So, most newscasters and papers in the US call these areas the "Israeli Occupied Territories". Perhaps a more suitable name than "Palestinian Territories"? --Evan 19:09, 21 Jan 2004 (EST)
Quite a few people around here call them "Palestinian Territories", but you also hear the term you mention. (Although I wonder if that also includes the Golan Heights, since Israel took it from Syria). I don't really have a preference here, and anyway it's a very tricky and sensitive thing. If you want to move the page, be my guest :-) DhDh 19:29, 21 Jan 2004 (EST)
Sorry but most of those "tips" were just silly and obviously POV (e.g. the idea that Rachel Corrie was run over "by accident" is an obviously false propaganda line the Israeli military has been trying to spin from the begining). Do not argue with cab drivers?!? How silly. Have done that lots of times. The west bank is like the wild west? Please. Do not engage in political conversation?!? EH?!? It's very hard not to when in Palestine. Rachel Corrie's parents were not almost kidnapped (see http://www.orscp.org/more.php?id=146_0_1_0_M ). Jews go into Palestine all the time without being "beaten" - I know one married to a Palestinian who lives in Ramallah.
Get a grip. - Asa
Cjensen said in Summary box: (→Stay Safe - Restore water comment unless you have a reference on that. Anectotal evidence is not reliable in this matter.)
Whatever mate - I thought the whole point of this wiki was for travelers to share their experiences? Seems to me that the person who wrote that not been in Palestine. Furthermore you contradict yourself: what is "Beware of local water, including ice cubes - bottled is the way to go" if not anecdotal? Such advice applies in (e.g.) Egypt, but not Palestine for whatever reasons.
It is reliable, because in two separete trips in a total of three months, I know of no-one who got ill from drinking tap water, and I met a LOT of people there from outside the region. So unless you have a reference to show the water is unsafe I suggest this version.
More importantly, why did you restore all that other nonsense, when I've clearly refuted it on this page? You haven't even attempted to justify that. - Asa
Greetings Asa! Welcome to wikitravel. It might help the conversation if you could create a user account so you'll get a proper welcome and can sign your changes & comments.
While wikis are indeed a great way to 'share experiences', here we're hoping to put together objectivetravel guides. Obviously every traveller's experience is unique , but we try and make our information as generally applicable as possible, hence the request for a reference.
I think it's important to note that this can be a tricky article to cover so we tend to scrutinize edits-- especially from anonymous IP addresses. I hope you get a chance to look at and contribute to some of our other guides! Majnoona 10:23, 1 March 2006 (EST)
Suppose you were in a country with untreated water. It does not surprise me in the least that the residents and some visitors have no problems with it. The problem is that untreated water has the potential to really ruin a trip. If even one in a dozen visitors is unlucky enough to get a rare bacteria from the water, his trip is shot. Avoiding tap water is just not that hard; and if it safeguards an important once-in-a-lifetime trip, then we should err on the side of caution.
Plus I've lost track of how many times I've seen someone edit out a warning while saying "I had no problems with the water, you guys must be wrong." Or "I drank the water for four years and didn't get sick." Getting used to the local flora is not the same thing as saying the flora does not exist. Or perhaps a person was getting sick every few months and was blaming the illness on food quality or general illness. As I result of this, I think we need to really discount anecdotal evidence when we have ANY reports to the contrary and no supporting evidence that the water is treated.
Regarding the other changes you made, you might check more carefully: I left them in. I merged the one change I wanted back and left everything else you did alone. Someone else might change it, but since I had no opinion on the matter I kept my hands off :-). Cheers. -- Colin 17:23, 1 March 2006 (EST)
Along with Israel this article is a magnet for political edits. The official policies here are that the traveller comes first and we try to be fair. This is a travel wiki, so please concentrate on information that is important to travelers, and make all efforts to avoid edits which take sides in the politics of the region - there are links to Wikipedia where interested users can read about the history of the conflict. Note that editors and users here are not implying that the debate is unimportant, merely that it is in the interest of travelers to focus on travel information. As always anyone interested is encouraged to discuss on the relevant talk page. -- Ryan 17:16, 17 April 2006 (EDT)
Having been guilty of what some will inevitably regard as making political edits, the status is extra-ordinarily complex. The problem is that in this part of the world, the way outsiders and visitors view the situation has significant repercussions for people's lives. Visitors not informed about the debate will not understand what they see on the ground. You cannot visit without being political - either through what you do or what you don't do, what you know and what you don't know. A potential solution would be to copy background/history from Wikipedia where the emphasis is on these more encyclopedic facts and to limit this page to supplementary travel guidance. Similarly with the Jerusalem page. Henryr 07:02, 25 September 2010 (EDT)
We also advise against all travel to the Gaza strip because of the threat of kidnap. The Palestinian security forces have advised us that there is a particularly high threat against British nationals. On 23 October 2006, a Spanish cameraman was kidnapped and held for 13 hours. British nationals have been kidnapped and held for up to two weeks in previous incidents, the most recent in December 2005. -- Foreign and Commonwealth Office
We advise against all but essential travel to the West Bank. There is a particularly high kidnap threat against British nationals. There have been a large number of demonstrations in Ramallah and elsewhere since March 2006, some of which have turned violent. For immediate, specific information about planned demonstrations or any other events which may affect the local security situation, you should register with the Consulate-General in Jerusalem. -- Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The uncertain security conditions within the West Bank and Gaza continue as well, with the potential for violent protests, kidnappings, including of foreign nationals, and fighting between various armed factions. Daily inter-Palestinian violence in the Gaza Strip has spread to the West Bank. An American citizen was kidnapped and held captive for several hours by armed militants in the West Bank in June 2006. - United States Department of State
I'd rather err on the side of the travellers' safety than not. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 13:40, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
This article had two identical warning boxes, so I removed the one that seemed to be in the wrong place (regions). I don't have a problem with several warning boxes in the same article but identical ones are pointless.Jake73 11:09, 12 January 2007 (EST)
Ha! I thought there was some much more complicated explanation. I guess I could have figured that out myself. That's what I get for just looking at the diffs. Thanks for being a sport. --evanp 11:31, 12 January 2007 (EST)
Is their any particular reason this has been removed ? To leave this out is a fairly disingenuous portrayal of what fellow travelers should be prepared for. Or, at the very least, be made aware of. I am not immune to the fact that anywhere in the ME is subject to politicalizing, but that goes outside the scope of what these guides are designed for.
If there are no objections, I will add the appropriate travel warnings to this article.
Sure, I suppose I could give it a shot. You will have to forgive as me I am a rookie editor, but such a warning could read:
The political situation between Hamas and Israeli forces remains hostile, making travel to Gaza for both unwise and potentially dangerous. While the security situation has improved for Westerners in Gaza in recent years, The US State department, the UK Foreign Travel Service, and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs advise against all travel to Gaza and the Palestinian Territories for any reason due to threats of kidnapping, assassination and potentially being caught in the crossfire of military operations between Hamas and the IDF. Threats are unpredictable and the situation can change very quickly. If you must go, see war zone safety.
Are there any examples of Jews being kidnapped in Palestine for wearing Star of David necklaces? If you can't produce that evidence, then that warning really needs to be taken from the page. It sounds like racist POV to me.
I've never been to Palestine, but I have a lot of friends who have gone (including Jewish people). The notion that Palestine is a no man's land where the local people are looking for foreigners to kidnap seems pretty wrong, and frankly, racist to me. And regarding the governments that issue warnings to their citizens about travel to Palestine, it's worth noting that the governments cited (British and American) are supporters of Isreal, and the US is constantly demonizing Palestinian society. Maybe that's why the State Department warns US citizens, because it's own personnel are in danger when they travel to Palestine, given the US government's hostility toward it.Khuryps 22:59, 17 November 2007 (EST)
An anonymous user changed the capital from Ramallah to East Jerusalem. I reverted without much thought given the level of attention this article gets, but thinking about it further, with the recent Hamas / Fatah split of the West Bank and Gaza I don't actually know what is considered the current capital. If there is another city that is now the de facto capital, or if there is no longer a true capital, please update the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:38, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Ramallah is still the de facto capital, although the PA continues to claim that Jerusalem is/will be their real capital. Jpatokal 22:54, 4 February 2008 (EST)
I edited it where it said it is necessary to respect Palestinians due to the Israeli occupation to due to the Arab-Israeli conflict, because there is no occupation. Do you consider it to be occupation in the U.S., because Native Americans don't have their own country? Is there an Australian occupation? How about Canadian? They act like it's some crime to establish our state, well the real crime was 6,000,000 of us being killed, and we need our own state if, godforbid, something like that ever happened again, so we would have somewhere to go. Arab-Israeli conflict is fine, occupation is not.
The nature of a wiki is that anyone can edit it, and every article that has any bearing on the Israeli-Palestinian situation gets tons of edits that slant it in either direction - it is impossible to keep up with all of them all the time, so cleanups like yours are appreciated. Wikitravel:Be fair describes the official policy on addressing divisive topics, but please understand that there will always be someone who edits an otherwise reasonable article to inject divisive views. While we try to patrol for such edits, any help in correcting them is appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:37, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Regardless of what the person above thinks. The West Bank and Gaza are deemed under occupation by Israel by the world, also known as the international community or the UN. Deal with it! Even the Israeli government admits this. The situation in the Golan and E. Jer. the is different but again the international community does not recognize this as part of Israel! Take your political / nationalistic rants elsewhere. The object is being neutral here and the word occupation is a fact. I suggest you check the legal status of the area before you let your emotions get in the way...
Palestinian Authhority considers Ramallah, "temporary capital". East Jerusalem is an occupied territory according to United Nations (several General Assembly resolutions ask Israel to withdraw the territory).
The 6.000.000 figure is questioned by majority of historians today (i.e: Auschwitz plates in honour of dead people (not only Jews) has been decreased a couple of times). 6.000.000 figure appears in 1943 documents, also in post WW I documents. Finally, did Palestinians supported Nazism? what kind of argument is that? I don't want to be polemic with the 6 million figure because it deals nothing with Palestine.
"Occupation" is the accurate term according to United Nations and International Law, not my opinion, but Law. If someone feels offended by that term he should consider that they were the same United Nations who approved the establishment of Israel. Please put a little coherence. If we consider UN as to legitimate the creation of a new State (so we do recognize the State of Israel) we should apply the same UN criterion elsewhere and to make clear that Israel is not only occupying but, doing so, also violating a great number of UN resolutions (more than any other country). My claim is not POV for Palestinians nor for Israelis, but for the respect of International Law (the more perfect instrument humankind has to resolve conflicts in the moment I'm writing). I am in Jerusalem now to study the conflict, the base to do it should begin by studying the legal documents and not the suffering of Jews during WW II). I've found very interesting a travel guide to the holy sites edited by Palestinian Initiative to Responsible Tourism with the support of Christian networks in the Holy Land. I don't think Christians networks could be under suspicion of being pro-Palestinians, much less anti-Jewish. Please have a look to their Code of Conduct  to see by yourselves how impartial it seems. Good vibes to Jews and Palestinians. ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 July 2010
The fact is though that Jerusalem remains the capital of Palestine and since there is no Palestinian state we can only regard the capital as that considered by the people to be their capital. Jerusalem is clearly the city identified by most, if not all, to be the capital. If this site wants to be apolitical, both Israel and the oPt articles should refer 'disputed' or some similar point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
It's clear that the capital is in dispute (and the article states this) but from a traveler's perspective the capital is not Jerusalem - Israel controls that city, and as I understand it the Palestinian authority does not have a significant presence there. A traveler looking for government offices will find them in Ramallah, and thus as a practical matter, since there isn't an internationally agreed-upon choice, that would seem (to me) like the correct city to use in a travel article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:27, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
Per WikiPedia:Ramallah, Ramallah is the "administrative capital". Would changing the language in this article to reflect that be sufficient? -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:37, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
Yes, the use of the label administrative capital would be clearer. I understand your point about travelers and practicalities but Palestine is a political place and calling Ramallah the capital may alienate you. When Israelis try to wipe Arabic names off the map, such distinctions become more important. In any case, the article on Israel accepts Jerusalem as its capital although you mean West Jerusalem and many countries do not recognise this, placing embassies in Tel Aviv.