The purpose of the suggested changes is to better reflect the situation on the ground, especially in the division of control over the West Bank (the situation in OSM today is that there are two different districts on the same territory, and the “Palestine” relation covers also areas which Palestinian Authority has no control over)
The suggested changes are:
Changes to relations:
“Palestine” relation (1703814) - Inculde (besides Gaza Strip) only areas A+B of west bank and not whole West Bank, as Palestinian Authority not controlles all of West Bank and also, it is unlikely (as of today) that it will control the entire West Bank in the future (maybe it will gain control of more areas of the West Bank but if that happens there will be reason to update it on OSM) - This change was already implemented.
At the same time, not changing Israel’s relation to include territories in the West Bank, as long as Israel not annexed these territories.
2a. Changing relation of West Bank (1613659) to include only areas that are under civilian control of the Palestinian Authority (Areas A+B).
2b. Changing relation of Judea and Samaria (1803010) to include only areas that are under civilian control of Israel (Area C).
2c. Creating new relation (which will be historically and not administrative) which will describe the West Bank as it was in the Jordanian Era.
Changing the West Bank subdistricts/governorates to match both Israeli and Palestinian Division.
(The way I propose to do this is: taking the map of the Israeli subdistricts and reduce it to Area C. taking the map of Palestinian Governorates and reduce it to A+B areas. Then merging each subdistricts/governorate according to it’s name).
(refer to relations 4733518, 4733519, 4733520, 4733521, 4733522, 4733523, 4733524, 4733525, 4733526, 4733527, 4733528)
Change the admin level of Areas A, B, C, H1, H2 to admin_level=6 . currently it’s admin_level=5 but clashes with the subdistricts.
if we will change it to admin_level=4 it will clash with the districts.
(refer to relations 3791783, 3791784, 3791785, 7391020, 7391021)
the “Note” after “Districts” section will be chaged to:
“In OSM, Judea and Samaria relation represents areas under Israeli civilian control, but without being annexed by Israel.”
“Judea and Samaria is almost the same as the West Bank but it excludes East Jerusalem, which is part of the Jerusalem district.”
The description of “Palestine” will be chaged to:
“A relation consisting of Gaza Strip and areas of West Bank that are under civilian control of the Palestinian Authority.”
“A relation consisting of both Gaza Strip and West Bank”
The description of “West Bank” will be chaged to:
“consisting of areas of West Bank that are under civilian control of the Palestinian Authority.”
“Based on the 1949 Armistice Line and the Jordanian national border. Not to be confused with the Judea and Samaria administrative district (see the note above).”
and after this line will be added:
(see also: XXX - West Bank as a district of Jordan 1948-1967)
XXX will reffer to a new relation.
removing line “(See also: barriers in construction relation 1948518, all barriers relation 1948505)” as these relations was removed and due to the fact that currently there is no construction of the Separation Wall and there is no any plan of continue construction in the future.
I am no expert in the area, just trying to provide some feedback in light of the lack so far. So forgive me if i cover a point that has long been settled.
The Palestinian Territories relation is as i understand you meant to indicate the area under de facto civilian control of the Palestinian Authority/Hamas. That does not seem to be the case for the maritime borders of the Gaza strip where de facto civilian control according to
I think the current status is OK: The Gaza Strip relation covers only it’s land area (+about 400 metes away from coastline) while Palestinian Territories relation covers also 12 nautical miles, which are controlled de facto by Israel, but was recognized by Israel as Palestinian area in Oslo Accords.
De-facto, Israel control the Gaza Strip marine area and Hamas have no control at all in the marine area. Yet Israel allowing fishing activity as far as 15 nautical miles (since April 2019), yet it depends whether there is not terror activity from Gaza (such as rockets launching or incendiary balloons launching) which causes Israel limiting the fishing space for 10-15 days.
This case different from that of Area C in the West Bank because Israel did not recognized area C as Palestinian territories (at least at the stage of the Interim Agreement), and it is more similar to the situation in Areas A and B of the West Bank, that Israel recognized as Palestinian territory and yet does not refrain from military activity there.
“Palestine” is not a state. “Palestine” does not have a single central government, it does not have an army, it does not have control over airspace and most of the territory it claims. In practice, the Palestinian Authority, is responsible for some of the civilian needs of the residents in the West Bank (and it does that very badly if you ask me). In the Gaza Strip, there’s an alternative government run by Hamas Movement.
Other than that, no one is occupying “Palestine”. The territories claimed by the Palestinians were occupied by Israel from Egypt and Jordan. This happened in 1967 and there was no Palestinian entity at all at this time. Also, the UN Resolution 181 (II) from 1947, to establish arab state next to a jewish state in Palestine* was rejected by the Arabs (Palestinians as well).
*at that point, people may say “basically Palestine exiested before”, so I note that in fact, the’re was never an Independent Palestinian-Arab state before. Palestine was just a region that was controlled by some imperial powers. The last indepent state in this region was Jewish. Before 1948, also Jews who lived in the area was called “Palestinians” and the term “Palestinians” was adopted very late afterwards to describe specifically the Arab residents.
Therefore, it is impossible to compare “Palestine” to Ukraine. However, I appreciate the example you gave and it can certainly help in resolving similar conflicts.
Another point, and correct me if I’m wrong, when you write that “Palestine” should have borders recognized by the UN, I guess you mean that in OSM, we have to map “Palestine” so that it includes the entire West Bank. My response to this, as I wrote in the main post, that it is unlikely that the Palestinian Authority will gain control of the entire West Bank in the foreseeable future, and if it will gain control of more areas we can always update that in OSM.
I looked at the map in this article(1) and there’s nothing ambiguous about it. International community recognizes Palestine 1967 borders. Same as Crimea within Ukraine borders. Or you are against that?
You can draw Isreal borders however you want, bit Palestine should be 1967-style. You can also add some secondary relations if you want.
That is not true. First, you can’t use the term “International community” as not all the world countries recognizes “Palestine”. Second thing, most of the countries that do recognize “Palestine” are not recognizes it’s current borders, maybe support the idea that the borders of “Palestine” should be conceptually based on the 1967 borders, not that this is the case at this time. In OSM, the situation should be based on the situation on the ground and not on future ideas.