I cannot think of any better place to begin blogging about bias on Wikipedia than the article Israeli Occupied Territories. The name in and of itself is a major anti-Israel bias. When you search for “Israel occupied territories” or “Israeli occupied territories” on Google, this is the first page that comes up. Similarly, though more disturbing, someone who searches for “Israel disputed territories” is directed to this article as well.
The most accurate term for what is most commonly referred to as the West Bank and “East Jerusalem” is disputed territory, not occupied territory. The definition of occupied territory, according to the Free Dictionary, is “Territory under the authority and effective control of a belligerent armed force. The term is not applicable to territory being administered pursuant to peace terms, treaty, or other agreement, express or implied, with the civil authority of the territory.” By that definition, these are not occupied territories. Israel took control of the territories in the 1967 war, in which Israel was attacked on all borders. Since it took control, it has formally annexed all of Jerusalem and acknowledges dual claims to the West Bank. All residents, regardless of race and religion, have been offered full citizenship to Israel.
The Golan Heights were also taken during the 1967 war. The area is a major strategic site and Israel formally annexed the territory in December, 1981, and has no intention to return it to Syria. Having visited the Golan Heights many times, I never once felt like I was in a place where a military force was occupying land rightfully belonging to someone else. Like Jerusalem, all residents in the Golan Heights, regardless of race or religion, have been offered citizenship. The vast majority of Druze residents have accepted and volunteer for the Israeli army. Many Syrians have not taken citizenship.
As you can see, this is not a simple cut and dry issue. However, it is not at all accurate to use the term “Israel Occupied Territories” to describe the areas. Disputed territories is the factually correct term.
Of course, people have pointed this out before. If you navigate to the article’s talk page, you see a lengthy argument under the header “Term Occupied Territories.” In this lengthy debate, people from both sides argue about the name. It began with a very level headed and well argued remark, though I think the reasoning is lacking, by a user called MSTCrow:
Would point out in addition to the term “occupied territory” to be subject to challenge, the anti-Semitic Arabs and Muslims, when using the term “occupied territories,” refer to all of Israel, and consider all of Israel to be disputed. Their desire to obliterate Israel and her population is well documented, both in words and action. Therefore, the term “occupied territories” would appear to slant towards those that advocate genocide, and it is probably unwise to use the term here, either in same or different usage. – MSTCrow 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
After this comment, the anti-Semites start to play the blame game and accuse Israel of imperialism and racism, sometimes indirectly and sometimes verbatim. The supporters of the accurate term, “disputed,” use facts and references to prove their point. Others make a few references, including to the chronically anti-Israel United Nations, but generally just try to de-legitimize Israel’s stance rather than acknowledge that both sides have a legitimate claim on much of the land.
One user embodies what is often wrong in the arguments. Rather than consider than he is wrong, he attacks the other users and arrogantly states:
JUST TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY………what everyone “thinks” the areas should be referred to as is irrelevant…..the leading and undisputed international legal body, the International Court of Justice has used the term “Occupied Palestinian Territory” to refer to Gaza, The West Bank and East Jerusalem. What WE think is unimportant as per NPOV policy in wiki…….click on the “linked” words in order to jump to reference pages………..oh….and some of you may try to dispute the “validity” of the ICJ………lol……..don’t bother unless you have documentation. Shakur420 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No need to shout, Shakur.
In the article itself, a group of users took the time to make it clear that the term “occupied” is not necessarily legitimate. At least there is an acknowledgement that Israel has claims and an opinion. However, it is buried at the bottom.
The article itself is, for the most part, well written and well referenced. It does lean against Israel, but the topic is not one that is known as friendly for Israel. I am not upset that the information is out there. However, like with all of Wikipedia, I wish it would treat the subject fairly and give an accurate impression of the situation.
See the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I haven’t checked at all but in connected with “occupied territories”, has anybody seen (or used) the tern in any Jordan-linked entries to indicate that between 1948 and 1967, Jordan was illegally occupying the territory that the UN intended to become the Arab State after the end of the Mandate? I know the 1948 Jericho decision is around but am asking as part of the play?
I have not seen, or thought of, that before. However, it is a very legitimate question. I will see if there is anything I can find. Thanks for the comment.