Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:14, 18 March 2009 editNoCal100 (talk | contribs)2,643 edits →Acceptance of partition plan← Previous edit Revision as of 14:36, 18 March 2009 edit undoNoCal100 (talk | contribs)2,643 edits →Acceptance of partition planNext edit →
Line 305: Line 305:


== Acceptance of partition plan == == Acceptance of partition plan ==
AK - you are attempting to push the POV that the Yishuv didn't "really" accept the plan. I have provided a direct quote , from an academic source that says it accepted the plan - please don't replace this with original research about Brit Shalom, which had been disbanded more than a decade earlier, or about Magnes, who was on his deathbed in NY and not part of the Yishuv at the time, all of this based on a source which does not mention the partition plan at all. You are also violating ] by inserting a lengthy quote from Silver. This article is an overview, and the section itself a summary of the historical a timeline - these details belong in the article about the partition plan, not here. ] (]) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC) AK - you are attempting to push the POV that the Yishuv didn't "really" accept the plan. I have removed a source you added, which does not talk about opposiiton to the partion plan at all, but rather about the Biltmore progarm, and there's a direct quote , from an academic source that says the Yishuv accepted the plan - please don't replace this with original research about Brit Shalom, which had been disbanded more than a decade earlier, or about Magnes, who was on his deathbed in NY and not part of the Yishuv at the time, all of this based on a source which does not mention the partition plan at all. You are also violating ] by inserting a lengthy quote from Silver. This article is an overview, and the section itself a summary of the historical a timeline - these details belong in the article about the partition plan, not here. ] (]) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:36, 18 March 2009

WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages

There is a request, submitted by Allen314159 (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important Subject in relation to Current Events".

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.
Good articlesIsraeli–Palestinian conflict was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 19, 2008, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
WikiProject iconIsrael B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 4 months 

Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22


Archive 5 - an essay about "Hate, propaganda and information"
Archive 6 (2004 to Sept. 2006)
Archive 7 (2006-2007)
Archive 10 - contains only discussions relating to the new introduction which was drafted between 23/2/08 and 3/3/08. If you have a problem with the intro and are considering editing it, PLEASE READ THIS ARCHIVE FIRST.
Archive 11 - Disputed vs Occupied. This Archive contains copious discussion as well as TWO RFCs! Thus it is imperative that you read this archive FIRST if you wish to add anything as it is highly likely your grievance has already been discussed and dealt with.
Archive 12 - Casualty figures discussion.
Archive 13 various major discussions from Jan 2008-June 2008.


This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Resolution of content disputes

Here is a record of consensus items on this article.


Controversy management on wikipedia

  • Controversies must be detailled and all pov's must be pointed out.
  • If they cannot be detailled (too long, undue weight) or if too many pov's should be explained (undue weight for the article), they should not be introduced but only their existence pointed out and readers sent towards more detailled article.
  • Any editor who having know-how of the controversies and who tries to put forward only one side systematically is called a pov-pusher and should refrain editing[REDACTED] which is not the appropriate battleground for these matters. Ceedjee (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I do insist. I have just reverted a "but Finkelstein considers that..." Ceedjee (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Finkelstein refers to a consensus among serious scholars.
You want the article to state your pov, namely that the causes are controversial, while there is another pov that says there is a consensus on one part of the causes, namely that it was an ethnic cleansing and that the controverse is on whether there was a deliberate policy to that effect.
You are pushing your pov, I'm pushing Finkelstein's. According to Misplaced Pages policy, both should be in (at least if yours is reliably sourced).
Certainly Finkelsteins observation is not given undue weight. This is an article on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The exodus is the major cause of the conflict! --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
How can Finkelstien refers to a consensus among serious scholars when none of them agree.
More what he calls consensus would be ethnic cleansing. Don't make fun of us.
I don't push any pov. There is no consensus : this is something extremely factual !
The only pov-pusher here is you ! Addtionnaly you are a problematic editor who wants to writes Finkelstein comments on all articles related to Israel. Nobody agrees with you.
Ceedjee (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Please conform to[REDACTED] policy. In your pov there is no consensus, but you are not a source for[REDACTED] articles. Finkelstein is a RS saying there is consensus in some respect. It's relevant and reliable, so I add it.
Please stop pushing your pov, i.e. that it's all controversial. I will leave that pov in, although I don't agree with it. So I expect you to respect Finkelstein's pov. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm simply adding a relevant statement from a reliable source. The fact that you don't agree with the statement is no reason to remove it! --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No. You ADD one pov where there are many.
It is clear they are many pov on the matter.
You keep not respecting NPoV in only focusing on 1 pov.
Ceedjee (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I should explain it again: there are 'povs on the causes of the exodus' and there are 'povs on the debate on the causes of the exodus'. You are referring to povs in the first category, but Finkelsteins pov is in the second category, like your pov that there is only controversy. You are pushing the pov that there is a controversy, while a reliable source says that, at leasst in some respect, there is not. Please think .... . --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
As I write before too :
If Einstein would write that the "water boils at 95°" but other scientists would write "water boils at 100°", "water boils at 90°" or "water boils at 105°".
Quoting "Einstein writes that all serious scientists think water boils at 95°" is pov.
Stop making fun of us now. Ceedjee (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh... But I have a solution :
Many scholars debate around the causes of the 1948 exodus (we can give 5 differents ones in reference with Karsh - Gelber - Morris - Flahan and Masalha) nevertheless Finkelstein thinks all serious historians share his mind. You can add this on Finkelstein article if you like.
Would this fit your mind ?
Ceedjee (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) i reverted because finklstein is not a reliable source - even more so when he subjectively talks about his perceptions of other scholars. Jaakobou 12:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is a very reliable source. He's been attacked ad hominem, but his attackers have always been powerless against his arguments. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo, You would be correct about finklstein being an extremely reliable source... if we were to live in a holocaust revisionistic space-time continuum. Jaakobou 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You forgot answering me just above, concerning these powerless arguments. Ceedjee (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo, you are the only one here claiming Finkelstein is a "very reliable source". That hardly makes for a consensus. His writings are grotesquely against the mainstream and thus especially subject to what we call "undue weight" when and if we cite him. He is a reliable source not of solid, constructive scholarship but generally of attacks on the work of others. Contrary to your statement that "his attackers have always been powerless", I seem to recall that he lost his last academic job on account of questionable scholarship, and that it was not the first time. When you insist on quoting what he thinks of others' work, you are telling readers of this article nothing useful about what actually happened in history. Worse, you are misleading them, since any view other than Finkelstein's is branded, tendentiously, as coming from a scholar who is not serious. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Finkelstein is a reliable source, by the standards of wp:rs. He has published several books which have been controversial and gotten both favorable and unfavorable reviews. If Finkelstein claims that serious scholars concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, that's a legitimate claim of consensus by WP rules. I think it should stay in, unless you can come up with serious scholars who do not concede that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. If there's a controversy over whether Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, we should add to Finkelstein's assessment the names of some of the scholars who agree, along with the names of some of the scholars who don't agree.
I don't agree that Finkelstein's writings are "grotesque," whatever that means. They may go against the mainstream among the American Jewish fundraising establishment, but they don't go against the mainstream among Israeli Jews, where it is a subject of vigorous debate, or even among American Jews, many of whom agree with him. Nbauman (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Nbauman, they don't go against mainstream israeli views? you have any reliable sources saying this? Jaakobou 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the citation, he claims that all serious scholars concede the point. He is not qualified to represent all serious scholars (perhaps no one is); "serious" is tendentious, and so is "concede". I think you will find, upon looking closely, that he is not widely respected for balanced views or scholarship. Why would you want to use him as a source, other than to steer the article away from objectivity? Hertz1888 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, who are the scholars that Finkelstein cites who concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed? Nbauman (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ilan Pappe for one. Suicup (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Some people think that Finkelstein represents a minority pov. Maybe this is so if the general public is considered. But the general public's opinion is not what should guide us here. We should be guided by reliable sources. By the consensus of scholars, not by public opinion. If 51% of Americans believe they found WMD in Iraq should we write that here?
@Hertz: You are misquoting me: I said his attackers have always been powerless against his arguments . Apparently you can't argue with that. His reliability has not even been scratched!
I'm not required to argue pro or con their powerlessness, and decline to be drawn into that highly subjective side issue. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore you acuse me of saying all other scholars are not serious. I've never said, nor implied that. If you can find a reliable source having another pov you're free to put it in the article.
You don't have to say it; the wording "all serious scholars concede" implies that anyone who doesn't concede is not a serious scholar. I am certain I am not the only one who would read it that way. Also, since to concede is to recognize a truth, use of that word "concede" is very sneaky -- implying that a truth has been established for the "serious scholars" of Finkelstein's choosing (and yours) to recognize. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly Finkelstein is qualified to judge on the consensus of scholars on this subject. He has followed the discussion for twenty years, and he is a good scientist, as was confirmed by DePaul University.
That must be why they denied him tenure. Maybe it is time for you to find yourself a new hero. Please stop wasting our time here, and your own. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Finkelstein is not specifying who he means with all serious scholars, but I can imagine he means
Flapan: the Jewish army under the leadership of Ben-Gurion, planned and executed the expulsion (Simha Flapan , 1987, ‘The Palestinian Exodus of 1948’, J. Palestine Studies 16 (4), p. 3-26.),
Morris: There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing. That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them ],
Pappe: The ethnic cleansing of Palestine,
Masalha: Expulsion of the Palestinians,
Walid Khalidi: Plan Dalet: master plan for the conquest of Palestine, J. Palestine Studies 18 (1), 1988, p. 4-33.
I think he also means Gelber: The local deportations of May-June 1948 appeared both militarily vital and morally justified., ... These later refugees were sometimes literally deported across the lines. In certain cases, IDF units terrorized them to hasten their flight, and isolated massacres - particularly during the liberation of Galilee and the Negev in October 1948 - expedited the flight. ... The vast majority of Israelis did not think that the Palestinians should fare better and wanted to apply this principle to the Middle East ], but I'm not sure of that. As you can read in the source, Gelber seems to be especially concerned with justifying Zionist behavior, and I'm not sure how serious Finkelstein thinks he is. Anyway, based on what Gelber says he can hardly deny that it wasn't at least partially an ethnic cleansing.
It seems quite clear to me that at least five of these serious historians now concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed and that Gelber probably also falls into this category.
Finkelsteins statement isn't as strange as you might have thought. In fact its true! --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The question was : how do you know he refers to them !??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceedjee (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Gelber and Morris do not. (your misquotation of Morris is explained in other topic).
Nor do Masalha. Expulsion is not ethnic cleansing. Read Pappe to understand the difference.
I don't know concerning Khalidi but he does not in the article about Plan Daleth.
And remain traditionnal historians such as Shabtai Teveth, Anita Shapira, Efraim Karsh and Laqueur. New historians such as Tom Segev and Avi Shlaim who do not use that for the whole exodus (Segev does for Dani and Hiram, referring to Morris). What about David Tal and Uri Millstein ? And Dan Kurzman ? And I can also refert to French historian Henry Laurens and up to now Dominique Vidal (but he has just published a book about that).
Ceedjee (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Finkelstein refers to what scholars concede now. If your interpretation is different from Finkelstein's its probably OR (or you should find a RS confirming your interpretation).
Also your 'moral' appeals to me to stop putting in my (relevant and sourced) edits is totally unconvincing: each time you do this you accompany it by an edit reversing me. Shouldn't you give the good example if you want to be convincing? --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Stop talking about my interpretation and Finkelstein's one.
The only issue here is your interpretation of Morris, of Finkelstein and all others.
You have been answered on many talk pages.
concede now... now when ? Flapan died in 1987. Khalidi wrote his article in 1961. Stop making fun of us.
Ceedjee (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is dissapointing indeed. First JaapBoBo tried to add some of Finkelstein's pseudo-research into the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. When he failed, he asked me to participate in . I agreed, but JaapBoBo apparently lost interest in the mediation once we both agreed that unreliable scholars/scholarship were not to be allowed in the article. Then JaapBoBo asked an unknown entity (me? the mediator? the[REDACTED] community in general?) to provide a list of my arguments for why Finkelstein shouldn't be in the article so that he can rip the arguments to shreads. In fact, since it is he who wants to change the status quo, the exact opposite is true: he must provide the arguments and I am obligated to rip them to shreds. Now he's trying to add Finkelstein trash into other articles without continuing the mediation. Shame on you, JaapBoBo, for your dishonorable behavior. --GHcool (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, please behave properly. You are twisting my words. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If I am twisting JaapBoBo's words, and I deny that I am, then I think we can all agree that JaapBoBo's time and energy would be better spent clarifying his words at the mediation rather than shoving Finkelstein's pseudo-research down everybody's throats. --GHcool (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo *you* are twisting scholars'words. Ceedjee (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
@GHcool - your feelings about Finkelstein are obviously extremely strong. However, you've failed to make any dent in his scholarship, which most everyone agrees to be really very good. Not only does his book "The Holocaust Industry" get a hugely respectable score of 69 citations in "Google Scholar", but his thesis is now being tested in Israeli courts and the first conviction for fraud has just come through. If you have real objections to his work, and are not just sounding off, now is the time to present them. PR 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This si a real fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.141 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

I find the Casualties section to be somewhat one-sided, whereby it mentions various means by which Israeli actions have yielded Palestinian casualties (eg, artillery sheeling, settler violence, etc), yet it gives no examples of the types of terrorism used to infict Israeli casualties, particularly the universally-condemned massive use of Palestinian suicide bombers targeting Israeli civilians. Although a subtle point, the result of the current account is that the naive reader is presented with various ways in which to visualize Israeli violence, yet Palestinian aggression remains seemingly abstract, thereby implicitly giving the obviously-POV imprssion of aggressor-victim. I think that suicide bombers, at the very least, should be mentioned in this section as a popular means of inflicting Israeli casualties. Rabend (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --GHcool (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I'm the guy who originally inserted the data. In the sources used, there was no break-down of types of actions that lead to Israeli casualties, which is why this wasn't added. If you can find a reliable source with an adequate break-down (e.g. number due to suicide bombing, shooting, missiles, etc...), then please, add it! Cheers, pedrito - talk - 01.09.2008 06:42


There is a new edition of The Humanitarian Monitor now with the 2008 casualty numbers. . Plbogen (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives

What has happened to the archives for this talk page? They are all red-linked, and unavailable. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

good question. what happened? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant information to be removed

Curently, the section Core issues features some irrelevant information. Specifically, the subsection entitled Palestinian refugees goes at length to describe the works of "New Historians", which claim that Arabs were forcibly expelled by the Jews back in 1948. Without even touching on validity of their claims, I doubt it is appropriate to mention "New Historians" at all in this particular section at least. The point of negotiations between Israelis and Paletinians is the future of refugees, not their history. Discussing the history of Palestinian dispora has never been regarded as part of Israeli–Palestinian conflict, nor does it representthe "core issue that needs to be resolved". The whole nature of negotiations between Israel and PA is very much political, rather than academic. In this light books of "New Historians" and "Old Historians" appear to be irrelevant to this section. Keverich1 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Israelis-Palestinians

"dispute between Israelis and Palestinians" - in my opinion, this wording is more consistent and better reflects the ethnic side of the conflict. We know that conflict has started long before State of Israel came into existence, so to reduce the conflict to the dispute between the State and the people would be massively inaccurate.Keverich1 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Before the state of Israel existed, there were no Israelis (next thing you say: No Israelis, no conflict - solved?). And: today the state is occupying the occupied territories. I propose undo -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"Israelis and Palestinians" is how the BBC uses them. That's good enough for me. --GHcool (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, BBC writes: "Jewish people of Israel" , which might be more accurate. Do the Israeli arabs have a conflict with the Palestinians too, then? So, lets change the title into Jewish people of Israel—Palestinian conflict. If that's good enough for you. -DePiep (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the same reference also writes the Arab-Israeli conflict (note the inversion of sequence)). Three descriptions in just over 150 words. You can pick anyone you like. But for[REDACTED] we can say: since the BBC is not defining, we can ignore that source. At least we should not exclude the state of Israel. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm puzzled why we don't use people's own descriptions for themselves, viz Zionists and Palestinians. The second of those words is either debatable or inaccurate (would people prefer Arab?), but the first fits the case exactly. Please feel free to move this question out of the way else if it needs answering at length. PR 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The immense majority of the reliable sources talk of "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict/dispute. Stop the OR speculation, this is inserting novel ideas into the narrative, a huge break of pretty much every basic policy on content.

That said, there are plenty of articles on the conflicts before the founding of Israel between Zionist organizations and the local population of the British Mandate - perhaps we need a Palestinian-Yishuv conflict article, but it is beyond the scope of this article. On the Palestinian side, since they lack a widely recognized State, we must be more vague, but sources overwhelmingly support calling for describe Palestinian as such. Lets not be anachronistic: Zionists have a widely recognized State, called Israel, and are no longer a bunch of guerrillas fighting the British and the Palestinian Arabs; that said the period between the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the establishment of Israel can be included in this conflict as the pre-history of this conflict. Why is such a basic, widely embraced, fact is even under debate is beyond me.

BTW, Zionists overwhelmingly describe themselves as Israelis, so we are actually using the self-description. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be a little tricky when considering the conflict prior to the founding of the State of Israel. Before that time, both sides of the conflict were called "Palestinians," i.e. citizens of the British Mandate for Palestine. In that regard, the pre-State of Israel conflict was a kind of civil war. The way it is worded now ("dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians") is an accurate description of the 2008 reality of the conflict. It would be too cumbersome to start explaining the difference between an Israeli and a Jewish citizen of Mandatory Palestine, a Palestinian and an Arab citizen of Mandatory Palestine, etc etc. For this reason, I suggest that we keep it as it. --GHcool (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
For this very same reason I suggest we (re)change the title to like Israel and the Palatinians. What would be ok in say 19xx, should be described, but not be decisive. Today is the fact, the rest is (to be described as) hstory. Now let s change the title. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea at all. Most scholarly works refer to the conflict as the "Israeli-Palestinian" or "Palestinian-Israeli" "conflict" or "issue" etc. I've personally heard it described most often as the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." "Israeli" is spoken first because it is alphabetically before "Palestinian" (just as "Arab" is alphabetically before "Israeli" in "Arab-Israeli conflict"). --GHcool (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
GHcool writes ("dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians") is an accurate description. Still that excludes the state of Israel, which is obviously involved. And it does not dicriminate between jewish and Arab Israelis. So, accurate: no. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I fear that a one sentence summary of anything as complex as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will never include every little nook and cranny of detail. The point is, broadly speaking, the Israelis believe they have a right to sovereignty and security over what is now known as the State of Israel and Palestinians believe that they have the right to sovereignty over at least some of what is now known as the State of Israel and they have shown little concern over the past 60 years over Israel's security. Again, that is the conflict in a nutshell: two people want the same land. The details are obviously very important, but the first sentence has to be short and punchy. --GHcool (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I object to this possible diminishment of the objective description of this specific topic. the conflict is not between individuals; it is between a state on one side which seeks to advance its views and principles, and on the other side a group of people who seek to advance their views as they see fit in accordance with their priniciples. So I feel the current phrasing should remain; it is Israel vs the Palestinians. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
But that isn't entirely accurate, either. It used to be Israel vs. the Palestinian Authority. Now it is Israel vs. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a bunch of other Palestinian terrorist organizations. These organizations are hardly individual or helpless, and they've taken the rest of the Palestinian population hostage. ← Michael Safyan 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Look, we can debate all day long about the different subgroups of "Israelis" and "Palestinians" and where they lie in relation to the greater conflict. The point is that one group, Israel or the Israelis, supports the sovereignty and security of the modern State of Israel in the specified geographical area ahead of the Palestinians' rights at least some of the land while the other group, the Palestinians, supports Palestinian rights to at least some of the land ahead of the State of Israel's security and sovereignty. Each of the dozens of subgroups on both sides only support their nation's position by a matter of degrees. --GHcool (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
RE GHcool, who writes here, in sequence, about the title: (1) is how the BBC uses them. That's good enough for me. (2)is an accurate description of the 2008 reality, (3) the Israelis believe ... and Palestinians believe ... (4) subgroups of "Israelis": the argument is changing along the way. Please make up your mind. Since (4) is the most recent one (at this moment), I can say: it's not about subgroups. The topic is: the state of Israel should be included in the title. Who is bombing Gaza today? -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me if the first sentence is, "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing dispute between the State of Israel and the Palestinians" (emphasis added). It means virtually the same thing. --GHcool (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Vitually? What are we doing here? Aren't we trying to write an encyclopedia? If it gets near a point, any point, you jump out of the answer. We do not need a delusive introduction, but as you suggest: the title should be: Israel–Palestinian_conflict. Thanx. Looking forward to your next pose (not really). -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Simplistic? (changed from section to bold. See 1srt reaction -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ) In the article it says "Essentially, it is a dispute between two national identities with claims over the same area of land." Don't you think that this simplifies the conflict too much? I feel that it should be removed because it doesn't fully represent the conflict. First of all this statement makes it seem as if Palestinians and Israelis are on equal terms, however Israel occupies Palestine and the land that is disputed. Secondly, most of the land Israel currently resides on land that was taken either by creating new laws which allowed it, or by forcefully and illegally taking over the land (such as illegal Israeli settlements and the illegal wall), the only claim they had to the land before 1948 was religious, and not everyone on earth is a Jew, therefore its not everyone's belief that its the "promised land." There are many issues entailing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as shown by this article) which have not been included in this overly simplistic sentence, and so I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo Alem (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a new subsection required. Changed into a re-no-indent remark DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
What remains: the title should be "Israel-Palestinian coflict" (i.e. the state, not the peple). No serious remarks above on this. (Clearly, as pointed: text-related or, bad habit, changing view along the way does GHcool). -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I might have written a rebuttal to Jo Alem's argument if I could understand it. The diction and syntax are making me scratch my head. Perhaps English is not Jo Alem's first language. :shrug: --GHcool (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This talk is useless. Title canot be changed. Why talk then? I wish you a white phosfor. -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of reporting DePiep's threat to here. --GHcool (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Changing subject again, (User:GHcool)? Lets change the title. That is the topic. It´s am Israel-Palestinian conflict. The white phosfor (you spell it as you like, they receive it as it is) is dropped by the state of Israel. Why do you take this personally? By the way, you forgot to mention the war. -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Current status and POV

I find the latter part of the Current Status section, marked by this week's operation in Gaza, to be rather blatantly POV.
Reducing about 8 years of rockets from Gaza directed almost exclusively into Israeli towns and villages into "rockets into fairly empty Israeli territory", followed by "bombing Gaza" and the quotation marks around the "Hamas militants" is an out-of-context, one-sided account. Rabend (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

PMW

  1. This girl's opinion is insignificant in this article, who is this girl exactly? is she the spokeswoman for the Palestinian people?
  2. Abbas quote was: "We ask of you, don't stop the ceasefire" ... etc. This does not mean that he lays responsibility for Hamas on what has happened, Israel takes blame too and Abbas has criticized Israel for it.
  3. PMW reliability has been discussed at length here, here and here. There is really no point of discussing this over and over again. Imad marie (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced by the previous arguments that PMW's translators are somehow less reliable than any other translator of Arabic anywhere else in the world, however, this seems a moot point since Abbas was quoted on Al-Jazeera as blaming Hamas for the troubles in Gaza. --GHcool (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of the tables in the Casualties section

I propose that the Casualties section is re-structured such that the tables arrange the information starting with the most recent. Right now it's kind of just random. I think it makes sense to start with the most recent because that more likely to be the information people are after. I also proposed to move the "numbers in brakets represent casualties under the age of 18" phrase from the titles of the tables to footnotes (perhaps in a new bottom row). The phrase is too long, is repeated too many times so it clutters up the article, especially when printed. I will wait a while for other opinions but if nobody offers any I will just go ahead and make the change at some point in a week or two. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jason,
I originally added the casualty figures. The tables are already ordered in reverse chronology, starting with the latest figures from the OCHAoPt. The following two tables con==tain the figures from B'Tselem for the First and Second Intifada, in that order. The final table contains some historical data.
As for the "numbers in brackets", on my browser the title breaks anyway and it doesn't make the page any wider. I wouldn't remove them.
Do you want to move the tables around or the data within the tables? What do you want to change exactly?
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 05.01.2009 15:28
Hi, perdrio. The tables go in the order, 1) post 2005, 2) First Intifada, 3) Second Intifada, and 4) 1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt. So, the first and second intifadas are not chronological. I am suggesting that they go 1) post 2005, 2) Second Intifada, 3) First Intifada, and 4) 1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt. Also I propose the individual rows of the tables start with the most recent and go back in time (2008 first, then 2007, 2006, etc.) Currently, the flow of the section is go forward in time, jump way back in time, go forward in time, jump way way back in time. My suggestions, I think, would make the section more lucid. What do you think? Jason Quinn (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
After re-reading my first post, I see I wasn't very clear what I meant. Sorry. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Academic Boycotts

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3623714,00.html

Perhaps there needs to be a section discussing the collective punishment nature of the academic boycotts of Israeli academics?

121.44.214.65 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support something short on this subject. --GHcool (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I changed my mind. This phenomenon is not an important factor in a broad, general understanding of the conflict. --GHcool (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 conflict

The information on the most recent round of violence is already out of date. May I suggest using the casualty figures and references from the[REDACTED] page for "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict"? 173.32.62.74 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

i.e. 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict -DePiep (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish "exodus" from Arab countries

I have an issue with this paragraph:

"Since none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders—a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them."

How convenient to select a number higher than the corresponding number for Palestinian refugees. And how convenient that a "solution" has been offered for the issue of |right of return."

Though I scoured the Internet for days trying to find a site which would support this mythical and latest Jewish exodus I am pressed to find one.

Citing one source is insufficient evidence for a tragedy of this scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.213.115 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of citing two other sources. Thank you for your concern. --GHcool (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A handful of academics

I don't think it is solely or even mostly academics who support a one-state solution. A number of political parties and a large number of civil society groups also support the one state solution. I think we need to reconsider the sources and not only include Alan Dershowitz as a source for the "majority" support of a two state solution.--TM 14:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At present, Dershowitz is not cited as a source for the majority support of the two state solution. The two sources are here and here and I just added a third one. --GHcool (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli–Palestinian conflict infobox table

Template:Infobox Israeli-Palestinian conflict Does anyone object to using this infobox table in the article? 24.12.234.123 (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the idea of an infobox, but I do object to the wording of the proposed infobox, specifically to the following:
  • The map is POV as it showcases the Palestinian territories (and strangely names them "Palestine"). This map is much better.
  • "Location: Palestine" — try "Location: Israel and the Palestinian territories"
  • The "History" section only details milestones in the peace process. Please change the heading to "Peace Process." --GHcool (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
As you might see on the infobox to the left I have done the following changes:
  • I have changed the image - now it says "West Bank & Gaza".
  • I have changed the heading from "History" to "Peace Process".
Is the infobox good enough now ? please keep in mind that all infobox have to start from something and I am sure it would be heavily modified and become much better with time. 24.12.234.123 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this seems fine to me. Thank you for being so cooperative.  :) --GHcool (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a warning, the term "Israeli Occupation" is under dispute in the Israel article, so it might shift over here at some point. Goalie1998 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Great. In that case I'll add the infobox back to the article. 24.12.234.123 (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
GHcool, what do you think it should say instead of "under Israeli Occupation"? 24.12.234.123 (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that can simply be deleted without anything replacing it. Isn't it enough that it just identifies the West Bank and Gaza Strip? --GHcool (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamas-Fatah conflict -- the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

During this last Gaza war against Hamas, Israel was apparently aided by Fatah. Can we still call this an Israeli-Palestinian conflict? There should be a separate paragraph discussing this. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sometimes intersects with the Hamas-Fatah conflict, it is not one and the same. An analogy could be made with the Iraq War and the sectarian violence in Iraq. --GHcool (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right, but I think there should be a paragraph explaining this. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic cost dispute

I read through the reference (number 130) that the section titled Economic Cost came from, and I'm not sure that all the figures are entirely true. The primary dispute I have is the final sentence, quoted below.

In other words had there been peace and cooperation in the Middle East since 1991, every Palestinian citizen would be earning over $2,400 instead of the $1,200 in 2010. Every Israeli citizen would be earning over $44,000 instead of the $23,000 in 2010.

Where are those figures from? The total opportunity cost of conflict numbers I agree with, though I'm just not sure how the above figures were calculated. This should be mentioned in the section, because they're not mentioned in the reference. Please explain? Cybersteel8 (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians initiated by Irgun

Could Ashley kennedy3 provide the quote from Morris to support the claim that "Attacks on civilians was initiated by Irgun and Lehi." In Lapierre and Collins's O Jerusalem, its pretty clear that the Palestinian Arabs began the violence on Jewish civilians. I don't have own O Jerusalem, but I could get my hands on it if asked (it may take a few days). --GHcool (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ref was already supplied..and the use of hasbara sites is not exactly RS in Israel-palestinian conflict areas...please use acceptable references...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


I'm sorry but your removal of "intellectuals such as Judah Leon Magnes of Brit Shalom and president of the Hebrew University" here seems a tad like politically motivated POV and rather strange...as is your adherence to Israeli founding Myths that have been exposed some time ago....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

why the adherence to falsity of "the Yishuv acted as one unit" within the article.....I think you'll find that the Yishuv had many parts all with their own ideas...quite similar to the Palestinian Arabs in that respect....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, let's stick to one topic at a time. The topic is the claim that the Irgun attacks preceded the Arab attacks. Secondly, I'll ask that Ashley leave the ad hominems alone as they are not helpful.
I reserved Morris's book from the library. I haven't picked it up in a while, but I would be shocked to find that he doesn't mention the Arabs starting the attacks on civilians. If and when I find such information in the book, I intend on adding those details for context as I have with many of Ashley's edits.

he mentions individual snipers in Haifa snipping at each other but doesn't say who fired the first shot. surprisingly enough the hasbara myths that the "Arabs wot dun it" has been challenged on many occasions. I was initially surprised to see it still lingering around on wiki but I have since found that many wiki editors prefer to use outdated Hasbara myths to actual facts. Very similar to claiming that the Yishuv accepted the partition plan with no reservations or caveats. Where the actual speech by Shertok does nothing of the sort...rejects parts and adds caveats so as to accept partition in principal but not the details of the UN plan....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I did note the removal of Irgun and Lehi when the actual quote from morris says Irgun and Lehi...Is there a reason for "adding the context" by removing the actual words used in Morris's book? such as Irgun and Lehi attacks on civilians and Arab retaliation...because obviously removal of actual words used in the book seems more like POV than "adding the context"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon's entry into the war

Can the claim that "The Israeli forces only came in contact with Lebanese forces when Israel invaded Lebanon" be verified? --GHcool (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Every where..where as your claim can only be "substantiated" with the use of none RS hasbara...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Everywhere is overkill let's start with one specific reference, as required by WP:V. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

would you prefer RS or the palestinian equivalent to the hasbara sites that many Israeliophile editors use?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Acceptance of partition plan

AK - you are attempting to push the POV that the Yishuv didn't "really" accept the plan. I have removed a source you added, which does not talk about opposiiton to the partion plan at all, but rather about the Biltmore progarm, and there's a direct quote , from an academic source that says the Yishuv accepted the plan - please don't replace this with original research about Brit Shalom, which had been disbanded more than a decade earlier, or about Magnes, who was on his deathbed in NY and not part of the Yishuv at the time, all of this based on a source which does not mention the partition plan at all. You are also violating WP:UNDUE by inserting a lengthy quote from Silver. This article is an overview, and the section itself a summary of the historical a timeline - these details belong in the article about the partition plan, not here. NoCal100 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Difference between revisions Add topic