Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories

Update

First paragraph references the number of recognising states. But the hyperlink takes you to 147 states recognised. Original "recognized by 146 out of 193 UN member states." 2407:E400:9003:4800:9013:9087:862B:B9F8 (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is lacking in a key detail. [Edit request]

The phrase "that have been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967" needs to be expanded upon to "that have been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967 upon their annexation from Jordan and Egypt, respectively". A cursory reading makes it appear as if these areas were either otherwise unincorporated territories or were somehow their own separate state prior to Israel's expansion into the area as a result of the 1967 war. It is not until after a full paragraph later that any mention of this is made yet opening paragraphs should be a concise summary of the articles they lead. 66.249.231.78 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Numerically, the "supports" have it, but looking at the strength of arguments presented I am not convinced that there is consensus here in favor of the proposed move and scope change. I encourage participants to continue discussing the scope of this article and potential merges elsewhere on this talk page. (closed by non-admin page mover) Toadspike [Talk] 08:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Occupied Palestinian territories → Template:No redirect – After the article about the State of Palestine was moved to Palestine, I believe that moving this article to Israeli occupation of Palestine would clarify its scope and reduce duplication. Moreover, it would be WP:CONSISTENT with articles such as Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon, Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and the parent article Israeli-occupied territories. Hassan697 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Per the article and many comments at the last requested move, it's the WP:COMMONNAME. Some sources from the last RM include the Red Cross, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, PBS, the WHO. From the article itself:

Template:Tqb

Template:Reflist-talk

Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chess, I see your point that the current title reflects the common name for the article’s present scope, and I agree that "Occupied Palestinian territories" fits. However, my proposal is more than a simple renaming—it’s essentially a requested scope change, which I should have emphasized more clearly. The current article largely overlaps with Palestine, which now covers not only the political entity but also the country as a whole, including its territories. I suggest refocusing this article specifically on Israeli occupation, rather than on the territories as a geographic concept. Hassan697 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Would that not be redundant to Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and Israeli occupation of the West Bank? CMD (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This entire article seems somewhat redundant, but Wikipedia is okay with articles that are Frankensteins of other articles so the propose move would not be redundant. Easternsahara (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

No, there is information specifically about the occupation of Palestine as a whole, not just the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The article should not be very big, but it can cover overarching aspects, while detailed content remains in the articles about Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Hassan697 (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Easternsahara (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Support- I support this move and the scope change because this article largely synonymous with the Palestine article. Easternsahara (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - Occupied Palestinians Territories is a neutral UN designation. changing it to "Israeli occupation of Palestine" is non-neutral. Arab Extremists, the Houthis, Hezbollah and the Iranian Regime calls the Land that consists out of the State of Israel as "Occupied by the Zionist Regime". changing it to what's proposed fuels indirectly those sentiments. I source the ICJ case that calls them "Occupied Palestinian Territories". the wording "israeli occupation of palestine" comes nowhere in this case. CViB (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The "Occupied Palestinian Territories" are occupied by whom? Easternsahara (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The ICJ, UN and the EU calls them "Occupied Palestinian Territories". who calls them "israeli occupation of palestine"? Houthis, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Iran Regime and Arab Extremists. hard to call it "Occupation of Palestine" if Palestine isn't a country with a unified government. you have Hamas controlling Gaza and the PLO controlling the West Bank, Furthermore i question your neutrality, as you blatantly claim on your user page to support a "one state solution" with Palestine as the Country. CViB (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

These organizations use "Occupied Palestinian Territories" to refer to Palestine, but Hassan697 wants to rescope the page as a parent article of both the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank because this article is just a duplicate of the Palestine article right now. I think you misunderstand his request. We can turn "Occupied Palestinian territories" into a redirect for the Palestine page if you want, since the organizations you mention use them for this purpose. Easternsahara (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

its unnecessary. "Occupation of Palestine" means in an Arab point of view that the area that Israel is part of today is part of Palestine. which it is not and never will be.

The WP: COMMONNAME is "Occupied Palestininan Territories". cause thats what they are. Territories. if they were connected by land, it'd be considered Occupied Palestine. but its not. CViB (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

So it is the Timor-Leste territories, not Timor-Leste? Similarly do you think that they are the Uzbek territories, the Tajik territories and the Krygyz territories just because they are not contiguous? What about Azerbaijan and Nakhchiva? Azeri territories. the WP:COMMON and WP:CONSISTENT name. Defining a state as something that is connected by land is quite absurd and arbitrary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestine/Archive_21#Requested_move_31_December_2024 this is the discussion that caused the move of the State of Palestine article to the Palestine article. it establishes that palestine is more common and now that most pages have been moved, palestine is more consistent Easternsahara (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Consistency matters for descriptive titles. This title is not descriptive, it's an established term in itself. CMD (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

the WP:COMMONNAME AND WP:CONSISTENT is Occupied Palestinian Territories. per the ICJ, United Nations, European Union and Arab League. your feelings to the topic are irrelevant. CViB (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: the above comment and ensuing discussion should have been removed immediately due to the active arbitration remedies noted at the top of the page since @CViB is not extended-confirmed. You've already been made aware of this restriction as seen at your user talk. Ideally this additional commentary would be removed in its entirely, but I'm not sure of the best way to go about that, so I'll strike it for now. AG202 (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom and @Easternsahara 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The term "Occupied Palestinian territories" is far more common and used by many organizations and media. Dash9Z (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The occupied territories and the occupation itself are not synonymous. Charles Essie (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

We might need to revise the lede. It's important to investigate how other articles refer to and link to this article. We also have Israeli occupation of the West Bank Cinaroot (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Also Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip Cinaroot (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Split As I've said above, the occupied territories and the occupation itself are not synonymous so if you want article about the whole occupation of Palestine, it should be separate from this one. Charles Essie (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge?

This is not an official proposal, but I think that this article has a very, very large overlap with the main Palestine article. I do not think that it contains anything that the Palestine article, or one of its child articles, do not contain. When people refer to the "Occupied Palestinian territories", they mostly refer to Palestine. I think that the proposed move is a target rescope which is inappropriate because this article should be redirect to Palestine and a separate page should be created for the Israeli occupation. I am trying to reach a consensus, so please send your thoughts. Easternsahara (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment There is no need to create a separate article for the Israeli occupation of Palestine. We already have two separate articles (Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and Israeli occupation of the West Bank) which provided sufficient information about these issues.

As for the merge, I tend to oppose the proposal. Palestine is complicated issue, some countries see Palestine as a sovereign state (China, Russia, the Arab countries, and other developing countries), some countries see Palestine as occupied territories (the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western countries). Until Palestine got admitted into the United Nations as a member state, we should keep both articles to reflect the different views about Palestine. 2001:8003:9078:2401:A5A7:3EC9:C637:D578 (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK, two separate articles for two opposing views? This is just a worse copy of the Palestine article. Perhaps an article should be created for Palestine in a similar vain to Legitimacy of the State of Israel, but this is not the article for that. Perhaps we could redirect occupied palestinian territories to Legitimacy of the State of Palestine and then put a hatnote for palestine? Easternsahara (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we don't engage in IPs and other users who do not pass the current active arbitration remedies found at the top of the page. AG202 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)