Talk:Green Line (Israel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deleted a section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arab POWs[edit]

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) Sorry keep on forgetting to signAshley kennedy3 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No DMZ[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reference No. 2[edit]

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)[reply]

Settlement vs. colony[edit]

The term settlement is widely used for Israeli localities in the West Bank (and to a lesser extent, Golan Heights), although a certain user has recently been edit-warring to insert the inherently POV word 'colony'. I believe there is consensus on this issue already, and would be glad if someone pointed out the centralized discussion which took place in the past (I can't find it). Additional opinions are welcome. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Localities"? I have no objection to the use of the word "settlement" to describe the Israeli colonies. What I object to is the insistence that it must be slavishly adhered to at all times. I fail to understand, even after a careful reading of the definition of the word "colony", why you find that term so objectionable, or how on Earth it could be considered POV.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if somehow the word 'colony' was factually correct in describing Israeli settlements, it does not override the WP:NPOV policy, which I suggest you review one more time. Wikipedia has clear consensus against using loaded terms like that. On the other side of the coin, we don't use the word 'terrorist' for any Palestinian personalities, including Yahya Ayyash, Ali Hassan Salameh, and other notorious people who are easily called terrorist by definition, and even called by that name in the media. There is honestly not a single good reason to use a more loaded term for Israeli localities beyond the Green Line than 'settlements', for which there is wide acceptance from both sides. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Even if somehow the word 'colony' was factually correct in describing Israeli settlements..."' - please see colony if you have any doubts. I can't see the the problem with NPOV, how exactly does the use of the phrase "Israeli colony" contravene policy? I'm afraid I find your analogies spurious, and let me assure you I'm not trying to get rid of the use of the term Israeli settlements".

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to use sources. There are millions of sources calling it settlements. Are there any legit sources calling it colonies? Once you change Israeli settlement to Israeli colony then it can be used (and by change, i mean not a redirect...). Amoruso (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I don't understand the second part of your entry, Amo. As for the first, where did you get that from? If someone is known to have murdered, do you insist he cannot be called a "murderer" on Wikipedia unless someone else has used that exact word about him beforehand?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue isn't sources, it's WP:NPOV. However, Amoruso makes a valid point. If only a handful of sources use 'colony', while millions of sources use 'settlement', then there's absolutely no mandate to use 'colony' anywhere. It would be undue weight.
About NPOV, let me explain it to you in two simple points:
  1. Many people find the term 'colony' offensive and non-descriptive of Israeli settlements.
  2. Coupled with the fact that there's no good reason to use 'colony', the offensive term should be removed.
I hope you understand now, although I can make it even simpler if you wish. I can also explain to you why 'colony' is factually incorrect, but that would take more of my time, so I won't do as long as you can't answer the above concerns. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If Israel started to build concentration camps, but used another term to describe them, would you insist Wikipedia couldn't refer to the camps as "concentration camps" because Israelis might find that offensive? Some Turks are offended by accusations of genocide against them regarding the Armenians. I would say that is their hard luck. The only good reason needed to call the Israeli colonies as such is because they are colonies (see colony). If you believe that is "factually incorrect", by all means tell us why. As I now see the colonised also refer to the colonies as such, I'm not sure there's much left to say.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A colony, by all (relevant) definitions, is a land belonging to a country which is not attached to that country. For example, a long time ago there were German colonies in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa. Colonies do not refer to localities in disputed non-sovereign territories adjacent to the parent state, like Israeli settlements. The West Bank is not a sovereign territory and no sovereign state has claimed rule over it except Jordan until 1988. According to the Oslo Accords, until a final settlement, some of the West Bank's territory is Palestinian-administered (areas A and B), while area C is Israeli-administered. Note that it is still no one's sovereign territory. Therefore, Israeli localities in Israeli-administered territories adjacent to Israel and belonging to no sovereign state cannot be called colonies by any definition. But I'd be glad if you provided a definition from a reliable source, after which we can talk it out. If you fail to provide such a source, I will consider your editing behavior disruptive and report it to WP:ANI. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:IPCOLL has been notified of this discussion. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ynhockey, but the issue is simpler. We use the common terminology (see, for example, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). The word practically every source uses is "settlement". I've yet to see a single source using "colony". Thus, we also use "settlement". okedem (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Your argument is nonsensical, Ynhockey. Not all the West Bank colonies are "attached" to Israel, as you seem to think. Your argument about sovereignty is irrelevant. What definition of colony makes it necessary for sovereignty to have been declared over the colonised territory beforehand? If you want a definition of colony, go to the article colony, where the first sentence is: "In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state." and the second paragraph says: "People who migrated to settle permanently in colonies controlled by their country of origin were called colonists or settlers." Okedem, I'm not proposing we cease use of the term "Israeli settlement", but rather that we end what seems to be an informal ban on alternate terms. If you have never seen the term "Israeli colony" used before, you can here.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that you're using Wikipedia for your definitions. Wikipedia should not be used as a source on Wikipedia. Try www.dictionary.com, for instance. Also, please stop making personal attacks on other editors and their arguments. It only brings you closer to a topic ban (along with your disruptive editing so far). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good reason to use a rare, vague term, when there's a good, commonly used alternative. Settlement is the word all the major sources, news outlets etc. use, and so should we. I'm seems to me the sole purpose of using "colony" is to make insinuations, capitalizing on the bad reputation the word has, owing to western colonialism. Settlement is a much more neutral term, and using it allows us to focus on the facts at hand, instead of (consciously or unconsciously) biasing the reader against a certain subject. okedem (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I see no good reason to institute a total ban on a term that is an alternative to what could be construed as a euphemism. I don't think the term "colony" has as bad a reputation as you're making out. For example, no-one is accused of speaking in a negative way when they talk of colonization of the Moon or Mars.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only ones using "colony" are ones trying to push a certain POV. "Settlement" is used by sources such as the UN, the EU, BBC, etc. Nothing euphemistic about it. okedem (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind my saying so, this last comment seems to be the most salient of the thread so far. It not so helpful to have a debate of personal opinions/analysis of the terms. The key question to ask is what the best and most reliable sources are using as their terminology. If the UN, EU, & BBC utilize 'settlements,' what countervailing sources use 'colony'? The best term should be used consistently ("slavishly" seems an uncivil description) since this is a contentious naming issue. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 19:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which reliable sources use the phrase "Israeli colonies"? I can find many dozens that use the phrase "Israeli settlement". Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the colonization of the Moon point. It's not more negative per se. It simply doesn't make sense. A colony is a distant place usually. If you check the colony article, it says that an alternative name is overseas territory. The idea that Israel has colonies 50 meters from its homes in an area smaller than New Jersey is what's funny here, or at least it would be if it was about another country and not Israel, which is open game. Anyway, yes, you colonize the moon, but you don't colonize your next door's neighbor's yard, which is a close to metaphor to these settlements by many people (although in most cases with the settlements there was sand without a neighbor). Amoruso (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a number of sources that use the term "settlement":

Even Palestinian and Arab sources use the term:

It is ubiquitous. I could find thousands more. Which reliable sources use the term "colonies"? Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved administrator, I would like to say that I have reviewed the discussion here, and it appears that the clear consensus is to use the term "Israeli settlements" as opposed to "Israeli colonies" at this time. If the "colonies" side can provide multiple sources which prove that that term is in wide use, consensus may change, But for now, please use "settlements". Thanks. Elonka 06:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Green Line and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict[edit]

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)[reply]

Golan and Jerusalem in Overview?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Israel before 1967 is the same as after[edit]

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

The "The Fallacy of the 1967 Borders" section is ridiculous and needs to be deleted immediately. It is pure propaganda that even the Israeli military does not believe: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps MBVECO (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) MBVCO[reply]

Israel has never legally annexed any territory to the frontiers it was recognized by, being .."an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" [1] ... talknic (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V violations.[edit]

I have reverted several consecutive edits due to some of the text not complying with WP:V. There were a few things that were ok but it was impossible to undo the parts that were not policy compliant while leaving the rest in. Since doing this manually is prone to error I reverted the whole thing.

  • "Israel made the first official "territorial claims" on the 31st Aug 1949..." - The primary source does not talk about "territorial claims" (which for some reason were put in quotation marks), it is replying to a question by The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine about "territorial adjustments" (that's a direct quote which is why I'm putting it in quotation marks). It also doesn't say this is the "first official" anything. Moreover, in added text within the ref tags it was stated that "Israels claims were rebuffed by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine" while the source shows no such thing.
  • "Professor Schwebel also cited a summary by Elihu Lauterpacht, pointing out the "unlawful" use of force to "acquire" territory by war, against the right to "to restore the lawful sovereign" - First of all this is not Schwebel citing Lauterpracht, it's Herzog citing him. Using ellipsis to skip a bunch of relevant text in order to try to lead the reader to the somewhat novel idea that Haim Herzog was telling the UN that Israel acquired the territory illegally is, well, just silly.
  • "preemptive Plan Dalet" - See discussion here.
  • "The resolution left Israel as the Occupying Power over Palestinian "territory occupied in 1967" - This sentence comes after one discussing UNSC 242 and implies it's talking about the same resolution, which it isn't. The primary source used to support this already misleading sentence does not say anyone is an Occupying Power. It also doesn't say Palestinian territory occupied in 1967. It says "the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state". It doesn't assign ownership of "the territory occupied in 1967" although it does say it will be (future tense) part of a Palestinian state. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG - "The primary source does not talk about "territorial claims" "...Delegation of Israel considers that in addition to the territory indicated on the working document annexed to the Protocol of May 12, all other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria should be formally recognized as Israel territory" John Norton Moore - The Arab-Israeli Conflict, American Society of International Law. Princeton University Press 1975 - History - Page 536
"It also doesn't say this is the "first official" " If you have a source for an earlier official claim .... thx
"Israels claims were rebuffed by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine" while the source shows no such thing" Again, odd. [2] In full from the source cited in the book : "During the preliminary examination of your Note of 31 August, the Commission noticed that on the subject of territorial proposals you refer on several occasions to the Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria. In this regard, the Commission would like to observe that in its opinion any reference to the Armistice Agree-ments in connection with the final settlement of the territorial question is Palestine to be considered in the light of the clauses contained in the texts of the Armistice Agreements themselves, according to which "It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military consideration". (Art.2, para. 2 of the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement); and "the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice rights, claims and positions of either party to the Armistice as regards the ultimate settlement of the Palestine question". (Art.5, para. 2 of the Armistice Agreement with Egypt, Art. 6, Para.9 of the Armistice Agreement with the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Art.5, para. 1 of the Armistice Agreement with Syria).
""preemptive Plan Dalet" - See discussion .. pre-emptive .
"First of all this is not Schwebel citing Lauterpacht, it's Herzog citing him" Herzog citing Lauterpach, Herzog is the Secondary Source for Lauterpacht at that point.[3] It was Professor Schwebel who said "The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht" in his "Editorial Comment: What Weight to Conquest?" American Journal of International Law, vol. 64, No. 2 (April 1970) (not as an International Judge BTW). Herzog, citing Schwebel in the first part, then citing Lauterpacht. Both Herzog and Schwebel use the same source.
"Using ellipsis " You don't read "walls of text", remember? So, as you insist: Herzog citing Lauterpacht commenting on the acquisition of territory by force. "99. The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, a distinguished authority on international law, as follows: (Notice the dreaded ellipses?) One rule for me, one rule for the Israeli Ambassador?
"... territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word `unlawful' is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor's charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territorial change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct." -- Note "restore". Israel has never had to 'restore' any sovereign territory. Nor was Israel the sovereign over territories it acquired by war in 1948/49 (or '67 or at any other time). By Lauterpacht opinion, Syria, being the sovereign over the Golan, has the right to restore its sovereignty as Egypt had the right to restore sovereignty over the Sinai. Israel was not 'restoring' it was acquiring.
"the somewhat novel idea that Haim Herzog was telling the UN that Israel acquired the territory illegally is, well, just silly" Indeed. Completely stupid. Why did you mention it? His misrepresentation of Lauterpacht had quite the opposite purpose at a meeting with this item on the agenda: "item 126: Recent illegal Israeli measures in the occupied Arab territories designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of those territories in contravention of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, of Israel's international obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and of United Nations resolutions, and obstruction of efforts aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East"[4]
"This sentence comes after one discussing UNSC 242 and implies it's talking about the same resolution, which it isn't" Add another to your long list of misrepresentations. The beginning of the sentence already existed before my edit. It began "Israel has informally annexed them according to the Basic Jerusalem Law (1980) etc", 1980 is after 1967. To which I added " drawing condemnation from the UNSC. UNSC Resolution 252, 21st May 1968[12], UNSC Resolutions 267, 271, 298, 465, 476. The source is not 242, you say so yourself here; "The primary source used to support this ..." being UNSC res 1460. "... does not say anyone is an Occupying Power" It says "the territory occupied in 1967" occupied by who, if not an Occupying Power? Furthermore it refers to previous resolutions 476, 465, 298, 271, 267, 252, 242. 476 says "1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;" -- "It also doesn't say Palestinian territory occupied in 1967." It says "the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967". Gaza wasn't Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian or Lebanese territory. -- "It doesn't assign ownership of "the territory occupied in 1967" A) Ooops you've said 'occupied' contradicting yourself. B) Sovereign States have no need to occupy their own territory. C) It isn't Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian or Lebanese. " although it does say it will be (future tense) part of a Palestinian state. " Yes. It never was Israeli, never was Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian or Lebanese. By your reckoning, if one has six apples and takes five away, none are left ... talknic (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page title "Green Line (Israel)" is NPOV[edit]

Need I say more? It should carry a title reflecting all the parties or the conflict ... talknic (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean not NPOV. 31.18.251.194 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 21 October 2015[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The previous closure here appears to have been vacated with no reason given and, as far as I can tell, no contesting of the decision. In any case, re-closing to say again that there is a consensus against changing the current disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Green Line (Israel) → Green Line (1949) – Replace outright controversial non-neutral title. New name is pretty short. Qualitatis (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Six countries are involved, not only Israel. The fact that someone asserts that it defines the border between Israel and several of its neighbors says something about the title's misleading nature. Moreover the suggested title makes clear that the origin is in 1949, not 1967. --Qualitatis (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not propose the move because it is so extremely important, but rather because it gives false impression on the common reader. Green Line (Israel) suggests a border (indeed) of Israel and obscures the historical context. If Green Line could be used, no one would have had a problem with it. Interestingly, there is only opposition to a neutral title, to begin with a sock puppet, ironically not aware that "Green Line (Israel)" suggests a border, recognizing not only Israeli land theft within Israel proper in terms of the Partition Plan, but also the illegality of settlements and annexation of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line. Next time you may think about that. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC) As one may rightly argue that the meaning now includes the 1967 boundaries, I propose the even better title Green Line (demarcation). --Qualitatis (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it defines the border between Israel and several of its neighbors, so it is not non-neutral, rather it is neutral, it is succint, and it is recognizable. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Current title is recognisable, whereas the qualifier "1949" is not. I also fail to understand how it is not neutral. Calling it "controversial" is just hyperbole. Number 57 08:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The "line" has not moved since 1949. It doesnt need to make it clear that it is established in 1949 vs 1967. Additionally stating it is Israel makes it very clear where it is. Based on WP's Disambiguation guidelines its pretty clear that you would use what its most commonly known for. Since its known as the line separating Israel form the West Bank, 1949 is meaningless. - GalatzTalk 16:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Changing it to (1949) would make it less clear I think. I wouldn't mind changing it to Green Line (West Bank), though, since that's what it defines. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that it also covers the borders with the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, I don't think that is a good idea. Number 57 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, of course. I don't know what I was thinking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hate to be a pedant, but boundaries* not borders. nableezy - 04:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - not necessary nableezy - 04:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the Green Line documentary.[edit]

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)[reply]

1967 borders[edit]

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)[reply]

"Armistice demarcation line", not "Armistice border"[edit]

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)[reply]

Obama is no longer President[edit]

Please change in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.68.25 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2017[edit]

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)[reply]

 Done — IVORK Discuss 04:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to include a paragraph about UN Security Council Resolution 2334[edit]

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)[reply]

Good point! There is a paragraph in the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section of the article discussing imagined changes to the border. Your quote would fit in there. ImTheIP (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golan Heights[edit]

ImTheIP: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error citing Barak Obama's quotation[edit]

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)[reply]

No one is referring to the green line by “1967 borders”. This needs to be edited as it is clearly wrong. bobmutch (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandate of Palestine[edit]

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)[reply]

Info needed[edit]

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 [5])

Does anyone feel up to the task? Huldra (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

WRONG ‘The Green Line is often referred to as the... "1967 borders"’[edit]

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)[reply]

Jurisdiction over Golan Heights[edit]

"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)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I just removed the whole sentence, as it was unsourced anyway. Huldra (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 July 2019[edit]

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: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 01:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Line (Israel) → 1949 Armistice lines – The name "Green Line" is the Israeli name for the line. Hence, using the Israeli name violates WP:NPOV. The name "1949 Armistice lines" better reflects the nature of the line. Note that the current version of the article calls it the "1949 Armistice border", which is incorrect since an armistice line is not a border. Another reason for the move: it's incorrect to call it a line in the singular form, rather than the plural form. This "line" is actually 4 different lines defined in four different agreements between Israel and its four neighboring countries. Banana Republic (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. There is nothing particularly "Israeli" with "green line" (not that that would be a problem) - the name comes from the color of the ink used to color the border in the map in the bilateral agreement. While "lines" is more accurate than "line" (in regards to buffer zones, for instance, in which there are two lines) - in common usage these are referred to as "line" (and the depth of said buffers (+exclave in mt. Scopus) - is rather minute - zoomed out it is just a "thick line" there). Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name is the common name for the border in English. I don't believe this is a POV issue – the term is used in Arab-owned English media such as Al-Monitor, Al-Jazeera, Morocco World News and organisations such as Reuters. Number 57 11:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that the Al-Monitor reference was penned by a person with an Israeli name (Akiva Eldar)? I am guessing he is not employed by Al-Monitor, and they just re-published his work published elsewhere. Banana Republic (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that at the bottom of the article it states "Akiva Eldar is a columnist for Al-Monitor’s Israel Pulse"? Number 57 09:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that this is the common name in the Arab world. Banana Republic (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt really matter, what matters is that it is common among English reliable sources. The term Green Line is widely used in such sources, so much so it should probably just be Green Line as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the current disambig page moved to Green Line (disambiguation). nableezy - 23:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME, but I would also support a move to Green Line and the current dab page moved to Green Line (disambiguation). nableezy - 23:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The dab discussion is better done at the dab page - however per a quick BEFORE of this in google-books and google-news - it seems there are a multitude of other "green lines" (e.g. Karachi, LA, and Calgary transport projects) that may preclude this as a WP:PTOPIC. Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both parts of what Nableezy said. Zerotalk 10:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This ought just be "Green Line" although the misleading "67 borders" might win a popularity contest. Why was (Israel) added to begin with, anyone know?Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Has Trump's America recognized Jerusalem as "complete and united" when they moved the embassy?[edit]

"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."
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nuances of US position[edit]

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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2021[edit]

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)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Line_(Israel)&oldid=1207423259"