Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories

Uri, thanks for the REDIRECT to occupied Palestinian territories. --Ed Poor

Wikipedia and the English language must always be used for Israel's benefit. "Israel must also vigorously reject the political nomenclature advanced by the Palestinians, who call the West Bank and Gaza Strip "occupied Palestinian territories." In order to advance the idea that there are Israeli territorial claims in these territories, which are officially recognized in Israel as Judea and Samaria, after their biblical names, Israel would be advised to adhere to the term "disputed territories," that at least puts Israel and the Palestinians on equal footing with regard to respective rights and claims. Even if the UN or other bodies do not accept Israel's terminology, the very effort by Israeli spokesmen would sensitize the international community to Israel's claims and historic rights." [1] --Alberuni 01:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Er, sarcasm aside, this is useful info. Let's look at some other info too.

Resolution 52/250 passed in July 1998 fully “assigns title” – speaking of “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” a designation that is frequently used in subsequent resolutions. [2]

This is easily checked. We just need to look up General Assembly resolution 52/250. --Uncle Ed 23:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry I got distracted. I found this instead:

In April 1950, Jordan annexed eastern Jerusalem (dividing the city for the first time in its history) and the "West Bank" areas in historical Judea and Samaria that Trans-Jordan had occupied by military force in 1948 (Jordan changed its name to Trans-Jordan in April 1949). On April 24, 1950, the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a Resolution making the West Bank and Jerusalem part of Jordan. This act had no basis in international law; it was only the de facto act of Trans-Jordan as a conquerer. The other Arab countries denied formal recognition of the Jordanian move and only two governments - Great Britain and Pakistan - formally recognized the Jordanian takeover. The rest of the world, including the United States, never did. [3]

It seems Jordan simply conquered some ownerless land, and then unilaterally annexed it.

Later, Jordan attacked Israel to punish it for its pre-emptive strike on Egypt. Israel regards Jordan's attack as "aggressive" and its counterattack as "defensive".

Israel regards its conquering of the West Bank as justified in a "defensive war" against Jordan and thus regards its occupation justified. I'm still not sure why they object to the term "occupied" - for its connotations, I guess.

I've also seen some arguments - which I need to re-google - claiming that Israel was "given" the West Bank (then consisting of Judea and Samaria and not called WB) by Great Britain, but I don't understand why they appeal to the British Mandate when it favors them but disregard British authority when it favors Jordan. --Uncle Ed 00:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]