that land before that "owns" it now.--Saxophonemn (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

'The first charter for Israel was written down 3500 years ago in the Torah.'

I.e.1500 BCE. It's what philologists envy God for. That he could write down a charter in the Torah six centuries before the creation of Hebrew script, and a thousand years before serious recensions of the Torah began. Retroactive titles for landtheft smack inevitably of miracles. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen even 1000 years ago it was known people would dispute Jewish sovereignty. Your damning argument falls apart rather easily. For starters we would need intact parchments from that era, engraving typically uses a different font for example like cursive writing as opposed to print. Land theft, how do you steal land, (true colors of a bias)? On the national level that's called losing a war.--Saxophonemn (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Legality of occupation

While the UN like most international organizations regards an occupation of a terrotory as an unfavorable temporary situation, this is not an illegal state of affairs as long as the reasons for the occupation can be justified by the international law and the humanitarian international law is kept by the occupying country. The UN never said that the the Israeli occupation of the territories captured in 1967 was illegal in principle. It did determine that certain actions of Israel as the occupaying force were illegal. In fact, the 242 and 338 security council resolutions states that Israel's neighboring countries should recognize it and allow it to live within peaceful secure borders before Israel hands back these territories. DrorK (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note not all of the territories just some, and Israel already gave away most of them. --Saxophonemn (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The 242/338 resolutions are fulfilled and completed as far as Egypt and Jordan are concerned. Israel has already announced it was giving up the Gaza Strip (there is a debate about whether Israel is still considered an occupying force in the Strip, but it is very clear that Israel doesn't have any claims for this territory). So we are talking about the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Whether the 242 resolution means "all" or "some" territories, it refers to several fronts of the conflict. Currently, two of them - the Israeli-Syrian front and the Israeli-Palestinian front - are still an open case. DrorK (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are these people who happily carry on a discussion on questions of international law without even considering the opinions of international legal authorities? This is fantasyland talk - you are going well beyond even the official claims of Israel itself. According to the consensus of international legal scholars, the Gaza Strip, the entire West Bank including East Jerusalem, and the Golan heights remain under occupation. The granting of a desultory form of "self-government" (as long as Palestinians don't vote in the wrong party) to a few Palestinian towns doesn't change that, nor does the redployment of forces from within Gaza to the borders, airspace, and waters of Gaza. Bottom line: Israel remains the occupying power in all three territories, Israel remains obligated under 242 to negotiate for the establishment of a just and durable peace in the mideast, based on termination of territorial claims and states of belligerency and the establishment of secure and mutually recognized borders. And anyway I'm not sure what you're actually proposing to be done with this article - talk pages are not just for having a fun time discussing your own political beliefs. <eleland/talkedits> 00:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

UN resolutions aren't worth the paper they're printed on, the international organization is a group of dictatorships that pick on Israel. Your stance on the matter show little understanding of the UN, nor the resolutions it passes. It's generally agreed that the final status will not be the 1949 Armistice line, so Israel will get to keep some of the territory.--Saxophonemn (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your personal political opinions on the character and value of the United Nations is not relevant to this discussion, nor are your gratuitous personal attacks. It's generally agreed that adjustments will be made to the 1949 armistice lines, and this is the first time either of us has brought up that fact in the discussion - why are you suddenly changing your line of argument? <eleland/talkedits> 10:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are both expressing your personal views rather than sticking to the facts. I only referred to the term "illegal occupation" which is incorrect in the context of this article because the international law does recognize a legitimate occupation, and the Israeli occupation can be said to be legitimate according to UN resolutions 242 and 338. The appeal to negotiate in order to achieve peaceful durable solution is aimed at all parties, and there are demands from all parties, not only from Israel. By the way, deploying the state's forces on the border is the essential part of ending an occupation. Israel redeployed its forces on the Gaza Strip border and declared the dissolution of the martial law authorities for Gaza, hence it made the essential steps towards ending the occupation of this specific territory. It still controls the airspace and territorial waters of the Strip for various reasons (there were numerous attacks from Gaza on Israelis including invasions into Israeli soil), but the core of the occupation regime is gone. DrorK (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually occupation by definition requires taking over another country. So, according to the definition of occupation made by the Hague in the early 1900s, which was later adopted by the Geneva Convention, there is no occupation!!!--Saxophonemn (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are completely wrong. Any seizure of territory or part of territory by force might be regarded as occupation (of course there are other criteria to consider). In the case of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israel has never treated them as part of its sovereign territory. These territories have been always subject to a special martial law. The case of eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is somewhat different, but even the Golan Heights were subject to martial law until 1981. DrorK (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Occupation requires a hostile nation taking over a place, Israel was in a defensive position when it took over the area. When Sharon used occupation by name he started to agree with the enemies of Israel that Israel occupied the territories which are disputed. --Saxophonemn (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this discussion is futile. What you say is not compatible neither with the international law nor with the Israeli law and certainly not with the actual situation. DrorK (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"ISRAEL DOES not fit the literal definition of an occupying force. The Hague Conventions and the later Geneva Conventions of 1949 do not appear to apply definitively to the West Bank. The West Bank has never been sovereign territory, and was won from a nation which held no legal claim to the area. After Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza, former Supreme Court president Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since the convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign which was ousted, and that it had been a legitimate sovereign.""- Ashley Perry, I read about this and had trouble finding the article. The actual situation is that Olmert was undergoing a land sale to save his group, anyone giving up land puts the country in danger! --Saxophonemn (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're citing an op-ed in a conservative Israeli newspaper. Um, so what? This is a question of international law; there is a clear consensus among expert sources in that field, not to mention actual legal opinions (Consequences of a Wall for starters - hell, even Israeli Supreme Court judgments) that Israel does, of course, fit the literal definition of an occupying force. Do you understand how WP:NPOV says we deal with conflicting claims in various sources? Do you accept it? <eleland/talkedits> 18:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely an occupation. However, there is definitely no basis whatsoever to call it an "illegal" occupation. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have arisen from Drork's explanation of this edit , which removed the word "illegally" before "occupied". Since (so far as I know) nobody is arguing for or attempting to reinsert the word "illegally" or strike the word "occupied" in the sentence in question, the above debates are mostly unnecessary. If someone wants to suggest alternative wording for the sentence in question then there would be a basis for continuing. Sanguinalis (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above glosses over the unequivocal fact that the responsible courts and UN organs have already determined that Israel is a belligerent occupying power, and that its civilian settlements in Palestinian Territory are an illegal form of occupation. Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly stipulates that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". The High Contracting Parties issued a joint statement in 2001 which explained: 'The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof.'

In S/RES/465, 1 March 1980, The UN Security Council 'determined that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.'

In Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court noted that the government of Israel has in fact been holding Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation since 1967. That decision also held that international humanitarian laws are applicable in the occupied territory. In a separate May 2004 decision regarding IDF operations in Rafah, the court held that to the extent that military operations affect civilians, they are governed by Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land 1907 and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949.

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the International Court of Justice held that the Israeli government is acting in contravention of international law in many respects, particularly in regard to the establishment of settlements: 'The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.' The court also pointed out that all signatories to the Geneva Convention have an obligation to insure Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

A/RES/57/126, Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly 'reaffirmed that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development.'

An official Israeli government investigation also concluded that Israeli state bodies had built many West Bank settlements and outposts that were illegal under ordinary Israeli administrative law, see the Misplaced Pages entry under Sasson Report for more details. In almost every case, the Commander of the belligerent occupation forces in Judea and Samaria had issued orders to expropriate the plots of land which were subsequently utilized for civilian settlements by employing 'military necessity' or 'security' as a pretext. That justification appears extremely doubtful when Israeli settlers refuse to turn over plots of land to their own occupation authorities: see for example: Jewish Residents Prevent Expulsion by IDF. harlan (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that UN GA resolutions are non binding opinion pieces, the GA contains the alliance of non aligned states a majority against Israel! It's like finding a White Power rally declaring Jews to be scum, nothing remarkable. Additionally Israel doesn't recognize the ICJ for its unfair treatment, and it's logistical conflict of impartiality. Stating the occupation is illegal requires the state that was occupied to complain that they're being occupied, oh wait, not possible. The Geneva convention refers to actions that were post WW2 population expulsions, not settlements. Seriously though what should Israel have done revert to a border that worked so well before. UN SC Res 465 never actually states illegality, the context of a resolution is very important. --Saxophonemn (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization and UN terminology

Regarding this sentence in the Name section of the article:

Since 1967, the territories have been called "occupied Palestinian territories" by most members of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

When the subject is terminology currently used by the United Nations — the text actually says "most members of the United Nations", but who has done a survey? — there is no question that all three words in Occupied Palestinian Territories are in fact capitalized. It is easy to find reams of UN documents where it is written that way. Here's a typical General Assembly resolution: . The term Occupied Palestinian Territories, with each word capitalized, also appears not just in resolutions but in numerous UN agency reports, studies, and reference materials. It also appears that way in the ICJ ruling on the West Bank separation barrier. By the way, "since 1967" is not correct. So far as I know, the term Occuipied Palestinian Territories (now often abbreviated as OPT) first appears in UN documents in the mid-1980s. Before that you generally see references to "occupied Arab territories" (which of course referred to a larger area), as in this example: . Absent a published study on the question, we ought not to attempt to pinpoint the exact time the term OPT came into widespread use. I think it's best to simply say what the current terminology is.

On this subject, the language the "Palestinian" label having gained wide use since the 1970s, in a later (and older) paragraph in the same section, is somewhat derogatory and smacks of editorializing. I removed the whole paragraph containing it, because there is now a preceding statement in the article that the UN uses the term OPT, because attempting to trace the history of the term is original research (as I have said), and because the implication in the the final statement that Resolution 181 used the description "Judea and Samaria" to mean the same entity that "Palestinian Territories" refers to today is simply false. The words Judea and Samaria do appear in that resolution, but they do not refer to the areas now known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a whole. Of course, before the 1948 war, the present Gaza and West Bank boundaries had no meaning; the closest thing at that time to what is now called the Palestinian Territories was the area allocated to the Arab state in the partition plan for Palestine. Resolution 181 does not refer to that area as "Judea and Samaria", it refers to it as "the Arab State". Sanguinalis (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The neighboring Arab States interfered in the establishment of an Arab State in Palestine. On 30 November 1947, the Palestine Post carried an article with the headline 'Arab States Prepare To Fight Abdullah' which explained that the other Arab States would not accept Transjordan taking over the new Arab state in Palestine by itself, and that they were preparing to fight.

After the UN Security Council refused to impose the partition plan by force, the representatives of the Jewish Agency undertook discussions with Transjordan and the US State Department regarding financial assistance, population exchanges, and the annexation - by Transjordan - of the proposed Arab state in Palestine. It was suggested that the problem of Jerusalem could also be resolved by establishing a condominium of Transjordan and the Jewish State. The Jewish Agency resisted efforts to establish a truce in hopes that 'a deal could be worked out between King Abdullah and the Jewish Agency whereby the King would take over the Arab portion of Palestine and leave the Jews in possession of their state in the remainder of that country.' see Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2 (1948), page 973 and Minutes from meeting of Shertok and Epstein with Secretary Marshall, Lovett, and Rusk, 8 May 1948, Political and Diplomatic Documents of the Central Zionist Archives, doc. 483, pp. 757-76. For discussion of separate State Department talks with Rabbi Silver see US/A/C.1/685, Memorandum by Mr. John E. Horner, SECRET, NEW YORK, May 4, 1948, Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2 pages 898-901

Presidential Advisor Clark Clifford observed that Security Council authorization for the use of force to impose the partition plan wasn't needed, since 'the actual partition of Palestine had already taken place "without the use of outside force".' see Memorandum of Conversation, by Secretary of State, May 12, 1948, Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2 (1948), pages 972-976.

The switch to the 'Palestinian' label happened in the 1970s. After the events of Black September in Jordan, the Arab League finally affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and called on all the Arab states (including Jordan) to undertake to defend Palestinian national unity and not to interfere in their internal affairs. The Arab League also 'affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.' In practical terms that meant the Kingdom of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria could no longer act as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, or their territory. see PLO sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people harlan (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting background, and the references to source material are certainly welcome. Do you have a proposal for improving the article? Sanguinalis (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar of the first paragraph

Palestinian territories are a proper adjective describing a plural noun. Thus the subject verb agreement of a subject noun which is a plural has to have a properly conjugated verb. Somehow no one seems to see the problem. (oops)--Saxophonemn (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. We had this discussion a few weeks ago. The lead refers to the term "Palestinian territories", which is a singular. It is a designation. If we were talking about the territories, as such, they would certainly be a plural. I know it's confusing, but it was even worse before, and seemed to have been resolved. By the way, welcome back. (Please sign your comment). Hertz1888 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The only parallel I see is in United States, but that was out of a symbol of unity post the Civil War. After surviving a with hunt I'm back, BH!!--Saxophonemn (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence should not be about a term in the first place. It should just describe what the Palestinian Territories are. That would avoid all grammatical problems. I propose the following replacement: "The Palestinian Territories are comprised of two discontiguous regions, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, whose final status has yet to be determined, pending agreement between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority." Sanguinalis (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, as long as we stop with "determined". The last clause assumes too much and may be incorrect. By all means let's dodge the grammatical problems, but without creating new issues. The rest of the present lead sentence's content (the portion about the Mandate and other history) of course must stay, perhaps least awkwardly in a second sentence. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whew, thanks because that first line was killing my nerves. However I wish the page was moved to disputed territories because this creates a POV that the territories are Palestinian, but they represent a bulk of the actual Jewish homeland.--Saxophonemn (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The new opener is up, I hope you all like it.--Saxophonemn (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your change was not at all what was discussed here. It was grammatically incorrect, so I reverted it. The sentence is correct as it is: "Palestinian territories" is one of a number of designations... — ] (] · ]) 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with Hertz1888's suggestion to stop with "determined". Somehow we do need to convey the fact though that the PTs do not currently constitute a state. As to Saxophonemn's proposed changes, I think both of them (renaming the article, and the lead sentence) go too far in the direction of supporting a fringe view. Actually the current version of the article still has this problem. The fact is there is an overwhelming worldwide consensus that the territories are called the Palestinian Territories. The term is used in all the world's major newspapers, even conservative ones like the Wall Street Journal. The U.S. State Department uses the term routinely (note the capitalization here). To see the problem with making the lead about a term instead of the thing, imagine the lead for Israel reading "Israel is a designation, for many, of those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which were captured by Jewish forces in the 1948 Palestine war". Sanguinalis (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Malik, they is coming to take you away, is good English. Now seriously everything I learned in English tells me how this works. Would you back up your assertion with this wonderful rule in Grammar that I missed. Your constructive criticism's authority is lacking both authority or a convincing argument. It's more so bullying if anything else. I can't wait to be the editor to write were and "The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then . . . passed away. The Greek and the Roman followed. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts. … All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?" - Mark Twain. --Saxophonemn (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Government of the United Kingdom (December 31, 1930). "REPORT by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN FOR THE YEAR 1930". League of Nations. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
2. Isabel Kershner (8 February 2007). "Noted Arab citizens call on Israel to shed Jewish identity". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2007-01-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Western Asia articles
• Top-importance Western Asia articles
• WikiProject Western Asia articles
• Unassessed Arab world articles
• Unknown-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles