Talk:Proposed Israeli annexation of the West Bank

Map

From this New York Times article, there's a graphic that shows the exact borders of the area intended to be annexed by Israel. There's also a photo by the Associated Press that shows Netanyahu by a government map of the area. I was wondering if someone could recreate this map? Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Created a map. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

65k Palestinians in Jordan Valley / Netanyahu

According to our present text - "According to B'Tselem, 65,000 Palestinians and about 11,000 Israeli settlers live in the area" - while this is correct for general geographic area of the Jordan Valley and is quoted by RSes - it is presented in a somewhat misleading manner as the vast majority of these 65,000 Palestinians are not in the specific map presented by Netanyahu (which does not cover the entire Jordan Valley) - e.g. notably Palestinian settlements on the Western edge of the valley and Jericho/Al-Auja, Jericho are omitted. I would suggest separating between general background info on the Jordanian valley (in which this statistic is relevant) - and the specific map presented (which is smaller subset). The Times of Israel piece has a more specific analysis (which notes several blatant errors in the map itself). Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added PeaceNow analysis of Netanyahu map which gives 52,950 Palestinians and 12,778 settlers.(They also provide a downloadable list of the affected communities).Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: - beyond Peace Now being a PRIMARY advocacy source - you are misrepresenting them. Peace Now explicitly describes Areas A+B (not annexed by the map) in a separate fashion - "In Area A and B (planned to remain under the nominal autonomous rule of the Palestinian Authority, with access roads) – 15 communities, including 44,175 Palestinians.".Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added in the additional material so as not to misrepresent PeaceNow ie the idea that there will non annexed communities surrounded by annexed territory, described by PeaceNow as equivalent to bantustans in South Africa.Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Occupation of the West Bank

Neither source currently used in the article for the claim that "Israel disputes that the west bank is occupied" supports that statement. Supporting Israeli settlement there, or saying Israelis have a right to settle there is not the same thing. See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Status_of_territories_occupied_by_Israel_in_1967#Israeli_judicial_decisions Here come the Suns (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• It depends on what kind of occupation is meant. Israel claims all of the territory in the former British Mandate for Palestine and disputes that belligerent occupation applies to the West Bank (which would trigger provisions in the Geneva Conventions). Its position is that United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 authorizes it to hold on to the territory indefinitely. (As a side note, Israeli governments and the Supreme Court have often been at odds, with the former accusing the latter of liberal bias and excessive intervention. What is the position of "Israel", the one held by the judicial branch or elected government?) buidhe 20:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Israel does not claim the territory of the West Bank, as its Supreme court rulings I've pointed to you show. It claims the 4th Geneva convention does not apply to the territory, but it does not dispute that it is occupied. Those are different things. If you want to say that the Israeli position is that territory is not occupied, you to find a source that says that. Neither of the sources in the article do. Here come the Suns (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this position is a bit of a reach. Apart from the Gov position laid out here https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/israeli%20settlements%20and%20international%20law.aspx (disputed territories and the rest) the situation in East Jerusalem is an obvious case of occupation denial. I do agree with you that the Israel Supreme Court has taken a different stance but if the Israeli government pays no attention, what value has the court? The simplest way to phrase things without getting entangled in all the legalities is the way we phrase it in all of the articles ie Israel disputes this.Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not a reach at all, but the official position of the Israeli government. Did you read the link you posted? It dos not use the word 'disputed' even once. It makes a case that Jewish settlement in these occupied areas does not violate the 4GC, but it does not say they are not occupied, and implicitly says they are -e.g: "The provisions of Article 49(6) regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory should not be seen as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been forcibly ousted." - if they were not occupied, why would 49)6) even be mentioned?

East Jerusalem is indeed a different case- as it has been annexed by an act of the Israeli legislature, and Israeli law applies there. The same is not true of the West Bank in general, which is under military rule. The case of EJ actually makes it clear that Israel does not view the WB the same as EJ, i.e, it does not view it as its territory.

What we say in other articles is that Israel disputes the illegality of settlements, whcih is true, The phrase I removed from this article says something else- that Israel disputes the terrorizes are occupied. That is simply not true, and not supported buy the source given for it in the article.Here come the Suns (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The link I gave you says "In legal terms, the West Bank is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations - and indeed both the Israeli and Palestinian sides have committed to this principle. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory." That is exactly what "disputed" means and is the same thing as occupation denial. East Jerusalem is also occupation denial, the fact that Israeli law applies there only serves to highlight the fact that an occupier must not change the law in the territory occupied and an annex needs either a treaty of cession or international recognition for efficacy. I am not bothered about the precise wording only that it is not correct to say that Israel (at least its Government) accepts the fact of occupation because they clearly do not. Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

there are indeed competing claims, which Israel has raised, time and again in negotiations. That does not mean that Israel disputes that the territories are occupied, pending resolution of the competing claims. If you want to say that in the article, you need to support that with a source, not your personal interpretation of a source that says something else.Here come the Suns (talk)

You misunderstand me, I am not saying that that is what I want to put in the article, what I am saying is that what is in the article now is not wrong, for the reasons I have given.Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

What the article now says -that Israel disputes that the West Bank is occupied - is wrong, and not supported by the source. Israel does not dispute that the West Bank, other than Jerusalem, is occupied. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

One needs to distinguish between the public position of the Israeli government and the real official position. When government lawyers present arguments to the High Court, they take it as given that the WB (not including EJ) is held in "belligerent occupation" and that the international laws of occupation given in the Hague Conventions apply. In fact that is the entire legal basis of Israeli rule there, denied by nobody. Even the Israeli domestic law applied to the settlers comes via a 2-step process whereby the IDF Commander in the WB issues an ordinance that applies that law. Zero^talk 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote, Israel does not dispute that the WB (except Jerusalem) is occupied. The article is wrong, and it needs to be corrected. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This 2014 paper (Israeli biased but RS all the same) describes Israel's position (page 24):

..the official position designates them as “disputed territories” to which Israel has a priority claim of right. Since they were not taken from any other sovereign state, the Hague Regulations 1899/1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention do not apply to them.

This is the same thing as saying that the territory is not occupied territory.

The NYT ref in the article has this:

"...of the world considers it occupied territory and Israeli settlements there to be illegal. Nonetheless, about 200 settlements have been established in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their capital under a two-state solution to the conflict."

See that word "nonetheless"? The claimed basis for those settlements is that outlined in the paper I gave above.

I can trivially source plenty of material in support of the position that "Israel disputes this". In fact it is generally a given that Israel disputes everything for any kind of reason at all (and then backs it up with legal opinions from Baker, Kontorovich and so on). Here is a Palestine note to the UN about "disputed" versus "occupied". If you don't want to accept that we can start adding in all the references and materials in support of the position that "Israel disputes this" or you could just accept it as given, which is what everybody else does.Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, you need a source that says Israel disputes that the territories are occupied, not your personal interpretation that saying that the 4GC does not apply is the same thing. The word "nonetheless" comes right after "Israeli settlements there to be illegal.", and Israel indeed disputes that the settlements are illegal. But it does not dispute that the WB is occupied. Read what Zero0000, no fan of Israel or its polices, wrote above. Here come the Suns (talk)

You don't seem to get that disputed and occupied are a contradiction? As for what Zero wrote, he is correct domestically, that is what Israel does. But that is not what Israel does internationally, you have the same two cases, speaking to the ICJ or the ICC and then speaking in international settings of one sort or another. Anyway, you apparently just want to be difficult so I will sort out the relevant sources and add them into the article.Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. I have added a note for the IMoFA specifically disputing that the territories are occupied and that they should be referred to as disputed along with a secondary source confirmation of the primary source.Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I looked for the 2014 article and the link is broken, but I found it here [1] using the quoted text. I was amazed to see it was written by Talia Einhorn, a radical right-wing Israeli academic. The views expressed in the article cannot be considered Israel's position, or any formal position for that matter. She had employed a biased interpretation of international laws many times, and cannot in any way be used a reliable source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the link, there was a stray } sitting at the end (you are the first to notice, shows how little attention anyone pays to this stuff). Israel has more than its fair share of radical right wing academics but bias by itself doesn't disqualify an RS, you would need to demonstrate unreliability. And her understanding of Israel's position is exactly the same as my understanding of it (it originated with the Levi report if memory serves me.)Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Annexation of the Jordan Valley which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)