Talk:Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine

Hi Amicicuriae since you've been here since 2013 I hope you understand that Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources, thus I'm confused by the decision to add huge sections of content cited to individual court decisions. First of all, it is it completely UNDUE, since Israel's position is so different from almost all other states, it is not given much weight if any in the secondary, scholarly sources about this topic. The Israeli government position is already mentioned and it's not appropriate to go into so much detail (or mention at all) on individual court cases that the secondary sources ignore, and which seem not to have any bearing on the subject since you also assert that the Israeli courts have declined to rule on this question. Second, it's very easy to introduce OR or POV content when you rely entirely on primary sources without secondary sources to provide appropriate context. I'm also concerned by the decision to downplay what the secondary scholarly sources say is the consensus position on the topic, namely that it is clearly illegal. (t · c) buIdhe 23:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the only OR issue with your edit, I tried to verify even your new first sentence and was struggling to do it with the sources provided. (t · c) buIdhe 23:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You're right that I have been on this website for over ten years. I admit that I have recently spent more time editing legal encyclopedias and law journals than Wikipedia. In any case, your short statement raises multiple points which deserve some level of discussion, so I will respond to what I can gather from it.

First, you make a bald assertion that I am engaging in original research and that I fail to cite secondary sources. WP:PRIMARY plainly permits decisions to support straightforward descriptions of a court's holding where no specialized interpretation is required. More particularly, per MOS:LEGAL: "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both." I agree that primary decisions cannot, by themselves, support an analysis assembled by an editor across several cases. The pattern and its significance must come from secondary sources under WP:SYNTH. Nonetheless, this pattern was addressed by the secondary scholarship that you removed from the article, as follows:

• David Kretzmer explains that the Supreme Court of Israel, in spite of its holdings that the general legality of settlement policy is nonjusticiable, reviews specific applications of government policy. He describes that distinction as reflecting the Court's general approach.^[1]
• Kretzmer and Yaël Ronen, writing together, discuss the same pattern, particularly through Elon Moreh, Bargil, and Mara'abe.^[2]
• Tamar Hostovsky Brandes also explains that the law of belligerent occupation functions as the governing law in the Court's decisions, notwithstanding the government's contrary position on the Fourth Geneva Convention's formal applicability.^[3]
• The revision also cited the broader treatment by Orna Ben-Naftali, Aeyal Gross, and Keren Michaeli.^[4]

You describe the position of the government of Israel as a minority viewpoint that may simply be "mentioned" because "Israel's position is so different from almost all other states". I completely understand that, like regional accreditation and national accreditation, 'international' may sound more impressive than 'domestic', but this is just not the case. Your position analogously conflates (1) a substantive conclusion on a question of international law with the competence of a tribunal to bind the party before it to that conclusion (hence our dispute re: the space dedicated to an 'international' rather than 'domestic' court), and (2) a belief that this article should solely be about 'international', rather than 'domestic', law, implying that international law is somehow superior to domestic law. I will address each of these points in turn.

First, Israel terminated its declaration accepting the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute in 1985 and has not consented to the ICJ's adjudication of the occupation's legality.^[5] (Note that I have cited the primary and secondary sources for this proposition seriatim per MOS:LEGAL, so the second source may be more helpful for you.) The General Assembly instead requested an advisory opinion under Article 96 of the UN Charter and Article 65 of the ICJ Statute. The Court's advisory jurisdiction did not depend on Israel's consent, but the resulting opinion was not a judgment binding Israel on that question and did not contain operative clauses requiring compliance by a party. All the ICJ opinion proves is the ICJ's view of Israel's rights and obligations under international law.^[6]

By contrast, the Supreme Court of Israel has jurisdiction over Israeli public officials, including military authorities acting in the occupied territories. Its jurisdiction does not depend upon parties' consent, and its orders can bind the state and its agents.^[7][2] Its treatment of the occupation is therefore indispensable to any discussion of the validity and enforcement of any judgments relevant to the occupation's legality under either domestic or international law, barring, for example, a binding resolution by the Security Council.^[8]

As to the Israeli government's position, as distinguished from either the Court's or the ICJ's - there is a common misapprehension that only courts can make legal decisions, but almost every country leaves some legal matters solely to the determination of the political branches.^[9] Here, because the Supreme Court has deferred to the government of Israel on the question of the legality of the occupation, the government's position is the only legally operative one currently in existence.^[1][2][7][6]

Second, the title of this article is "Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine". Nothing in the title or any other stated scope (not even your preferred description of "IIegal[sic] occupation of Palestine") limits the article solely to international law. Even an article entitled "Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine under international law" would need to explain the domestic legal effect of the applicable international law and of the ICJ's advisory opinions.^[10] Because the ICJ opinions themselves bind neither Israel nor Israeli officials,^[6][3] the international and domestic questions cannot be collapsed into an account of the ICJ's conclusions. As I discussed above with respect to the secondary sources you deleted, I used the timeline of decisions to show the general pattern by which the Supreme Court of Israel has asserted or declined jurisdiction over questions arising from the occupation, and to demonstrate to the reader how the occupation is treated under domestic law. I do think this should be winnowed down a bit, so I'll work on that.

You state that you could not verify the initial sentence, that the legality of the occupation is "heavily disputed"; I agree that my sources were not sufficient to establish the value judgment that it is 'heavily' disputed, since that would require a weighing of the authority of the various actors (which is a minuscule value judgment in comparison to the value judgment currently on the page). I will fix this. However, for the reasons discussed above, it is absurd to argue that describing it as 'disputed' somehow carries undue weight. This would be like if we treated an advisory opinion by the Chinese government on Chinese law as conclusively binding on the United States!^[11]

More seriously: the prior version was clearly non-neutral, outdated, and incoherent in parts. Inter alia, it omitted the 2025 advisory opinion, left prior material from 2022 in the intro, and did not consistently distinguish judicial decisions, government positions, academic arguments, &c. Your choice to revert the edits wholesale rather than preserve their useful and sourced portions was contrary to the editing policy's direction to "preserve the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong'," to be particularly cautious about removing sourced content, and to correct inaccuracies while keeping the rest of the content intact. The supplementary reversion essay likewise advises that complete reversions should be used sparingly and that, where only part of an edit is objectionable, only that part should be reverted. This is an entirely voluntary undertaking - it is no excuse that you were driven by a lack of time to disregard the editing policy and thereby severely degraded the quality of this article.

— ac talk 05:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Well this is a wall of text but the point remains, WP sourcing rules aren't the same as for legal scholarship or opinions, and due weight cannot be shown to exist without secondary sources. You raise a good point that different legal frameworks can be covered, but proper context would include mentioning that Israeli government position is distinctly a minority/fringe view internationally and avoiding vastly UNDUE levels of detail. As far as I can tell the Kretzmer source doesn't even mention the subject of the article so unless I'm mistaken it is out of scope and inappropriate to cite. I don't see how which occupation law rules apply or whether Israeli law is applied is in scope for this article. While primary sources aren't banned, they must be used sparingly and entire sections shouldn't be based on them. It is classic OR to cite multiple sources that disagree to support the assertion that a dispute exists—the source cited has to say so explicitly. (t · c) buIdhe 05:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

In particular it would be great if you can cite and quote a secondary source that supports the assertion The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the legality of the occupation is a nonjusticible political question (t · c) buIdhe 05:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As I have already said, my statements were adequately supported by secondary sources that you appear not to have read. If you cannot read what you believe are large volumes of text, I am not sure what you intend to contribute to an article about international law.

As to your paraphrase, that sentence does not appear in my revision. Your paraphrase conflates two propositions: that the Court has not decided whether the occupation itself is lawful, and that Bargil dismissed a general challenge to settlement policy as nonjusticiable.

To your specific request for a secondary source concerning Bargil, one is not required under WP:PRIMARY for a "straightforward, descriptive statement" of a published decision's holding, since it can be "verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Nonetheless, I have supplied two. Kretzmer writes that "the legality of the settlement policy is not justiciable in that its dominant nature is political, rather than legal." Kretzmer and Ronen likewise describe Bargil as a challenge to "the legality of the government's settlement policy" that the Court dismissed on the preliminary ground of nonjusticiability. Both citations appeared in my response immediately above, and will be incorporated into the response. I will use the phrasing "The Supreme Court of Israel has not decided whether the occupation itself is lawful. In Bargil v. Government of Israel, it dismissed as nonjusticiable a general challenge to the government's settlement policy, while continuing to review challenges to particular exercises of military authority." The restored revision will cite the relevant secondary sources alongside the decisions. — ac talk 06:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the nonjusticiability of the general settlement policy isn't particularly interesting without the inference that the Court would likely decide the same in the case of a challenge against the occupation, or the opposite. I will do further research on this and remove if there is no reliable secondary source on point. — ac talk 07:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the legality of the occupation per se, not the settlement policy, which I believe is already covered in our articles about Israeli settlements. (t · c) buIdhe 20:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you may not have the legal background to understand why a justiciability doctrine developed in a case about settlements may be relevant to the occupation, but I suggest reading the secondary sources in the revision, as you have repeatedly refused to do, if you're interested in understanding why. — ac talk 19:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was in Kretzmer and Ronan. I did search for contrary authority - will be interesting to see if Public Committee Against Torture v. Government of Israel is extended. Thank you for bringing this gap to my attention. — ac talk 07:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I came here via NPOV/N. After looking at the argument here (I will admit to being frustrated by how much of it is presented as massive textwalls) and at the disputed addition, I agree with @Buidhe. I also want to highlight the problematic neutrality issue with referring to the legal justifications for an occupation undertaken by the occupying state too much within an article about whether said occupation is legal. Effectively we have a WP:MANDY situation. Of course the occupying state is going to argue that their occupation is not illegal. Finally I would remind @Amicicurae that Wikipedia is not a legal encyclopedia, it is a general encyclopedia. Phrases like Some commentators have proposed that an occupation that is initially legal will remain so until a peace treaty is signed.^[1] A peace treaty is not synonymous with the absence of a threat justifying the use of force in self-defense, without which military aggression becomes illegal may be legibile to those of us with university educations in humanities but may be somewhat of a challenge for general readership. Simonm223 (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If you have issues with the phrasing, you're welcome to simplify the language. Nonetheless, a wholesale revert here violates WP:PRESERVE and the obligation under WP:CTOP to edit carefully and constructively because it removed removed numerous independent, sourced improvements that were not implicated by any objection made here. Any concern about the weight given to Israeli legal materials could have been addressed through a partial revert and discussion instead of a total revert that leaves the entire article in its current news/press release-style state. There is no point discussing individual phrases until this act is reversed.

More broadly, I would like you to explain how exactly the authors of the secondary sources I have used in the revision are representatives of the Isreali state, as you seem to be arguing. — ac talk 11:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

My issues with your phrasing are an appendix to my issues with your neutrality. If your contribution were an appropriately neutral one then the language would need to be simplified. As it is not appropriately neutral it is bad in multiple vectors. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Neither you nor @Buidhe have addressed the secondary sources cited above or explained why they do not support the material you believe should be reverted. For example, can you explain why you believe the 2025 advisory opinion is irrelevant to the topic? Or why either of you believe the correct spelling of "illegal" is "iilegal"? — ac talk 19:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Amicicuriae. I came here because I saw your invitation in WP:LAW (which I’m not a member of). I had to muster a lot of goodwill to read on after I’d read the introductory paragraph of your last version before the last revert. Contrary to your argument that your edits are acceptable because this article isn’t restricted to international law, your first sentence says: “The legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine under international law is contested.” That is certainly not an acceptable first sentence. You then go on:

While the Supreme Court of Israel has refused to rule substantively on whether the occupation itself is lawful, restricting itself to reviewing specific exercises of military authority, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a 2024 advisory opinion found unlawful Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory as a whole, comprising the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. The government of Israel maintains that Israel has valid claims to the West Bank and that the territory's permanent status, security arrangements, settlements, and borders must be resolved through direct negotiations.

A sentence about the Israeli Supreme Court and a sentence about the Israeli government sandwich a single sentence about the ICJ. That’s absurd.

You make no indication that the subject has changed and the statement about the Israeli Supreme Court isn’t intended as a statement about international law. But even if that were the case, the statement about the Israeli government is clearly about international law, since Israel having valid claims to territory is inherently a concept of international law. Add to this your edit summary for this edit: “Notably, this article solely discusses the ICJ ruling rather than the legality of Israel's actions under the Israeli interpretation of international law”. So it’s not an accident that your introductory paragraph and, as far as I can tell, also the bulk of the rest of your edits are about international law – you explicitly wrote that you’re missing a treatment, not of domestic law, but of the Israeli interpretation of international law. Giving even remotely as much weight to such an extreme minority interpretation (where “extreme” modifies both “minority” and “interpretation”) as you‘re trying to give it would be a textbook case of WP:UNDUE.

My impression is that you weren’t trying in good faith to give due weight to Israeli interpretations and laws. Even if I take all your arguments about those interpretations and laws being relevant for enforceability at face value, the very least a good-faith attempt would have required is a contextualization that makes the reader aware of the quantitative and qualitative gulf between Israeli positions and the overwhelming majority position of the rest of the planet. A lead consisting of two sentences about Israeli positions sandwiching a single sentence on the ICJ position isn’t a good-faith editing attempt.

The bulk revert was justified because people aren’t forced to deal with tons of details just to undo what was clearly overall an illegitimate action. If you want to add content to the article, the first step would be to achieve a consensus on what its scope should be. That obviously applies to whether it should cover Israeli domestic law, but it doesn’t end there. You write that it omitted the 2025 advisory opinion – but you yourself wrote: “The request did not ask the Court to reconsider its 2024 conclusion that Israel's continued presence was unlawful, and the Court did not do so; the 2025 proceeding concerned the obligations governing humanitarian relief and co-operation with the United Nations.” That to me sounds like a strong argument that that opinion doesn’t belong in an article on the legality of the occupation. Even whether the scope includes enforceability is questionable. Everyone is painfully aware that there’s currently no enforcement mechanism to end the occupation, but it’s not clear how that enters into the question of its legality.

Joriki (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

1. You believe that stating that a question of law is 'contested' is 'not acceptable', but you do so having declined to engage with the primary and secondary sources which show an active contest over the question.

2. You believe that the advice of a court without jurisdiction to issue a binding judgment against a state is more relevant to questions concerning the legality of the occupation than the judgments and decisions of that state, which you describe as an "extreme minority position", but you don't want to provide a source for this theory of legality.

3. You believe that the positions of a majority of states constitute conclusive evidence of legality. Not even the ICJ agrees with this. I'd ask why you do, but I get the feeling that you don't know either.

4. You believe that the enforcement of a judgment, and the domestic treatment of a judgment, is totally irrelevant to an article about the legality of an action, when - again - international law is only given effect through state actors. So what's the point of the article? To say that someone, somewhere, disapproved of something that a state did? Should we have an article on the "legality of escape from the German Democratic Republic" consisting of nothing but discussions on the in absentia verdicts rendered by GDR courts against successful escapees? Whether a judgment has precedential or preclusive effect, or can be enforced or is valid under domestic law is crucial to any discussion of it.

5. You think that it is worth reverting the article to, effectively, 2024, rather than remedying the defects that you claim to have discovered. You state that "people aren’t forced to deal with tons of details just to undo what was clearly overall an illegitimate action". Again, no one is forcing anyone to degrade the site's quality because they don't have the time or inclination to read the secondary sources that substantiate material that they have a bad gut feeling about. I will note that, as interested as you are in criticizing my editing, you are similarly completely uninterested in following the editing policies as written.

6. You accuse me of bad faith despite identifying no unsupported assertions in my writing and having chosen to ignore every single source. Meanwhile, you are treating your personal beliefs and gut feelings as WP:RS.

7. The 2025 opinion is not duplicative. The Court expressly recalled its 2024 conclusion that Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory was unlawful and then applied Israel's obligations as an occupying power to the situation in Gaza based on developments through May 2025. It therefore shows that the Court maintained its position on the illegality of continuing the occupation despite the change in circumstances in Gaza. — ac talk 01:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I won’t engage with this. Starting the first four paragraphs with “You believe” followed by loaded generalizations or distortions of specific arguments I made is not a good-faith attempt at discussion. Joriki (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

1. "Your first sentence says: 'The legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine under international law is contested.' That is certainly not an acceptable first sentence."
2. "A sentence about the Israeli Supreme Court and a sentence about the Israeli government sandwich a single sentence about the ICJ. That's absurd." "Giving even remotely as much weight to such an extreme minority interpretation (where 'extreme' modifies both 'minority' and 'interpretation') as you're trying to give it would be a textbook case of WP:UNDUE."
3. "The very least a good-faith attempt would have required is a contextualization that makes the reader aware of the quantitative and qualitative gulf between Israeli positions and the overwhelming majority position of the rest of the planet."
4. "Even if I take all your arguments about those interpretations and laws being relevant for enforceability at face value..." "Even whether the scope includes enforceability is questionable. Everyone is painfully aware that there's currently no enforcement mechanism to end the occupation, but it's not clear how that enters into the question of its legality."

— ac talk 05:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the proper quoting. Note that if you substitute those quotes for the distortions in your previous comment, it no longer makes any sense. Joriki (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with many of the concerns raised by other editors in this discussion. It's clear there is no consensus for Amicicuriae's major changes to this article. I don't think the current discussion is conducive to building any consensus for their changes due to the walls of text and less than civil tone. Rainsage (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Your sole contribution here has been to summarily revert a well-sourced edit. Moreover, your choice to focus on my tone, consisting primarily of discussion of the law, secondary sources, and editing policies, against the context of buidhe's consistent condescension, puts your own good faith in question. — ac talk 05:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any other editors who agree that your edit was "well sourced". (t · c) buIdhe 09:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If you recall, you as well as the 'other editors' explicitly refused to read any of the relevant sources - even the ones that generally support the 'side' you have evidently decided to take. — ac talk 19:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

what?? I checked multiple of them but was unable to find any content that explicitly mentioned the subject of the article—hence my OR/irrelevance concerns. (t · c) buIdhe 02:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Because the reverters are unwilling to perform their own partial revert, I am restoring the undisputed portions of Special:Diff/1367916186/1367968738 while leaving out the principal material challenged above. This revision preserves the reorganization (history, academic commentary, judicial decisions). I have also restored the 2004 and 2024 ICJ coverage and the Isreali, General Assembly and Security Council responses.

I have not restored the proposed lead. Instead I have updated and moved the third paragraph to Background. I have omitted the Supreme Court of Israel and comparison of stances material following the objections by @Buidhe, @Simonm223, and @Joriki, and @Rainsage's edit summary. I have omitted the 2025 opinion following Joriki's objection. I have simplified the passage concerning a peace treaty identified by Simonm223.

Joriki questions whether enforceability is within the article's scope, but did not object to the discussion of the General Assembly's attempts at enforcement, so I have included the votes.

I would also have included the more detailed discussion of the effect of the opinions in Israeli courts, but my understanding at the moment is that Buidhe and Simonm223 were asserting WP:UNDUE because they have a general disagreement with the competence and impartiality of the Israeli courts to decide questions of international law, and for that reason do not believe that any mention of the Isreali Supreme Court's jurisprudence is appropriate.

I will participate in discussion on each specific issue as they arise in the course of editing the disputed sections. — ac talk 04:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

When you dump a very long comment on the article talk page and editors don't respond to every point brought up, it is inappropriate to interpret it as acceptance of every part of the edit besides those explicitly opposed. I'm not going to play this game but I don't think that the current edit improves the article, it doesn't address my concerns raised above about excessive use of primary sources and irrelevant content that isn't directly about the legality of the occupation itself, such as the content about the West Bank wall. Furthermore, the "other legal arguments" section seems to be about legal questions rather than the subject of this article. You have also violated wp:1rr rules. (t · c) buIdhe 06:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

+1 I am afraid a lot of text walls end up getting responses that can be summarized as tl;dr. I would suggest that @Amicicuriae focus on improving the conciseness of their comments if they are looking for collaboration. Simonm223 (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

There is simply no reason for you to get involved in a dispute on a topic that you admit you are uninterested in reading about or contributing to. — ac talk 18:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Please respect WP:1RR. You can’t make tons of controversial changes without consensus, drop the most egregious ones that people got around to objecting to, and then treat the rest as “undisputed portions”.

To my mind, the main problem with this new version is no longer so much undue weight for Israeli positions (I switched the order of international and Israeli law in the jurisdiction section, which was the main remaining undue-weight problem) but the fact that you removed lots of good content without, as far as I can tell, providing any reasons. Here’s a non-exhaustive list from a quick scan:

• You removed the sentence “Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories, which comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, since 1967, making it the longest military occupation in modern history”, along with its Amnesty source. The “longest occupation” and “Gaza remains occupied” facts now only remain in the introduction, the first with a single source that isn’t freely accessible and the second without any source.
• You removed any mention of the UN Special Rapporteurs, Lynk and Albanese. They’re relevant UN authorities, and removing their views is particularly problematic in view of the authoritarian attempts by Western states to deny people’s rights to hear Albanese’s views.
• You removed the section on self-determination. The article’s treatment of the right to self-determination is now dominated by references in indirect speech, as if this right were subject to discussion; the removed section stated unequivocally that it’s internationally recognized. As this right plays a crucial role in the approaches of both the ICJ and the ICC, the previous emphasis on its universality was more appropriate.

Again, this list is not exhaustive. I don’t intend to spend any more time tracing further content removed by your edit. You argued that the bulk revert violated WP:PRESERVE, but you don’t seem to have applied it yourself. In the spirit of not restarting the edit war, I’m not immediately reverting your edit, in fact I tried to improve it in two respects, but that doesn’t imply acceptance of any part of it. The previous content should be restored unless you provide convincing reasons to the contrary. Joriki (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

These issues are well-taken and will be fixed in my next revision. I was going to further develop the 'history' section with much of the content you mention/change or develop it into a Background section, which I didn't have time for; I removed the 1967 note because 1967 -> 2022 seemed like a strange leap, but I'll develop the history section with the 1967 line in place. You also mentioned unspecified objections someone or another might have, but that isn't a real objection. — ac talk 18:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

After reading the discussion (including the walls of text) I've reverted the edits because it appears everyone that has commented on Amicicuriae's changes has opposed them (see WP:ONUS, WP:TALKDONTREVERT and it's companion explanatory essay WP:SILENCE, and WP:CT/A-I). If an edit you made has been reverted, all of that content has been challenged. The fact that editors on the talk page don't mention every single sentence of a huge reverted edit individually does not somehow mean that those sentences are unchallenged. If you want to reinstate them it's on you to ask editors on the talk page whether they oppose them.
I try my best to WP:AGF, but it's asking a lot of my ability to do so when an editor with over a decade of experience is making edits on the basis of a faulty interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 12:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Amicicuriae After looking at it further, you also appear to have performed a clearly controversial move without discussing it first, posted a frivolous warning on @Buidhe's talk page and violated 1RR twice (the edits at 08:04, 5 August 2026, 06:53, 6 August 2026 and 04:47, 7 August 2026 all constitute reverts; see WP:EW).

Maybe put on the brakes here before you end up crashing right onto WP:AE? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 13:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

As with all these unreasoned objections - if you do not have the time to discuss the article substantively or edit it constructively, you don't have to get involved. You say that you read the entire argument, but you can't even read your own sources: the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.

You state that I performed a 'clearly controversial move'. The article as you reverted it is essentially an announcement for the ICJ decision, only discussing scholarship leading up to the ICJ opinion (though without discussing their applicability). It was perfectly reasonable to assume that this page was not intended to be a general discussion of the occupation's legality; in fact, the other editors have universally complained about coverage of anything other than the ICJ decision.

You complain that I addressed all identified concerns with the edit after 22, rather than 24, hours. The only purpose anyone could have for raising an issue with my proactive responses to each and every one of the complaints about the edit on here is a wish to delay the improvement of and any updates to this page. — ac talk 19:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

As with all these unreasoned objections - if you do not have the time to discuss the article substantively or edit it constructively, you don't have to get involved.

Conduct issues need to be addressed before any content issues are. The fruitfulness of any discussion is contingent on the conduct of those involved in it.

You say that you read the entire argument, but you can't even read your own sources: the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.

The quality of an argument as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy by an uninvolved editor, not the lens of the editors making the arguments (see WP:CLOSE and WP:DETSUIT). I really shouldn't have to be saying this.

You state that I performed a 'clearly controversial move'. The article as you reverted it..[skipped over for brevity]..other than the ICJ decision.

I suppose I should have wikilinked WP:RMUM when I called it controversial in my comment. Any move that someone could reasonably object to should not be performed without a discussion, and any move that changes the scope of an article in the way your move did is certain to face objections.

You complain that I addressed all identified concerns with the edit after 22, rather than 24, hours.

If by "complain" you mean making a conscious decision to give you a chance to cease sanctionable behaviour instead of going to an administrative noticeboard, then sure.

The only purpose anyone could have for raising an issue with my proactive responses to each and every one of the complaints about the edit on here is a wish to delay the improvement of and any updates to this page.

Man, if only I was able to do mental gymnastics to assume gold faith as impeccably as you are doing them to assume bad faith – that would really be something. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 22:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The conduct of each editor attempting to obstruct a revision here, when they have made any substantive argument, has been to make bare, unsourced assertions and to dismiss all contrary (or even sometimes supportive) sources as representatives of the Israeli government. Your willingness to ensure that the current version of this article describes the occupation of Palestine as 'iilegal'[sic] rather than to preserve even such minor spelling edits should say all that is necessary to say about your impartiality and your suitability to determine the quality of my argument in this matter. — ac talk 23:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you tried to add 40k of text to a contentious topic in one day. Maybe more, because I think you deleted preexisting text as well (I'm not very skilled with diffs). Have you considered identifying the mere 2k text you find most important, and proposing that? Mevsherd (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The only editor here to show any interest in the topic, in the article, or in the editing policies has been @Joriki, and I have already adjusted for his issues in my next draft. I have no interest in spending time on imaginary objections. — ac talk 15:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

the consensus in this discussion is that your major changes were inappropriate. it's your responsibility to build consensus for your changes, not continue to edit war them in. Rainsage (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Question: Should the article begin substantially as follows? Citations supporting the proposed text appear in this revision.

The continued Israeli occupation of Palestine is generally considered illegal under international law. In 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful, pursuant to which an overwhelming majority of the United Nations General Assembly demanded that Israel end its presence within twelve months. The Security Council has not adopted corresponding measures. The government of Israel disputes this on the basis of its claims to the territory and maintains that the territory's permanent status must be resolved through direct negotiations.

— ac talk 02:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Statement by proposer: The current lead states the answer to a disputed legal question as an unqualified fact in wikivoice. While the ICJ was acting within its jurisdiction to advise the General Assembly, such advice is not a judgment binding the State of Israel.^[2] Describing the occupation as "generally considered illegal" reflects the ICJ opinion and international opinion but does not imply that either establish an objective fact. I would personally open neutrally with "[t]he legality... is contested", or "disputed", but it appears there is a strong opinion here that public opinion should lead this article's characterization of the law rather than the law.

— ac talk 16:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I’d be OK with this, except for “on the basis of its claims to the territory”, for two reasons: a) This could be understood to imply that Israel has legitimate claims to the territory. b) It frames the question as a territorial question, which it crucially isn’t – the occupation is illegal because it systematically and indefinitely denies Palestinians’ right to self-determination – that would be illegal even if the entire territory were legitimately Israeli territory. It’s true that Israel a) claims the territory and b) doesn’t accept the illegality of denying the right to self-determination on this claimed territory, but that position needs to be stated more carefully in the body, with an explanation why it’s invalid. (Some people may only read the lead and never get to the explanation in the body.) (Also, the somewhat shorter sentence would contribute to a more appropriate weighting of the position.)

On a side note, you’re not making this easier by insisting on imputing improper motives to people. No one said that “public opinion should lead this article's characterization of the law rather than the law”. Such distortions just poison the atmosphere and make it more difficult to reach consensus. Joriki (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have a common understanding of what the law is, nor jurisdiction. Nonetheless, I would accept "The government of Israel claims that it has legitimate claims to the territory that supersede Palestine's, contrary to the well-established right of the Palestinean people to self-determination". — ac talk 01:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close AC should not be making non-neutral "statement by the proposer" statements within the same comment as the RfC question. This is not a neutrally constructed RfC. Close it and try again to frame this neutrally. Simonm223 (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Couldn't they just move that section instead? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Frankly this whole RfC is rather irregularly structured - the long-winded three questions and the extensive integrated proposers statements aren't in keeping with how RfCs are generally structured. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Complaining about the formatting of the RfC (every single RfC includes the proposer's argument) won't get you anywhere. If anything, it's a concession that you have no substantive response. You can move the statement around if you'd like. — ac talk 01:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it's true that every single RfC includes the proposer's argument. I suggest taking a look at WP:RFCBRIEF. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Wikieditor662 "There is no actual rule saying that editors who start RfCs must make their initial explanations look like they are responses to the question (e.g., by placing them inside a ===Discussion=== subsection) or otherwise making them less prominent." But of course, you can delete "Statement by proposer" if you feel that someone may be unfairly swayed by the bolded text. — ac talk 01:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Question: Should the article distinguish "Background", "Academic debate", and "Judicial decisions", and attribute academic positions to their authors instead of stating them in wikivoice? — ac talk 02:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Statement by proposer: The current article is not structured in the proper order. The various UN reports and academic positions lead up to the judicial decisions, not the other way around. More to the point, putting academics' positions piecemeal in wikivoice, when those sources are stating their own perspectives, implies that those positions are objective facts while courts' judgments are mere viewpoints. The two should be clearly delineated. See WP:WIKIVOICE, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:NPOV.

— ac talk 16:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This is too general to answer meaninigfully. In principle, it’s of course good to attribute academic positions to their authors instead of stating them in wikivoice. The difficult part is deciding what’s an academic position of individual authors, what’s a broad consensus, and what’s an objective fact. I suspect that we’d sometimes come to different conclusions on that, and having an RfC result that reconfirms that academic positions of individual authors should be attributed to them would do nothing to resolve the resulting disagreements. For example, as I detailed above, in this edit you essentially downgraded the Palestinian right to self-determination, which is internationally recognized, to a mere academic position. Joriki (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to receive substantive critique on this. I already have a draft ready which accounts for each of your concerns. However, the consensus so far has been to block any change whatsoever to the current pattern of presenting wishful statements by scholars as objective fact, hence the RfC. Consensus that the separation should exist is the bare minimum. — ac talk 01:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Question: Should the article include coverage of how Israeli law treats international law and how Israeli courts have treated ICJ advisory opinions, including their domestic effect and persuasive authority? — ac talk 02:56, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Statement by proposer: The Israeli interpretation of international law and the precedential or preclusive effect of the ICJ's decisions is fundamentally relevant to the subject.^[1][2] More broadly, the ICJ's advisory opinions address the obligations of states, not the liability of individual officials, and do not determine their own effect in domestic proceedings. There is no point to a discussion of legality without discussing whether and how the domestic legal system applies that legal standard to the officials responsible for the occupation.

— ac talk 16:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Here, too, I doubt that the question actually addresses the contentious issue. Sure the article can include coverage on that. The problem isn’t some form of coverage; the problem is the extreme position you take in your statement: That there is no point (!) to a discussion without that aspect. I couldn’t disagree more. I believe that to the contrary it’s crucial to be clear about the illegality of the occupation quite independent of questions of enforceability and Israel’s so-called legal system, because the motivation for curing the current lack of enforceability (be it through state action, consumer action, direct action or whatever) partly comes from being clear on the illegality. That’s why the advisory opinion was so important.

With your position that the entire discussion is pointless without the aspects you seek to introduce naturally comes a different assessment of the due weight to be accorded to those aspects. That’s what I believe we need a consensus on. If we could agree that the positions of the perpetrator are a secondary issue that can be covered while taking care not to give it undue weight, we wouldn’t be having these discussions. Joriki (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joriki You are conflating enforceability and jurisdiction. Because a sovereign nation simply cannot be bound to the jurisdiction of a court that it does not consent to, there is quite literally no higher court in this matter than the Supreme Court of Israel that has jurisdiction over the matter. (An advisory opinion is not a form of declaratory relief that would cause their decision to have preclusive effect.) That is why there's 'no point', even as an abstract legal matter. Of course, coverage of the enforceability of a legal norm (nevermind a judgment) is naturally highly relevant to an article on its legality. Are you suggesting that you would refuse to include a section if the Isreali courts decided to adopt the reasoning in the advisory opinion?

Also, are you suggesting that illegal, violent acts against a state and its allies ('direct action') are a legitimate means of enforcing advice from the ICJ to the General Assembly? That position is clearly completely at odds with all norms and precepts of any kind of domestic or international law that I am aware of. — ac talk 01:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)