Jump to content

Talk:2013–2014 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Repetition. Attention Sepsis

[edit]

The prospects for the peace talks began looking bleak after Israel backtracked on its commitment to release the last 26 prisoners in late March 2014. In response Palestinian President Mamhoud Abbas signed papers to join 15 of 63 international organizations and treaties.

This part of your section on the 'Break down' repeats the substance of the edit I made above that, making for a consecutive repetition. Secondly, it is too early to speak of breakdown, since the deadline is the end of April. In any case I wonder if you could be so kind as to reexamine the flow, and if possible iron out or rewrite to avoid reduplications of information('backtrack' is a good word for what happened if the sources say this). Nishidani (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn I just keep screwing up; I'll cut out the first half of my addition. Sepsis II (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. We all screw up. The important thing is conscientiousness, and serenity. This is a collegial thing, and I prefer to tip dedicated editors off when they, like me, slip up, rather than revert or elide.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maan

[edit]

Hi. I am not sure how to add a topic. I notice the claim about Palestinians killed since the talk of the peace talks. The only source given is Maan. But, Maan has been involved in a number of biased articles. I can put together a quick list of examples if someone likes. They include flat out errors e.g., blaming Israel for Palestinian Deaths that turn out to be false and also not publishing any correction, to flat out hate articles e.g., their holocaust denial article. Their editorial staff is also partisan and are personally involved in the PA side. So, I am not sure they should be used as a source and at the very least, the allegations sourced to them should be fleshed out with research using other more reputable sources.

affinity

After a quick search I found this in TIME magazine[1]. The information/stats would need to be attributed to Saeb Erekat.
  • "...what the government of Israel has been doing during nine months of negotiations: killing 61 Palestinians, advancing more than 13,000 units in Israeli settlements, conducting almost 4,500 military operations on Palestinian land, demolishing 196 Palestinian homes and allowing more than 660 settler terror attacks against Palestinians" - Saeb Erekat is a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization Executive Committee and Head of the Palestinian Negotiations Team
I'm not sure about other stats but B'Tselem will have reliable stats about how many people have been killed.
  • There's also this, which can certainly be used as a source with attribution, just like an Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs document. It's an official document "Special Report: Israeli Violations During the Nine Months Negotiation Process - State of Palestine, Palestine Liberation Organization, Negotiations Affairs Department".
  • Haaretz[2] article about the PLO NAD document
  • Times of Israel[3]
  • Deccan Herald article[4]
There are probably more sources out there discussing this.
Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mondoweiss

[edit]

This is, in my personal view, a good source of information. However, I believe there has never been a consensus that it qualifies as RS, and therefore it should be removed (on Erekat's slamming Abbas's refusal to go to the ICC n.73). I would have removed it, but can't because of the 1 R rule. A second point, the al-Jazeera piece makes Netanyahu the first PM to make recognition of a Jewish state a precondition. This is technically true, but this was raised I think at Taba in 2001 and by Tzipi Livni in 2007in peace talks. Perhaps therefore the sentence should be tweaked with some source to clarify that. I think however that, as it stands, i.e., as a PM's formal sine qua non requirement, it's okay.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to examples where Mondoweiss has posted incorrect information? Sepsis II (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. But it has often been discussed at RS and got, unless I am mistaken, the thumbsdown as a 'blog'. I don't agree, but I go by whatever decision, stupid or not, wiki convention establishes.It would make my work easier if this were not the case, but this is no place for wishful thinking.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know some editors dislike it but they seem to me to be exclusively the same type which would also call Al Jazeera non RS. I listen to them as much I would if we had pro-Palestinian editors on here calling JPost non RS. Sepsis II (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As I explained in my edit summaries, the Jewish state is proclaimed in the Israeli independence declaration. Read the lead of this article. In fact, the democratic character of the state was officially added after the Jewish character. An opinion piece by Gregg Carlstrom in Al Jazeera can't be used as information and it should be avoided in such a controversial topic like this one, just like Mondoweiss (or HonestReporting for example). There are more neutral sources that can be used, including newspapers which are usually critical of Israel but serious at the same time.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Israel defined itself as a 'Jewish State' a distinct concept from 'state of the Jewish people', please note, then why are Dichter and Netanyahu developing a Basic Law to assert what has, in your iew, already been declared? Wiki is not a source, so don't link to it. Thirdly, Bernard Avishai (‘The Jewish State in Question, The New Yorker 2 Janury 2014) wri9tes that:'Netanyahu wants Israel recognized as a Jewish state. Strangely, Israel is perhaps the only country in the world that doesn’t recognize itself.' That last ironic sentence implicitly underlines what the al-Jazeera piece said.(Of course the whole massive stupidity of this proposition is that 'Jewish' means 'ethnicity' and 'religion'. Define the state as a Jewish state, without clarifying that this means it is an ethnocracy (bad enough), implies that it is also a religious state, where, as in fact de facto is the the case, Judaism inflects secular law. To require this and on the other hand promote rhetoric from New York to Tel Aviv for decades decrying islamic theocracies is, to say the least, absolutely bizarre.) Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I won't cite Wikipedia as a source, I was simply suggesting you to read the article's lead to understand Israel's definition as Jewish and democratic (independence declaration + Basic Laws... it's very simple actually). I quote The Guardian:
The proposed law would be in addition to Israel's declaration of independence of May 1948 – the anniversary of which is celebrated on Tuesday – which defines Israel as a Jewish state.
You can also read Israel's independence declaration here ("HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL").
Israel's definition as a Jewish state exists even before its establishment: Balfour Declaration ("Jewish National Home"), UN Partition Plan (it says "Jewish state" plenty of times).
Israel is a Jewish-nation state the same way than Syria is an Arab republic, despite having a significant non-Arab Kurdish minority (which is not the same than Iran as an Islamic Republic... Israel is not ruled by the Halakha, although some ultra-Orthodox Jews would love that). Israel defines itself as a Jewish state since 1948. I honestly don't know why Netanyahu is obsessed with changing the Basic Laws and I don't care. I know that Wikipedia should state facts, not lies. Israel defines itself as a Jewish state since 1948, and that's a fact.
BTW, I don't mind if you use reliable newspapers as sources, whether they are critical or supportive of Israel. But I don't think Al Jaazera should be considered reliable at all (it's full of lies), let alone an opinion piece published there by Carlstrom (which is not even news). There are a lot of newspapers in English covering this conflict.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both Ma'an and al Jazeera are mainstream papers accepted as RS. Most of our sources are from Haaretz and Ynet, with some input from Jerusalem Post. Ma'an has an enormous quantity of detail you do not find in all three Israeli mainstream newspapers. The intelligent thing to do is, when controversy exists, to give input from both. Ynet and JPost do not give significant reportage on the Palestinian side, unlike Haaretz.

Israel is a Jewish-nation state the same way than Syria is an Arab republic,

Nope, and don't speak of 'lies' (I recently corrected a list in the Jewish Virtual Library, and often have checked the official Israeli government site for data, and found both full of errors. Not for this does one speak of 'lies') As I said, the word 'Jewish' can indicate confessional or ethnic or both implications. 'Arab' does not have that double meaning, nor does 'Islamic' for that matter, since it refers purely to confessional values, not to ethnicity. Most of the confusion here stems from the simple fact that there is no clarity in what 'Jewish' means, the term is invariably ambiguous, and this does not apply to other terms. Your analogy is wrong.
As to the Declaration of the State of Independence, it is a profoundly ambiguous document, a piece of overblown romantic rhetoric full of mystification and errors ('Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world' is not true':large parts of the Bible were written in Babylon, the Wisdom of Solomon in Egypt), and while it is eminently a primary historial source, it is not, unless construed by secondary sources with a knowledge of the way its ideas are translated into legal implications, itself reliable.
The Declaration throughout says the Jewish State established in Eretz Israel is to be known as 'the state of Israel' not 'the Jewish state of Israel'. The use of Eretz Israel for Palestine also implies the state of the Jews can extend to all of historic Palestine and beyond, according to how rabbinical scholars determine the boundaries of Eretz Israel. The legal consequences that flow from these ambiguities are enormous, whichever way the terms are construed (the Arab inhabitants of Eretz Israel are called on to built the Jewish state). The point is, Palestinians take recognition of Israel to be the state declared of 14 of May, not the Jewish state proclaimed to be somewhere, perhaps everywhere, all over historic Palestine on that same date.
Nonetheless the Carlstrom addition is, on its own, problematical. I will look into it, and review my edit when, later today, I have time.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry for the delay in my response. If controversy exists, we shouldn't consider neither Arab nor Israeli news sites, but foreign newspapers in English. Therefore I'm changing the Al Jazeera opinion piece (which both of us consider at least 'problematic') for The Guardian.
Judaism is a religion, the Jewish people is an ethnic group. Even a atheist who is born from a Jewish mother is considered to be Jewish by the Halakha, as well as both religious and secular Jews. In the case of religions like Christianity or Islam, they expanded to many peoples around world, unlike Judaism which is practiced by a single nation, although there is a close relation between Arab identity and Islam (which it doesn't mean they are the same, and there are Arab Christians too). Regarding your personal opinion that the Israeli independence declaration is "a piece of overblown romantic rhetoric full of mystification and errors"... well, I've read many independence declarations of different countries, they all have "romantic" or even "mystical" rhetoric to shape new national identities. I don't think Israel's declaration is the case (it has more historical facts than "romanticism"), but this debate is irrelevant for our purpose: the independence declaration is considered in Israel as a legal document. Israel hasn't a formal constitution, that's why the vague ideas contained in such a declaration (the Jewish state; citizenship without distinction of race, gender or religion; free Jewish immigration, etc... borders aren't mentioned as you said) is considered, together with the Basic Laws, some kind of informal constitution or legal guidance for the state. But regardless of what you think about this declaration, there's one thing that it says without ambiguity: "... by virtue of our national and historic right and the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.". That's why The Guardian and many other reliable sources acknowledge this. Israel was established as a Jewish state, that's very clear.
In any case, despite this might be an interesting discussion that could take us months, I'm writing what reliable sources say. Nothing more, nothing less.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013–2014_Israeli–Palestinian_peace_talks&oldid=1225740009"