Talk:West Bank/Archive 1

message: The very existence of this page under this title is in violation of the principles of "Neutral point of view". Only pro-Arab people generally refer to this area as "the West Bank". Pro-Israel terminology is "Judea and Samaria". How to handle this  
I can't recommend.
 
:In Britain, this area is generally (in fact, almost always) called the West Bank. The CIA, which few people would describe as "pro-Arab", calls it the West Bank. I think this has to be considered the neutral term in English. --Zundark, 2002 Jan 5
 
: This is incorrect. Not only "pro-Arab" people refer to this territory as the West Bank. Many people who are pro-Israel nonetheless do not use the terms "Judea" and "Samaria", as these terms are often used by the right-wing nationalists; to them these names imply that every inch of land in this area is part of the Biblical land of Israel, and therefore can never be negotiated with. You statements reveals not only a disagreement with the Arab position (which I share), but a strong disagreement against Jews who are not sympathetic to the right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum. Not all Zionists (Jews or gentiles) support the Likud or other rightist parties. (I think they have some good points, but I am more to the left of their positions.) RK
Not everyone who is to your right is a "right-wing nationalist", though I am probably more sympathetic to Likud than you (though, as an American, I cannot vote for any Israeli party). I still think that "West Bank" cannot be termed a neutral term, even if "Judea-Samaria" is a "right-wing nationalist" term.
----
Perhaps we need an article on Middle East political terminology. Often the name of something carries a connotation. For example, the terms "gay rights" and "woman's right to choose" inherently connote positions of favoring certain legal rights for homosexual citizens and the legal right for a woman to have a voluntary abortion. 
I think the Arab side has won a propaganda victory that will be exceedingly hard for Israel to reverse. Getting the US media to refer to Arab separatists in Israel as "Palestinians" is not really neutral, in my opinion. The term itself implies that only Arab residents of historical Palestine are its legitimate claimants, and that Jewish residents of Palestine are "non-Palestinian" and hence illegitmate "occupiers" of the land.
Without really neutral terminology, there is no way to discuss the situation without conceding points that must not be conceded.
My personal analysis of all statements by all sides leads me to believe that the various Arab power groups frankly intend to wipe out Israel altogether. I agree with the author of the "temporary measure" article (although I also agree with Larry that its title at least is not NPOV). The strategy of land for peace is one that must inevitably result in Israel losing all its land.
This is not to say that I consider one side "right" and the other "wrong." Although both I and my church are pro-Israel, neither I nor my church are anti-Arab or anti-Islamic. I respect Islam (the religion) and esteem Islamic culture. 
I would like to see some sort of peaceful co-existence of Jews and Muslims in the Middle East. I do not have a formula to propose, however.
My only suggestion is that the religious leaders meet in good faith to work out the historical and theological issues, and that the politicians respect whatever agreement the religious leaders can work out. This may sound naive, but I am optimistic since East and West Germany managed to reconcile. Perhaps if North and South Korea can reconcile, peace in the Middle East will seem more attainable. -- Ed Poor
--------
I think West Bank is a preferable term to "Judaea and Samaria", for three reasons:
# Most people are familiar with the term "West Bank", since that's the term the Western media uses. Few people, other than Jews and Israelis, know what "Judaea and Samaria" means. "West Bank" is the ordinary term in English for this place.
# People on both sides of the fence use the term "West Bank" since (as RK points out) you'll find some pro-Israel people using it. No one on the pro-Arab side will use the term "Judaea and Samaria".
# "West Bank" is a neutral geographical term -- the West Bank of the Jordan river. "Judaea and Samaria" is suggestive of Jewish/Israeli claims to the area.
More generally, I think an article on terminology would be useful. However, I think we need to use the normal terms for these things -- the terms most English-speakers will be expecting. Otherwise, we'll just confuse the reader. And as to terms such as "Palestinian", whatever its conontations, there really is no alternative that conveys the same meaning. -- SJK
------------
I just wanted to add that I am pro-Israel, and I refer to land in question as the "West Bank". In my Jewish School, our Modern Zionism course also refers to it as the "West Bank". Thus, that term is not only used by pro-Arab people. However, there should be a note in the article stating that small minority of pro-Israeli(mostly ultra-orthodax) people refer to it as, "Judaea and Samaria".
------------
I put in a lot of changes. While people seem to be paying lip service to NPOV, etc., what seems to be happening is that they are shuffling for territory so that they can give equal (if not more) space to their own opinions. How appropriate, given the subject matter. 
On the other hand, whatever your views are, it is extremely important in such a contentious article to at least get the BASIC FACTS right. These include geography (the borders are clearcut!), history (the history belongs in Israel/Palestine prior to 1949, since the West Bank has such artificial boundaries based on an armistice agreement--if the agreement were signed the next day, the boundaries would have been different), nomenclature (Judea and Samaria do not equal the West Bank. They are names for geographical regions of which the West Bank is part. However, the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh is also Judea and Zichron Yaakov is also Samaria, while the Palestinian town of Jenin is part of the Jezreel Valley), etc. Only once the facts and definitions are accurate can we begin any discussion of politics, for whatever side. Danny
:Was that Danny? Anyway, thanks for pointing out my errors. I hope you can fix the article without reverting: the section on Arab and Israeli views is okay, I trust. Ed Poor, Thursday, June 20, 2002
::Don't be too trusting. It is such an oversimplification, that it is really not very valuable. You cannot pigeonhole the views in that way--what is Sharon's view, for example? He has agreed to the idea of a Palestinian state in principle and actually participated in a withdrawal from land (1982, he was Defense Minister, when Israel withdrew from the Sinai, and he commanded the soldiers that removed the settlers). Positions generally change based on current events. One day after a bombing, most people in Israel will refuse to even accept the notion of a Palestinian state. One day after a concilliatory speech by Arafat, 60% of Israelis will agree to divide Jerusalem. By the way, the same is true of Palestinians. In other words, the positions themselves are in flux, which is nowhere recognized in the article as it stands. Danny
:: Hmm... this isn't really related, but the only way in which Palestinians have been known to celebrate peace deals recently, is by freeing Hamas guys from jail. --Uriyan
:::No, it isn't really related ... or accurate either. The releases made upon reaching peace deals were by Israelis as part of the peace deals (or other arrangements). Arafat's supposed "revolving door policy" in prisons has nothing to do with peace deals with Israel.Danny
::: I actually meant the "cease fires" during the recent Intifada ("recently" = last 21 months). Of course, when Hammas guys are freed, a cease-fire turns into a situation when Israelis cease and Palestinians fire. --Uriyan
As for the Jordan River, the West Bank only occupies two-thirds of the Bank of the Jordan River running from the Sea of Galilee. The rest was part of Israel's border with Jordan since independence. The West Bank is also nowhere near the northern part of the Jordan River, above the Sea of Galilee. If anything, it formed part of the Israeli border with Syria till 1967.
I thank you both, Danny and Uriyan, for your attention to this article. Danny, might I persuade you to enumerate some of the more popular viewpoints on the region's disposition? You seem to have command of the specifics such as division of Jerusalem that I glossed over. (I note with pride that my Arab POV paragraph survived the last few revisions :-) Ed Poor, Thursday, June 20, 2002
----
Thanks for the map, DanKeshet. I'm looking at http://www.passia.org for a West Bank map that shows its borders. I'd like a map that shows the West Bank's border with Jordan, Syria, Lebanon & Israel proper -- plus any "natural geographic" boundaries such as rivers, lakes or mountain ranges. Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002
Is the West Bank of 2002 the same as the large pink area between Israel, the Jordan River and the Dead Sea in ?
: Yes, it is. But note that there's no "Israel" on the map. Those peace-loving Arabs... --Uriyan
---
As I noted in the article, the terms Judea and Samaria are primarily geographical: Samaria is less mountainous than Judah and of a slightly different geological composition. (I can go on and on about how this was reflected in the ancient history of the region due to resulting economic differences, populations, etc., but I will not at this point.) In fact, both terms also refer to territories that constituted part of pre-1967 Israel, such as the corrdidor leading to Jerusalem, the foothills surrounding Beit Guvrin, the southern Judean Desert (Judah), and the eastern strip of foothills along the coastal strip, including the town of Zichron Yaakov (Samaria). Of course, Israelis realize that the term "Judea and Samaria" refers to the West Bank, but the Hebrew equivalent of ha-Gadah ha-Ma'aravit is simply a translation of the English term, with no historical or geographical meaning prior to 1948. Even Israelis who support total withdrawal from the Territories would call the areas either Judea or Samaria, when referring to them historically or geographically--political exigencies aside, those are the Hebrew names for the region. Anecdotally, I remember watching the newscast in the early 1980s, when the Israeli government decided officially that the territories would be called Judea and Samaria in all official broadcasts (there was only one TV station at the time and four official radio stations). The snicker on the newscaster's face was obvious to everyone. The decision has since been ignored. Danny
----
the uncritical use of "diputed territories" is a violation of NPOV, since it follows the Israeli policy to veil the fact of occupation. it is a purely Israeli euphemism. --Elian
:Thank you for responding so quickly (my version was up less than 2 hours). I will refrain from further edits until you have had a chance to see, comment on and fix any problems you see. --Ed Poor
::I was present by chance ;-) I also reverted your move of "Palestinian refugee" as I consider the Arab superfluous. You should be aware that it is solely Israeli policy to avoid speaking of Palestinians ("there are no Palestinians" - Golda Meir) and instead use the general term Arabs. By using the term "Arab" or "Arab nationalist" for Palestinians, you already bowed to the Israeli position and don't write neutral anymore. --Elian
I guess this goes back to the question of terms: what is a "Palestinian"? 
*a member of a Middle-eastern ethnic group plainly distinct from other ethnic groups in the region (like "Kurd")
*a member of a distinct "race" (?)
*any Arab residing in what the ancient Romans called Palestine = "Palestinian Arab"
*an arbitrarily designated group invented by Arab leaders to delegitimize Israel and prevent the creation of a Jewish homeland
Sorry to put it in such blunt terms, but I think that without a clear definition of "Palestinian" the pages elian, uri and ed have been working on will never meet the Wikipedia's standard of "neutral".
I'm not going to revert any of your changes, Elian, since I value our working relationship more than the article. --Ed Poor
A palestinian is for me everyone who answers my question "inta meen wayn?" (where are you from?) with "Ana filasteeni" (I am Palestinian). I suppose some 100% of the people in Westbank and Gaza (excluding Israeli settlers) would answer thusly (or "ana filastiniyyeh" for women). Some 50% of the people in Jordan may answer similarly. about 8 million people over the world will say this, too and add "I am Palestinian refugee". Is this answer clear enough? --Elian
: Elian is completely correct.  I'll go further and say that it is quite objectionable to question the right of the Palestinians to define themselves, just as all other groups have the right to define themselves.  (This doesn't concern the different issue of the historical meanings of the word, which is a research topic I will write about on Palestinian soon.)  Ed, do you try to argue with other groups about who they should accept as members, such as Jews for example?  The fact is that, today in 2003, everyone including Ed knows immediately what is meant whenever someone says "the Palestinians".  If you don't like it, get over it. --Zero 08:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: --Zero 08:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I did not put in the original argument against the Saudi proposal. I don't think it should be part of the page either, but I didn't touch it. Glad we agree there. Second, if we add that it refers to the area occupied by Jordan in 48, we don't need to include excludes the Gaza Strip. Second, I see no problem in including your second point within it. Lastly, if 81, I believe his name is Anon, would please stop reverting all my edits on the page, I would appreciate it. If he objects to specific parts if he would just point them out and focus on that, that would be preferable. Thankyou. Leumi 21:12, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the very term "West Bank" [[NPOV|POV]]? 

message: Before you proceed to delete my entry again, perhaps you could specify what part of it in your opinion constitutes a POV, and prove that it has no factual basis. What part do you object to? That the majority are refugees, or that they fled voluntarily? 
Just because certain facts speak in Israel's favour in no way impairs their status as facts which can safely be included in a NPOV article. LoveOfFate 18:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Same reply as in Talk:Gaza Strip.  Everyone knows that "voluntary" is an opinion and not a fact.  Your opinions are of no interest here. --Zero 05:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian Refugees

message: IMHO the legal theory, why to use the term "occupied" is rather clear, and (AFAIK etc) the majority POV. But to let the reader learn more about other POVs, it should be pointed out under which legal theory, another status is claimed, and what this status is.
The term "disputed" doesn't clarify much, as it only implies, that there are more than one interpretations, but doesn't state the interpretations.
When doing (a very shallow) web search for sources, for example I stumbled about an argument that Israel is adminstrating these areas in place of the fallen Ottoman empire. If this is really claimed as a signifant POV, it should be mentioned.
Pjacobi 14:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Occupied Territories are known as the Occupied Territories because that is their legal status and the phrase used by the UN. The Israeli government is militarily occupying territory that is not within the internationally recognized borders of Israel - hence, "Occupied Territories". It is an Israeli propaganda tactic to refer to extraterritorial areas under Israeli military control as "disputed territories" so as to semantically minimize their militant aggression for Jewish settlement Lebensraum. Those who believe that Israel should annex additional Arab land prefer to regard the territories as "disputed" rather than "occupied" because "occupation" is legally temporary whereas "disputed" territories may someday be absorbed by Israeli expansion. Even the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that the territories are held by Israel through "belligerent occupation". The term Occupied Territories is legitimate and correct in a legal sense of international law. "Disputed territory" is POV. Alberuni 20:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alberuni has not cleared anything up; rather, he has just stated his highly POV opinion, mixed with the typically inflammatory rhetoric of anti-Israel activitists, who lace their screeds with Nazi terminology in a propagandistic attempt to equate Israel with Nazi Germany.  In fact the Disputed territories are not "Occupied territories" under International law, particularly the 4th Geneva convention, and most particularly since the Oslo accords.  Moreover United Nations General Assembly resolutions do not create International law.  Alberuni's statements about the Israeli Supreme Court are also not relevant, since the Israeli Supreme Court does not decide Israeli policy, nor did it rule on the relevant issues. Here, in fact, is a position paper from the Israeli government on the topic:  Jayjg 04:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you, at this point, please answer my original question: If not occupied territories, what is the legal status of these terroritories. Of course disputed isn't an answer at all, as it only claims that there a different views about the legal status. --Pjacobi 10:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The legal status of them confusing and disputed, which is why "disputed" is the best term.  There are a number of legal arguments essentially stating that Israel, under the 4th Geneva convertion, cannot be an occupying power in any of Palestine (though it could be so in, for example, Lebanon).  There is a further complication that much of the territories are under Palestinian administrative rule.  International law is itself a complicated thing, and there has been no "Supreme Court" decision on the ultimate legal status of the territories; in fact, it would be difficult to imagine a mechanism for this to happen.  Ultimately borders are decided by legal treaties between sovereign nations, not by courts. Jayjg 14:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The territories are not considered merely "disputed" by anyone except those with the POV of militant Israelis who hope to annex more Arab land to the Jewish state. To the rest of the world, the territories are recognized as Occupied Territories because they are militarily occupied by Israel even though Israel has no legal claim to the land. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic to see the hypocrisy and self-serving mendacity of Zionists decrying the legitimacy of UN territorial dispute adjudication when it was the UN that created the modern state of Israel in the first place. Alberuni 15:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: International law doesn't agree with you, and the U.N. certainly did not create Israel; rather, the inhabitants of Israel created the country in an act of auto-emancipation.  The U.N. took a vote, but did nothing at all to support the results of that vote, which only strengthens the point that G.A. resolutions are non-binding and non-enforcable.  In addition, I find it difficult to reconcile your often reasonable article edits with your highly combative, propagandistic, and often insulting Talk: comments.  Why not just deal with the issues themselves, instead of promoting your beliefs about the moral failings and political beliefs of the editors who disagree with you? Jayjg 16:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "If the shoe fits, wear it." I don't seem to have as much difficulty as some people editing objectively and avoiding the injection of my personal POV into Wikipedia articles. Talk pages are the place to discuss the propagandistic biases of articles. Alberuni 16:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a shoe store or cobbler's shop.  You have definitely gotten better at avoiding blatant POV, particularly compared to your earlier edits.  Talk pages are indeed the place to discuss the propagandistic biases of articles, but not the place to discuss your beliefs about the moral failings and political beliefs of the editors who disagree with you.  If you work in a collegial way on Wikipedia, including the Talk: pages, I think you'll find it much easier to create NPOV on the articles of concern to you. Jayjg 00:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not improved. Your edits reflect a narrow-minded, virulently Zionist POV. You are not amenable to NPOV edits that offend your Zionist sensibilities. You stalk my history of contributions looking to revert edits with which you disagree. Your tone is condescending and patronizing. Interacting with you is far and away the worst part of my Wikipedia experience to date. Alberuni 01:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, it's as if I hadn't said anything at all.  I'll try again; please restrict comments to discussions of the article content.  Thanks in advance. Jayjg 02:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is little point in discussing issues with a dishonest pro-Israeli propagandist. The reason why Israelis prefer "disputed" to "occupied" is well-known by anyone who has been following the issue . Alberuni 02:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but you might profit from discussing things with me.  Regardless, you should sign your comments. Jayjg 02:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did sign my note and I left you an article to read. Sorry you missed it. Read more carefully next time. Here it is again. The reason why Israelis prefer "disputed" to "occupied" is well-known by anyone who has been following the issue . Alberuni 03:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, you hightly indented one part of the comment, then spaced the other half all the way over to the left and placed it directly above other comments on the left.  Very confusing for the reader. Jayjg 03:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Confusing"? Like the legal status of the Occupied Territories is "confusing and disputed" to you? It's always someone else's fault, isn't it? Try to keep up. Alberuni 03:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The legal status of the Disputed Territories is not at all confusing; they're clearly not Occupied under International Law. Jayjg 03:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you are disagreeing with yourself. "The legal status of them confusing and disputed, which is why "disputed" is the best term. Jayjg 14:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: It's not confusing to me, but to those who are unfamiliar with it, it is. Jayjg 04:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Other articles disagree with that article.  So what?  I don't think your categorically regurgitating Palestinian propaganda as if it was fact is any more helpful.  Nor are non-sequiturs. Jayjg 04:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided a source explaining why your interpretation of international law is invalid and why "Occupied Territories" is correct terminology. If you can't support your case and just throw your hands up in the air when faced with facts refuting your extremist position, why do you believe you should be able to dictate to everyone else how these articles are edited? Alberuni 05:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal theories 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed map

message: Everyone is saying alot about the West Bank. I want to make a very simple point about what is commonly referred to as "Palestinian Land". The Gaza Strip was under egyptian control until it was lost to Israel in the 67 war. The west bank was under jordanian control until lost to Israel as well. This isn't an issue of eye of the beholder truth, those are facts. The most recent controllers of these two land areas before Israel were egypt and Jordan. So, it seems the calls for a Palestinian State on "Palestinian Land" conveniently started when Israel came into possession of these lands. Does anyone disagree with this? WOuld someone like to cite for me the calls for a Palestinian State when these lands were controlled by their respective Arab states? Were these Arab states advocating for Statehood for Palestinians when they controlled the land? We all know the answer is "no". None of this should really impact where the world goes from here on in. The present situation and the best remedy should be the only consideration. I would only ask that there be accuracy in reporting who controls (or controlled) what land. Palestinians never controlled anything, they only lived on the land, and if living on land constitutes ownership then I would like to stake my claim of "ownership" on the Island of Manhattan. Everyone lieks to quote international law and UN resolutions and say Israel violated them, but when the argument is made that Palestinians never legally owned ANY land that is called "zionist" and "racist". 
If you look into a lot of the historical documentation, until the initial Intifadeh of the 80's Palestinians enjoyed some of the greatest freedoms under Israeli rule than they ever did in any Arab state. 
Lets look at some other facts...While any Palestinians death is horrible, Israel has killed far less Palestinians than in other Arab states the Palestinians have lived in. For instance, in Jordan in 1970 when 5000 - 10000 Palestinians were slaughtered. See the daily telegraph for citation  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/28/wpal28.xml Then there was the mistreatment of Palestinians during the 3 month marshall law period in Kuwait following the Iraqi withdrawal. But despite this, the world only seems to care when a Palestinian dies at the hand of a Jew. I find that curious.
My only desire is to point out the hypocrisy of many of the posts regarding this issue. No one gave a damn about Palestinians till it involved Israel. And attempting to misinform about the land issue to support your cause is disingenuous and dishonest and i urge wikipedia to maintain their long-standing credibility and continue to present information based on citable and documented sourcing. 
I suggest you all read Michael Oren's book "6 days of War"... and before you start whining about biases please flip to the back of the book and view the Works cited section. This individual is fluent in multiple languages and was able to review old soviet documents and has interviews with former egyptian officials as well. It is thorough and comprehensive. Best of luck to the Israeli's and Palestinians and may the withdrawal from Gaza spark a lasting peace.
:okay. Ramallite (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WEST BANK Perspective 

message: I'm against. "Palestinian territories" refers to a political issue and West Bank refers to a geographical region that is part of the "Palestinian territories" according to one interpretation. I think the West Bank warrants an article of its own.--Doron 10:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against it also. Brian Tvedt 11:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I also think it is a strange idea.  From and Israeli standpoint, from and Arabic standpoint, and from a neutral standpoint it doesn't make sense.  I could see why they would want to merge the article with Judea and Samaria but with Palestinian territories is silly.- 67.169.170.140 01:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This article and the one about the Gaza Strip should be merged with the Palestinian Territories one.
Disagree/against. Nothing has changed in the geo-political status quo that would necissitate a change on wikipedia. Israel still controls the area of the 'West Bank'/Judea and Samaria, and it has not (yet) retreated or even officially expressed, through a knesset vote, a desire to retreat from this area. I don't think the discussion is relevant until at least, some sort of consistant declaration is made. --Shuki 22:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging "Palestinian territories" here 

message: Deleted:
:On the other hand, many Israelis strongly object to the term "Palestine", as historicaly, this is the term that Emperor Hadrian coined for the Judea province after the failed Jewish rebellion against the Roman Empire in 135 AD in order to eradicate all trace of Jewish existance and self governance in the region   .
The sources only show that Romans once ruled the area and persecuted Jews.  They give no support at all for the contention that Jews object to the name "Palestine" for that reason. Brian Tvedt 11:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research on why Jews object to the name "Palestine" 

message: 1. out of the arab Universities in the west bank, the 2 most prominent ate Bethlehem, which is a memeber of the catholic church organization (and partially financed by the Vatican), and Bir Zeit, in which the Hamas wins the student elections regularly. I am not sure what the situation is in other Universities, but I don't think that it is right to say that the Universities are secular.
2. when people are acting violently, such as throwing rocks, it is no longer a domenstarion, but rather a riot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.130.67.163 (talk • contribs) 16 Oct 2005.
===Education levels since 1967===
An editor added a section under "Higher education" stating that the number of Palestinians in the West Bank who had attained an education above 13 years stood at 1% in 1970 and 14% in 1986. I am going to remove this quote and replace it with another more general statement for the following reasons:
*1- The source is in Hebrew, and there is no English language verification of this claim
*2- According to the Hebrew source, these figures include both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and since the Strip was a lot poorer than the West Bank, the statistics may be inaccurate.
*3- Most importantly, the quoted source (to the best of my knowledge) does not clarify how the statistics were done or who their poll-taker was. The reason this is important is because the source refers to Palestinians in the West Bank and not Palestinians from the West Bank. During Jordanian rule, all seekers of higher education had to go abroad for their degrees, and a significant percentage of them (if not the majority) stayed outside for work to be able to send money home. When Israel captured the area in 1967, almost everybody who was from the West Bank but was abroad (for study or work) lost their residency rights and were unable to return, which meant that a significant portion of educated West Bank Palestinians would not be considered by Israel as "West Bankers" in 1970. If the 1% figure is true, it is a forced reset of the counter to zero as many students and educated people were abroad and stayed abroad after 1967.
Ramallite (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think reasons 2 and 3 fully justify your claim, but reason 1 is irrelevant. Foreign-language sources are generally acceptable, though of course when an equivalent English-language source is available it should be used. - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: An editor added a section under "Higher education" stating that the number of Palestinians in the West Bank who had attained an education above 13 years stood at 1% in 1970 and 14% in 1986. I am going to remove this quote and replace it with another more general statement for the following reasons:
*1- The source is in Hebrew, and there is no English language verification of this claim
*2- According to the Hebrew source, these figures include both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and since the Strip was a lot poorer than the West Bank, the statistics may be inaccurate.
*3- Most importantly, the quoted source (to the best of my knowledge) does not clarify how the statistics were done or who their poll-taker was. The reason this is important is because the source refers to Palestinians in the West Bank and not Palestinians from the West Bank. During Jordanian rule, all seekers of higher education had to go abroad for their degrees, and a significant percentage of them (if not the majority) stayed outside for work to be able to send money home. When Israel captured the area in 1967, almost everybody who was from the West Bank but was abroad (for study or work) lost their residency rights and were unable to return, which meant that a significant portion of educated West Bank Palestinians would not be considered by Israel as "West Bankers" in 1970. If the 1% figure is true, it is a forced reset of the counter to zero as many students and educated people were abroad and stayed abroad after 1967.
Ramallite (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think reasons 2 and 3 fully justify your claim, but reason 1 is irrelevant. Foreign-language sources are generally acceptable, though of course when an equivalent English-language source is available it should be used. - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Education levels since 1967

message: Cybbe, with a little more effort you would have found 74,800 Google hits, so you cannot claim the term is not in use. I assure you that it is sometimes used in Israel by extreme right-wingers.--Doron 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, come to think of it, calling them "liberated territories" is somewhat archaic, I believe it was more prevalent among right-wing circles a couple of decades ago, closer to the time when they were "liberated", now they mostly call them Judea and Samaria. The Hebrew article on Judea, Samaria and Gaza includes this term. If you feel strongly about removing it, I won't object.--Doron 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel strongly one way or another; I'm just gathering and presenting information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberated" 

message: The West Bank and Gaza Strip articles should be merged and the WB and GS should be treated as one territorial unit as agreed in Oslo II.
In addition, the are both linked because the are Palestinian territories and should be treated as a country (not a soverign state) because they are the current home for the Palestinians.
:The territory is treated together (quite inadequately, I will admit) at Palestinian Territories. There is also space for individual coverage of the two areas of which it is composed. Palmiro | Talk 15:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Palmiro. This is like saying we shouldn't have an article on Texas because we have one on the United States. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging articles