Talk:Occupied Territories

Is it about the notion of "occupied territories" in general, or just one case of it? Boris Tsirelson 08:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One case of it, usually capitalized. I would not object to disambiguation, but the proper-name phrase has a specific meaning and common use. I'm not immediately thinking of other examples where it is used as a proper name. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Another point is that the name doesn't fit the facts. Gaza, at least, is obviously not occupied by Israel. I've lost track of the situation in the West Bank, but there have certainly been periods when parts of it have not been occupied. Peter Jackson 17:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaza is under the effective military control of Israel. Further, it is under the Palestinian Authority, which does not have sovereign rights and is effectively occupied in terms of the Third Geneva Convention. The settlements are not desired by said Authority.

Now, if you want to add to the article that some consider this an incorrect name and cite it, fine. In practice, without taking on a legal or political judgment, "Occupied Territories" is commonly understood to be Gaza and the West Bank. I certainly agree that it's ambiguous whether to include East Jerusalem, but that's a common usage. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I must say your first statement surprises me. "Gaza is under the effective military control of Israel"? I think most Israelis, and a lot of other people, would be surprised to hear this, let alone that it's "occupied". As a military editor, you presumably are correct in some technical use of terminology, but CZ has to remember that many of its readers are unfamilar with things like that. That's a good reason for having non-editors on the EC, of course.

As to the so-called "Palestinian Authority", what exactly is it? It seems to me to be a legal fiction. The reality on the ground is that the West Bank, subject to Israeli intervention, is governed by the elected President, while Gaza is governed by (the majority in) the elected Parliament. Peter Jackson 17:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's a more general issue here that the EC might consider. What do you do if the standard name of something is liable to mislead? In some cases a less standard name may be sufficiently current ot be used as the title of the article instead. In other cases it should be explained clearly right at the top of the article. CZ shouldn't be in the business of misleading people. If they're liable to interpret things as meaning other than the truth, that must be dealt with. Citations aren't relevant. Common sense should be applied. Peter Jackson 17:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you prefer, Occupying Power under the Geneva Conventions. That there was an extensive Resistance in France during WWII doesn't mean Germany was other than the Occupying Power.

"subject to Israeli intervention" makes something occupied, as even more do the settlements.

Note, for example, the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza. Gaza is unable to contest that, and a blockade is legally an act of war.

The Palestinian Authority has Observer status at the UN. It's not "so-called." We established a policy, in the Burma/Myanmar discussion, that UN names, when available, would be used. The reality on the ground has nothing to do with the legal name. Further, you are arguing a minor article that links (or should) to Palestinian Authority. This argument belongs there. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Howard's comments and decisions, here. The only question in my mind, in order to distinguish from other historical instances of occupied territories, is whether the title should be "The Occupied Territories". Let me think a little on this, and see what the literature does too. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Thank you, Martin. May I ask you to put your views, and indeed look at, Palestinian Authority rather than was here? Originally, this was just a lemma, but I converted it to an article so the Talk page would be properly connected. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving this to Palestinian Authority

Peter, I've said before this started as a lemma to explain the usage of the term "Occupied Territories". I have asked before that you discuss this under Palestinian Authority. Unfortunately, you are making a number of "man in the street" arguments that are incorrect in international law.

Come on, now. Try to imagine yourself explaining to the person in the street that a territory in which (am I right?) there is not a single Israeli soldier in uniform (there are probably a few undercover operatives), which is controlled by a genocidally anti-Israel organization, and which isn't even surrounded by Israeli forces, should be described as occupied and controlled by Israel. Honestly, they'd just laugh in your face. Peter Jackson 09:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"a blockade is legally an act of war." So the USA is at war with Cuba? Anyway, war and ocupation are different things. Clearly Israel is at war with Gaza (in a common-sense sense; I leave it to you to say whether this is technically a war). Likewise, Gaza is clearly not occupied, again in a common-sense sense. Peter Jackson 10:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Subject to correction, I think part of France was occupied in 1940, the rest in 1943. Increasing parts of it ceased to be occupied from 1944 on. This is all perfectly straightforward if you look at things in common-sense terms instead of legal technicalities. CZ must describe the world as it really is, not just propagate the fictions laid down by the powers that be. There's a perfectly straightforward distinction between guerrilla resistance in hiding and armies in the field openly controlling slices of territory, even if there may be a grey area at the boundary. Peter Jackson 10:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, to return to the actual topic. There's a perfectly good name that could be used here: Palestinian Territories. It has exactly the same reference (even down to the ambiguity over East Jerusalem). It's also in common use. And it avoids misleading. Peter Jackson 10:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We do not use "common sense" terms as primary references, when there are relevant international law definitions. You may contribute additional common uses to the article, but I'm not going to do it for you. I make an Editor Ruling, for Politics and Military, that the international legal definition is always primary but may be supplemented with sourced material. I'm not terribly concerned with the man in the street, especially when I don't know the location of the street.

There are very definitely uniformed Israeli soldiers and observation posts in the West Bank, as well as armed settlers, and extensive movement control on the roads. There are no overt Israeli soldiers in Gaza, other than when Israel raids. You are, therefore, incorrect that there are no Israeli troops in this area.

Is the US at war with al-Qaeda? In practice, yes, in legality, no, because international law, as in the Geneva Conventions, simply does not address war with non-state entities. This is a continuing and open question.

I'm utterly confused about your point about Cuba. There was something called a "quarantine" for a short time in 1962. While there are many nuances, the Kennedy Administration went to some lengths to define its rules as less extensive than the Hague Convention definition of blockade. Since 1962, there's been nothing resembling a naval blockade.

As far as France, Vichy independence was not accepted by belligerents. The government in exile did not accept it, and it had no real power to do anything of which Germany disapproved.

"Palestinian Territories" is a different term, which does not include the political and positioning aspects on both sides. "Occupied Territories" represents a specific set of opinions. Howard C. Berkowitz 10:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)