Talk:Occupied territory/Archive 1

Archive 1

"territory" is ambiguous in English

I think part of the problem you guys are having trying to nail down the definitions on these various interlinked pages arise because you don't pay attention that the word territory has at least two meanings in English. It means (and I'm just trying to draw a distinction so sorry for any ambiguity I introduce :) ) "any old area of land", and it also means "unincorporated land". So, my backyard is "territory", but this is not the same meaning as the Northwest Territory or the Yukon Territory which are areas that (at some points in history) did not have governments. Using this distinction, "occupied territories" are any old areas that wound up invaded and occupied after a war (like Golan Heights), while Palestinian Territory (where I use a capital letter for fun) is generally considered to be Gaza and the West Bank where a future Palestinian state may be established. The West Bank was previously territory that was claimed as a Territory by the state of Jordan (and likewise with Gaza for Egypt).

In this sense that I have introduced, UN treaties about occupied territories apply to land that Israel occupies, but those treaties have nothing to do with defining the boundaries of the Territories.

note that Palestinians and their supporters often mean to include the territory of the state of Israel in their use of the Palestinian Territory so one must be careful to share an understanding of the meanings.

Cyprus

• Greeks typically say that Turkey "occupies" the northern half of Cyprus

Above should go in Disputed area article.

It's fine here. The Turkish army does occupy northern Cyprus, but at least recognizes that it is not a part of Turkey.

Confused

Stop me if I'm way off base on this. Perhaps I'm confused about the distinction (which may exist only in my head) between a frankly avowed occupation and a one-sided advocacy claim.

• Germany occupied France during WWII and everyone called it "occupied France".
• America occupied Japan for 5 years after WWII and had a military government backed by "occupation forces".

When Germany lost the war, they had to give back France. America also eventually left Japan (after making sure they wouldn't attack other countries any more).

Hmm... getting complex. Should we give up, or what? --Ed Poor

Quitting would be the same as abandoning NPOV!

If one keeps to some sort of fundamental understanding of what "Occupied" means the subject becomes an easy one. To me occupation is the de facto control, usually by military force of territory that does not belong to the occupier. It can be by direct miltary action, as a result of a surrender, or as part of an international protectorate arrangement. The de jure situation, or legal justification (if any) for the occupation is irrelevant to the fact of the occupation. Eclecticology 12:35 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

previous inhabitants

An example of a nation which does not occupy the land of previous inhabitants is Samoa. I changed it to "most nations". -- zero 07:44, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Israel

Not sure this is true....

Israel officially disputes this, saying that the territories were not legally held by any other party before coming under Israeli control in 1967.

I'm not sure that Israel does officially dispute that the West Bank is territories under miliitary occupation. Israel hasn't formally annexed the West Bank or Gaza, and the status of the territories before 1967 is irrelevant to the definition of occupied territory.

Note: I'm *not* arguing about what the state of the territories is, I am arguing about what Israel says it is.

Roadrunner

From [1] (Israeli ministry of foreign affairs):

The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories.

I am therefore reinstantiating the removed sentence.

uriber 07:41, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I think you are completely correct. The distinction, disputed territories, is excellent.

But also--we need "references" for this article.

Otherwise, Jpgordon will continue adding the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into this article as examples of "occupied territories."

Ludvikus 04:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I urge that notice be taken that the above user failes to distinuish between "territories under miliitary occupation" and "territories under military administration." Again, Israel calls these regions "disputed territories"--not "occupied territories," or "territories under military occupation"--which is essentially the same expression.

Ludvikus 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

formally annexed

I altered the sentence about the Golan not being occupied, to make it clear that this is only Israel's position. The Golan is still occupied according to Security Council resolution 497 (1981), which has the weight of international law like all SC resolutions. --zero 08:18, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The article says: [...] territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed. Are you saying this is wrong? If so - the article should be fixed. Also, on what are you basing your claim that SC resolutions are equivalent to international law? uriber 08:23, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The fact that Security Council resolutions are binding on all UN members is in Article 25 of the UN Charter. However, that is not the issue with this article. If anyone could get out of applying the Geneva Conventions by "formally annexing" a territory, then every occupying power would do that. It makes no sense and I very much doubt that there is any general principle like that. So yes, I am saying that I don't believe the statement "territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed" is accurate and I'd like to know where it comes from. -- zero 08:38, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Would you say that Tibet is occupied by China? I would not say that. Further, West Bank and Gaza are not claimed by any state except Israel. Therefore the term "occupied" is as biased as "liberated". Der Eberswalder 06:52, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Occupied Territory" is a formal concept under international law. "Liberated Territory" is not. It is not up to me or you to say what territories are occupied or not; it is up to legally competent bodies like the UNSC. --Zero 13:30, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In which UNSC resolution is the term "occupied territory" clearly assigned to West Bank and Gaza? Usually the UNSC resolutions are written in a way that it leaves much space for interpretations. Der Eberswalder 06:54, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are countless UNSC resolutions which refer to WB&G as "occupied". Examples include 452, 592, 605, 607, 799, and many many more. See 605 for an exceptionally clear statement that uses the phrase "occupied territories" several times. Why are you writing on these issues at all if you need to ask such an elementary question? --Zero 09:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see, they are really called "occupied". Well, I thought the UN were an unbiased entity. Now I see they are not. The UN has severely lost credibility. see [2] Der Eberswalder 16:40, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The belief that the UN is an unbiased entity probably comes from the hope that its members generally accept the ideals expressed in its charter. But almost every country in the world is a member, and some of what America considers the world's worst violators of human rights are allowed to vote in the General Assembly and even serve on the UN's human rights panel -- which voted the United States OFF THE PANEL! Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Sudan still have slavery and condone genocide? And shouldn't a country that does that be the TARGET of a human rights panel, instead of a MEMBER of that panel? --Uncle Ed 17:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The link to "Palestinian Territories" just redirects back into "occupied territories"

Why does this article only discuss lands occupied by the United States and Canada as occupied Native American territories? Wouldn't every single country in the Western Hemisphere be considered occupied territory? RickK 04:44, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes. But that would be logical, and this is Wikipedia. We don't do logic here, haven't you heard? -Penta 05:27, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean Territory

Does anyone know why the British Indian Ocean Territory is not considered to be occupied? The UK government lied that there were no inhabitants there, expelled the residents to Mauritius/Seychelles/Maldives, etc., and then built a military base. That doesn't count as occupation under international law? Hard to believe. --Sesel 21:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Probably because the British Indian Ocean Territory is British hence the name and is owned by the United Kingdom regardless of who formally lived there. The UK no more occupies it than it occupies the Isle of Wight. A country can't occupy its own territory. YourPTR! 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

How is Tibet considered "occupied" under international law? --Jiang 10:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Limited geographic scope

Given the comments above. -- Beland 20:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV Tag

In light of the vigorous consensus-building and dispute resolution attempts in Talk sections of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am removing the POV tags. If someone has a any further problems not already covered in Talk then by all means restore the tag but please start a new section and bring forth your concerns for consensus building. These perpetual NPOV tags are unreasonable.--A. S. A. 09:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

The scope of this article

This article states:

Because military occupation is often considered illegitimate, the term is often used to refer to territories whose government one considers illegitimate. This usage is not technically accurate under international law because territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed. This opinion is not universally adopted, and bodies such as the United Nations Security Council frequently describe as "occupied" territories which have been annexed in the event that the annexation is not accepted.

A list of disputed territories and areas said to be under occupation are discussed in their own article, disputed territory. That entry discusses the issue in regards to many nations such as Israel, Morocco, and others.

Clearly, this article claims to describe only territories that have not been annexed or otherwise integrated by a country. This would include the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Nearly all territories that are disputed are called "occupied" by the side that disputes but does not control them, and those territories is covered under another article: Territorial dispute. Just from eastern Asia, examples would include not just Tibet but also Xinjiang, Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku Islands, southern Kurile Islands, Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Kashmir, Aksai Chin, Sabah, southern Thailand, Aceh, Papua... which are all called "occupied" by some POV or other. These are all outside the scope of this article. -- ran (talk) 14:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

States can exist independent of other states recognition (as a reply to your edit comment), and even if Tibet wasnt a state (a claim I dont agree with), that doesn't mean the conquest didn't lead to an occupation. The current article is a bit inaccurate, annexation is a unilateral act and may be considered null and void under international law, thus making annexed territory still considered occupied under IL (the SC has done this on a few occations). Also, see article 47 of Geneva IV, unilateral annexation is not a way to get a way from responsibilities an occupant has. Also, the fact that a territory is "disputed" politically speaking doesnt mean it cant be considered occupied. Occupied is a distinct status given to territories under IL, "disputed" is not in the same category. Occupations may be disputed or thay may not, disputed territories may be both occupied and not. The article states "considered Occupied Territories under International Law", territories may still be disputed and falling within this category. The other examples given are also "disputed", this does not change it's status under IL. --Cybbe 18:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then please tell me why the following do not belong: Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku Islands, southern Kurile Islands, Karafuto (Japan's position continues to be that it's occupied by Russia), Ryukyu Islands (some Chinese nationalist groups consider Japan's annexation of the Ryukyus in the 19th century as a military invasion and occupation of a Chinese tributary state), Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands, Pratas Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Kashmir, Aksai Chin, Sabah, southern Thailand, Montagnard territories of Vietnam, Aceh, Maluku Islands, Papua. All of the above are considered to be occupied by some group, and many of them were indeed occupied by their current controlling power through a unilateral military act (e.g. southern Kuriles). And these are just examples from eastern Asia. Why does this article not talk about all of the above? If you want to change the definition, then these should be included.

Actually, it would help if you offered a clear and unambiguous definition of "occupied territory" instead of the one given, especially the difference between that and "disputed territory". -- ran (talk) 00:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would go on to add that the entirety of the current list (Palestine, Cyprus, Western Sahara) seems to be slanted towards a few well-known / popular separatist or irredentist movements, while leaving out all other separatist or irredentist movements that exist all over the world. Territorial dispute has a much fairer and more comprehensive list. The list provided here is POV and should be completely removed, unless a separate definition can be provided for "occupied". -- ran (talk) 00:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think the sentence cited from the article above is misleading. Not all of the occupations are illegitimate. And quite often, the occupation is legitimate due to the act of war. U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare's chapter 6 provides the legal sources and regulations for the military occupation. Before the sovereignty return, Iraq would be a good example of territory under legitimate U.S. military occupation. This is not to argue that the Iraq war is an legitimate one. I belive the article failed to tell us what are the legitimate occupation and thus caused the confusion. I have no intention to argue that many occupation are deemed as illegitimate, especiall those perpetuating occupations. If you read that chapter 6, you will learn that peace treaties are supposed to be signed ASAP to complete the occupation. I belive that there is still a clear disctinction between occupations and disputed territories and perhaps this is something could to work on in the article.--Mababa 03:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article could be more precise on that point, there certainly are so called "legitimate" occupations, more so than annexations (speaking in modern terms). As for a definition for occupation, the one used in the "Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War at Land" says:

"Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." [3].

Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (common of the four), also has a definition for when that treaty applies. These two definitions combined are the best "legal" definitions we have, as for the 1907-convention (also referred to as Hague IV), it is considered customary IL (e.g. the Nuremberg trials). --Cybbe 21:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

You'd have to define "hostile" too. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. Or, by other words, hostile is not an ambiguous term in this context. The enemy army in a war is per definition "hostile", at least in terms of jus in bello. To speak of a friendly army in this context is ludicrous. Also, when this convention was written, there was little difference between so called legal and illegal use of force (e.g. war), so both armies are "hostile", only from each others POV. And the laws of war (jus in bello) applies equally, regardless of who the belligerent is considered to be. Just search through the convention on "hostile", its used extensively to describe the enemy power. --Cybbe 18:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Are the Golan Heights "under the authority of a hostile army"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Occupations could be classified into belligerent occupation and friendly occupation. Friendly occupation, or the "civil affairs administration of a military government", may be specified as covering the point in time when the peace treaty comes into effect until the point when the military government of the principal occupying power ends.[4] Not all occupation are belligerent occupation. I am not familiar with the situation of Golan Heights.--Mababa 23:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Golan Heights were certainly placed under the authority of a hostile army i 67, and you'd have to take into consideration the Geneve Convention too (art.2 specifies when it shall apply). As for the Golan Heights, I am sure you are familiar with UNSC resolutions on the matter of Israels annexation. I said I would see what this [5] book said on the matter some time ago, it included case studies of East-Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, her conclusions were that they are still considered occupied under IL. --Cybbe 13:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the Golan Heights are now under the authority of a "hostile" army". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never did. But the definition says "placed under", and it were in 67. And article 2 and 47 of Geneva IV may also be of interest. Besides, this is not just my interpretation, it is the one found in the book referred to and the one UNSC has decided upon. --Cybbe 08:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

POV and probable original research

This completely nonencyclopedic paragraph was on the page as of August 3, 2005:

Because military occupation is often considered illegitimate, the term is often used to refer to territories whose government one considers illegitimate. This usage is not technically accurate under international law because territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory even if that annexation is disputed. This opinion is not universally adopted, and bodies such as the United Nations Security Council frequently describe as "occupied" territories which have been annexed in the event that the annexation is not accepted.

If "This opinion is not universally adopted," the statement about annexations and international law is tautologically POV and should be attributed as such. We are enjoined to Avoid weasel phrases so we need a specific author or authority (obviously not in the U.N.) to whom to attribute it. Whoever included this opinion has refused to cite sources but perhaps a source can be found. If this opinion cannot be attributed to a known source, then it is original research and must be deleted from the article. joveis 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"Universally not adopted" (for the last 50-100 years or so) would be more accurate. It is true enough (think I've seen a source floating somewhere around Wikipedia) when speaking of classical international law, where there was a right of conquest, but absolutely not since 1945. What happened was that the unilateral annexation of conquered territory became illegal, starting with Hague 1907 and other treaties that increasingly prohibited the acquisition of territory by force, and the Stimson Doctrine on the non-recognition of illegal acts became widely accepted, ending with the UN charter. Differences like these are precisely what distinguish classical from modern international law. You are right, it should be removed. --John Z 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, a lot of Supersexyspacemonkey's edits on Iraq look like original research, and/or quite dubious - #4 and 2nd para of #5 are almost pure nonsense.--John Z 09:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder if there's an Iraq page we can link to that addresses Supersexyspacemonkey's issues in a more encyclopedic way? --joveis 13:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of you seem to be intent on making this entry meaningless. You should be gravely ashamed of yourselves. Marsden 16:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You should review Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You should review what "occupied territories" almost invariably refers to when it is used in the news. This pathetic article -- that's as civil as I can manage, Jay -- has an entire section on the United States and Canada as examples of "occupied territory," but only mentions the Gaza Strip and the West Bank -- which are what probably 95%+ of people looking to the entry for information will be considering -- are mentioned only in the disambiguation (which fails to mention that these territories are what is almost always meant by "Occupied Territories") and in the same breath as Northern Cyprus and Western Sahara. Jay. This article is just silly. It's an embarassment to Wikipedia. All the defenses against calling the Occupied Territories (you know which ones I mean) are there in full strength -- "every nation is in once occupied territory;" "occupied is sometimes not technically accurate and is a politically charged label" -- but the original accusation is hardly there at all. "Examples of occupied territories include Germany and Japan after World War II, the Baltic States after World War II until 1991 (by the Soviet Union), the occupation of Cambodia by Vietnam from 1979 until 1989, or Iraq after the fall of the government of Saddam Hussein." Jay! Why not just add "... but certainly not the West Bank or the Gaza Strip?" If I assume good faith, then I must conclude poor intellect. "Methinks she doth protest TOO much." Qui s'excuse s'accuse. Do you honestly think that the conspicuous tip-toeing around the Occupied Territories (you know which ones I mean) in this article serves the purpose of Wikipedia in the least? The article has been rendered almost meaningless, and I daresay that most of the people responsible for this travesty know it all too well. Marsden 02:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I intend to remove the "Most Current Nations ..." section -- which I consider particularly ridiculous -- again in a day or so if Viriditas, who restored it and whom I asked for an explanation on his talk page, or someone else cannot make any sort of defense of it. Most current human beings exist in territory that was once occupied by someone else, too. Marsden 03:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your explanation for your removal was unsatisfactory. The section is essentially a "history" and "definitions" section, and I have renamed it as such. It should be expanded, not removed. --Viriditas | Talk 08:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Let me elaborate. The section is a wasteful statement of the obvious and an insult to the reader's intelligence. It is also POV, in that it endeavors to obfuscate the meaning of the term "occupied territories" from being about the active control of a territory by an invading military to being an "everybody does it" occasion. I'm going to remove it again if you can't make a case for it staying. Marsden 13:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, you are right in some ways. This page has many random and eccentric accretions, and for some reason, no one is deleting stuff from it. I just did delete some OR and pointed to the right page, as joveis suggested. However, I strongly urge that you listen to Jayjg and try to speak more carefully. If you have reasonable additions or deletions to make, you might be surprised how easily they get accepted, especially on a page which needs cleaning up. You have pointed out some flaws, but use too argumentative language. You should realize that some of your positions might not be universally held and just telling people they are wrong is not usually a good way to arrive at stable and reasonable compromises. The point is to collaboratively write an encyclopedia, not to make people ashamed for their failings or lack of time to make better articles.

This page is about the general concept. It is perfectly sensible to speak of Israeli occupied territories along with the Sahara and Cyprus - it is one of the good things about this page, and that is in fact what many scholars of law, war and diplomacy do because they are similar situations, the study of each giving insight into the others - and they sometimes even involve the same people trying to solve the problems in some fashion, like James Baker.John Z 04:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Good comments, John. Very clear thinking, as always. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As I note in the section below, it should not be about the general concept to begin with. A reasonable, NPOV article on "Occupied Territories," in my opinion, should have maybe two sentences at the beginning noting the general meaning and maybe two paragraphs at the end noting other occupied territories around the world, and the rest should be about the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean). It is not their failings or lack of time that I think people should be ashamed of regarding this article; it is rather their successes at doing something they really shouldn't oughta be doing, namely, corrupting this article with POV. If there were some way to have two entries for "Occupied Territories," one about the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) and the other about the general concept, then that would be reasonable (albeit, there isn't much to say about the general concept, is there?). If there is only going to be one entry, then it is POV to have it be a poor dictionary-type entry with some history babble when the obvious encyclopedic entry is something very different but which some people, for their POV, don't like. Marsden 13:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The article _should_ be about the general concept. The silly section on the US and Canada confirmes this. A link to articles regarding the Palestinian territories could be put in the introduction, but its content not clutter the entire introduction of this article. This article shows the downsides of Wikipedia, who really expects to read about "occupied" Arawakan islands when looking up this term? IMO the article should deal with the specific term this is under IL, with brief sections on historical occupations to put it into context. The occupation of Iraq with arguments for and against belongs in its own article, the "occupation" of North America probably nowhere. Oh, and its equally silly to speak of occupations in the 7th century, when the term wasnt invented, IL did not exist, and the state system of today was almost a millenium away, without mentioning youre discussing a completely different concept than what it is today. e.g. "most countries are the results of ethnic cleansings or genocides of its orignal population". While probably equally true, I dont see the value of it (considering my view on what the article should focus on). --Cybbe 22:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have just a very simple question for you, Cybbe: when you hear on the news or read in the paper that something has happened in "the occupied territories," with no further elaboration on where these are, is there any confusion in your mind about what specific territories are refered to? Marsden 22:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course i do. This article is on "Occupied territories" (no definite article). --Cybbe 06:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Added NPOV warning

As ridiculous as it might seem to put an NPOV warning on a "general meaning" entry, I believe this page absolutely warrants it. Anyone who truly wants a general meaning of "occupied territories" can consult a dictionary. In fact, here are links to appropriate pages: "occupied"; "territory". By the standards of this page, "Rolling stones" might get the text, "ambulatory rocks, as under the force of gravity. A legendary quality of rolling stones is that they do not gather moss."

This entire article is POV, in that it buys wholesale into the POV that the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) are not really occupied territories, and so what began as a reasonable encyclopedic entry on the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) has become essentially a very poor dictionary entry with some history-babble. The authors of this page as it now stands have bought wholesale into the Orwellian effort to change the perception of the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) by insisting that they be called something else.

Here are some simple facts:

• Other than East Jerusalem, even Israel does not claim ownership of the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean). You may look to the Golan Heights entry to see how the Israeli government has protested the appelation of "annexed" onto their laws regarding the Golan Heights.

• The UN Security Council, which is the highest authority there is regarding international law (the amusing phrase "bodies such as the United Nations Security Council" in a sentence immediately after mentioning international law is something like using the phrase "organizations such as the US Congress" in America), and the resolutions of which (I believe) every member nation of the UN has by treaty agreed to abide by, has on numerous occasions made clear that no Israeli sovereignty over the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) is recognized, not even over East Jerusalem, which, again, is the only part of the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) that even Israel openly claims.

In common use, in international law, the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) are occupied territories. They are not disputed territories except any more than Tel Aviv is. That this article conspicuously avoids the obvious encyclopedic entry for "Occupied Territories" (see my comparison to "Rolling Stones" above) in favor of having a very poor dictionary entry with some history-babble attached puts it squarely on one side of a POV struggle, and so it earns the NPOV warning tag. Marsden 12:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Israel may not claim ownership of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but it does claim they are not "Occupied", but rather "Disputed". And while they are the most famous territories described as "Occupied", they are certainly not the only ones. The problem with focussing this article on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to the exclusion of all others, or even to the extent of placing it in the opening section, is three-fold: One, it expresses a POV, Two, it leaves no place to actually discuss the concept of occupied territories, and Three, it turns this page into just another one into which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spills. The issues regarding the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is already well discussed in the Palestinian territories article, to which this article already links, right at the top. Having these arguments in multiple places just leads to divergence between the articles, and ends up with Wikipedia contradicting itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it your position, then, that the government of the State of Israel should decide the terms that we use here? It would be appropriate to note that Israel contests the name commonly and ubiquitously used to indicate the territories, but it is preposterous for you to propose to defer to their terminology. Would you like to withdraw your comment on this matter? And the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) certainly are the only ones that are meant when one hears the phrase "the Occupied Territories." As to your particular points, one, it expresses a POV not to address the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) except very minimally when this is exactly what people mean by the phrase "the Occupied Territories." Let me remind you, Jay, that you have been reverting a link on the Zionism page repeatedly because linking to the Palestinian territories is not quite accurate, when here you are protesting putting something together that would be quite accurate. I can't help but think of the man found guilty of killing his parents and begging for the court's mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan. Two, it would be quite easy to discuss the general concept of occupied territories even in the context of an article specifically about the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean), and even while you have made this assertion you have denied any room for discussion of the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) in an article about the general concept! Three, there is barely any need for conflict here; there is a very strong need to explain what is meant when everyone-in-the-world-except-those-who-buy-into-the-(interested)-Israeli-government-line uses the term "the Occupied Territories." And how can you say that the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is "well discussed" when you continually remove a link to that discussion from the Zionism page?! Even you, Jay, seem to believe that there is an aspect of the Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) that is not well discussed anywhere, at least not well enough that a link can be provided to it. If you disagree, show me the link! Marsden 22:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is my position that there is a dispute over the correct terminology, that there is no single body which can make any decisive determination, that Wikipedia should strive for NPOV, and that this article is about the general concept, and should not be skewed to any particular occupied territory (of which there are many asserted in the world). While it seems reasonable enough to at least refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it does not seem reasonable to skew the entire article to presenting arguments regarding them. As for the link in the Zionism article, it is hardly relevant; your understanding of the term "Occupied Territories" does not correspond with the common understanding, nor with the meaning of that sentence. And finally, as John Z has pointed out, a more collegial approach in your comments would be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have just a very simple question for you, Jay: when you hear on the news or read in the paper that something has happened in "the occupied territories," with no further elaboration on where these are, is there any confusion in your mind about what specific territories are refered to? Marsden 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, reputable Western news sources are generally more exact with their terminology - it is more common for Muslim or Arab news sources to use the term unqualified. Next, when I go to Google news and enter "The occupied territories", the first link that comes up is this, referring to "the occupied territories of Azerbaijan". This news link simply refers to them as "the occupied territories". On the other hand this news link consistently refers to Western Sahara as "the occupied territories". I don't think anyone is disputing that the term is most commonly used in Western countries to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip; however, that merely displays Western bias, and in any event is not the issue here. By the way, if there were an incident in the Golan Heights it is highly unlikely that news stories would refer to it as happening in "the occupied territories." Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-responsive, Jay. And do you think AzerTag is a representative of "reputable Western news sources"? How many searches -- I hope you'll be honest here -- did you perform before you found that Google news came up with a non-Israeli OT first result? I note that a straight Google search comes up with nine-out-of-ten referring to Israeli Occupied Territories, and the tenth was about "occupied America and Iraq" by radical historian Howard Zinn. The responses included links to US state Department webpages and those of a couple human rights organizations, with more than a few Zionist sources -- including Dore Gold -- protesting (much as you have done) the use of the term "Occupied Territories" to refer to the Occupied Territories. And "The Peace Enclyclopedia gave this:

• The 'Occupied Territories' refers to land lost by Israel's Arab neighbors, and gained by Israel, in the Six-Day War of 1967. They include Judaea and Samaria (previously occupied by Jordan, and now known as the 'West Bank'), the Golan Heights (previously occupied by Syria), and the Gaza Strip (previously occupied by Egypt). Interestingly, while these territories were conquered by Jordan, Syria and Egypt in 1948 to the time they were gained by Israel, the territories were not referred to as 'occupied' by the international community. Furthermore, the people living in those territories before 1967 were not called 'Palestinians' as they are today; they were called Jordanians and Egyptians. How things change...

- The Society for Rational Peace

Also, three-out-of-four sponsored links that came up all referred to Israeli Occupied Territories (the fourth was an eBay link that included a few items refering to German Occupied Territory and a remaindered book by Cal Thomas called "Occupied Territory" of collected essays about various topics). Marsden 01:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your arguments, they don't seem to address my points. Regarding your question, I performed exactly one search, for "The occupied territories", and the AzerTag link came up first. If you cannot moderate your belligerent tone and start assuming good faith, you will find it very difficult to work with other Wikipedia editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Jay, here is exactly what I put in my POV warning, which you described as itself being POV:

• The article follows very narrowly the arguments and terminology used by advocates of a Greater Israel to downplay the status of Israel as an occupying power in the West Bank and Golan Heights. It ignores the more common use of the term "Occupied Territories" to indicate the territories seized and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War.

What exactly do you think is POV about it? Please be very specific. Marsden 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion that the article "follows very narrowly the arguments and terminology used by advocates of a Greater Israel to downplay the status of Israel as an occupying power in the West Bank and Golan Heights." is pure POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is, Jay. 1. The Occupied Territories (you know the ones I mean) are conspicuously excluded from the articles' list of examples in the first paragraph, consistent with the "Greater Israel" position that they are not occupied territories at all. 2. The second paragraph of the article seems closely tailored to the argument presented by Israel for its annexation of East Jerusalem, including using the weasel-word "formally" in place of "legally" and pointing to the UN Security Council's holding of some hypothetically "annexed" territory to be, in reality, occupied -- what territory, other than East Jerusalem and (to a lesser extent) the Golan Heights have been "annexed" yet described by the UNSC as "occupied?" 3. The "Every nation does it" and the "America and Canada" sections could just about have been written by Michael Freund, Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning under former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu: "AMERICA'S OCCUPIED TERRITORIES".

Jay, I restored the portion of my POV message that you did not object to after my request for your very specific comments. Marsden 11:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert

This article was begun as an article on the Israeli Occupied territories: Revision as of 09:29, 12 April 2002. It was then generalized, but continued to include references such as, "The media in Europe, the Middle-east and the USA usually deal with articles on disputed territories related to the Arab-Israel conflict, and so to many this term has come to be a synonym for the areas claimed by Palestinian nationalists," or later "The term occupied territories is commonly used as a synonym for the Gaza Strip and West Bank." The last was used until 5 January 2004. The next revision, 12 February 2004, replaced the clear indication that "occupied territories" is a synonym for the Occupied Palestinian Territories (not quite right, given the Golan and Sinai, but generally accurate) with the current paragraph that includes weasel-words about "formally annexed" and "not technically accurate." In fact, this hijacking of language follows Israeli policy, as conveyed by the 2002 article, "From 'Occupied Territories' to 'Disputed Territories'" by Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and former Foreign Policy Advisor to Israeli PM Netanyahu, as well as former Israeli UN Representative.

In this article, Gold notes, "The politically-loaded term 'occupied territories' or 'occupation' seems to apply only to Israel and is hardly ever used when other territorial disputes are discussed, especially by interested third parties." Here we have a clear statement from a right-wing Israeli politician that, as of 2002, "occupied territories" did not seem to apply to any other entity but Israel.

But Gold's article was also a harbinger an effort to rework the English language in Israel's favor, in part because, as Gold noted, "the use of 'occupied Palestinian territories' denies any Israeli claim to the land: had the more neutral language of 'disputed territories' been used, then the Palestinians and Israel would be on an even playing field with equal rights." In other words, the reason for Israel prefering not to use the term "occupied" with regard to the territories is that using another term would make an Israeli land-grab in the territories more acceptable.

(Also note that Gold's article was written 35 years after the occupation began. Apparently it took 35 years for Israel to finally decide to declare that it didn't like the term that was being ubiquitously used.)

It is ridiculous to let one party in a dispute dictate the terms by which it is understood -- would anyone accept that Syria has 2,000+ "military and humanitarian advisors" in Lebanon? That virtually every dictatorship on the planet is actually a democracy, with expansive freedoms? And, for that matter, should we accept that it is really "the Zionist Entity" rather than the State of Israel that is involved in this dispute? Neither can Israel's prefered terminology for the Occupied Territories be accepted; as this article originally noted, as Dore Gold noted, "occupied territories" is commonly used as a synonym for the territories captured and held by Israel after the Six Day War. That is NPOV. What Israel wants to pretend is NPOV cannot be taken seriously.

Marsden 21:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If you read the WP:NPOV policy, you will quickly realize that it tries to ensure that multiple POVs are heard, without taking sides. Keep in mind that the issues here are not over historical or scientific facts, but rather over what is the correct terminology to use to describe what is a legal assertion. The fact that Israel captured these territories in 1967 is not disputed; however, whether or not they are "occupied" in the legal sense of the term is a matter of dispute, with legal arguments on both sides. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

What is not in dispute among honest people is that the term "Occupied Territories" is commonly used to mean the territories that Israel captured and held after the Six Day War. The effect of your efforts here, whether you recognize it or not, is to prevent this historical fact from being known -- in this respect, the issue is historical fact, your denial of this notwithstanding. What you are doing in this regard is an attempt to re-write history falsely. It is true that the term is objected to -- have I ever done anything to conceal or deny that? -- but your standard seems to be that because the term is objected to, it must not be used, which in effect is a violation of NPOV because you are falsely re-writing history in a way that the POV that they are occupied territories will be severely downplayed and under-represented.

Also, please note this paragraph from the NPOV policy page:

• Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

The "legal dispute" that you mention has Israel (an interested party) on one side and the UN Security Council and every other nation in the world (I believe; certainly the US and the permanent members of the Security Council) on the other. By this standard, should we avoid the term "State of Israel" because the governments of various Arab countries dispute that it really is a state?

Marsden 13:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

As I've pointed out already, the historical fact that Israel captured the territories is not in dispute. However, "occupied" is terminology which represents a legal opinion, yet there is no court which can actually determine that status. Stating historical fact is not the same as stating legal opinion. If you'd like an analogy, the word should be avoided for the same reason Wikipedia avoids the word "terrorist", even though the world generally agrees that a person who blows up civilians is a terrorist. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Israel & Paletine

I quote from the top of the article:

This article is about occupied territory in general: for the territories captured by Israel in the Six-Day War, see Israeli-occupied territories. Accordingly, it is clearly not about the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.

I therefore as that User:Jpgordon nor revert to include these--and if he insists, then I ask that he get the assistance of an Administrator--or whatever way a dispute is resolved among Wikipedians--or do we merely "occupy" the article?

Ludvikus 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and Afghanistan

Why is Iraq listed as an occupied territory? Once the government was established I thought it was no longer. If it is, why isn't Afghanistan listed? I think it should be removed as a result of the Iraqi government and constitution. - Tεxτurε 15:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

all occupying forces elect puppet governments and draft puppet constitutions of their design using collaborators, the nazis did it to on each and single country they occupied

Occupied Territories under International Law since 1948

Why was the year 1948 chosen? It seems rather arbitrary and could have been chosen for POV reasons. As this information already exists in list of military occupations and the list of territorial disputes, why maintain another list here?. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

---

This article cites no sources.

There is no source or reference to show that the Gaza Strip or the West Bank are "occuppied territories." Israel is a soverign state with undefined borders--except as regards Egypt and Jordan with which peace treaties have been sifned--and boarders are mutually agreed upon.

Ludvikus 03:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1948 is significant because it is the year in which the state of Israel is recognized as a soverign state under international law.

Ludvikus 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Military occupation & Disputed territories

It is important to pay careful attention to this article--Military occupation--which has named refereces. User:Jpgordon seems to think it is appropriate to include both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as examples of "occupied territories" in this un-refernced article.

On the other hand, our Military occupation article clearly shows that there is a usage in which these two territories are designated Disputed territories.

In addition, we have a Palestinian usage in which "all" of Israel is Occupied territory, or even "occupied land". In that latter usage, "end the occupation" means dismember or dissolve the state of Israel.

Ludvikus 04:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Region "Taken Over" by Sovereign Power

This article opens with the statement, "An occupied territory is a region that has been taken over by a sovereign power after a military conquest."

I have much trouble with this un-referenced definition.

Its got several problematic expressions: (1) "taken over", "soverign power," & "military conquest."

In the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there was no "military conquest," but "liberation" from the illegitimate or illegal occupation by Jordan and Egypt respectively. And there was no "taking over" from the Palestinians--Israel's 1967 war or "conquest" did not involve the sovereignty of Palestine--a fact deemed irrelevant by the article.

And of course, the fact that Israel's boarders have not been defined is also ignored.

Furthermore, under this definition, the whole of the "region" which had been "taken over" by Jews in 1948 war, has been "taken over" by the "soverign power" if Israel.

Therefore, all of Israel, by this definition, is "occupied territory."

Ludvikus 05:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I therefore am going to remove the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from the list of examples of "occupied territories"--and I hope User:Jpgordon does not restore them until we ressolve the dispute by a discussion here!!

I think we might want to consider--besides finding references--whether the "region" which has been "taken over" itself has been "held", legally, by a prior "soverign power"--as these two regions have clearly not been. In other words, "from whom" the "take over" occurs is relevant to the status of "occupation." The reason "disputed territory" is used by Israel is that what is to be done with these two regions or territories is in dispute. Whereas in most other instances of "occupied territory" one has the taking over, by war, or military force, the region or territory of some other "soverign power." In other words, it is not so much that the "soverignty" of the "conqueror" is significant--rather, what most significant is whether the "taken over" region is the territory of a soverign power, and which has been "conquered" from that soverign power. In the case of Israel, after World War I, these two regions were NOT "taken over" from another legitimate "soverign power."

Ludvikus 05:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• I'm not going to engage in edit war with you. Interested readers might want to look at the changes Ludvikus put into the article before I showed up: [6]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

The problem is, Egypt and Jordan believed they were liberating these areas in 1948; see this document. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

The series of edits [7] is problematic. In fact I believe that the editor is correct in explaining how it might be argued that the West Bank is not an occupied territory. I will work on a version that reverts much of this group of edits, but clearly notes the new viewpoint that editor Ludvikus has included. Jd2718 23:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I put in the breaks/separations, "-----", above, for better readability: Ludvikus 06:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

---

"Taken over" - this is such a POOR, unprofessional, term - no diplomat uses it.

Yours, etc. Ludvikus 14

58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Administered territories

The broader term of art, in the Law of nations, is Administered territories. I do not yet know why, or when, Israelis began to use Disputed territories, but it is not difficult to figure out the distinction. May I recommend the following: Paul S. Riebenfeld and Julius Stone? The were both not only experts in jurisprudence, and the Law of nations, but also keenly interested in the legal status of the land conquered as a result of the 1967 war.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 06:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Julius Stone has written:

  ... and it is remembered that neither Jordan nor any other state is a soverign reversioner entitled to reenter the West Bank, the legal standing of Israel takes on new aspects. She becomes then a state in lawful control of territory in respect of which no other state can show a better (or, indeed, any) legal title. The general principles of international law applicable to such a situation, moreover, are well-established. The International Court of Justice, when called upon to adjudicate in territorial disputes, for instance in the Minquiers and Echrehos case between the United Kingdom and France, proceeded "to appraise the relative strength of the opposing claims to sovereignty."

Yours truly, Ludvikus 06:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

another's soverign territory

The intellectual controversy - over Israel and occupied territories has really a quite easy solution - unlike the current war between the two peoples directly involved. 1. a region is deemed occupied if the occupying power is taking over land of another occupying power. Since the disputed territories are not a part of any soverign power, it is simply incorrect to call them occupied territories, under the law of nations, or what is also called international law. 2. Colonization may be more appropriate. I do not understand this sloppiness on the part of those who totally support the palistinian cause! Why don't the just stick to the categorization of Israelis a colonizers, or colonialists? It is a much easier position to defend. Not that it can hold up. No colonialists ever claimed to be returning to their original, legitimate, land as Jews and Israelis do. But that's another matter. 3. When Hamas uses the term occupied territories they mean ALL OF ISRAEL. That's usually forgotten in the dispute. 4. The reason the Israelis call certain regions disputed territories is precisely because the do not wish to assert their soverignty over it - and the dispute is over HOW (and WHEN) to dispose of these regions. 5. How can anyone deny that Palestinians have not had - in modern times at least (we remember Biblical Caanon) - their own soverign state? 6. In summary any land, which does not belong to a soverign power, cannot be styled occupied teritories. And, I am reminded (by myself), of the North Pole and South Poles! Are they occupied territories?

Ludvikus 15:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling errors - have been corrected - on the Page

Ludvikus 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced opinions and POV

The latest changes from Ludvikus are essentially unsourced original research where they are not blatant POV. For example, I use the term "occupied territories", and I sure as hell don't "advocate the strongest Palestinian position". The section does not belong in the lede, if it belongs in the article at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Source/Reference

My Dear Wiki Colleague, User:Jpgordan,

Here's my source:

  Douglas J. Feith, et al
  Israel's Legitimacy in Law and History
  (New York: Center for Near East Policy Research, 1993)

As a matter of fact, it's only source, and the one I posted myself.

Now can you give me any source whatsoever, except of course the well known Palistinian partisan view that the West Bank or Gaza Strip are, or ever were, occupied territories?

You admit to use the expression yourself. But what authority are you - except as a Wiki?

I chalenge you to give me just ONE scholarly source, citing International Law that Israel is, or has, occupied land in Palestine to which it was not entitled under the mandate that was made into law by the League of Nations and subsequently adoptedby the United Nations?

Do you have ANYTHING rather than your own personal opinion ???

There definitely is POV here - but its solely on your part!!!

POV Jpgordan, you disappoint me.

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 23:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Here's the source expanded:

• Douglas J. Feith, William V. O'Brien, Eugene V. Rostow, Paul S. Riebenfeld, Malvina Halberstam, & Jerome Hornblass

Israel's Legitimacy in Law and History, Proceedings of the Conference on International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Sponsored by The Lois D. Brandeis Society of Zionist Lawyers, October 21, 1990, New York

ed. Edward M. Siegel, Esq.

assoc. ed. Olga Barrekette

(New York: Center for Near East Policy Research, 1993)

ISBN 0-9640145-0-5

Yours, etc., --Ludvikus 23:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

United Nations

The fact should be emphasized that only what the Security Council formally passes has the force of International Law. The terms occupied and territories are used by the Security Council in its formal resolutions, although rarely juxtaposed together.

The question is, what is its meaning?

It is my reading (but not a mere personal opinion) that its use in that context (above) has to do with the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

But User:Jpgordon seems to be blind to its perjoritive political epithet connotation, as a cognate for our occupied land, as used by Hamas. And in that context, there is no distinction made between the West Bank, the Gaza strip, Jerusalem, or the whole of Israel.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

redirect

Unless someone can give a reason for not doing so, I suggest that this article is redirected to Military occupation#Examples of military occupations --Philip Baird Shearer 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Is occupied So I put it back. There is no justification for deleting it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is disputed not occupied. That is the justification. So I remove it.--A Jalil 07:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right It is, in fact, occupied, and you know that. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What I know is that WS is a disputed territory. So, you should stop trying to add it.--A Jalil 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So? That is irrelevant. Western Sahara is occupied, so it belongs. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless something big has happened recently, as far as I am aware, the consensus of reliable sources/ international law experts is that it is occupied territory, as it seems to fit under the standard definitions. So what argument is there against using the word?John Z 07:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fairly confident you were right - but can we prove it? PR^talk 14:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The status of the territory is disputed not occupied. Disputed means it can be occupied but it can be also part of the country (Morocco). This is the neutral position that fits here. - Thanks, wikima 19:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't really understand what you are saying, as you seem to be agreeing that "occupied" is appropriate in the second sentence. Unlike "occupied" "disputed" is not really a term particularly used in international law - the meaning of "disputed" is pretty obvious and needs no comment, and only really became noticeable because of the case of Israel, which although it had always formally deemed its occupied territories "occupied", preferred not to say this very often. "Occupied" does not preclude a territory being in some way part of a country like Morocco or Israel. "Occupation" is not a concept that has anything to do with sovereignty. Occupation is a real world, de facto concept, sovereignty is a legal, de jure concept. It's a category mistake to oppose the two, or replace "occupied" with "disputed" because of a perceived but nonexistent necessity. What you seem to understand "disputed" to mean is the standard meaning of "occupied" in international law. One can occupy one's own universally recognized "sovereign" territory. In fact the paradigmatic case that started the modern law of belligerent occupation (cf Lieber Code ) is one of this type, where a state occupied its own territory - the US occupying the South after the Civil War.John Z 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is way a big difference between the terms 'occupied' and 'disputed'. There is a List of military occupations , Military occupation and List of territorial disputes. If every country is supposed to be occupying its sovereign territory, then why not include the rest of the countries in the article?. Occupied here is used to describe a situation where a country is on a territory that is not its own. A "territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession/control of land". In international law, in the case of occupation, there is only one outcome to the conflict: the occupier should leave. The UN in that case cannot call on a referendum in which the occupied population will chose between continuing to be occupied or accede to independence. Simply, because that would mean endorsing occupation. That is quite obvious in the the case of Israel/Palestine where the UNSC has called for Israel to withdraw from the 'occupied territories'(United Nations Security Council Resolution 242). In the case of Western Sahara, the UN considers Morocco and the Polisario front as equally claiming the territory and thus calls not on Morocco to withdraw from any occupied territories(vs. the case of Israel), but has called on it to hold a referendum where the options are either integration with Morocco or independence. Nowadays, it even stopped calling for that and the last UNSC resolutions call for the parties (Morocco and the Polisario Front) to hold direct talks to reach a mutually accepted solution, and has even seen positively the Moroccan proposal of granting autonomy to the territory. So, to list the case of Western Sahara here is wrong and misleading. The article does direct the reader to the List of military occupations and List of territorial disputes which give a broader meaning of occupation/dispute and thus include WS in addition to many others. Picking WS from the rest and sticking it here is the work of pro-Polisario fanatics like koavf. That is the root of many problems is WS related articles in Wikipedia.--A Jalil 08:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You make a number of bewildering and illogical claims, the most false of which is the implication that the UN has not called the territory occupied. You know for a fact that it has on multiple occasions because I have pointed this out to you on multiple occasions as well. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported claims removed

I can't find these provisions in any other encyclopedia and have thus removed them until somebody can find support for them.

• "territory under the military control of (but not claimed by) a sovereign power"

• "Occupied territories are distinguished from disputed territories, which are territories claimed by and under the civil control of one state which are claimed by another state. Both powers party to a territorial dispute claim the land within a disputed territory as their own, and, thus, under international law, the people residing within as their own citizens."

• "The term occupied territories is incorrectly applied to annexed territories whose control is disputed by another state. Annexation subsequent to a military occupation, following a lawful, defensive war (as opposed to a war of aggression), results in the occupier treating the annexed territory as an integral part of their nation, and the persons living therein as their citizens. Therefore, the term "disputed territories" (as both sides intend to keep permanent possession of the territories in question) is entirely appropriate to describe territories claimed by one nation that have been annexed by another nation in a lawful defensive war."

MeteorMaker (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Several other sections (notably History and definitions and Dispute over classification of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip after 1967 are so full of accumulated irrelevant information that they seem to be good candidates for removal too, unless they can be rewritten to meet Wikipedia standards. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced POV moved to Talk:

I've moved these two unsourced insertions to Talk:

Territorial occupation is distinguished from colonisation, where settlers move to inhabit land. Colonising occupied territory is illegal under international law.

and

A similar (although less violent) policy applies to modern-day Israeli settlements.

Lapsed Pacifist, do you have any reliable sources that support your opinions? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Come now, Jay. What are you disputing? That colonising occupied territory is illegal under international law? That Israelis tend to be less violent in their pursuit of lebensraum than the Nazis?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, do you have any reliable sources that support your opinions? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay; colonising occupied territory is illegal under international law. It's Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

See http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm. Do you really need a source to tell you Israelis are less violent than Nazis? Can't you just look at their respective tallies of victims? Why do you persist in referring to my "opinions" when you don't even bother to deny the truth of what I write?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

LP, you again inserted your unsourced opinion into the article. Fortunately for you your tendentious edit was cleaned up by another editor. Please don't violate policy in this way in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call my edit "opinion", and I could always source it with the above link. I asked you three separate questions in my last entry here; five months later you haven't answered one. One might think you're unsure whether it's the Israelis or Nazis who are/were more violent. My "opinion" would be that Israelis are less violent, although they are narrowing the gap in kill rates somewhat.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

LP, I examined that primary source carefully, and nowhere saw it mention Nazi policies or Israeli settlements. Can you point out where it does? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be impossible, because it doesn't. You're not paying attention...again. I'll ask you once more: do you really need a source to tell you Israelis are less violent than Nazis? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

All arguments/opinions etc. in Wikipedia articles must have proper sourcing, and the sources must be directly related to the topic of the article. Please review WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You want me to find a source that will convince you that Israelis are less violent than the Nazis were? Wow. I'll do my best, but I took you for educated. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A modest demand.

I would like to suggest that this article:

1. be moved to "Occupied territory"
2. be de-COATRACKed
3. not have any mention of Israel, Palestine, or allusions thereto until the Israel/Palestine section, which should only be perhaps a few paragraphs in a rather long article about the history of military occupation of territories, and the law thereto appertaining.

The talking points in this week's Hasbara Bulletin or Jihad News have no relevance whatsoever to this article, whether it tells editors to call them occupied disputed territories, or disputed occupied territories, or disputed disputed territories, or occupied occupied territories.

There are many places in this world under military occupation. Israel and Palestine are three miniscule specks of mud inhabited by barbarians, savages, and brutes who mutually engage in internecine mass murder on a regular basis, like a pack of hyenas preying on a pack of jackals, with the jackals returning the favor on a regular basis. This is not special. Your relatives do not matter. Your coreligionists do not matter. That you are a member of "The Chosen People" or "The Elect of Allah" does not matter. Wikipedia does not want to hear it. Get over it. They deserve just as much space in an article like this as Sri Lanka and Tamil Eelam does, Western Sahara, the Polish/German "reclaimed territories", Transnistria, Kosovo/Metohejia, Iraq, East Timor, Tibet, Katanga, Northern Cyprus, Southern Cyprus, and/or the Caprivi and/or Aouzu Strips.

Wikipedia is not your soapbox. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO LEAVE AND GTFO MAH WP! Very truly yours. An editor, who wishes to remain Anonymous. 72.70.228.44 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered working as a peace envoy ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, a lack of subtlety is necessary to get the point across. Israel and Palestine are a massive waste of the world's - and the Project's - time and effort, and efforts by partisan editors within the Project to expand the scope of their conflicts beyond the directly related articles will not be tolerated. Occupied territory is a legal and military state that has significance to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, but has massive significance beyond that. It is a serious topic to all nations.
72.70.236.5 (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are aware of it but Israel-Palestine related articles/issues are usually subject to special discretionary sanctions which you can read about here. They've been put in place to address the kind of concerns you (and many others) have. Do they work ? hmmmm...sometimes, they're better than nothing. You say "will not be tolerated" but I'm not sure by whom. If you have specific instances of bad bahavior that you are concerned about you can always take it up with the admininistrators. If it's a content issue you can always fix it yourself as per WP:BRD or leave specific details on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Singular and remove irrelevant historical passages

I've removed the following from the introduction, because it doesn't seem to relate to occupation. It belongs somewhere in Category:Laws of war, but not here.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 made the threat or use of military force in contravention of international law, as well as territorial acquisitions resulting from it unlawful. Though that Pact was not universally subscribed to, and was in fact gravely breached by its signatories, subsequent treaty law, specifically the Charter of the United Nations, done at San Francisco in 1945, and adhered to by nearly all nations, contains a similar prohibition.

This was soon followed by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in the matter of several of the political and military leaders of the former Nazi entity, regarding crimes against peace, as well as other charges under the law of war and the law of nations, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The Tribunal declared that waging a war of aggression and territorial aggrandizement was not only criminal, but that "to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." Those found guilty for planning the war of aggression in question were hanged or received long prison sentences. As the judgment of the IMT was recognized as fully declarative of the law of nations and the laws and customs of war, the prohibition against wars of aggression thus entered into the customary international law, making it binding on all civilized nations and peoples without exclusion, reservation, or exception.

It must be noted that the act of "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression" was clearly distinguished by the International Military Tribunal from the act of "(...planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of...) a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances", which refers to unlawful warfare other than that constituting a war of aggression. The use of military force in self-defense or with the authorization of the United Nations Security Council is lawful, and is distinguished from both the criminal "war of aggression" and the unlawful "war in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances". The class of wars not considered wars of aggression nor considered lawful might include the settlement of long-running territorial disputes, suppression or punishment of atrocities or outrages against a belligerent nation, suppression of alleged threats to national security, defense of allies or allied peoples. In such wars assesing whether the casus belli justifies the war can be difficult and open to interpretation with both sides claiming self defense, but these sorts of wars often result in the occupation of territory by the victorious nation.

I've also changed "territories" to "territory" in the introduction. As per WP:SINGULAR, the article should be at Occupied territory; there is no reason for the plural. jnestorius^(talk) 23:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Concrete wall

NickCT, please see the Israeli West Bank barrier article. The barrier is mostly fence, and there is long-standing consensus on Wikipedia to call it the Israeli West Bank barrier. You shouldn't create unnecessary pipe links which aren't even true. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Agreed. Changed wording from "concrete wall" to simply "barrier". NickCT (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)