Talk:West Bank

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Qalandiya Checkpoint.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 11 January 2026

Description of suggested change:

The ICJ found Israel in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)is stated in the body text of its advisory opinion:

"The Court further observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD."

However, the court made no ruling as to whether "racial segregation" or "apartheid" has occurred. In fact, the court did not vote on the matter but rather just mentions the alleged breach of Article 3 of the CERD in the body text of its advisory opinion. In the ruling document, Judge Nolte stipulates in a separate opinion that the ICJ's mention on this breach was inadvisable since ICJ's advisory opinion does not state the nature of the alleged breach nor substantiate legal grounds for the claim:

"Judge Nolte points out that the Advisory Opinion cannot be understood as finding that the prohibition of apartheid has been violated by Israel, given the absence of any discussion of the subjective element of apartheid, the specific intent, which is a core element of the prohibition. He is also not convinced that the Court had sufficient information before it to conclude that Israel’s policies and practices amount either to apartheid or to racial segregation. In his view, the Court should therefore have refrained from observing that Article 3 of CERD has been breached. Judge Nolte notes that this would not have prevented the Court from observing that Israel’s practices and policies have segregative effects which constitute violations of other provisions of CERD."

Judge Iwasawa offers a similar clarification:

"Judge Iwasawa agrees with the Court’s analysis on Israel’s adoption of 'discriminatory legislation and measures' for the most part, but, in his view, the discriminatory aspect of the dual legal system introduced by Israel in the West Bank deserved more attention. The Court concludes that the 'separation' implemented by Israel in the West Bank between the Palestinian population and settlers constitutes a breach of Article 3 of CERD, without qualifying it as apartheid."

Source:

Diff:

−

In 2024 the ICJ again ruled that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is unlawful, adding that its conduct also violates the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid.

+

In 2024 the ICJ again ruled that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is unlawful and found Israel in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), without legally classifying the conduct as racial segregation or apartheid.

~2026-22492-4 (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. What the article says about the ruling needs to be based on what reliable secondary sources have reported, not on your own legal analysis. Day Creature (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Small edit suggestion

Within the first paragraph, "...that make up the State of Palestine. A landlocked territory near the coast of the Mediterranean Sea..." The last proper noun before the new sentence is "State of Palestine" but the new sentence is describing specifically West Bank. I lack Extended permissions and am not a regular editor, but this would read better if the start of the new sentence establishes West Bank as the proper noun again.

Like "Sandwiches are a food item that can include meat. A fermented grain paste, which is..." technically works when it goes on to describe sandwiches, but is clunky.

I'm super nitpicking here, sorry about that MartynDerg (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2026

The West Bank is on the western bank of the Jordan River and is the larger of the two Palestinian territories (the other being the Gaza Strip) that make up the State of Palestine.

Change “West Bank” to “West Bank, also known as “Judea and Samaria” to reflect the prevailing term used within Israel to refer to the territory. Judeballs123 (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:WESTBANK and the archives of this talk page for the established consensus on this subject. Discourses on Livvy (talk · contribs) 06:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Removal of sourced terminology content

On form, this revert is not acceptable. The added material was directly related to the article's terminology section and was supported by reliable sources.

If there is a problem with the wording, it should be discussed or improved. A wholesale removal of sourced, relevant content is not justified. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a problem in the sourcing. From what I can gather, you have used instances where Judea and Damaria have been written to draw your own conclusions about usage. It would be better to find reliable secondary sources discussing how/who uses these terms, like this one for example. Judea and Samaria are highly politicized terms used by those seeking to entrench Israeli occupation and colonies in the West Bank. Tiamut (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Another relevant source here, discussing how the name West Bank was changed to Judea and Samaria by Israeli military orders. Tiamut (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

My understanding of the chronology Boutboul lays out is (1) J+S until 1948, (2) "West Bank" since 1948, (3) Israeli attempts to restore J+S since 1967. What source disputes that? You're just listing sources that describe (2)-(3) while opposing (1), but they don't conflict. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Pretending that "Biblical terms" were commonly used neutral, geographical descriptors is the problem. Also pretending Judea has not meant different things at different points on history is also a problem. The third problem is using sources that are basically primary ones (ie. simply using the terms) to make conclusions about usage. Better to find more reliable sources describing how they have been used. Better still to keep extended discussion of biblical terms out of an article on the West Bank. Tiamut (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The UN quote is really quite strong. "West Bank" has an obvious irredentist Jordanian nationalist origin, and "Judea and Samaria" was, in 1948, the more objective term. Because Palestinian residents have since claimed the term for their own, "West Bank" has a completely different meaning now, and because "West Bank" is much more common in English, "Judea and Samaria" carries a political connotation. But there's nothing wrong with accurately describing that history in the article. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The UN quote is describing an area assigned to the Arab state with boundaries larger than those of the West Bank. The West Bank simply refers to the area to the West of the Jordan River (an objective fact, nothing to do with Jordanian nationalist claims) that was assigned to be part of the Arab state of Palestine but was temporarily occupied by Jordanian forces following the 1948 war and then occupied by Israeli forces in 1967. Also, its a primary source that is not describing the usage of terminology but referring to topographical features, "the hill country of Samaria and Judea". It is not a strong source and does nothing to illuminate for the reader why the term West Bank is used (ie. the political facts on the ground). Tiamut (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Pure fiction, so far as I can tell. There's no point in writing such things without sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree with @GordonGlottal. For example Joseph Massad writes that "the postal ordinance of March 1, 1950, abolished the word Palestine and replaced it with the West Bank".. Or Sabel states that the name "West Bank" was given by the Jordanian authorities after the area's incorporation into the Hashemite Kingdom in 1950, in order to distinguish it from the part of the kingdom east of the Jordan River. Brand and Sela also describe the 1950 annexation as the constitutional and political "unity of the two banks". Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A third source discussing West Bank vs Judea and Samaria and how the usage of the latter by Israeli representatives almost derailed discussions with Jordanians. This terminology is highly fraught and none of the controversy or motivations behind its usage are conveyed in our edits @User:Boutboul. Do think the section you added should be removed and if it is to be readded should use the sources I have provided here to explain how this "biblical" terminology is being used to naturalize the acquisition of territory by force. Tiamut (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Have made some changes using the secondary sources already cited in @User:Boutbol's edit. May make some more to better convey the controversy over the terms. For example, some of the info from this passage in the Cambridge source should be included:

"After Israel seized control in 1967, the UN General Assembly faced the dilemma as to how to designate the territories. Most States, including the Arab States, had not recognised Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank, and the UN refrained from using a phrase such as ‘Occupied Jordanian Territory’. From 1967 until 1976, the UN General Assembly resolved the dilemma by referring to occupied ‘Arab’ territories and often simply as ‘Occupied Territories’. From 1976 onwards, the increased political influence of the PLO at the UN led to a change. From 1977, the reference becomes ‘Palestinian and Other Arab Territories’.Footnote9 In 1979, the UN Security Council adopted similar language.Footnote10 The UN now tends to use the title ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory’.Footnote11 The Israeli authorities at first referred to the area as ‘Occupied West Bank’,Footnote12 though then immediately began using the term ‘Judea and Samaria’, or in non-official documents, ‘administered Territories’ or simply ‘The Territories’.Footnote13" Tiamut (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

No problem to add contents but why removing Morris and Pappe statement. They are RS and in addition attributed.

BTW, where do you read that Hill country of Judea and Samaria is larger than the West Bank? Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Explained why I removed them in this edit.

The boundaries delineated for the Judea and Samaria hill country in the UN partition resolution describe an area that is larger than the West Bank. the Britannica source also shows maps of Judea and Damaria that extend beyond the West Bank. The name "the West Bank" and the existence of such an administrative area in those boundaries is a result of the war and 1949 armistice agreement. Other terms do not adequately account for it precisely because it did not exist as a separate administrative area until that time. Tiamut (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on RS, especially secondary reliable sources. Benny Morris is a highly reliable historian, and the wording attributed his statement rather than presenting it as Wikivoice.

This material should not be removed simply because one disagrees with the implication of the source.

Also, territorial names and boundaries can evolve over time. The fact that the later West Bank did not exist as a post-1948 administrative unit before 1948 does not make Morris's description irrelevant; he explicitly refers to the "core, hilly areas of Judea and (especially) Samaria" as the area "later known as 'the West Bank'". Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Restored Benny Morris here. I have no disagreement with it. Tiamut (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring Morris's statement. However, you have not answered my question: where is it sourced that the "hill country of Judea and Samaria" is larger than the West Bank?

Could you please provide a reliable source for that claim, or otherwise remove it from the article? Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The sources are cited at the end of the sentence. The Britannica one for eg says: "The upper hill country, called the Judaean Hills, marks the region’s core, extending south from Ramallah to Beersheba and including the areas of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron." Obviously, Beersheba is not in the West Bank. Tiamut (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC) The same article also says: "Samaria centers on the Samarian Hills, which include Carmel, Gilboa, Ebal, and Gerizim, and the city of Nablus (near ancient Shechem) long served as its political and commercial capital." I am not averse to adding these in the footnotes to clarify the facts for the reader. Tiamut (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I added those quotes to the footnote. There is also a very long description in the UN partition plan resolution but I think it is too lengthy add even as a footnote. The article is linked at the end of the sentence though and anyone can read it if interested. Tiamut (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Tiamut. @Boutboul, WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion; Judea and Samaria is already discussed in the article, a separate sub-heading is unnecessary. I made an edit and retained relevant information. Please remember to follow WP:BRD. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

We were discussing the wording with Tiamut through BRD, and I understood that we were moving toward a compromise. Please do not turn this into an edit war.

Judea and Samaria is one of the main English-language terms used for this territory, alongside West Bank and Cisjordan. Since the section is specifically about terminology, it is appropriate for it to have its own subsection, just as West Bank and Cisjordan do. The question should be how to phrase it neutrally and with reliable sources, not whether the term belongs in the terminology section at all. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Yes, we were discussing. While Judea and Samaria area is the official administrative name, the content we reviewed shows that Judaea and Samaria are biblical and historical imperial administrative terms for a much wider area than the West Bank. It is true "West Bank" is a new name specifically for the territories occupied in 1967 to the west of the Jordan river. See there is a citation needed tag on its usage being preferred, but I think we all know it is, because it emerged specifically to address the creation of this new micro-entity, which is viewed by the UN and ICJ as Occupied Palestinian Territory inseparable from East Jerusalem and Gaza.

I would also note that your restoration if your edits erased subsequent ones I made that simplified and improved the text here. I don't really understand the rush to reinstate your version which is being contested after all

Tiamut (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. Just to clarify: I did not remove or alter your later edits. I only restored the Judea and Samaria subsection. On substance, I agree that Judaea and Samaria as historical regions are broader than the modern West Bank. That is why the text does not claim identity or an official former name. It only notes that some descriptions referred to those regions, with a caveat on geographic scope. Since "Judea and Samaria" is also the official Israeli administrative designation, it seems relevant to the terminology section alongside "West Bank" and "Cisjordan". Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that Michael. I misread the history of the article and you did in fact retain my edits. Perhaps a sub-heading "Judea and Samaria area" is in order, as it is a synonym, even if only used by Israeli government. Such a section would also have to note that this Israeli administrative term is widely viewed as illegitimate because the occupation of the territories is illegal according to both the UN and ICJ. Tiamut (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Such a section would also have to note that this Israeli administrative term is widely viewed as illegitimate because the occupation of the territories is illegal according to both the UN and ICJ. If it is sourced and attributed, I have no problem with that and I am sure we'll find a source for it. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The sources are in the article in the section on Israeli occupation. Looking at that section again, I see there is a paragraph duplicated by your reinsertion of the Judea and Samaria section. I am thinking that we should actually remove all the subheadings, remove the duplication, remove the citation needed tag, and refer the reader to the section on Israeli occupation. I started doing it but am too tired to do it properly. Another day. Tiamut (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)