Talk:Green Line (Israel)

message: I deleted the "The Fallacy of the “1967 Borders”" section. The passage was simply taken from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs site - a Jewish/Israeli lobby group. It is not only not a primary source, but it is a ridiculously bias source. I'm happy for the section to be returned if properly referenced but anyone returning it - PLEASE TRY TO BE BALANCED! Pages like this end up absolutely worthless if everyone just fills them up with divisive political opinions. 59.167.126.79 (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wikipedia is to inform people about the conflict (or any other issue for that matter) then it must include all information about a topic, rather than parroting conventional wisdom. In this respect, its important to have a section which highlights the incontrovertible fact that the oft-referred to "1967 borders" were in fact not borders. Surely the primary source to be referenced is the 03 April 1949 armistice agreement which explicitly states this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.245.248 (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted a section

message: The Jewish prisoners taken during the Israeli war of Independence is mentioned. Why no mention of the Arab POWs and forced labour gangs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab POWs

message: The article doesn't mention the DMZ between the Green line and the Blue line in Jerusalem 1949, and between the Green line and Red line of the Jordanian and Israeli forces. Why? The Sovereignty over the DMZ was the biggest cause of clashes in the Latrun area and Jerusalem. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The map clearly shows the DMZ, not sure how you want it inserted in the article, but I'll be happy to work with you toward a consensus on wording and relevancy. Do you have a specific suggestion? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No DMZ

message: Why is reference No. 2 in? Reference 2 is about Israeli security post 67 and nothing to do with the Green Line. The article is nothing more than the strategic argument for why Israel wishes to keep the Golan Heights and West Bank post 67 and nothing to do with the Green Line.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference No. 2

message: I have updated the section entitled “The Green Line and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” to include positions displayed by the documented record and corresponding references.  The section's previous version had no references and was undoubtedly a POV entry.  I have included extensive resources, from multiple, diverse sources (to avoid the claims of “bias” that will inevitably arise) in this current version, so I feel it would be appropriate to discuss any changes before they are made.Shakur420 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Green Line and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

message: Why are the Golan and East-Jerusalem mentioned in the overview of the article Green Line (Israel). They could be mentioned under Impact but are not part of the line itself. I will move or remove the passages after some weeks. A discussion before would be fruitful. --85.164.223.130 (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but the Golan Heights are internationally recognized to be on the Syrian side of the Green Line.  The whole of Jerusalem (and many surrounding villages/towns) is considered outside of the Green Line, and therefore legally outside of Israeli jurisdiction.  East Jerusalem is legally considered to be Occupied Palestinian territory, again outside of Israeli jurisdiction.  Perhaps this is why they are included in the "Overview" section, as they are fundamental issues pertaining to the manner in which the Green Line is interpreted and managed in real time.  All reference to "legality" is in terms of international law (ICJ rulings, UN resolutions and Geneva Conventions), by the way.  Let me know if you're interested in references.Shakur420 (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry but you are not the person for a NPOV discussion. "The whole of Jerusalem (and many surrounding villages/towns) is considered outside of the Green Line" says much about your knowledge and your neutrality. Both are poison for Wikipedia. If there is no other opinion about the "Overwiew"-Part I will prepare an edit. --83.108.30.236 (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide background on why the quoted portion "The whole of Jerusalem... etc." says anything about Shakur420's knowledge and neutrality.  That seems like a very easily verifiable fact.  Do you have a source that contradicts it?173.8.220.209 (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Search for the UN-Map "Principal Holy Places" from 1949 with the armistice line(s) from 3. april 1949. Watch and learn. But realy, I dont care anymore. A fight against ignorance is a lost fight from the begining. P.S.: The Gaza flotilla raid is not mentioned here yet ;) --88.89.69.134 (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golan and Jerusalem in Overview? 

message: Israel before 1967 is the same as after. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel before 1967 is the same as after 

message: Need I say more? It should carry a title reflecting all the parties or the conflict ... talknic (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you mean not NPOV. 31.18.251.194 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's a big deal, but "Green Line (Palestine)" would work too. "Green Line (Palestinian territories)" is too wordy in my opinion. The line defines the borders of the Palestinian territories much more then it does Israel, but "(Palestinian territories)" wouldn't exactly reflect all the parties. "(Palestine)" cold be interpreted to refer to ether the Palestine region, which the line is in, or to the Palestinian territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page title "Green Line (Israel)"  is NPOV 

message: This is currently badly phrased or cited. The sentence "The Green Line is not an international or permanent border." is an absolute (and by itself uncited) statement. But it's obvious that what that sentence presents as absolute fact is a bone of contention. So did the writer of that mean that according to Professor Schwebel the Green Line is not an international or permanent border? If so, then write that. As is, the opening sentence there presents a particular POV as fact without clear attribution and even without an appropriately accompanying inline citation. 31.18.251.194 (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051124201953/http://www.fmep.org:80/maps/ to http://www.fmep.org/maps/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey Wikieans.  
I'm not logged in but I noticed that there's a See Also (SA) reference to _At the Green Line_ which appears to be a fairly small documentary with a distinct point of view.  That should probably be removed from the SA list.
Cheers!
76.93.155.184 (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  At the Green Line documentary. 

message: Also it should be mentioned that referred "1967 borders" is supported by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 since it states "1967 lines", where "lines" means "border", as we can see by reading the spanish and french (both of them United Nations official languages) version of the resolution ('fronteras' or  'frontières' means borders in spanish and french): 
"Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines"..(English version)
"Expresando grave preocupación por el hecho de que la continuación de las actividades de asentamiento israelíes están poniendo en peligro la viabilidad de la solución biestatal basada en las fronteras de 1967". (Spanish version)
"Constatant avec une vive préoccupation que la poursuite des activités de peuplement israéliennes met gravement en péril la viabilité de la solution des deux États fondée sur les frontières de 1967". (French version)
--Elelch (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1967 borders 

message: The text of the original 1949 armistice agreement (link below) calls the lines the "Armistice demarcation lines". The word "border" is absent from the text. Therefore, the assertion in this article that the green line is called the "armistice border" is wrong and must be corrected.
 
Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The article quotes the article in the Armistice agreement that categorically states that the Green line is not to be considered as borders.  However, it goes on to say that Israel considered them as borders. It has been the highest priority for the state of Israel to assert that the Green line was not a border. The Green Line served as administrative demarcations, just like those inside a federated state or across municipalities - not international borders. 
The fact that the UN and pro-Palestinian organisations might refer to the Green Line as  "pre-1967 borders" in no way change its legal status, made blatantly clear in the Armistice Agreement. States not parties to an international agreement cannot alter its terms. Please rewrite the paragraph that states that Israel considered the Green Line its borders. 
As it stands, the article suggests an interpretation contrary to the very terms of the Armistice Agreement - one hat could not have made itself clearer.
Furthermore, if we consider that Jordan withdrew any claims on the territory in question, the area in question could only be Israely territory or res nullius - where no state has established legal rights.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.232.8 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Armistice demarcation line", not "Armistice border"

message: Please change in article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.68.25 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please do. The above IP poster is referring to the last paragraph of the intro. "The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders, including the United States president (currently Barack Obama)" 68.175.141.8 (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama is no longer President 

message: Donald Trump is president, not Barack Obama, area quote "The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders, including the United States president (currently Barack Obama),[5] Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[6] by the United Nations (UN) in informal texts,[7] and in the text of UN General Assembly Resolutions.[8]" 94.72.206.172 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: —  IVORK Discuss 04:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525024736/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9EC4A332E2FF9A128525643D007702E6 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9EC4A332E2FF9A128525643D007702E6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section "History" should be improved with a mention of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that refered to green line. So I propose this paragraph to be added at the final of that section:
::Indeed, on December 23, 2016 the United Nations Security Council passed the Resolution 2334, which while refering to the green line stated that "it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations".
--Elelch (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to include a paragraph about UN Security Council Resolution 2334 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509221911/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612120152/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/73D6B4C70D1A92B7852560DF0064F101 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/73D6B4C70D1A92B7852560DF0064F101
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: : Why was it necessary to remove every mention of the Golan Heights from the body of the article? (You missed one in the second paragraph of the lead, by the way.) -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When the Green Line was drawn in 1949, the Golan Heights conflict didn't exist. Unlike the West Bank and Gaza, it never were part of Mandatory Palestine. ImTheIP (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It separates Israel from Syria. "the Golan Heights conflict didn't exist"? Israel did not yet occupy the Golan, but it also did not occupy the West Bank or Gaza at that time. nableezy - 18:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Ive reverted most of the changes. The Green Line is not some historical thing. It still separates Israel from the occupied territories, including the Golan. nableezy - 18:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You reverted all the changes. Including those that were fixing unrelated problems with the article... Anyway, in the 1948 war, Israel, Jordan and Egypt captured territory that was part of Mandatory Palestine. Syria didn't and the green ink on the map was only used to fill in DMZ:s. Then in 1967, Israel conquered lots of territories. Of those territories perhaps the West Bank and Gaza are relevant to this article, because capturing them involved crossing The Green Line. But the Sinai and Golan heights aren't, because those territories were Egyptian and Syrian and capturing them involved crossing international borders that were in place long before The Green Line even existed. ImTheIP (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A glance at the talk archive shows that this argument has been raised before and rejected on the grounds that UN documents use "green line" to refer to the Egyptian and Syrian borders. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that discussion, but I haven't gone through the talk page archives. As far as I can tell, the green ink was only used to denote demarcation lines and dmz:s, but importantly not for previously recognized international borders. I.e I don't think the discussion about Golan belongs any more in this article than a discussion about the Sinai or one about Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. ImTheIP (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for any of that? Because even a cursory search would find such sources as this. nableezy - 21:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that agree with what I wrote? The 65 km^2 of demilitarized territory outside the demarcation line, but within the Mandate's territory, along the Syrian border, is insignificant. But sure, that can be included in the article. I am however objecting to the sections about the whole Golan heights territory. ImTheIP (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no it does not. You wrote that the Green Line is not used to demarcate the boundary between Israel and Syria, namely the Golan. It does. The Green Line marked the armistice lines between Israel and Syria. When Israel occupied the Golan they crossed the Green Line. It has as much to do with the Golan as it does with the West Bank, namely both territories are occupied by Israel and located past the Green Line. nableezy - 16:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Israel also crossed an pre-existing border. Big difference. If all territories ever occupied by Israel past the Green Line is to be included, then the Sinai should be included too. It  gets  silly. ImTheIP (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sinai is mentioned, but as Israel had never attempted to bring Sinai under its civil laws, unlike the Golan, it isnt mentioned there, and as it doesnt currently occupy Sinai, unlike the Golan, it isnt mentioned there either. So I really dont see what the problem is here. nableezy - 23:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Israel had never attempted to bring Sinai under its civil laws" That is a completely arbitrary criteria. The problem is that the article contains a lot of stuff which is unrelated to the subject matter, the Green Line. This article would be better if the irrelevant stuff was purged from it. ImTheIP (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, no, it isnt arbitrary. Where the article discusses Israeli actions across the Green Line that are in defiance of international law it discusses the Golan, because that is related to the topic at hand. And once again, your original position, that the Green Line is unrelated to the Golan, is directly contradicted by the sources. nableezy - 18:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the record ImTheIP is correct in that the green line did not refer to the mandatory period border with the Golan and the Sinai in 1949, as these were set according to the preexisting international border (with DMZs\NMLs along the Golan on the Israeli side). However in common use, and subsequently official use the green line has morphed into the 1949 borders.Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golan Heights 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605050548/http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=797884 to http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=797884
*Added  tag to http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru.www/publications/showpubs.php?id=206
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Green Line article claims the following:
"The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders, including the former United States president, Barack Obama),[5]"
The footnote given (#5) does not support, but rather disproves, the claim that President Obama referred to "1967 borders." He used the words "1967 lines" to refer to the 1949 armistice agreement. In the footnote #5 linked article, CNN misquotes Obama in the headline ("1967 borders"), but his response to this was "I have been misquoted."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:1900:306E:A489:7A04:F75F (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error citing Barak Obama's quotation 

message: The article should note that the disputed territories are only the Western part of the Mandate of Palestine; the Eastern part is what is now known as Jordan. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandate of Palestine 

message: The green line wasn't just a line, it was quite a bit of land in various areas  (see eg the map in Canada Park). The article presently doesnt mention much about that....it should be expanded. 
We have places like Kfar Ruth, which is mostly located inside the green line...(the google map seem pretty good )
Does anyone feel up to the task? Huldra (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Talk:Lapid: me thinks that a RfC is brewing here. This concerns  places like Kfar Ruth, Lapid, Shilat etc Huldra (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is complex. And even more complex since this was drawn on paper and high resolution mapping is not released by Israel - even in places with no NML there is ambiguity at times of a few hundred meters. There are a few places (e.g. Latrun) with a significant NML.Icewhiz (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, yeah I know. (I heard stories about very broad pens being deliberately used, etc....). Which is why I am trying to kick this over to someone else...Huldra (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was not intended (by either side) to be a lasting international border when the cease fire agreements were drafted in 1949. The original map is mmore precise than Sykes–Picot Agreement, but it was not up to snuff at the time. For most of the length it is just imprecise (say up to hundreds of meters). In Latrun there was a NMZ, and Jerusalem had NMZs and an Israeli exclave. But sourcing on all this is not great (the Israeli righties want to ignore the line. Others want to treat it as an actual border. So there is no impetus for modern writers to addrress this). If someone used a broad pen in Cyprus it was probably to allow minor adjustments on the ground based on realities negotiaters did not see - not a nefarious reason.Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info needed 

message: This needs to be edited and fixed. Anybody with Any understanding of the is really Palestinian conflict knows that the green light is never referred to as “1967 borders”
The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders. bobmutch (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG ‘The Green Line is often referred to as the... "1967 borders"’ 

message: "The Golan Heights are another exception, having been informally incorporated by Israel [...] Israeli settlements in these areas are essentially subject to the laws of Israel rather than those of the Palestinian Authority." Since the Golan Heights was captured from Syria, there is (as I understand it) no question of it being administered by the Palestinian Authority, so this seems wrong or at least misleading. --atdt (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. I just removed the whole sentence, as it was unsourced anyway. Huldra (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurisdiction over Golan Heights 

message: "Israel declared Jerusalem "complete and united" as the capital of Israel according to the 1980 Basic Jerusalem Law.[11][12] This claim has not been recognised by any country or by the United Nations (UN) Security Council."</br>
I actually do not know whether the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by the US under Trump means they recognize it as "complete and united". Do they?--Adûnâi (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the Americans said that everything including Jerusalem could still be negotiated. But that's not the same as saying State of Palestine + capital in East Jerusalem is OK so they have put Israel in the driving seat were there to be any negotiations. I think at one stage Trump said something like "takes Jerusalem off the table" which is hardly helpful. Anyway, I would look around for some reliable RS to back this up. its probably worth a sentence or two in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has Trump's America recognized Jerusalem as "complete and united" when they moved the embassy? 

message: Historically there have always bipartisan policy differences between the US executive and legislative branches, and Jerusalem is a case in point. Congress passed a law, with bipartisan support, requiring the us to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but successive presidents, of both major parties, have signed waivers in order to avoid complying. believe that the article should mention this, but avoid TMI. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuances of US position 

message: Change "During the war in 1947–48, Jews residing east of the Line," to "During the war in 1947–48, Jews residing east of what subsequently became the Line," Ross 01:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2021 

message: correct is what is written in the linked to "Declaration of I.": The borders were not specified in the Declaration
Not what is written here. 2A02:8109:B6A2:5500:5068:7082:976D:5444 (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done, unclear request, specify the request in form change X to Y (with sources if appropriate). Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: Declaration of Independence 

message: "Kibbutz Ramat Rachel was left almost entirely outside the Israeli side of the Green Line.[16]"
The text given in note 16 has nothing on Ramat Rahel.
Anyhow, I guess (!) it must be "The agricultual land of Kibbutz Rahel ...", the buildings of the Kibbutz being inside the Green Line. 2A02:8109:B6A2:5500:5068:7082:976D:5444 (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the sentence. Seems wrong from this picture although some of it is beyond the line. Anyone can restore with source if they wish. Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: According to this map, plus a 1965 map showing the green line, it is inside the green line. Zerotalk 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact: Kibbutz Ramat Rachel ...