Talk:West Bank

There is much in the news today (multiple major sources in many national & inter-national media) about the "Emirate of Hebron" proposal of a group of sheikhs on the West Bank.

I added a simple sentence about the proposal to the article, with two sources.

In July 2025, five tribal sheikhs from the Hebron district of the West Bank proposed to establish an autonomous emirate, separate from the Palestinian Authority, to form an "Emirate of Hebron" in the largest district of the West Bank, Hebron. They would seek to govern a part of Hebron separated from PA control and create a special economic zone achieve greater economic growth and stability.^[1][2]

It was reverted by another editor as too trivial to mention in this article. Cool second opinion. So let's follow standard wiki-BRD practice. Bold edit; Revert it if an editor cares to; then Discuss it on the Talk page. THis is that Discussion.

Proposal: The proposed Emirate of Hebron political entity ought to, at least, be mentioned in the West Bank article, as it is notable. If not the sentence above, some other sentence. But the topic should be mentioned here. With 10 or 20 tribal sheiks involved, it is as important as many incidents of political violence or other political events that are typically covered once they are verifiable and notable. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC) N2e (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind it being mentioned, but we should also be willing to remove it if there isn't significant continuing coverage. Even though this got into the news, stuff like this isn't rare but it never gets off the ground. The chance of Israel accepting it is zero. If it is mentioned, the sentence I added at Hebron should be added here too. Zero^talk 04:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who removed it, and as of now, it still seem entirely trivial. The handful of individuals who have suggested this are not notable, and they are not in charge of Hebron. If Hebron's mayor had suggested this, it might be notable. Some random individuals using the title Sheik proposing it? No, that is not notable in any way. If a random guy in California proposed creating a "Kingdom of San Francisco", we would not include that in the Californa article either. Jeppiz (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment and I don't disagree. Zero^talk 13:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

Simple fix to the "In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" comment that was invalidated by this edit, later only partially fixed by this edit. End of second paragraph in intro.

 Done Day Creature (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The English structure of the first sentence of the article sounds unnatural and off. Without changing any content or even the contents, order, please consider simply fixing it to “The West Bank, located on the western bank of the Jordan River, is the larger of the two Palestinian territories that make up the State of Palestine (the other Palestinian territory being the Gaza Strip). 2804:214:8821:87B9:D108:FCD0:14F8:2CDD (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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: ^[1]

Diff:

~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)