Talk:West Bank

From Academic Kids Online Encyclopedia

Archived content:

• Talk:West Bank/Archive 1

Contents

1 Legal theories (ctd) 2 Modest Opinion 3 Compromise 4 "Judea and Samaria" 5 For a Better article 6 Proposed map 7 "Terrorism"

Legal theories (ctd)

Thread continued from Talk:West Bank/Archive 1.

For readability, I switched back to the far left. Jayjg, thanks for your attempt to answer - but you only state that the status is confusing and disputed. But that can only be the case, if there are different possibilities. Why is it so difficult to explicitely state these. Should I try some wild guesses and you answer yes and no. It's becoming silly, not very good for such a topic. Nevertheless.

Possible POVs:

• The Westbank is a no-mans-land (like Antarctica or the Moon)
• The Westbank is a part of Israel
• The Westbank is a part of Lebanon
• The Westbank is still a part of the Ottoman Empire

Pjacobi 16:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The West Bank is in an unusual legal situation; it was owned by the Ottoman Empire, which no longer exists. It was then controlled under a British and League of Nations mandate, both of which have expired. It was occupied and annexed by Jordan, but Jordan has since repudiated ownership. It is now controlled by Israel, but Israel has not annexed it. I wish things were simpler, and you could fit the West Bank into some other category, but this unique set of circumstances makes the West Bank a disputed territory under International Law. Jayjg 00:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So it seems to me, that the West Bank is one (more precisely the last) part of the deceased entitity "Ottoman empire", whose dissolution is not yet completed. No existing country (as per UN definition) claims it to be an integral part of it, but a precursor to a possible future country (the Palestinian Authority) does. Israel does control the territory including its border control and does claim jurisdiction over all inhabitants, but grants citizen rights only to the jewish inhabitants.

IANAL and YMMV, but what about this summary?

Pjacobi 09:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One existing country does claim at least parts of the West Bank are integral to it; Israel, which claims the area around Jerusalem, and has annexed them. Israel also grants citizenship rights to those Palestinians living in the annexed area. Other Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are citizens of the Palestinian Authority, which is not quite a country, but which is definitely a form of government. Jayjg 19:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Comment by a frequent Wikipedia user

NOTE: This article is horribly biased. One would not know, for instance, that there was an indigenous population in Palestine before, during, and after Ottomon rule; that according to Zionism's founder, Theodor Hertzl, Argentina was seriously considered as a possible homeland for the Jews; that from the late 19th century through to the 1940's, there was massive Jewish immigration to Palestine, and that immigration was opposed by the indigenous population and also by Britain; that as late as 1948, the year in which Israel was created as a state, the ratio of Arab to Jew in Palestine was more than 2 to 1; that some 800,000 Palestinians were kicked out of their homeland in 1948; and so on. The aim of this page should be to tell the truth, not give an obviously one-sided reading (i.e., Zionist reading) to an important issue.

NOTE THE NOTE ABOVE: Even if this article is biased, which I do doubt, the Jews are not some kind of immigrants of an area where the Palestinians are "supposed" to live. If you would be a bit more educated or not "biased", Jews lived in that area for a long long time, but of course you do not know that or just simply do not want to accept the fact. Sincerely, another frequent Wikipedia user

These topics are covered in a number of articles. The Argentina issue, for example, is mentioned in Zionism. "Truth" is often in the eye of the beholder; what you view as the "truth" might not be viewed by others as the "truth"; Wipikedia strives to present a neutral point of view instead.Jayjg 04:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COMMENT: "Truth" is obviously not "in the eye of the beholder": it refers to what is and what has been. As I read your article, I saw absolutely no reference to the most important facts: namely, 1) that 800,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland in 1948; that 2) Israel has been in violation of literally dozens of U.N. Resolutions going back 50 years, and has been condemned by even American allies; that 3) the rest of the world considers the West Bank to be occupied rather than disputed territory. The Israeli and Zionist points of view SHOULD be given, but not at the expense of the rest of the picture. Thank you.

Actually, truth is quite obviously in the eye of the beholder, since people can so rarely agree on what it is, yet all believe they have it. "What is and what has been" are facts, and even these are hotly disputed. The "facts" you refer to are very well referenced in many, many articles on Wikipedia; each article cannot be a recapitulation of the entire history of Zionism and Arab-Israeli conflict; rather, articles like this link to the relevant articles that discuss these issues. Jayjg | Talk 21:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COMMENT: Truth most certainly is not "in the eye of the beholder." Truth is what is so about something. It may be difficult to discern or ascertain, and different people may disagree about what is true about something, but the truth is still the truth. Viewpoints may be divergent and many, but truth is one.

In this article on the West Bank there is no mention at all that Israel is in violation of countless U.N. Resolutions, and no mention of many similar (perhaps unpleasant) facts. It just simply isn't good enough to say that other articles allude to these facts. These facts should be stuck right in this article.

Well, whatever the truth is, it's not something Wikipedia can decide, or even tries to. Instead, Wikipedia attempts to present referenced POVs on an issue from different perspectives. As for the article, it's not about U.N. resolutions, or any of the other complaints you have about Israel that you think are so important to address. The issues you refer to are dealt with at length (not "alluded to") in the relevant articles, and by clicking on the copious links provided throughout this article you will easily find them. Jayjg | Talk 22:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COMMENT: I'll be happy, when I have the time, to click on those other links and see what you mean by "dealt with at length." The line of yours above -- "any of the other complaints you have about Israel that you think are so important to address" -- is both hilarious and galling. It is not I who has "complaints" about Israel: it is the international community. It is the Palestinian people, who have lost their homes, their neighborhoods, their families, their heritage. (What do you think the phrase "right of return" refers to?) The fact is that Israel has violated over 100 U.N. Resolutions since 1955, and the rest of the world considers the West Bank occupied rather than disputed territory. Thanks.

Partisans on both sides have complaints; it is clear which side you fall on. Jayjg | Talk 04:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see: this issue, like all others apparently, has "two sides," and these "sides" attract "partisans" like honey attracts bees. We never have to inconvenience ourselves with the question whether somebody is actually saying something that is true.

It's hard to imagine you could get people to agree on what is "true". Wikipedia doesn't even try; instead, it has a Wikipedia:NPOV policy which says that all significant views are presented in a neutral and factual manner. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modest Opinion

Please, DO NOT try to justify the Israeli Government in every action that is involve. I consider this rather offending and clearly a violation of the main Purpuse of Wikipedia: a NEUTRAL and IMPARCIAL Enciclopedia. Messhermit 16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Be that as it may, please examine the Wikipedia:NPOV policy before attempting any major edits to this or other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, may I know why did you revert the article that I modify?. I´m completely trying to make the article a compromise betwen those two factions rather than just stating what I believe. Messhermit

The article is not "my version", and I think your changes and deletions lack NPOV. Please bring your suggested changes here to be discussed first, and please focus on article content, not me. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you read carefully my changes, most of them do not contradict the previous statements, I´m just only making it more impartial. The other part, It may have sound offensive. I accept it and appologise. But I have read almost the entire TALK page and reach to the conclussion that your point of view is not impartial. Please, take just a few moments to read what I have write in the article and we can discuss each one of them in a polite and civilized way, rather than imposing each others articles in the page. the First Change that I made, I made it with the idea of shape the article, not to destroy it. Messhermit

One does not need to be NPOV on Talk: pages, but one does need to be so on article pages. Please do not confuse the two. I reviewed your edits, and felt they were indeed POV. Please bring your changes here first to discuss them, rather than inserting them in the article first. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

Let me explain what did I mean with my modifications, wich are not vandalism (as somebody stated) but just an effort to create a more fair an balance article. Also, I stopped already to modify the page and try to reach a compromise in the TALK article.

The only mayor modifications that I believe that are important is the way of how the article has been writed. As you can see, I diveded the 1st paragraph in smaller sections in order to make it easier to read it.

In the 1st paragraph that appears "Judea and Samaria", I believe that the word "Anexation" is not the apropiated one, since fewer countries would not recognise this. That is the why I try to replaced it with the word "Nationalist", due to its biblical roots and Israeli pride.

Unforunately, the International Community does not recognize that name. And that is something that must be clearly stated in the article. I don´t understand why did you deleted that. Also, rater than Imperialism, I stated once again Nationalistic claims, wich I find less offensive for any Israeli.

In Status, Both sides have a exagerated POV, Israeli and Arab about the maps. That is why I deleted, since it does not contribute with the article at all. Also, at the beginning of the article, I stated "failed negotiations, long-term violence, and in some cases, war." becouse the term applied are to vague.

Instead of terrorism (wich, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflic is extremely controvertial) I stated violence, a more neutral term (since the Arab world claim that Israel is conducting "State Terrorism" and the Israeli claims that Palestinians are the Terrorist) wich is not endorsing or excusing any form of Terrorism but is more neutral.

Also, when Israel declare its independence from the British Mandate, It seized more territory that the UN assign for it, clearly in an attemp to defend itself from the arab armies but also one of the main factors of why the Palestinian State failed to materialize. I believa that that is a historic statement, and not something that I just invent.

As you can see, I have try to explain most of my modifications. I believe that a compromise can be reach in order to make a better article. Messhermit

I've carefully gone through all of your edits again, and I can't see any which actually add to the article. People recognize what the word annexation means, the maps are a fact, so is terrorism, and Israel's land has nothing to do with why an Arab state didn't materialize. I'm sorry, I just don't think the edits help the article at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But Terrorism is not a fact in that specific case. Both sides can put examples that they percieve as "terrorist acts". Anyways, I think that Violence should be include (since not all the problems that are part of the West Bank are Terrorism) as a way to Neutralize the impact of Terrorism in the article. By Annexation, As I said, The International Community not even recognize Jerusalem or the Golan Heighs as part of Israel, so I think that is better stated as a "Nationalistic Aim": Israelies have that goal. The real problem is how they are going to achieve it. About the maps, I said it once and i said it again, it is not necesarely part of the main topic. About the Arab State, I believe that is right to stated that a part of the West Bank was seized during the Israel War of Independence, and that also contribute (with the Jordan Army invading what was left of the land) to explain why a government wasn´t created.

Its History, and I guet that information from an American World History book.

By the way, a map of the Partition and how the territory evolved could be a interesting piece of information to the page. Messhermit

"Judea and Samaria"

Saying that "The Arab world and especially the Palestinians [emphasis mine] strongly object to the terms Judea and Samaria, the use of which they deem to reflect Israeli expansionist aims," is a bit of an understatement. Is there any international use of these terms other than by active supporters of Israeli expansionist aims? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

These are the standard terms used in Hebrew; one need not support alleged Israeli "expansionist aims" to use the terms. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True enough, I'm sure, when writing in Hebrew. But in English? or any other language? Again, I asked about international use; outside of Israel, there is not a lot of non-liturgical use of Hebrew. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think religious Jews and Christians often use the terms, whether or not they are supporters of alleged Israeli "expansionist aims". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria refer to the different tribes who lived there; Judea is where the tribe of Judah settled, Samaria where the Samaritans were (and still are); they have nothing to do with any expansionist or nationalist aims but are historical/biblical terms. (apparently anonymous, 16 May 2005)

For a Better article

Considering talk about West Bank is a tough task, personally i consider a better article can be done. i receintly have saw the changes on the article over throught the history and i think the version of messhermit is impartial. I must say this territory has not nobody seemed to care about until our days.
Some about history,

• Persians,
• Romans,
• Byzantines,
• Ottoman turks and even
• British empire never cared about this,

Arabs got their territory, and so on let the crusaders at least after the third crusade christian pilgrims were allowed to visit the city (Jerusalem), but talking about nowadays after world war two, this has become a main issue considering jews dont have motherland at all, so i think the concern of this article goes beyond of deleting parts. its about trying to get an impartial point of view. Sometimes there are people who actually dont check up their sources like wikipedia manual to write an article say. However i think everyone should keep this in mind the Wikipedia:Editing_policy a good reason to made good article which depicts an accurate description of events surrounding West Bank. Philosophers on ancient greece believed about perfection it is beyond maths or even wise people, people cant be wise at all in our days, but at least we can try to be polite and respect everyone contribution. HappyApple 15:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most of what you are talking about is covered in other articles, like Palestine. The West Bank is a modern designation for a modern territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm deleting most of my previous talks in order to state more clear a NPOV and not mix them (or be confused) with personal attacks. In Fact, the improvements that were reverted are considered impartial and that contribute more to the article. I would like to see why they don't.Please. I urge you to reach a compromise in order to make a good article. Messhermit 16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I actually prefer if people don't mess with their Talk: comments, as it makes responses silly. Regardless, you may consider your edits impartial, but I don't. I'm certainly willing to compromise, though, and I'd like this article to be better. Why don't you bring your proposed changes to this Talk: page, say a paragraph at a time, and we'll go through them and NPOV them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

However, in the links sections, I believe that the following entries:

• Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan
• Israeli West Bank barrier
• Palestine

Should not be included in that part of the article, since this are part of a completely different topic. At least not in this sections. A reorganization of Links is needed. Why cant we create a especial section dedicated to the "Israeli Government" Links and another towards the different oppinions. Messhermit 16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing Palestine if you want, but what's wrong with the other "See also"s? They're specifically about the West Bank, or things in it? As for the Links, there is only one link from the Israeli government; why would you want to separate it from the other links in its own special section? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, Palestine is ok to remove it, since until the PLO can regain sovereign of its territory, is not relevant. However, the Israeli West Bank barrier is not an important contribution to the page. It is a totally diferent article that only add controversy over the status of the territory. The Ocupation of the ... article is clearly a POV, just by the fact that inside that article the name of Judea and Samaria is used for the territory. There is no article regarding the occupatio by Israel (and I believe is not appropiate too) of the West Bank, so I see no point in adding another controversial link to the page. Messhermit 19:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since the article discusses occupation by Israel, it should link to previous occupations of the same territory. As for the barrier, I think it is related, and I think most would agree, but if you insist on removing it I won't object. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think is more neutral. the Occupation by Israel of the West Bank is an ongoing event. About the Jordan one, I think that we should remove it in order to analize it separately from this one. About the Barrier, is better leaving of the main topic of discussion. What about the map? it could be arrange on the History of the territory. It is important to know how the territory evolved. Messhermit 17:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why Jordan's occupation should be "analyzed separately". What other map are you proposing? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jordan Annexation was widely recognize around the world (even the annexation of the Gaza Strip by Egipt was recognize too) but not the Israeli one. And I don't think that by adding that link we are making a more NPOV article. Jordan Anenexation (or occupation) must be analized separately on the article about Jordan history. About the map, I'm talking about the map of the UN Particion Plan, the one that stated about the status of Jerusalem as a separated international administered territory (sort of like the Free State of Danzing) and the proposed Jewish State and the Proposed Arab State. About that, that remainds me that the explanation about why the so call "Arab Stated" never materialize was becouse of the severe fighting betwen the Israeli military and the Jordan Army on CisJordania. That is something that should be stated in this article. Messhermit 17:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Jordanian annexation was recognized by exactly two countries in the world, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. All other countries considered it illegal. As for the rest, the history of the West Bank is obviously relevant to the West Bank; the first 20 years of it's existence it was occupied and annexed by Jordan, you can't wipe that out of the history of this region. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Jayjg on at least one point here: the area has been known as the West Bank since 1948, and the scope of the article should correspond to that. Jordanian occupation is highly relevant, especially because of the continuation of the use of Jordanian law in the West Bank after 1967, and the belated (1988) dropping of Jordan's claim on the territory. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the name of the Article (It's better to call it "West Bank"), What I'm saying is that if Jordanian Occupation is stated, at least the name "Judea and Samaria" should not be used for that. What is your oppinion about the map that I propose, Jmabel? Messhermit 04:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Assuming the map is accurate (it looks to me like it is) my only problem is with the word "seized", which in a mutual combat is rather POV. If that one word is changed to "incorporated", no problem. There may be other possibile words I'm not thinking of... -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

The word "incorporated" is IMO much more biased, I think the word "conquered" should be used, as that only implies the areas were taken in an armed conflict, which is the case. The word "seized" might by someone be interpreted in direction of stealing, while "incorporated" implies recognized legal annexation and is a word generally not used in this context. I feel conquered is the most neutral term, but Im open for other suggestions. --Cybbe 14:48, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Conquered" implies illegal armed seizure, so can hardly be seen as unbiased. The mirror image of "conquered" is "liberated", which I think you would hardly agree as neutral. "Incorporated" implies no legality whatsoever, but merely describes the action, and is obviously an unbiased, neutral term. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To a neutral reader, conquered doesnt imply that this was an illegal seizure. From my dictionary (merriam webster): "1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms  : SUBJUGATE *conquer territory* 2 : to overcome by force of arms  : VANQUISH *conquered the enemy* 3 : to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition *conquered the mountain* 4 : to overcome by mental or moral power  : SURMOUNT *conquered her fear* intransitive verb  : to be victorious ñcon£quer£or \-k*r-*r\ noun " This obviously better describes what happened than "incorporated", and is not biased at all. Check your dictionary. --Cybbe 17:35, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Did the U.S. revolutionary forces "conquer" the United States in 1776? I did check my dictionary, and found that WordNet ® 2.0 dictionary (© 2003 Princeton University) had as a definition for "conquer" take possession of by force, as after an invasion; "the invaders seized the land and property of the inhabitants". To the neutral reader "conquer" has certain implications you appear unwilling to admit. I also looked up "liberate" and found that it means To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control. This obviously matches what happened more closely, since the 6 invading Arab armies were foreign. Of course I looked at the dictionary definition for "incorporate", and found this definition: To unite (one thing) with something else already in existence and To cause to merge or combine together into a united whole, which also seem neutral, but given the foreign invading army aspect I think we should probably go with the more neutral "liberate". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You put more into conquer than what it is, a term which simply means "taken by force". Incorporated implies a peaceful nature to the process, which is outright wrong. And your interpretation of "liberate" assumes a POV. --Cybbe 18:36, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

(Moving left). I put no more into "conquer" than the dictionary does; remember, you asked me to consult it? As for "incorporate", you put more into it than is found in the dictionary; it states nothing about the process being "peaceful". And my interpretation of "liberate" assumes no POV, unless you assume the POV that the Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian, etc. armies were not foreign - is that your position? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Liberate" would, according to your dictionary, assume that the area was "set free". It certainly was not. - Mustafaa 04:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By contrast, its definition of conquer - "take possession of by force" - is an exact and neutral description; the specific examples it gives are not relevant. - Mustafaa 04:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was indeed "set free" from invading foreign armies. As for conquer, the example is given for a reason, which is the inherently non-neutral implication of the word. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can't set someone else's land free by taking it for yourself; did the armies of Genghis Khan "liberate" Croatia from its Hungarian overlords? And the examples given prove only that "conquer" is sometimes used nonneutrally, not that it has any necessary implication of it. - Mustafaa

How about "captured"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Captured sounds fine to me. - Mustafaa 05:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with "captured", but why aren't the lands taken over by Jordan and Egypt similarly characterized? Didn't the 1947 UN partition plan anticipate a separate Arab state in the portion of Mandate Palestine not allocated to Israel? (I promise that I have no hidden agenda in asking this, and perhaps I have misunderstood the partition plan, I'm not expert.) -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

In this article, at least, they are. The plethora of articles on this topic renders more general comments difficult. - Mustafaa 05:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding of the Partition Plan is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then the wordings in the post-'48 map (below) should be equivalent for Israel/Jordan/Egypt. I don't care too much what verb, but labeling Israel as "seizing" or "capturing" land, while the land taken by Jordan and Egypt is merely "Arab land" is clearly inappropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:48, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well-spotted. "Seized" is definitely not neutral. - Mustafaa 23:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed map

This is the map that I'm proposing, by the way. It is edited, so it stated a NPOV. Messhermit 05:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What does that map have to do with the West Bank? That's a map about the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It shows how the territory achieve his present state. I believe that is important to show how was the proposed idea of a Plestinian state before the war. The WEst Bank has not change its boundaries since that war.

I don't see what the left panel adds; the right one, however, looks great for a history of the West Bank section. - Mustafaa 04:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's appropriate for the Arab-Israeli conflict article; it's not relevant here, since the "West Bank" did not exist until after the war was over and the armistice lines set. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The history section should, and does, start a couple of years earlier; there's no reason to cover the Ottomans or the early mandate, but every reason to clarify that, as the article says and this map illustrates, "A part of the pre-1948 Mandatory Palestine, the territories now known as West Bank were mostly part of the territory reserved by the 1947 Partition Plan (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) for an Arab state." In any case, the partition plan is of interest here as the first proposed territorial division in which the outlines of something approximating the "West Bank" can be seen. - Mustafaa 05:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Terrorism"

Messhermit has taken me to task for inconsistency for failing to pursue the issue of the use of the word "terrorism" in this article (per Wikipedia:Words to avoid), while objecting to its use at Alberto Fujimori. Quite frankly, I hadn't even noticed the use of the word in this article. Just to make matters clear: I do not think the use of the word "terrorism" in this article, without attribution of who has used the term, is useful. In particular, besides the first vague reference ("The West Bank has been the object of negotiation, terrorism, and war") the other two references refer to Palestinian "terrorism". No acknowledgment is made that some Israeli tactics (for example, bulldozing homes, beating people) might also be characterized that way. Further, it could easily be construed that all Palestinian resistance to Israel constitutes terrorism. The word "intifada" is not even present on this page. Also, there is not a single mention of violence or threat of violence by settlers. Given that, the introduction of the term "terrorism" seems quite out of place. How can one argue that discussion of "Palestinian terrorism" belongs on this page, but discussion of day-to-day violence does not?

Up until now, I literally have not written one word of this article. On the whole, I'd rather keep it that way; if someone else can address this, it would be appreciated. If not, I'm liable to attempt some edits along these lines myself. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I can't find "terrorism" among the "words to avoid" in the Wikipedia:Words to avoid article; in fact, it actually uses the phrase "terrorist group" as a descriptor itself. Am I missing something? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks like User:Vacuum (who I don't know) removed it with a totally misleading edit comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid&diff=9607559&oldid=9533114). No idea if this was deliberate or accidental -- I'll presume the latter, I don't know this user. Clearly there was no consensus to remove it. I will restore. (I'll also have good look to see if other material was caught in the crossfire.) -- Jmabel | Talk 22:29, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, it probably wasn't a bad faith edit. The article had been duplicated in a bizarre way, basically inserted in the middle of itself. It looks to me like Vacuum simply didn't figure that out properly. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"During the 1950s, there was significant Palestinian refugee infiltration and terrorism through the Green Line" could perhaps be rephrased to "resistance and terrorism" or "aggression and terrorism" but i do not know the nature of the palestinian activity across the border well enough to tell whether using "resistance" would be an euphemism or not, so others with more knowledge of the activites in the 1950s would have to do that edit. I find it hard to believe that all activity across the border would be called terrorisme from a NPOV, but cant say I really know. I dont find the use in "maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce Palestinian terrorism ..." problematic, as that sentence is attributed to an Israeli POV. As for whether some reference should be made to accusations of terrorism commited by Israel and Israeli settlers, I dont really see how it should be written into this article. I do agree that some of the activities of armed, extremist settlers could amount to terrorism, but this is not necessarily the right article for such a discussion. I have no problem using the word terrorism when its applied correctly, but if it's used wrongfully to promote an agenda, another word should be chosen. --Cybbe 18:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, for example, "maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce Palestinian terrorism" could be rephrased as "maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce violent acts that the Israeli government and [whoever else we can cite accurately] characterize as Palestinian terrorism". -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, infiltration is the right words. Between 1952 and 1956, some 100,000 Palestinians moved into the West Bank from Jordan. Some of them were refugees from the previous war, some were people who moved there specifically to attack Israeli cities. (anon, 20 March 2005)

Or, it could be rephrased "maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians", which is less awkward and clearer. Similarly, "there was significant Palestinian refugee infiltration and attacks on Israeli civilians through the Green Line" Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The introduction of "Status" still has the word Terrorism, wich I believe that is not politically apropiate (at least not everything that is happening in the West Bank cannot be classified as Terrorism). Can it be stated in another way? what about Alarming increase of violence? Messhermit 11:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not everything that is happening in the West Bank can be classified as terrorism, but certainly some of it can. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some mention of terrorism should be given, whether a "milder" term should be used "up front" is nothing I have too strong opinions on, however, the article should do it best at reflecting the situation; while terrorisme is certainly part of it, not all forms of violence are terrorism, children throwing rock at police/military etc. The label terrorism should be used on terror, not on all forms of violance as it has then moved from a precise definition into a political view. --Cybbe 21:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a strawman argument to me; I don't know of anyone who is labelling "children throwing rock at police/military" as terrorism. However, I think shooting a pregnant woman and her four young daughters at close range would count. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And shooting palestinian youngs playing soccer should count too. If Palestinians are exercising Terrorism, then Hard-Line Jewish Settlers should also be accused of terrorism against the Palestinians. If the word Terrorism is inevitable in the article, then it must be stated that in some occasions, both sides use it. Messhermit 21:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't say which side is using it, so it's hard to see what your objection is. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point was, using the term without explicitly stating what is terrorism and what is not, one gives the impression that all resistance and violence is terror, which it isn't. And as Messhermit made clear, there are acts commited on the Israeli side too that could be labeled terrorism. --Cybbe 18:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

"war" should cover that, don't you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ironic to say that the israeli side qualify most of Palestinian actions as "terrorism" then, and not of "War". Both sides have extremist (like the assassination of Rabin by a Jewish Zealot), and both sides are in some way responsable for what is happening. So the word Terrorism, if its used, must be stated that is used by both sides. Messhermit 03:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Messhermit here, but would prefer that we write in a manner where the narrative voice of the article does not accuse anyone of terrorism. It's inherently POV who is and is not a terrorist, so it should always be with a cited source as to who calls whom a "terrorist". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

What language would you prefer? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I don't have a lot of time right now, definitely not the time to really work out a concrete suggestion on this in the next few days. The word arises three times in the article. At least one raises a related issue that is suggestive:

1. complete withdrawal from the West Bank in hopes of ending Arab attacks on Israel (sometimes called the "land for peace" position);
2. maintenance of a military presence in the West Bank to reduce Palestinian terrorism by deterrence or by armed intervention, while relinquishing some degree of political control;…

What have we got here? The doves have "hopes of ending Arab attacks". The hawks [implicitly will] "reduce Palestinian terrorism". No "hopes" in the latter, you will notice, and no "reduce terrorism" in the former. The two are presumably trying to achieve the same goal. If there's no need to mention terror in one, then there is no need in the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mmm... A simple sugestion: why don't we leave this article to talk about the West Bank properly? I mean, concentrating it only on the geography and non-political standars? the creation of a West Bank article under Israeli occupation can dela with the political problem, I believe. Messhermit 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, but wherever it is, my issue about asymmetry in how we handle the doves and hawks still stands. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Is there precedent for separating articles this way? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there is one: the page talking about the ocupation of the West Bank by Jordan. At least that article deal with the political and international implications that the jordanian annexation caused to this territory. Why not creating one that involves the currently israeli one?. Well, at least in my opinion, by dividing this article in the "West Bank" (geographicaly talking) and its political status (in both cases, Jordanian and Israeli), the page can be clear of any POV or wrongfull statement. Messhermit 17:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)