Talk:Green Line (Israel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

DFLP

The DFLP's stance against attacks inside the Green Line has been consistent throughout the second intifada, but it had no such position in the 1970s, and it engaged in quite a lot of attacks on Israeli targets from South Lebanon, the Ma'alot massacre being only one, though certainly the most deadly. If we are simply talking about the DFLP's current position, as is the case in the article as it stands, Ma'alot is quite irrelevant and certainly doesn't prove anything; if we want to talk about how its position has changed, then there could be an argument for including it. Palmiro | Talk 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to retain mention of it, simply because the DFLP is to a great extent known for this particular attack within the Israeli side of the Line. They retracted from such a markedly reactionary (for a M-L group) form of armed-struggle, at least officially, had they not done so, the massacre would likely not be mentioned at all. But, I would also like to see Isarig approach the subject more professionally ala WP:V and WP:RS. Let's limit the guesswork to a minimum rather than enter into another sterile revert war which offers little hope of progress. We can and should also mention atrocities committed by Isreal, but all of that should be within the context of the Line. In any case, the article risks covering content it should not and which go beyond the scope of the Line as the main subject; that is partially the case with its (pro-Israel) Hebrew Wikipedia counterpart & is something that needs to be increasingly watched over as this article gets expanded further. El_C 22:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Israig has provided evidence showing the DFLP position was not consistent — the Gadera attack he mentioned has tbeen varified to have taken place on Mar '94. Thus, I have removed the contested passage until (if and/or when) it can be reformulated to account for the discrepancy. As I noted to Israig, had s/he provided that source the first (or 2nd) time, the original removal would have stuck. As for the DFLP mention, my main concern now that we know it did not act in a manner consistent with its formal position (all it takes is one exception), is the length of the passage. I don't want to have a miniessay on the DFLP, but present it in the context of the line, and as a prelude to Hamas' latest statement/s. Any ideas on how to reenter topically it will be welcome. El_C 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It occured to me that one way around this problematic would be to employ explanatory footnotes (so long as these are not limited just to one note regarding this – still, I could see other areas that could possibly benefit from such an approach). Any thoughts? El_C 00:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping it out of the article altogether. The main topic is, after all, the Green Line, and not how every (relatively minor) group used it in their policies. Isarig 02:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I may be responsible for some of the confusion here: I added "since Oslo" because that was what I thought was correct, and having looked at the English version of the DFLP website could find no mention of when they changed their stance (hardly entirely surprising, political parties are often a bit coy about when or why they decided that something they once thought was all right was actually all wrong). However, the DFLP is not really that minor in the context of the evolution of the Palestinian national movement. Where the inconsistency really lies was in their willingness to explore relations with Israelis, and to talk about establishing a Palestinian state in the 1967 territories alone, while also being willing to carry out attacks resulting in the deaths of Israeli civilians; how relevant that is to this article, I'm not sure. Their position on not attacking across the Green Line has certainly been consistent throughout the second intifada, and that is perhaps notable because AFAIK they are the only group to hold such a position. Anyway, if Ma'alot deserves to be included, it is in reference to the first point, not to the second. Palmiro | Talk 16:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Overview

The overview section looks quite inaccurate:

• The areas "outside" the Green Line are described as "administered by the Israeli military or in agreements with the Palestinian National Authority", while the Golan Heights, as well as all Israeli settlements in the West Bank (and formerly the Gaza Strip) are under Israeli civil administration [1],[2] (PDF, pp. 65-71).
• It says that Israel considers East Jerusalem as "sovereign Israeli territory", while there is no official Israeli declaration or resolution stating this. In fact, Israel is only applying its law, jurisdiction and administration over East Jerusalem, and had explicitly denied annexing it in at least one occation [3].
• It says that "the Line formally divides the areas of operations of the Israeli Magen David Adom and the Palestinian Red Crescent". I find it hard to believe the Palestinian Red Crescent operates in Israeli settlements - is there a reference to confirm this sentence?

Another question - is the territory within the Green Line formally recognized by Israel as the sovereign territory of Israel? Does anyone know about an Israeli law defining Israel's sovereign territory?--128.139.226.36 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

One

Answer 1: The Golan Heights Law is an annexation law in all but name. Inhabitants of settlement are bound by the laws of the State of Israel (i.e. not military law, nor the PNA's laws). The pdf cited reads: The extent to which the settlers and the Civil Administration exercise control over these areas is not uniform, and Palestinians still use some of them for agriculture or grazing. This situation is the result of Israel's policy of declaring broad tracts of land as state land, without always informing the residents living on or using these lands. This dosen't dispute what is currently there, though can be better clarified & expanded elsewhere. Other than that, please be more specific.

Hi, El C, thank you for replying. My first point with regards to the Golan Heights has been addressed by your revision.

My second point was with regards to the settlements in the West Bank (and formerly the Gaza Strip): (a) The settlements are outside the Green Line; (b) They are not administered by the Israeli Military; (c) They are not administered in agreement with the PNA. Therefore I suggest adding them as another exception, stating that they are under Israeli civil administration.--128.139.226.37 08:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. (I notice, though, in the lower court case cited bellow the example mentioned where traffic offences not being issued due to "legal ambiguities.") I originally just paraphrased the Hebrew wiki's רוב חלקי הקו הירוק משמשים היום כגבול מינהלי בין השטחים עליהם חלה ריבונות ישראל, לבין שטחים המנוהלים על-ידה באמצעות ממשל צבאי או על-פי הסכמים עם הרשות הפלסטינית as "in practice it is largely used to differentiate between those areas within the Israeli side of the Line, which are administered as part of the State of Israel, and the areas outside it, which are either administered by the Israeli military or in agreements with the Palestinian National Authority," but theirs (.he) is the lead while ours is the overview, so in hindsight it probably makes sense to list the exceptions (and if we do that, certainly all of them, each important in its own right). So Palmiro added the bit on Jerusalem (correctly), but I already addressed it (and the Golan, and the PTs) elsewhere in the body. Hopefuly, those areas of the article will be expanded soon, since at the moment, they do not convey much more than is noted in the overview. El_C 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Two

Answer 2: On more than one occasion, in fact, but the Jerusalem Law of 1981 superecedes these. This could be better clarified, though.

This issue is disputed at best. On one hand, for all practical purposes it is an annexation, on the other hand Israel has intentionally avoided the word "annexation" or "sovereignty" and has not granted citizenship to East Jerusalem inhabitants (though they may acquire it under certain conditions). I suggest being more accurate, and state only what is undisputed -- that it was informally annexed. The phrasing of the sentence you added about the Golan Heights is in my opinion also applicable to East Jerusalem and the two sentences can be merged into one.--128.139.226.37 08:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, unlike with the GH Law, the claim over Jerusalem cannot be equally informalized. Because unlike it, the Jerusalem Law is a Basic Law with rather clear albeit indirect language. Additionally, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that East Jerusalem is an inseprable part of the State of Israel. But internationally, the Israeli govt.'s position is that it has not annexed it. Still, most countries see that as an annexation, which intimates a soverignty claim. So maybe that could be made more clear (though I wish to keep the overview section brief), but I remain hesitant of placing it on par with the GH. Clearly, there has been much more of a claim for EJ (beyond informalities) than the GH. El_C 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Three

Answer 3: This agreement helped the Israeli MDA to be accepted into the International Committee of the Red Cross, mainly because it allows the Palestinian Red Crescent to better rely on assistance from its Israeli counterpart, which has better equipment and security clearence. I'm not sure about the exact provisions of the agreement regarding those points. The agreement used the Line as a basis (UN).

I couldn't find any description of the boundary between the respective parties' areas of operation, and I strongly dispute the assertion that the Green Line is that boundary. As I said, there's no chance the Red Crescent is reponsible for operation in the settlements (they have a hard enough time just passing through military checkpoints during emergencies on their way to patients in outlying villages, as they are often suspected of assisting terrorism). Therefore the sentence should be removed unless some proof is provided.--128.139.226.37 08:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Hebrew Wikipedia states this not once, but twice. In the הקו הירוק and the הצלב האדום (I didn't review the agreement).

Reading: בהסכם לשיתוף פעולה שנחתם בין ארגון מגן דוד אדום ומקבילו הסהר האדום הפלסטיני בדצמבר 2005נקבע כי הקו הירוק יגדיר את הגבול בין תחומי הפעילות הגאוגרפיים של הארגונים. ו-בהסכם הכירו שני הארגונים בקו הירוק כגבול הגאוגרפי של תחומי הפעילות שלהם. El_C 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, settlements-specific. I overlooked part of the above. I wans't actually claiming otherwise (!), I just forgot to add that part. The MFA site says "[The] MDA recognizes the PRCS's right to care for Palestinians in the PA-administered territories, while the PRCS recognizes MDA's right to treat Israeli citizens in Israel and the territories." (mfa, emphasis added). The relevance of the agreement with the subject is discussed in section four of שיחה:הקו הירוק. El_C 23:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Four

Answer 4: I'm not certain where and to what extent/detail this has found formal legal expression up until now, as opposed to being left intentionally vague, but obviously some part of Israeli territory is seen by its govt. as soverign territory(!). El_C 01:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I came to this article in the first place is that I was looking for some formal description of the boundary of Israel's sovereign territory according to the Israeli view. I thought it was the Green Line, but then again Israel "annexed" East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, albeit not formally. And what about the settlements? Since then I did my little Google research and stumbled across a long discussion of this issue in the ruling of a court case regarding the former no-man's land (between the Israeli and Jordanian areas according to the 1949 armistice). It turns out that there is no formal description of the territory of Israel, so this issue is a matter for legal polemic. Past rulings consider the territory within the Green Line, at least, as Israeli sovereign territory. This particular ruling rules that the former no-man's land is not, although it refers to a previous ruling that had a somewhat different view. So even this question is possibly disputed in Israeli legal circles, so needless to say there is no formal answer. As far as I know, the question of Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights has not been contested in court, although the court ruling implies that their status may be similar (i.e., not part of Israel). Anyway, this was this judge's opinion and it's quite possible that another judge would have seen things differently.

My motivation for this whole issue is the question of the legal status of the settlements in the West Bank vs. the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Internationally, they are all usually considered "illegitimate" to some degree. Within most Israeli and pro-Israeli circles, the West Bank settlements are usually regarded (according to Israeli law) as somewhat different from those in the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. As far as I can tell, they have all come under Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration, although not formally annexed. Does anyone know of any basis for distinction between them according to Israeli law?--128.139.226.37 08:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That lower court's opinion, and that of the legal experts its cites, are interesting (see also the summary a year later), but mostly I think we should be defering to international consensus while noting the details. As for the the borders, the Hebrew article states: מדינת ישראל לא הכריזה עם הקמתה על גבולותיה באופן רשמי ולפיכך שימש הקו הירוק כגבול דה-פקטו של ריבונותה. כיום רואות רוב מדינות העולם והארגונים הבינלאומיים את הקו הירוק בקטעים המגדירים את "הגדה המערבית" ואת "רצועת עזה" כגבולות הריבונות של ישראל. But to answer that: Israel has intentionally kept the status of territories they occupy (and settlements therein) legally vague, so I'm unsure if there is a clear answer at this time. If there will be a hitkansut, more clarity will likely be offered on that front. El_C 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...--128.139.226.37 23:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just a minor comment. The Golan Heights were (mostly) not part of Mandatory Palestine, and it is the position of Palestinian organisations (including the PNA) that they are Syrian. As such, PNA laws would never apply there, nor would its Arab/Druse/Circussian residents be referred to as Palestinians, to the best of my knowledge. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I addressed all or most of these concerns with my last edit. Some were explained at the body of the article, but having it in the overview is a lot clearer and does prevent its innaccuracy when read in isolation: 1. clarified that Jerusalem is considered soverign by Israel through the Jerusalem Law. 2. Added the Golan as the other exception, informally annexed with the Golan Heights Law. 3. Clarified that the MDA-PRC arrangment applies only in the southern and eastern areas of line (i.e. not the Golan). With the Jerusalem claim qualified and with the Golan IDF/PNA exception highlighted, let me know if you feel there are any other issues with the overview. Thanks. El_C 08:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

This statement reads as having a point of view - not neutral. Statements like "even the so-called "moderate"" Fatah the quotes around 1967 borders, the comment in parenthesis (borders that never truly existed) the green line does exist, it is not a border based on a peace agreement but the article itself seems to say it was a defacto border to some extent.

Though Palestinian groups and their supporters often call for Israel to pull back to the Green Line or "1967 borders" (borders which never truly existed), even the so-called "moderate" Fatah party often admits that such a move would not end the conflict.Though Palestinian groups and their supporters often call for Israel to pull back to the Green Line or "1967 borders" (borders which never truly existed), even the so-called "moderate" Fatah party often admits that such a move would not end the conflict.

I am somewhat new to wikipedia without many edits behind me, but I would like consensus on whether this should be cleaned up. As it stands now this is not a good encyclopedia resource.

Further I question why so much of the article goes into the conflict Palestinian/Israel conflict. The conflict is rightfully covered in depth elsewhere. This article should be a factual definition of the green line with references pertaining directly to the green line.

Wmb1957 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The particular remarks you object to were introduced by an anonymous editor earlier today. I've taken them back out again. Palmiro | Talk 19:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

still a POV article

Thank you.

I still question why there is so much information here when the answer is that the Green line is the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and the west bank. (See 1949 Armistice Agreements)

Furthermore there are other areas of a POV nature. Consider this line in Arab population:

In 1967, East Jerusalem was annexed into Israel, with its Arab inhabitants given permanent residency status. Domestically, its status as part of Israel was further entrenched with the Jerusalem Law of 1980In 1967, East Jerusalem was annexed into Israel, with its Arab inhabitants given permanent residency status. Domestically, its status as part of Israel was further entrenched with the Jerusalem Law of 1980

No note is made of the fact that the international community does not recognize this annexation nor of that UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 478 in 1980 declaring the annexation to be a violation of international law.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1057335917798

So, add it. Why remove the section? El_C 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure there are others, to the point that this is useless as it stands. This article disagrees with other articles in wikipedia itself (does it apply only to west bank areas or also other borders)

I see no references listed for some of the article such as the impact sections. Further there are references on the web that point to Hamas accepting a palestinian state within the green lines in direct contradiction to the article.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3249568,00.html

Sometimes, information changes or needs to be qualified. Removing everything is unhelpful. El_C 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I plan to continue looking at this article and clean it up.

Wmb1957 20:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing half the article without adding anything does not count as cleanup. El_C 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I plan to remove the Impact section as well ast The Green Line and the Israel-Palestinian conflict section.

The impact section is not verified from what I can tell.

What do you need verified, specifically? El_C 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Green Line and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict section is not verified.

What do you need verified, specifically? El_C 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Along with http://uk.news.yahoo.com/25112006/323/hamas-threatens-third-intifada-agreement-palestinian-state.html says the opposite of this in the article:

Unlike Fatah, Hamas, which following the Palestinian legislative election of 2006 controls the Palestinian Legislative Council and Prime Ministership (Fatah controls the Presidency), formally refuses to see the Green Line or one roughly corresponding to it as a prospective border between Israel and a future State of Palestine. Smaller parties and groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the Popular Resistance Committees, and Islamic Jihad lean more toward Hamas than Fatah's position.

Wmb1957 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I still question why there is so little information here about such wide scale removal of material. El_C 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the Green Line is simply a border. What's so tough about that? Beam (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the wikipedia guidelines for verifibility

I hid those parts of the article as suggested on the wikipedia verifibility page.

If you believe the parts you added back in should stay please point me to the material that cites this information.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

You can also make unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done. [1]

Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Wmb1957 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Discuss - What is the green line

The green line refers to the demarcation line with the west bank, specifically on the map with Jordon. Nothing to do with Syria or Egypt from what I can tell.

Contrast these two statements:

Green Line (Israel) The term Green Line is used to refer to the 1949 Armistice lines established between Israel and its opponents (Syria, Jordan, and Egypt) at the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The Green Line separates Israel not only from these countries but from territories Israel would later capture in the 1967 Six-Day War, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

1949 Armistice Agreements The agreements ended the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and established the armistice lines between Israel and the West Bank, also known as the Green Line, until the 1967 Six-Day War.

These URL's contradict the definition of the green line in the Green Line (Israel) article

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/gloss.html#green

Green Line

This was the demarcation between the 1967 borders of Israel and the West Bank territories captured in the Six-Day War. The reference came about because someone used a green pen on the map of the armistice agreement with Jordan to draw the border.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm#green%20line

GREEN LINE The Green Line marks the boundary between Israel and the West Bank. It is properly referred to as the 1949 Armistice Line - the ceasefire line of 1949.

The exact borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state are subject to negotiation between the two parties. The Palestinians want a complete end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and use the phrase to mean a return to the pre-4th June 1967 borders.

In describing the situation on the ground take care to use the most precise and accurate terminology.

The Green Line is a dividing line or a boundary. If you call it a border you may inadvertently imply that it has internationally recognised status, which it does not currently have.

To that end, we can call the Green Line "the generally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank." Wmb1957 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Both links are wrong, or imprecise. The Green Line refers to all 1949 armistice lines - including those with Syria and Egypt. See for example this UN document regarding the Green Line on the Syrian front - [4]

and this one for the Egyptian (Gaza) front [5] Isarig 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do see your point. However the first document you reference includes the west bank as well as the Golan Heights, and in fact the references I saw for the green line were in regards to the west bank.

Economic and social repercussions of the Israeli settlements on the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, occupied since 1967 nd on the Arab population of the Syrian Golan

The Green Line in the context of Israel commonly refers to the demarcation line between Israel and the West Bank.

Wmb1957 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice here it is a line around the west bank - the green line.

Marking the West Bank on Israeli Textbook Maps Hits Nerve By Susan Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor December 06, 2006

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Israeli conservatives are unhappy with the education minister's decision to run a line around the West Bank in maps of Israel that will appear in public school textbooks. Critics say that showing the pre-1967 boundary is a political move.

Education Minister Yuli Tamir said on Tuesday that she had decided to put the so-called "green line" into new geography textbooks for educational purposes. Tamir was quoted as saying that there had had been a conscious decision to remove the line from Israeli maps, but she thought it should be returned.

Tamir, who is part of the left-wing Labor party, was one of the founding members of Peace Now - an Israeli group that advocates the removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the establishment of a Palestinian state there. Wmb1957 07:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3020745,00.html

Green Line; Seam Line

Published: 01.26.05, 14:25

Green Line and Seam Line are often used interchangeably for the border between Israel and the West Bank, but there are subtle differences between the two.

The Green Line refers to the boundary between Israel and the West Bank as demarcated by the 1949 Armistice agreement. The Armistice Line ended hostilities between Israel and Arab countries in the 1948 War of Independence and demarcated the borders between the West Bank and Gaza Strip as recognized by the international community. Israel does not officially recognize the Green Line, as it does not officially recognize a border between Israel and the West Bank.

Similarly, the Seam Line refers to the border between Israel and the West Bank, but is more typically used in reference to areas between towns and cities inside Israel and Palestinian areas in the West Bank.

Wmb1957 07:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have further documentation to point to the Green Line meaning what you believe it means? Wmb1957 07:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp513.htm

The "green line" from 1949 bounding the West Bank is solely a defunct military line demarcating the extent of the Transjordanian invasion of Israel in 1948. Indeed, at the insistence of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, each of the armistice agreements of 1949 specified that the ceasefire lines were not borders and that neither side relinquishes its territorial claims. Wmb1957 07:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements

1949 Armistice Agreements From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and its neighbors Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

The agreements ended the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and established the armistice lines between Israel and the West Bank, also known as the Green Line, until the 1967 Six-Day War. Wmb1957 07:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.poica.org/glossary/glossary.php

Green line/ 1949 Armistice Line

After the cessation of hostilities between the Arab countries and Israel in 1948, an Armistice agreement was signed in 1949. The agreement delineated the borders of each party and designated the "No Man's" land between them according to the location of their respective armies. This line demarcated the borders between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip as recognized by the international community. It is worth mentioning here that Israel does not specify the boundaries of its state. Although the line became known later as the "Green line", its proper name is the "1949 Armistice Line".

Wmb1957 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is getting a little silly. Your own sources (for example, the last one above) refer to the Green Line as demarcating a boundry between Israel & Gaza, not just the WB. I've shown you official UN documents which refer to it as demarcating Israeli and Syrian positions (which, contrary to your claim, do not mention the WB even once). What's the point of showing yet more non-scholarly sources which also refer to it as the boundary between the WB (a fact which is not disputed)? Isarig 16:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why discussing the issue is silly. Further I question your motive in attacking me personally. I agree with the Gaza line since seeing it on the map below. This is partly why I started the discussion, so there was a clear answer.

Specifically from the first link you gave: The report notes that most of the quarries and stone- crushing mills established in the West Bank since the Oslo Agreement are situated in the western part near the Green Line, which indicates that there is a plan to shift the Line east of its present location in order to annex additional West Bank land.

In September 1994, the Israeli Ministry of Construction and Housing announced that 87 apartments were being offered for rent in three settlements located near the Green Line. In addition, the Israeli Prime Minister approved the preparation of new land for the building of additional housing units in Alfe Menache, a settlement located 3 kilometres from the Green Line. 18/

Alfe Menache is a West Bank settlement - I looked it up.

Now I am not going to add more because you apparently take that as me being silly rather then trying to present facts. If you need more look it up yourself.

Wmb1957 17:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a from a UN site - a map showing the armistice demarcation lines (1949) notice that the key has different lines for International boundaries ( Egypt/Israel) boundaries for the former palestinian mandate (Jordan/West Bank) (Lebanon/Israel) (Israel/Jordan) and the 1949 armistice demarc lines (Israel/West Bank) (Israel/Gaza).

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/e55f901779c1f8e485256b9800714cef!OpenDocument Wmb1957 17:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not attacking you and I did not call you silly. I called this situation - in which you are arguing for a certain position using sources that show the opposite - silly. The source which discusses quarries is not the document I produced- I pointed you to a UN document from 1967, just after the Six-day war, in which Syrian officials refer to the pre-June 4 positions between Israel and Syria as 'the green line' You agree above that the green line is not just between Israel and the WB, but also between Israel and Gaza, and i have produced an official source saying the same about the Israel-Syria demarcation. I think we're done here. Isarig 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible you included a wrong link? The references I included above are from the document you included.

Both links are wrong, or imprecise. The Green Line refers to all 1949 armistice lines - including those with Syria and Egypt. See for example this UN document regarding the Green Line on the Syrian front]

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/7d7d231eb99b0f010525655a0050cd85!OpenDocument The above document refers to a green line draw on a map with Syria in 1967 which refer's to the armistice agreement of 1949.

and this one for the Egyptian (Gaza) front http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/50/plenary/a50-262.htm

When I click on this it takes me to General Assembly Economic and Social Council A/50/262-E/1995/59. I searched within that document for green line with my browser and found the two references I added above.

As I understand it now we agree that it refers to the demarc between Israel and the West Bank as well as Gaza. The green line does not include Golan Heights etc.?

Please understand that I am only trying to get a consensus for a definition of Green Line (Israel). Confusion occurs because this page, the definition at 1949 Armistice Agreements, and the definitions on the web do not agree. Needless to say not all green lines are Green Line (Israel) and there may be a historical definition and a current usage/common definition. I am not sure, I am seeking consensus. Wmb1957 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The link I'm referring to is the first one, which says "the Israelis were not at that time at any point beyond the armistice line established by the armistice agreement of 1949 (see green line on map attached as annex B)" - this is the same green line we are discussing. The Green line refers to the 1949 armistice lines - on the WB, Gaza, and the frontier with Syria. Isarig 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Green line was originally used to refer to the Jordanian Forces Armistice line as in:-

"Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement - Cablegram from UN Acting Mediator, Map (Green Line)" S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949 http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/f03d55e48f77ab698525643b00608d34/$FILE/Arm_1949.jpg Although the line does not appear to be that Green. At the same time there was the red line (The Israeli Armistice line)

However in Jerusalem the Jordanian armistice line is clearly Green and the Israeli Armistice line Blue:-

"Jerusalem - Principal Holy Sites - Armistice line - Map UN Doc 229"

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/36a5809a27a0ce1f85256cc5007536a8/$FILE/m0229.jpg

The Syrian Map doesn't show any Green line. Syria/Israel Armistice line S/1353/Rev.1 20 July 1949 http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/794884bef66f46f38525705200598b87/$FILE/s1353rev1.tif

Lebanon Israel being the International boundary didn't get drawn.

Is the article incorrect in including Lebanon, Syria and Egyptian boundaries in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The General Bull cable gram refers to lines drawn in 1967 on the Syrian lines where 3 handy chinagraphs had been used to highlight the positions, Green Violet and orange.

Much like in the first map where green Blue and red were used and has no bearing on the "name" of the Armistice line.

Note by the Secretariat. The photo-offsets of the two officially signed maps comprising annex I will be found at the end of this fascicule. For purposes of reproduction, it has been necessary to present the map of Palestine (map 1) as a north sheet (part 1) and a south sheet (part 2). Map 2 is a survey map of Jerusalem which should be consulted in connexion with sub-paragraph (b) of article V. The line referred to in sub-paragraph (d) of article V begins on part 1 of map 1 (blue line south of the Jerusalem area) and continues south on part 2. For all other geographical references in articles V and VI, map 1, part 1 should be consulted. The truce lines referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of article V are the red and green lines on the latter map. UN Doc S/1302/Rev.1

The second example was from 1995 and only referred to the the boundary between Israel and the occupied territories, showing a transference from the Jordanian Armistice line (West Bank) to the Gaza strip but not as a proto Israel Border.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

article is speaking too much with pov words like "occupation" and is also full of OR I'm afraid. Amoruso 04:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You can't really expect any consideration without citing specific examples. El_C 06:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN concerning the consideration. It's not civil to remove tags. I'll try to fix it myself, I had problem with the use of the word occupation mostly. Cheers. Amoruso 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT concerning your lack of consideration. I realize you are unable to respond here in light of your latest block, but I am refraining from using your talk page, since you removed my comments from there yesterday, just as you did last week. El_C 22:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise (again) for deleting your comments. I feel we started on the wrong foot and I'd like to amend that and be friends. As for occupation/control/capture I ask again you'll accept this change. True, UN refers to it as occupied, but if you see the article about the United Nations you'll see there an article talking about a claim of its BIAS against Israel. Fact is occupation is a negative term which offends many people including me and legal scholars in the world who disagree with it because of real issues - the land not being legally someone's else and the jewish connection and history even modern history of settlements before 1948 - occupation is simply a POV word. So I ask unless you have an objection to changing it to capture/control wjhich dosn't impply something positive of Israel to not object to it. Thank you in advance. Amoruso 12:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

However, the article is currently titled Israeli-occupied territories, not Israeli-controlled territories. If you would like for it to be renamed, propose it at the talk page there. All of your points can be made at Talk:Israeli-occupied territories, but this is the wrong place to discuss whether "occupation" is a bad word. Khoikhoi 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, we're tlaking about POV use in this article, not there. What does another article in wikipedia has to do with it... nothing. Perhaps you're referring to one instance, not your blidn revert. Cheers, Amoruso 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How so? If an article is at one title, we can't just pipe link to to one that fits our own POV. Let me give you an example. The image caption in Salam Daher says the following:

Salam Daher carrying a victim of the 2006 Qana airstrike

How would you feel if I changed it to:

Salam Daher carrying a victim of the 2006 Qana massacre

Khoikhoi 17:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you're talking about one instance of a link, not all of the appeareances of "occupation" so why did you revert everything. Secondly, I'd feel wrong about it because "massacre" would be an inaccurate description while "airstrike" is an NPOV word. Just like occupation is not an NPOV word. Amoruso 17:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Because if the title is at Israeli-occupied territories, we should be consistent throughout all of Wikipedia. Secondly, if most countries use one term, we have to follow WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Khoikhoi 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also a title called Judea and Samaria. It makes no sense to base your POV on another article which is POV in itself. It of course has nothing to do with undue weight - that doesn't make even sense. There's one rule which applies here and that's WP:NPOV. Please adhere by it without reverting anymore. Amoruso 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? It would be different if there were two articles on Wikipedia called Israeli-occupied territories and Israeli-controlled territories. Anyways, if you didn't understand what I said, just read the policy again. Khoikhoi 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So from now on we use the word Terrorism to refer to Hamas because there's no article called Militance against Israel but there is Terrorism against Israel - excellent. I think you missed the POV tag on occupied territories. Please read WP:NPOV and follow it. Amoruso 17:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorism" is listed at WP:WTA. I'll try to read about NPOV when I have the time (because I have no idea what it is).</sarcasm> Khoikhoi 19:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WTA is not a binding policy, NPOV is. Amoruso 19:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Inhehernt POV

Until the word occupation is removed the article will always be POV. Another interesting note is that the article says "Jordan Ruled" but for some reason "Israel occupied". Interesting isn't it. Amoruso 21:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Very. Khoikhoi 21:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "occupation" does not in itself convey negative connotations; it depends on the context. For example, the Allies occupied Germany after World War II. Does the word "occupation" in this context denotes something terrible? I doubt it. However, the word "ruled" is indeed imprecise with regards to Jordan. Beit Or 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The word itself just means "the act or process of holding or possessing a place" or "invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces". (source) There's hardly any difference between "control" and "occupation". The latter is used more often in the case of Israel. Khoikhoi 22:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

""invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces" - and you don't see any problem with that ? The allies occupied Germany because it wasn't their land. But this is regarded by some/many as Jewish/Israeli land. That's why it's completely inappropriate to say that Israel occupied its own rightful territory. Amoruso 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Regarded by some", but not by most people. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight—it's a minority view that the the land the Jewish settlers occupy is rightfully theirs (the UN seems to disagree for example). Khoikhoi 22:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How can it be undue weight to represent the NPOV version ? It's also the UN position that the Palestinians militants are terrorists. We've been through this. It would be undue weight to write that it's a liberated jewish land, it won't be undue weight to use a neutral word regarding the conflict. Control/rule etc doesn't imply legality, so your wish to represent one POV of the conflict is out of place. It's the reason the word "capture" is used and not "kidnap" or "kill" and not "murder" where necessary etc. Occupation is a negative word, control/rule etc is neutal. So kindly change this back. thank you. Amoruso 23:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Amoruso, sorry for taking so long to respond (I sorta forgot). As I noted in my first edit summary, the article is called Israeli-occupied Territories - UNSC 242 called for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied...". I'll also add that, in Israel, the word recenty has increasingly gained usage among such right-national figures as Olmert. Even if that wasn't the case, the scholarly consensus in the world is that these territories came under military occupation. It is not insiginificant that the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories is a Ministry of Defense body headed by an Aluf. I also reiterate that in light of the title of Israeli-occupied territories, it is intuitive to use the term. El_C 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not with areas of Arab population controlled by the military. The area is divided into 3 types: A, B, C. A can't truly be considered occupied and is not considered as such by any Israeli figure, not Olmert and not the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories and not the high court - now since the intifada that control is sporadic but it still stands. As for B it's military observed by Israel. Now about C we're getting closer to the problem. The problem is that an area where Israeli towns stand as Maale Adumim, Ariel or Kiryat Arba can't be considered occupied because there are no Palestinian population here and thus it comes down to general dispute of the territory, not the actual what you can say is legal definition of means of control over a population. I hope that clarifies it. Therefore disputed is the neutral term for this, where the Green line is composed of the entire area, the occupation you refer to is only for the place where population is directly resided. As for U.N, I may refer you to the article concerning bias of U.N against Israel which is a given and is not relevant for our issue anyway, and 242 specifically we don't know which of the territories are occupied and which not according to that res. I hope that makes it clear. Cheers, Amoruso 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I forgot about this. I'm aware of those details. The point is about the army being the de facto supreme authority / executive body, in general. As for the "UN bias" you refer to, the UN Security Council resolution I cited was adopted unanimously. El_C 11:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sovereignty. East Jerusalem and Jerusalem suburbs beyond municipal boundaries.

It is up to editors inserting material to back it up with reliable sources. I removed this unsourced, inaccurate sentence from the article:

The extended municipality of Jerusalem constitutes one exception to this: although the parts ruled by Jordan until 1967 fall outside the Green Line, Israel considers them to be sovereign Israeli territory according to the Basic Jerusalem Law (1980).

From Jerusalem Law:

As the Knesset thus declined to specify boundaries and did not use the words "annexation" or "sovereignty", Ian Lustick writes that "The consensus of legal scholars is that this action added nothing to the legal or administrative circumstance of the city, although, especially at the time, its passage was considered to have political importance and sparked a vigorous protest reaction from the world community."

So please do not describe East Jerusalem as "sovereign" Israeli territory in the article. See Positions on Jerusalem, United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, and the UK's position on Jerusalem: [6]

See also: Talk:Jerusalem#Maps_of_Greater_Jerusalem_and_West_Bank. --Timeshifter 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)