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)

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)