Jump to content

Talk:History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Introduction

The undercored part of this sentence needs backing up: Simultaneously Palestine's neighbour states entered the war in support of the Palestininians. AFAIK, they invaded to destroy Israel and did not hide their genocidal intentions. If that was meant "support of the Palestininians", we should say so. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 20:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"genocidal intentions"? The word genocide shouldn't be used needlessly. Have you got anything to back up this claim? There is a very, very big difference between "state" and its population. - pir 21:08, 26 September 2004 (UTC)

"(Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."

User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. IZAK 08:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i like how HistoryBuffEr continually puts up highly POV edits that have no factual basis and then complains when other users call him an anti-semite. I am starting to think that IZAK was entirely justified calling HistoryBuffer such. Xtra 09:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. No kidding! IZAK 05:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I realize that I am a couple years late contributing, but it seems to me that name-calling should not be encouraged on Wikipedia discussion pages. Just because a user was overly-critical of Israeli policy does not automatically make him an anti-Semite. He did not have enough historical evidence to include his points in the Wikipedia article, and it should be left at that. And for the record, if someone is overly-critical of Israel, it is probably because they have friends and family who have suffered as a direct result of Israel's current oppressive occupation of the Palestinian Territories. This clouds judgment, and it is certainly NOT a case of antisemitism, although perhaps a case of being anti-Israel. The distinction is immensely important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.170.191 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

I see that this has a "totally disputed" tag on it. I would very much appreciate if we could have a listing of the specific sentences (or omissions) in the article that are disputed, so that we have some chance of resolving the issues one by one. Most to the point, it appears that the note came from HistoryBuffEr, and he is threatening other people with disciplinary action for removing it, but he has not given the required notice here on the talk page of what he is disputing. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:48, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

It should be obvious why this article is diisputed: it largely copies text from already disputed articles and the article history shows that all attempts to NPOV it were quickly reverted by resident pro-Israel POV pushers.
However I'll briefly reiterate:
  • Omission of Jewish terrorism as the major cause of the British withdrawal.
  • False claim that Arabs started the "war for Palestine".
  • Omission of numerous Israeli terror and ethnics cleansing campaigns.
  • Claim that "war created" Palestinian refugees, when Israeli terror campaign was the actual cause.
  • Claim that Jews were "expelled from or voluntarily left" Arab countries, when most Jews actually left voluntarily.
  • False claim that there was "about the same number of Jewish refugees". Most Jews were voluntary immigrants.
  • Claim that Arabs attacked Israel after Declaration, without mentioning Israeli ethnic cleansing operations as the main cause of the Arab attack.
  • The PLO section has all kinds of POV claims about PLO, except that it was formed for Liberation of Palestine.
  • Another claim that "war created" Palestinian refugees in the "Six-day war."
  • Israeli Invasion of Lebanon is called "Lebanon War".
  • False claim that Israel was merely aware of the Lebanon massacres when it actually actively helped (and Sharon was indicted for these war crimes.)
HistoryBuffEr 17:38, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the list here. I don't doubt that I could have worked this out from a tedious examination of the article's history, but it really helps to have it in one place. And, frankly, edit wars are a hellish way to carry on a dialogue and try to build consensus.

I do want to say before starting: as far as I can see, it's not like you've been coming at this from a no-stake-in-the-matter, neutral point of view yourself. Clearly, you are exactly as much of a POV pusher as those with whom you are disputing.

So as not to interfere with your original list, I am replicating it to make an area for point-by-point discussion. Everyone should feel free to intersperse here, please sign every comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Area for point-by-point discussion

  • Omission of Jewish terrorism as the major cause of the British withdrawal. - (HistoryBuffEr)
    • Yes, I'd agree that there seems to be a bit of an omission here. I would think that, in particular, we should mention the bombing of the King David Hotel. - Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Agreed. HistoryBuffEr
        • The King David Hotel was a British Military headquarters; it doesn't qualify under terrorism, though it does qualify as military resistance. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          1. Just to clarify (and I promise that this is not a rhetorical question): Do you then consider the Al-Qaeda attack on the Pentagon (as distinguished from the attack on the World Trade Center) not to have been an act of terrorism? I suppose there is the issue of those killed in the plane itself, so I'd also like your opinion on the hypothetical case that a suicide squad had performed this action after somehow having let the passengers off the plane — except, perhaps, any members of the U.S. military who happened to be on the plane &mdash? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:56, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
          2. With or without the use of the word "terrorism", do we have consensus that the King David Hotel attack is both famous and important and belongs in the article? And, HistoryBuffEr, are there specific other incidents that you believe deserve mention in this respect? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:56, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
            • It's been three days, no one has replied, I have added this to the article, I believe in an NPOV manner. Is this part of the POV dispute now resolved?-- Jmabel | Talk 19:30, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
            • Sorry, didn't notice these questions. The Al Quaeda attack was a co-ordinated series of attacks on mostly civilian targets, and killed dozens of civilians on planes as well. The King David attack is famous and important; should the warning calls be listed? Jayjg 20:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • There were many more terrorist attacks, the Brits wouldn't have cut and run just for the "King David". I'll post more in a new section below. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
  • False claim that Arabs started the "war for Palestine". - (HistoryBuffEr)
    • Can I assume that this is over the specific sentence "Following November 29, 1947, the Yishuv was attacked by Arab irregulars"? Or does this refer to more than this? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • The mention of one Arab attack, while omitting much more numerous Jewish attacks is laughably POV. We could mention either all incidences or just major ones. Neither of these neutral approaches would result in only Arab attacks mentioned. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
        • HistoryBuffEr, could you provide below, as a staged contribution, what you would write here? Or would it be in several distinct places in the article making that hard to do? And, if that is the case, how do you suggest we proceed on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Omission of numerous Israeli terror and ethnics cleansing campaigns.- (HistoryBuffEr)
    • Specifics of what you think should be included? A bullet list would be useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • I am just claiming that the complete omission is incredibly biased. I am open on exactly what to include. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
        • All actitities by all groups would need to be inserted, including terrorist activities by Arab groups, encouragement by Arab leaders for Arabs to leave, and encouragement by Israeli leaders for Arabs to stay. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Probably a chronology of major incidents would be useful. Question: does anyone think that in the period leading up to independence it would be misrepresentative to include a roughly equal number of incidents instigated by each side? Let's see if we can resolve that first, then move on to later times. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
            • Is there any way of listing the most famous incidents? Or is that just grounds for another series of POV wars? Jayjg 20:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
              • A "roughly equal" number would not be NPOV, as there were many more Jewish attacks. Not all have to be listed, but a fair proportion should be maintained. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
  • Claim that "war created" Palestinian refugees, when Israeli terror campaign was the actual cause. - (HistoryBuffEr)
    • Causality is always controversial. I'd suggest that each side of the question here seek a good authority to quote on their view. It seems to me that a balanced article needs to avoid taking sides on this in the narrative voice of the article and should simply quote views on both sides. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • My point here is twofold: POV omission and lack of balance. That Israel ethnically cleansed Palestinian Arabs is an historical fact, admitted even by the staunchly pro-Israel historian Morris. And, at the same time, the para about Jewish refugees does not say "war created" but "expelled or left". HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
        • You misrepresent the views of Morris, whose research in any event has been discredited. There were several causes for Arab refugees, and trying to pin it all an "Israeli terror campaign" is false and POV. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • I would agree that there are several factors that came into play in various degrees, and they should all be mentioned, with citations (and, where relevant, with citations of those who discount them as well). Have at it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
            • Hehe, Morris was idolized in Israel as the greatest historian of the world while he was denying Israel's ethnic cleansing. He recently found additional documents (some were just unclassified) and he revised his account, listing numerous instances of ethnic cleansing. Even though he is still advocating in favor of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (!?!), he has now apparently become yet another self-hating Jew for the ultra-ultra-Ortodox Jayjg. Thanks for the laugh. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
  • Claim that Jews were "expelled from or voluntarily left" Arab countries, when most Jews actually left voluntarily. - (HistoryBuffEr)
    • Again, all I can imagine doing with this is citing authorities. There's voluntarily and voluntarily. Unless someone actually physically removes you, your departure is in some sense voluntarily, but threat of force or perceived threat can be involved. To pick an (obviously loaded) analogy: I've had several Jewish friends -- only one of them still alive, to the best of my knowledge -- who "voluntarily" left Austria in '38, but that is a very subtle use of the word voluntary. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Under your critera the Arab all voluntarily left Israel as well. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • See "balance" above. Also, it is an historical fact that most Jews came on alyia, thus "voluntarily" should precede "expelled". Even better and more NPOV would be to simply state numbers or proportion. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
        • Again, by your definition, it is an historical fact that almost all Arabs left Israel voluntarily, as they were not trucked over the borders by Israeli troops. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • And again, cite, cite, cite. There is no neutral opinion on this, only the possibility of citing and quoting respectable views from various sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
            • Jayjg is trying to obfuscate the obvious (again.) A refugee is a person fleeing persecution for what he is. Someone looking for a better life, a free house or land, to join his tribe or religious brethren, or to help drive out the "evil Ayrabs", etc, is not a refuge. Most Jewish "refugees" fall in the latter category. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
  • False claim that there was "about the same number of Jewish refugees". Most Jews were voluntary immigrants. - (HistoryBuffEr)
    • I've tried to reword for better balance; I think the use of the word "refugees" in the narrative voice of the article was a bit polemical. Using the numbers from Jewish refugees, I have changed "About the same number of Jewish refugees were expelled from or voluntarily left their Arab homelands in the Middle East and North Africa" to "About 900,000 Jews either were expelled from or voluntarily left their Arab homelands in the Middle East and North Africa. Roughly two thirds of these came to Israel. (See Jewish refugees.)" -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Most Jews who immigrated did so completely voluntarily. "Refugee" implies "involuntary", so numbers or proportion of true refugees should be stated to avoid the current false impression that ethnic cleansing was about equal one both sides. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
        • See above. And you're right, there is a false impression created, since the ethnic cleansing of Jews was greater. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • We could argue endlessly about "who suffered more" and it still wouldn't help us get a decent article written. This is an article on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not the more general Arab-Israeli conflict, so the issue of how voluntary were Jewish departures from North Africa or Iraq is something of a sideshow, probably doesn't belong in this article at any length, and should be fought out elsewhere. Does anyone object to the current wording or can we consider this POV issue resolved? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Claim that Arabs attacked Israel after Declaration, without mentioning Israeli ethnic cleansing operations as the main cause of the Arab attack. - (HistoryBuffEr)
    • Again, this calls for citations on both sides. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • The PLO section has all kinds of POV claims about PLO, except that it was formed for Liberation of Palestine. - (HistoryBuffEr)
    • Offhand, that seems simultaneously pleonastic and contentious. "Liberation" is always from the point of view of one party to a conflict. What exactly do you want this passage to say? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm pointing out that the PLO para states only negative things about PLO (not to mention the POV propaganda "destruction of Israel"). HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
        • Which "positive" things did you want to state about the PLO, a terrorist group notorious for multiple attackes on civilicans? Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Could we have a moratorium on the use of the word "terrorist"? Yes, we could slap that label on Lehi and the Irgun and the PLO and on the Lebanese Falangists and arguably on various state actors, but it seems more useful to me to focus on facts and leave out such loaded words. It is factual, and worth mentioning, when the U.S. State Department, or the European Union, or some such, officially classifies a group as "terrorist", but it's another matter to use this word in the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
          • HistoryBuffEr, I believe the ball is in your court here: what do you want to see added? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
            • I'll rewrite the section when I get the chance. HistoryBuffEr 03:42, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
  • Another claim that "war created" Palestinian refugees in the "Six-day war." - (HistoryBuffEr)
    • And you would say what? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd state facts: who or what caused refugees. We are not talking about a handful, but 300,000 refuges. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
        • The "facts" of "who or what caused refugees" are generally POV claims, and almost always so when you make them. Jayjg 14:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Again, can we see citations from both sides? Or HistoryBuffEr, can you suggest what would strike you as more neutral wording? Because this one seems pretty neutral to me, it doesn't cast blame, it just says, in effect, there was a war, more people were left as refugees. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
            • The issue here is: When Jews are victims, that fact is sprinkled all over the article (and in dozens of articles all over Wikipedia.) There are photos, lists of victims, links galore, etc.
              • However, when Arabs are victims, that fact is barely mentioned, usually euphemized as "*hit happens".
  • Israeli Invasion of Lebanon is called "Lebanon War". - (HistoryBuffEr)
    • Our article on this conflict is called 1982 Lebanon War. I would say that this issue should be taken up there, and this article should use whatever is resolved there. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Using "war" in place of the more accurate and specific "invasion" is POV; no need to wait for some article to say so. HistoryBuffEr 20:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
        • I also think "war" in this case is something of a euphemism. Does anyone object to us recharacterizing this as an "invasion"?
          • Invasion is fine. Jayjg 20:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • Given that it's been several days and nothing but agreement, I will make this edit. Can we consider this point resolved? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • False claim that Israel was merely aware of the Lebanon massacres when it actually actively helped (and Sharon was indicted for these war crimes.) - (HistoryBuffEr)
    • The article as it stands right now does not merely say that Israel was aware, it says that an Israeli Commission of Inquiry found this, which is to say this merely sets a minimum bound on Israeli culpability. Yes, more could be added. (Re: Sharon, indictment is not conviction.) As far as I'm concerned, specific citation of other relevant views would be welcome, but claims to omniscience are not. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's short. And while I don't disagree strongly, I have some issues and some questions :

  1. Why would you want to remove the statement that "Israel was heavily criticized, including from within. An Israeli Commission of Inquiry found that Israeli military personnel had several times become aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it." I know you don't think the condemnation was strong enough, but leaving this out seems to me to ignore important disagreement within Israel. (In fact, I now see we have an article Kahan Commission, which should be linked from here.) And I do think we should add that it was criticized by some as a whitewash.
  2. I think "massacred" is an unnecessarily colorful verb (even though it's true enough, I'd like to get words like this out of the article entirely: as with "terrorism", every partisan wants to apply them to all of the other side's actions and none of their own). The facts speak for themselves, and we use "massacre" as a noun in the next paragraph.
  3. I don't particularly doubt that the number 2,750 is approximately correct, but what is your source on that? As I remember it, the numbers were the subject of some controversy, if there are a range of estimates, we should give the varying estimates with a citation for each. The relevant citation was in the article before, why on earth did you remove it? Anyway, I've now restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:21, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) I see, I was right in recalling that the number was controversial. This is being fought over at Sabra and Shatilla Massacre. Which, in any event we should link to.
  4. Do you have the number for the U.N. General Assembly resolution? That would be an important citation, especially the explicit use of the word "genocide". I ask, because while I see a lot of mentions of this on the web, they are all without citation, mostly on partisan sites, and I can't find anything on the UN's own site, which is normally comprehensive for this sort of thing. I see a solid reference to a UNHCR resolution 1983/3, 15 February 1983 [1983/3, 15 February 1983] which says pretty much what you are saying, but the UNHCR is not the General Assembly. Have you followed this up yourself, or do you have a non-partisan source? I wouldn't want to see us say this in the article if it turns out to be one of those things web sites just endlessly copy from each other without checking. Found it, they use "Shatila", not "Shatilla".
  5. I believe Sharon didn't resign, he was dismissed. That's what we say at Kahan Commission.

So, I would end up with something like:

On September 16, 1982, Israeli army troops, under the command of Ariel Sharon, encircled the refuge camps "Sabra" and "Shatilla" in Lebanon, and the Phalangist militia entered the camps. For 36 hours, Phalangists massacred the generally unarmed Palestinian inhabitants of the refugee camps. Estimate of the number kill range widely, from "at least 800" (cited by the BBC [1]) to 3,500 (cited as a maximum by Al-Ahram [2]). (See Sabra and Shatilla Massacre.)

On December 16, 1982, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/123 condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. [3]. An Israeli Commission of Inquiry, the Kahan Commission, found that Israeli military personnel had several times become aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it. Their failure to hold the Israeli forces more directly responsible was widely seen as a whitewash. [citation needed for that last] At the commission's recommendation, Sharon was dismissed as defense minister; nonetheless, in 2001 he became Israeli Prime Minister.

Noting here, in case the web pages go away, that the Al-Ahram citation is Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 20–26 September 2001, Issue No.552 and the BBC citation is "Flashback: Sabra and Shatila massacres", Thursday, 24 January, 2002, 19:05 GMT.

If anyone has the relevant citations, feel free to just insert them in my text. For other edits, I'd appreciate if you either copy this somewhere or just comment and I will edit.

Jmabel | Talk 06:12, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've posted the link to the UN resolution at Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_Massacre.
As for the massacre summary, summaries should be as short as possible (but not shorter than that) and readable. Expressing something in fewer words does require more time than simply rambling on and on, but these articles are supposed to be readable so the effort is worth it.
I think your additions would make the summary too wordy, thus less clear. I would use mine, with your correction ("Sharon dismised") and maybe add a sentence about the Israeli commission if you insist (to me the judgment of the UN is more noteworthy.)
Also note that the article linked uses "massacre" in title. I don't think it would be more NPOV to use the euphemism "attack" for something no one disputes was a massacre; "attack" is a (too) general term and sounds goofy in this context. HistoryBuffEr 06:59, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
I think the mention of the Kahan Commission is important, so I would hope that in the interest of consensus you will allow it.
I'll restore "massacre" (making it three uses of that word). The word is so associated with the events that my objection is slight.
Meanwhile, can you find citations to justify, "Their failure to hold the Israeli forces more directly responsible was widely seen as a whitewash"? I'd hope to find these from some generally neutral sources. The fact that the Palestians didn't like what an Israeli Commission said goes without saying. I found a citation from Chomsky [4], but he has such a long-standing antagonism to every Israeli government since at lease the mid-1960s that he's not a very interesting citation here. Can we find a relatively neutral source that says this? I think it's true, so we should be able to find something; when we do, the citations should also be on Kahan Commission; if someone had done their homework there, they'd have saved us some effort here. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:18, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
I'll try to find something soon, but I think it's obvious from the factual description that Israel's was not just aware, but actively assisting the massacres. If turning back the fleeing refugees and arming and feeding the militia is not active assistance, then I need a new dictionary :)
BTW, thanks for your efforts in this area, I have pretty much given up on wasting my time on proving every obvious point to the extreme extremists here (who will never ever concur, no matter what you prove.) HistoryBuffEr 09:29, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
I have found that when people have decent citations -- and when they are honest enough to also provide citations potentially useful to the "other side" when they find them -- not very many editors are intransigent. The problem usually comes when two people are exchanging their own view of "the truth" with nothing but their own say-so.
Probably not the place to discuss this at length, but I've wondered whether in some of these articles where things get so adversarial what we need is less of a free-for-all and a bit more of an explicit advocate for each side and a mutually-agreed-upon mediator. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:10, 23 October 2004 (UTC)

Israel didn't allow Arabs who fled to return

The article currently says "Israel didn't allow Arabs who fled to return". I object to this formulation as a vast over-simplification. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees. The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. This impasse is an important causal factor, and is unmentioned. Jayjg 15:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you have clear documentation of that, I think it belongs in the article (along with a clear statement that 100,000 would have been — I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong on this — slightly less than 20% of the refugees) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:08, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

The source is Terence Prittie, "Middle East Refugees," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), pp. 66-67 as quoted here: [5]. Jayjg 20:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've added this accordingly in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Well. In a matter of days we seem to have consensus including you and Jayjg, who I assume sees you roughly as you see him, on at least a third of the previously disputed matters.
Jmabel, I would not consider as credible any citation from a site which disputes as "myth" for example ""Millions of Palestinians are confined to squalid refugee camps." Therefore, this preposterous claim that Israel nearly rolled out red carpet for Arabs should not be included until a credible proof is supplied. (Even if the citation is correct, one claim made by a biased person is not definitive evidence.) HistoryBuffEr 21:47, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
I agree that the site itself is a poor reference; perhaps we should directly cite the Prittie article in the Curtis book? However it would be intellectually dishonest to citee that without someone actually seeing the book. Jayjg (or for that matter HistoryBuffEr): are you in a position to track down that book to see exactly what it says? And, Jayjg, would you agree to move this passage back to the talk page until a respectable citation is found (either Prittie/Curtis or some other respectable book)? For whatever it's worth, I believe the statement is essentially correct, but I no longer have a copy of the book where I believe I read it, but it was in a book generally critical of Israel. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:04, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
The site is as reliable as any book by Robert Fisk on the topic; HistoryBuffEr dismisses any site that is not rabidly anti-Israel as "unreliable". I haven't seen any false citations on that site, or evidence on any other wepages stating false citations there, have you? Jayjg 20:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Here's a reference from another (not pro-Israel) site; "As in 1948, the UN called for Israel to allow these refugees to return to their homes. In both cases, Israel allowed a few thousand refugees to return, but the vast majority are kept in exile. An Israeli offer in 1950 to take back 100,000 refugees was later withdrawn." That quote would indicate that some were even allowed to return in 1948. [6] A pro-Palestinian site which says much the same [7]. This quote confirms that "In 1949, Israel offered to admit 100,000 Arab refugees, with the understanding that their repatriation would be linked to meaningful peace negotiations. Although 35,000 Arabs eventually returned under a family reunification plan, further implementation of the offer was suspended in the 1950's, after it became clear that the Arab states steadfastly refused to consider Israel's peace overtures, preferring instead to maintain a state of war with and economic boycott against Israel. In contrast, as a gesture of goodwill, Israel unilaterally released the frozen bank accounts and safe deposits of Arab refugees." [8] Jayjg 21:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Here's the official offer from the Palestine Conciliation Commission, Fourth Progress Report, A/922, 22 September 1949: "Subject to these conditions, the Government of Israel would be prepared to accept the return to Israel in its present limits of 100,000 refugees, in addition to the total Arab population existing at the end of the hostilities (including those who have already returned since then), thus increasing the total number of that Population to a maximum of 250,000. This repatriation would form part of a general plan for resettlement of refugees which would be established by a special organ to be created for the purpose by the United Nations." [9] Jayjg 21:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's a much better citation. I'll edit the article accordingly. HistoryBuffEr, do you have a problem with that citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:14, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Don't forget to note that some refugees actually were allowed back in; the source states 35,000. Jayjg 04:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fine with me, assuming the presentation of facts is neutral, proportional and readable, meaning: briefly state relevant facts, let's not spend half a page on a largely failed proposal. HistoryBuffEr 04:22, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Take a look what I wrote, it's pretty concise. As for the 35,000, what source? I don't see any number in the "4th Progress Report". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
The source was this: [10]. All the sources agree that some refugees were allowed to return, I guess you're just questioning the number? Jayjg 16:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Precisely, and that is a very partisan source, so I wouldn't trust them on a contentious number, at least not without following up their chain of citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Failing finding an explicit number from another source, what wording would you accept? Jayjg 19:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[back to left margin because this is indenting too deep]

If that's all we've got, I would suggest, "All sides seem to agree that several thousand refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected, but reliable numbers are hard to come by. The number 35,000, given by the pro-Israel website Palestine Facts [11], can be reasonably assumed as an upper bound." But I'm open to other suggestions. I'd sure be happier if we had either something we could equally assume to be a lower bound or something relatively non-partisan (say, a UNHCR estimate). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Why the hyper-skepticism and wordiness? It's not Wikipedia standard to do so, and certainly not NPOV either; we don't subject other websites, which often have a POV, to this degree of caveats. Moreover, we're devoting dozens of words in a reasonably small article to what may not even be a contentious issue. This is better, and NPOV as well: "Several thousand (and perhaps as many as 35,000 [12]) Arab refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected." Jayjg 02:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can live with that. HistoryBuffEr, can you? If we get a lower number from elsewhere we'd have "...(perhaps as few as [other citation], perhaps as many as 35,000 [13])..."
The skepticism is mine. I think you've seen enough of my work to know I'm not singling this out, I'm pretty skeptical of anything sourced only from partisans in controversial matters. And I think we can all agree that this is an area in which a lot of mutually contradictory information is out there, even if we can't all agree which of it we trust. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:58, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Not a good idea to use 35,000 considering how awfully biased the source apparently is; I haven't seen one single claim there that's kosher. "(some claim more)" would be an acceptable compromise. HistoryBuffEr 06:33, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
Could you live with my more verbose wording above? Or do you have any source for a different number? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Your own source provided the 35,000 number. Jayjg 18:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not a nitpicker -- if the big picture is accurate, what's included and what's not is less important. But this would paint a false picture that 1/3rd returned despite the disagreement. The one and only source cited is highly biased and the 35,000 figure is highly unlikely.

The claim actually misstates the fact that negotiations about 35,000 were completed previously and return of some was underway. Some returned, but as the agreement fell apart, that was stopped and it is higly unlikely that 100% of these returned before and despite talks breakdown. See This reference: "This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway ". HistoryBuffEr 16:15, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

How do you know it "misstates" any facts? Does the article indicate that the return of the 35,000, which was already underway, did not, in fact, complete? Jayjg 16:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The wording implies that the return of the 35,000 was negotiated, underway, and completed. The paper indicates that the 100,000 consisted of 35,000 who were already agreed to, and who did return, and another 65,000 who were offered, but the offer for those 65,000 was rescinded when negotiations fell apart. Jayjg 19:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In any event, it's not 1/3 of the refugees at all. As the article clearly says, even 100,000 would only have been 15%, so 35,000 is about 5%. Again, HistoryBuffEr, I'd welcome a non-partisan or differently partisan source with a lower number, but if we only have one source, and we can reasonably say that it presents an upper bound, that's better than saying nothing. I believe my wording is extremely clear about why this is a less-than-reliable number. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:54, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "1/3 of refugees" has to do with it. Your opinion about why this is a "less than reliable" number is pure POV bias. I have found two sites which explicity state it, and HistoryBuffEr found one which states it by implication. The simple language is the only NPOV way to go. Jayjg 17:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Jmabel: With all due respect, please reread my previous post. HistoryBuffEr 17:14, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
I believe I've read it correctly. You, too, cite a reference that reinforces my inference that 35,000 would be an upper limit on the number that returned. It seems from what you've both presented that the return of 35,000 refugees had either been negotiated or unilaterally conceded (it's hard to tell which) and that some or all of those did actually return. So far I don't see a shred of evidence for any particular number in the range from the low thousands to 35,000. I stand by my original proposed text. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
The point, again, is that 35,000 is only the number negotiated, not the number of those returned (just like 100,000 is just the number negotiated.) There is no evidence and it is highly unlikely that anywhere near 35,000 returned, so this number should not be used. As we cannot guess even approximately, an NPOV statement worthy of encyclopedia would be several thousands returned (some claim more). If we were to include unsubstantiated claims by biased web pages, anyone can whip up a web page in minutes and post some numbers. HistoryBuffEr 00:50, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)
Again, I really feel like people here are trying to score political points rather than to write the best and most informative possible article, and I don't like it.
Can we at least all agree on "All sides seem to agree that several thousand refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected, but reliable numbers are hard to come by."? I find that hideously vague, and I find it rather odd that HistoryBuffEr is rejecting the only upper-bound number we've got but won't go out and do some research and find a source he finds more acceptable, but I guess the ambiguous "several thousand" is better than saying nothing. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:21, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
It wasn't really politics, but since you mentioned it: why include a dubious claim by someone who insists that everyone else must provide a solid proof?
I'll try to find some solid numbers when I get a chance. In the meantime: It is more honest to be ambiguous than certain but wrong. HistoryBuffEr 02:21, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)
And that "someone" would be? If you are referring to me, yes, I do tend to want to see citations in controversial matters, but I think I have about as good a record of providing them myself as much anyone else on this project, and I don't think I've tended to apply any different standard to one side than another. Also, while I don't see what is "wrong" about saying that a clearly partisan number presents an upper bound, I also don't think it is worth further argument. In any case, though, I'll ask again: Can we at least all agree on adding "All sides seem to agree that several thousand refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected, but reliable numbers are hard to come by."? If someone comes up with better evidence we can revise that. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:20, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

To Jmabel:

"All sides seem to agree that several thousand refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected, but reliable numbers are hard to come by." sounds reasonable to me.
(P.S: No idea why you continue to feel offended by remarks not directed at you. In case it's not clear: Your efforts are much appreciated and your general approach is sound.) HistoryBuffEr 21:06, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

Well, it's better than nothing. This seems like a topic moderately worthy of a survey of the literature, if someone is in a scholarly mood. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:05, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg has now changed this to use "(this number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway)". He says that comes from HistoryBuffEr's source; I will take him at his word, I've got a backlog right now, and I haven't known him to misquote sources. However, I find that wording in this context a bit misleading, because it could easily be misunderstood as asserting that 35,000 returned, and, as I understand it, when negotiations broke down the return stopped somewhere short of that number. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Here are the sections in question from the May 1998 article titled "The Palestinian Refugee Problem and the Right of Return" by Joseph Alpher and Khalil Shikaki of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University:

Notably, from the early 1950s until 1967, Israel maintained a family reunification program under which it claims that around 40–50,000 refugees returned to Israel; several additional thousands returned between 1967 and 1994. And since the beginning of the Oslo process, Israel has collaborated in the de facto “return” to the Palestinian authority of thousands of 1948 refugees: PLO political figures and security forces, and their families. If return is defined as applying to “mandatory Palestine,” this may enable both Palestinians and Israelis to take satisfaction in the exercise of a return to the eventual Palestinian state alone. But in general, Israel, in keeping with its narrative, has preferred to avoid taking political initiatives in the refugee issue.

The principal known Israeli initiative took place in the summer of 1949. Under pressure from the US, and in view of Arab refusal (at the Lausanne Conference) to discuss agreed borders until the refugee issue had been resolved, the Ben Gurion government agreed to absorb 100,000 refugees. This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway. Israel’s decision was made conditional upon Arab agreement, at Lausanne, to a comprehensive peace, including resettlement of the remaining refugees in Arab countries. Discussion within the Israeli government at the time also touched upon the possibility of absorbing a larger number of refugees, on condition that the Gaza Strip (with some of its refugee population) would be transferred from Egyptian to Israeli control, thereby improving Israel’s military security situation vis-à-vis Egypt. Ultimately the Arabs rejected the Israeli offer, after which Israel retracted it.

I'm not sure why you have the impression that the return stopped before the full 35,000 was reached; as you can see, the Israeli claim is that the refugees returned is actually higher, at 40-50,000. Also I think you'll agree that the context in which it is quoted in the Wikipedia article is identical the context in which it is quoted in the paper. Do you have any objection to the current formulation? Jayjg 16:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As usual, Jayjg just ignored everything that was said and put in what he wanted without asking anyone. As this is creating a wrong impression, I'll revert to your version. Jayjg is stubborn, "his way or highway", and his gang is likely to join him, so you may have to join the revert battle if you want to maintain NPOV (yeah, I hate it too, but with some there is no other way, as you have just witnessed.) HistoryBuffEr 04:29, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
Please restrict comments to article contents. Are there any objections to the formulation used by Joseph Alpher and Khalil Shikaki in their paper? Jayjg 16:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had not seen this before. Jay, can you give us proper citation on this Alpher and Shikaki article (when it was published, in what journal or book, etc.).

HistoryBuffEr, do you have any objection to this as a source?

I'd propose the following edit; additions are indicated by bold, deletions by strikethrough:

In 1949, as part of a proposed comprehensive peace settlement, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (these were eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees (this number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway), about 15% of those who had fled. The Arabs rejected this compromise, at least in part because they were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, which Israel rejected. [Palestine Reconciliation Commission, September 1949; Prittie, 1975].

In the face of this impasse, Israel halted the process of return; it resumed in the early 1950s with a family reunification program that Israel claims had returned around 40–50,000 refugees to Israel by 1967. Several additional thousands returned between 1967 and 1994. [Alpher and Shikaki. date?] didn't allow any of the Arabs who fled to return and, wWith the exception of Transjordan...

Comments? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:42, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I have trouble with the word "abandoned". If you leave your home for any reason - holiday, business trip, hurricane warning, or concern about your family's safety due to political unrest - and then you are forcibly prevented from returning to your home, have you "abandoned" your home? When you park your car on the street do you "abandon" it, inviting theives to take it? This is not how "abandon" is commonly understood or defined in dictionaries. Imagine the police telling you "sorry, we can't help you" because you "abandoned" your car? So instead of "abandoned lands", we should say something like "property of people who were forcibly prevented from returning to their homes by the Zionist settlers".24.64.166.191 05:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Note that the above comment and the following response about a year after the discussion into which it is interspersed.
24.64.166.191: I agree with your reasonibg about the change from "abandoned", but not with the introduction of the far more loaded term "Zionist settlers". How about "…to pay compensation for homes and land whose owners had left in 1947 and were then prevented by the Israelis from returning…"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is the link to begin with [14]; HistoryBuffEr provided it earlier. Why don't you have a look, then see what you think. I'm still not sure why the wording used in the link HistoryBuffEr provided is not perfectly reasonable. Jayjg 01:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The passage is very misleading (as usual, Israel is painted in nearly saintly tones and Arabs as unreasonable):
  • Israel didn't offer anything, it merely agreed under pressure from the US and because Arabs would not talk about borders until the refugee issue had been resolved. (see quote above)
  • The explanation that Arabs rejected "at least in part because they were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel" is equally misleading (and an unsubstantiated speculation). The main reason was that Arabs wanted to resolve the issue of all refugees, while Israel flatly rejected that and insisted that most refugees be resettled in Arab countries.
  • "They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, which Israel rejected. [Palestine Reconciliation Commission" is redundant and out of place after the above facts are stated.
  • The Israel's claim of 40-50K returned needs to be substantiated or taken out.
  • In fact, Israel in general "didn't allow any of the Arabs who fled to return", whatever it allowed was in return for concessions (which would be funny if it was not tragic: Israel's expulsions were illegal.)
Again, details aside, the big picture must be clear and not take sides. HistoryBuffEr 01:24, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't see anything the least bit unreasonable about the Arabs rejecting an offer that came down to "15% of you can come back and the rest are screwed. And you have to let go of this as a grievance." In an analogous situation, I believe I would have done the same (though I might have "stayed at the table").

  • I disagree with your rejection of the word "offer". Countries in negotiations like this are always under pressure from someone. At this time, the US and Israel were not yet so deeply connected that US pressure would have been all that compelling. Whatever brought Israel to make this particular offer, it was made.
  • Yes, unless someone has a citation "at least in part because they were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel" should go. It sounds like conjecture. Depending on whose conjecture it was it just might be worth a mention, with clear indication of who said this.
  • "They made repatriation a precondition..." seemed to me to be an accurate reflection of the source it cites. If you think not, I'll try to take another look at that source, but I didn't see any problem with it.
  • Israel's claim is clearly stated to be just that: Israel's claim. I have no idea how one would substantiate that it is a true claim, and see no a priori reason either to believe it or to doubt it; if you question it, then please find some citable source that gives a different number or overtly challenges this one.
  • I don't know what to make of your last statement that begins, "In fact...". If the Israeli numbers are accurate, then they let back in about 5% of the refugees, which does not dramatically alter the big picture, and I think the way this is written makes that clear. Still, "didn't allow any" is almost certainly an overstatement. I assume you don't mean that literally; if so, it should not be hard to find at least a few documented cases of returnees, but I, for one, can't be bothered to prove the obvious. This has already eaten far too much of my effort. I'm just trying to get a decent article out of this; I don't feel an enormous stake in it. If you do, start coming up with solid sources and citing them. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:58, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
I have no stake beyond NPOV. I'd do it if I had time, but I do not have to disprove unsubstantiated claims made by Israel, whoever wants them in should roll up their sleeves.
The bottom line, as explained above: The big picture is needlessly (purposefully?) muddied by empty claims and POV phrasing. It is obvious which side produced this. It shouldn't be.
HistoryBuffEr 07:35, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Why?

So what i don't understand is why palistinians and jews can't just share, if it's about resources then pool them if it's about religeon the only way to find out whos right is to die, so why not live a calm, peaceful co-operativve life until then? and if it's all just dwelling on past events how do you expect anything to be resolved, ever? so please tell me why does this go on? to quote Ghandi 'An eye for an eye and we're all blind' (my Remix) 'A tooth for a tooth and we all eat soup' (anonymous question Nov 16, 2004)

My 2 cents: many people in the region favor either variants of a two-state solution or (usually on the Palestinian side) a unitary secular state. But there are plenty of individuals, especially the leaders and misleaders, who thrive on the current situation, and over half a century of conflict has now hardened feelings on both sides to the point where a lot of people are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Plus there are people on both sides for whom this is all about religion, or pride, and pragmatic considerations are simply seen as distractions. There is an old legend about a man who was told he could have anything he wanted, but whatever he asked for his enemy would get twice as much. He said, "Put out my eye. Painfully." -- Jmabel | Talk 23:07, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


_________________________________________________________________


I have been trying to read ever more veraciously the history of the israeli palelstinian conflict. I read this page with interest. I also spent a time recently looking at claims and counter claims about what was the arab population during the latter part of the nineteenth century.....

But I have a two fundemental questions?

1. Why is the conflict so divisive around the world - ie why do so many seemingly unconnected countries and peoples (I have read some quite strong language on the conflict by chinese officials) seem to have such diametrically divergent viewpoints? (Israel cannot be an ethnic cleanser and commiter of attrocities as well as being a bastion of liberalism, freedom and constant seeker of peace at the same time.) Countries like Malaysia and Russia have very strong points of view. The US similarly but in the opposite direction has a quite different point of view. So why the strong opinions from people that are not directly conneceted to the conflict? (Most countries and people have a much more relaxed viewpoint when it comes to kashmir or the tamil the tiger guerrilla conflict.)

2. To what degree are people on both sides concerned with the truth? If they suddenly realized that they had got several vital facts wrong would they change their point of view on the conflict?

3. Can anyone recomend any good books that give as close to an 'objective' or 'unibased' history of the israeli conflict as can be expected.

Streelion


-To what degree are people on both sides concerned with the truth? that is the essential point. as far as i have seen little to no degree. but another question: what is the truth ? your historian or mine ? (anon 5 July 2005)

On the early years, you might try Simha Flapan's The Birth of Israel. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Armed struggle

Humus Sapiens recently removed the statement, "Since this period, the PLO has officially renounced armed struggle." He does not seem (by his comments) to contest the literal truth of the statement—that this is their official view—but apparently considers the official position hypocritical. May I suggest that the statemen, which accurately reflects their official position, be restored, along with perhaps the three most salient examples of PLO (not arbitrary Palestinian) uses of "armed struggle" since the time of the Olso accords? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Size of states proposed in 1947

The following is clearly wrong, so I am commenting until someone to works out what it meant to say: "The Jewish State would be roughly 5,500 acres in size (including the large Negev desert which could not sustain agriculture at that time) and would contain a sizable Arab minority population. The Arab state would comprise roughly 4,500 acres…" This would say that each state was less than 10 square miles or 25 square kilometers, clearly wrong. Even Andorra is about 15 times bigger than that. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, the correct unit is square miles. I'm not sure how I messed that one up. GabrielF 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

when does the history stop ?

the intifada section needs serious cleanup. Amoruso 10:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

A lot of this information is repeated in History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but some of it also belongs in the PLO#History section. Does a merge into these two articles seem like a good idea? I'd like to hear other comments before I add a tag. --GHcool 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My gut is to say "no", but I'll admit I haven't reviewed the article lately. Background: we spun this out of Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that article could focus on the present. Comment: there is no rule against duplicating or cross-referencing. - Jmabel | Talk 06:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the three articles should remain separate. I feel that there are many developments within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which are worth describing and addressing historically, within a separate article. --Sm8900 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
These articles should not be merged; this one is important if you just want the history without any of the current events. It really has its own identity already.
Besides, if it gets merged then the new article would be way too long.
Also, if it gets merged into two different articles, then you would have to look at both in order to see all the information. The average reader won't do that. Thus, the average reader would not get all the information that is in this article if it gets merged. Benbreshears 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the conflict according to Said

Can someone please verify the information attributed to Edward Said in the "Origins" section? Said is not a historian and the information sounds like his personal POV. If nobody can verify the information in an unbiased source, I will remove the paragraph in a week. --GHcool 20:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For someone that uses JVL as a basis for their version of historical events your opinions on POV are somewhat compromised...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a false tu quoque. While Said is not a historian, Bard is. Furthermore, the worthiness of JVL has nothing to do with the worthiness of Said. --GHcool (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Six-Day War section needs a rewrite

The section on the Six-Day War is worded in ways that make it unclear exactly what happened and smacks of POV. For example, it opens with "The Six-Day War (June 5-June 11, 1967) was waged as a security consideration designed to remove the threat of Arab attack from the Egyptians . . ." The use of passive voice makes it unclear who waged the Six-Day War, and the claim that it was waged as a "security consideration" has the feel of POV. While I know nothing about the Six-Day War, I find it hard to believe that it is a well-established fact (that can be backed up with a reliable source) that security was the only reason the war was fought by whoever that clause is describing (it seems to be the Israelis, but it's hard to be sure)? Surely someone on the other side must think claims of "security considerations" were but a fig-leaf for some other agenda. Alternatively, if the war was fought for multiple reasons, what's the reason for only mentioning one of them? Furthermore, vital information such as who exactly initiated hostilities, and in response to what, is left for the reader to guess or is presented in a confusing or obfscutory manner. Can someone (not me!) who knows something about the Six-Day War rewrite this section? Elliotreed 07:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I added some material. thanks for making that point. --Sm8900 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Starting point of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

i'm currently reading an academic book which tries to describe the starting point for existance of the palestinian people as a self aware collective. the book, being a serious one, explains that it's allways possible to start going over accounts from earlier or later points in time, depending on what you consider important to the formation of self-awareness, and they choose to start at the 1834 rebellion as their first historically important event for the formation of the future group.

abviously, many things happened in Palestine in those days and they are very much a foundation for the future israeli-palestinian conflict. any book that says "it all started at 1880" is simply reffering to the first modern day aliyah from 1882 but it's disregarding all the events leading to that point.

hence, i believe we should clearly state that this article is not dealing with pre-1880 materials, which are a bit hard to come by, btw. Jaakobou 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not heard of the 1934 rebellion you refer to and can't find any Wikipedia articles on it either. Would you tell me about this rebellion? I find Middle Eastern history fascinating and am surprised that I might have missed something as important as a Palestinian rebellion in the 1830s. The above request might sound ironic or sarcastic (the Internet has a way of misconstruing "tone of voice"), but I assure you I am asking sincerely.
Secondly, depending on the circumstances surrounding this rebellion (such as who the combatants were, what were they fighting for, etc.) this might have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as we understand the term today. Consider that not every conflict between Jews and non-Jews in "the holy land" is part of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." For example, if someone were to include the events in the Book of Joshua into the article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it would probably violate every Wikipedia rule. --GHcool 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, at 1834 (you mistakenly wrote 1934) the borders of the land were unclear as many different political identities came and went in those days... at the early days of the 19th century (1800s) the plains of the country were desolate and abandoned, the galilee (al g'alil) was a more fertile area supplemented for the most part under the damascus district of the ottoman empire, or depending on the period, connected in parts with local leaderships (such as acre) and an egyptian leadership.
anyways, there were some lacal connections between different segments of the contry regardless of ottoman or egyptian centralist leaderships.
the 1834 rebellion is one of three considred as very important to the formation of a palestinian identity.. it was a very bloody attempt to prevent the changes implemented by the Egyptians who ruled the land for most of the 1830s,, this rebellion was squashed, but it layed down foundation for a new social boundary/lifestyle for the farmer class. basically, the egyptians took control over the damascus district and the soutern palestine district (i think southern districts were named mostly by city names) between 1831-1840 while the ottomans exaughsted many resources fighting in greece.
The egyptian leader Muhammad Ali rebelled against the central ottoman rule and invaded the empire all the way up to anatoliaand had his son Ibrahim Pasha (pasha is an ottoman title of leadership) rule a large chunk of the territory. back then the entire population was estimated at 300,000 and the main reason for the rebellion was Ibrahim's demand for conscripts to fight the ottomans.
anyhoo.... i think it would be best if you find some book about these days instead of just letting me type some of the things i remember.
to your second point... i think that the fighting among the real "recent" fighting among jews and palestinians started towards 1920 and not towards 1880 which only signifies a starting point for the first modern jewish aliyah... i think that placing that time stamp as the point of clashes is unfair and prejudiced to portray "zionism" as the reason for all the clashes... which is very much innaccurate... if the article goes as back as 1880, then it should be mentioned that there's some older history to the "palestinians" and "jews" of the land prior to that time-stamp... the 1834 rebellion and it's squashing was a huge part to the future battles... and there's obviously more things along the way, such as the 1840 ottoman interaction with the jews which allowed both for jews to come to what the empire considered as the jewish homeland and also allowed muslim arabs to use hatespeech in a more insturmental manner.
cosider that until 1900.. there were not even 4500 residents in jewish settlements.. most of them on the deserted coastal line.. so placing a timestamp on 1880 is somewhat ridiculous.
consider that between 1900 up until 1914 the arab population went from 250000 to 750000, many of them immigrants... and in 1908, an arab representative of jerusalem (Ghukhi al-Khaldi) was extremely busy inciting jew-hatred.. in my mind. this is a far more instrumental timestamp than 1880.
yes, landless fellakhs killed a jewish woman in 1886 being angry with jews buying land from the gouvernment that they thought belonged to them.. i'm not saying 1880 is the worst timestamp... but we should not make it out to be the absolute timestamp for all accounts relating this conflict.. it's a biased timestamp which blames all the clashings on zionism... which is highly POV. Jaakobou 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the 1834 rebellion is interesting, but I fail to see what it has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It doesn't even seem to have anything to do with Jews at all. What I wrote above regarding the Book of Joshua and the Jews has just as much relevance to the Palestinians: not everything that occurs to Palestinians or Jews in the "holy land" is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Secondly, you might be right about a slight bias toward the Palestinians by listing the origin of the conflict as the 1880s since there did not seem to be serious hostilities between the two groups until roughly the Second Aliyah in the first decade of the 20th century (1900s). Perhaps the term "turn of the century" (as in "The article discusses the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from its origins at the turn of the twentieth century to the present day") is vague enough accurate that neither group is given preference while still being reasonably accurate. --GHcool 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
1) there were no Palestinians in the book of Joshua, there were philistines, which are not related to current day palestinians; 2) your suggestion is ok for now, though, there should be a mention that this is the modern day conflict (same as the "first aliyah" beying described as the first modern day aliyah). Jaakobou 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The Joshua reference was meant to be tongue in cheek. I like your new intro a lot! I just deleted one word and added another for grammar. --GHcool 06:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I vote for quoting the Torah and the Qur'an on this conflict. Anyone who believes that religion is not the source cause of this war is an idiot. More reading: Zionism, the Qur'an, and the Hadith. Emmanuelm 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
And anybody who categorizes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a religious conflict is a propogandist. --GHcool 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
GHcool, propaganda for what idea? What about the Hamas charter? the Hizballah flag? Religious Zionism? Where are the atheist terrorists and the secular settlers? I (and Hamas and Moledet and many others) maintain that anyone who thinks that religion is not the proximal source of this conflict is an idiot who trusts political analysts more than himself. I think that, in the spirit of NPOV, scriptures should be quoted in this page under "Origins". Emmanuelm 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You make the opposite point when you put yourself with Hamas and Moledet because they are both parties with political agendas who spew the kind of propoganda nonsense of "holy war" as a legitimate way to look at the Arab-Israeli conflict. Any objective observer would view this as a land/economic dispute. Even if there was a legitimate case for calling the Israeli-Palstinian conflict a religious conflict (and there is not), there is no mention in the Koran and Torah about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so quoting it would violate WP:NOR. --GHcool 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with GHCool, in the message above. --Steve, Sm8900 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edah HaChareidis and Jewish anti-zionists

Why is it that there is no mention of Edah HaChareidis anywhere in this article. Not all Jews believe that the state of Isreal is ligitimised by the Torah. Likewise, not all of the Jewish community accepted Zionism and many are still adamently opposed. Their belief is that there should be no Jewish state under current conditions. Also, these beliefs predate Zionism. At least, statements should refect this and an internal link given to Jews that oppose the Zionist and the Jewish state. Mike172.138.43.4 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

These groups have absolutely nothing to do with the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --GHcool (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have to inform you but yes they do, the terriatorist argument in Zionism split up early the Edah HaChareidis argument was put forward that Palestine was not the place to go to. hence Uganda etc was a option. The redemtionist argument won the day. the secular branch then recombined with the redemtionists to pick Palestine as the place to settle...2 lines to put that in an article of this length is appropriate and not WP:UNDUE..to leave it out is WP:POV....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Ashley's views on NPOV and UNDUE and I expect most of the Wikipedia community does as well. --GHcool (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources regarding Oslo Peace process

I removed a few sources which, according to the article, gave "concrete evidence" that the PA in general supported anti-Israeli activities. This is disputable, first because of such wording as "empirical" and "concrete" when there is still a large debate over the issue. Tessler (1994) and Bowker (1996) both dispute that the PA "actively" supported attacks on Israelis. Second, I couldn't really find anything except passing mentions in the articles, certainly not "concrete evidence". I might have missed something in the haste, though. Open to discussion. 202.40.139.170 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just added a source from BBC News. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1973 Yom Kippur War

Seems like a quite important part of this conflict - why is this not mentioned at all in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane77777 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the History of the Arab–Israeli conflict article. Palestinians weren't really involved in the Yom Kippur War. --GHcool (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2004 and after

User:Civil Engineer III cut out the "Hamas election win, new conflicts, 2004 and after" section for the reason, "this is a HISTORY article. seems like a nice place to stop it. Rest is covered by main article." While I do not agree with cutting the whole section out, I do think that this history article is too heavily weighted towards recent events. 43 paragraphs are devoted to events that occurred in or after 2004. Compare this with the 9 paragraphs devoted to the 1947-1949 period, which was the founding of the State of Israel and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. I plan on trimming the fat in the "2004 and after" section unless I hear any good arguments for not doing so. --GHcool (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

article too long?

as the article is the same as Israel-Palestine conflict, maybe this need splitting so that all the referenced work stays...as all the unreference work is at the end may I humbly suggest removing it...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Before removing anything substantial (such as entire paragraphs), I suggest we discuss it first here. If you'd just like to move a sentence here or a clause there, go ahead and be bold and if somebody has an issue with your edit, they may revert it. Be sure, however, to include an appropriate rationale in your edit summaries. --GHcool (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The German colonies need to be added...as they are pertinent to palestinian nationalism...as with all nationalisms Palestinian nationalism did not grow in a vacuum, Zionism (a form of nationalism) grew out of Russian Pogroms, so Palestinian nationalism grew out of European settlement in Palestine...and that subject is not covered it the article...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The German colonies was one of the earliest European invaders, the Palestinians were in conflict with a European invasion that was seen as fundamentally altering the nature/culture of a Muslim land...I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you but Palestinians have had a longer conflict with the Europeanisation of Palestine that they have had with Zionism which was first seen as a part of the Europeanisation...the first Zionists were Russian émigrés who the Palestinians identified as Russian first and later as Zionists (at about the 1929 point)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The History of the Israeli-Palestinian is the topic of this article. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a conflict between the Jews/Israelis/Zionists and the Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians over control of the Land of Israel/Palestine beginning circa 1890. Conflicts in the region involving completely separate parties (such as Germans) in completely different time periods (such as the pre-1890) are completely off the topic of this article. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Even the word conflict in the title is perhaps a tad misleading, since by reading Origins in the much improved History_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict_Origins_to_1967 it seems as if the actual conflict(or say the relationship between the groups, which has had much conflict) began when both sides became aware that the other side had the desire to fully control the territory that had for a very long time been called Palestine. That, for a complete picture, the article dwells in such areas or periods as the German influence(over Palestine) and such, is not meant to discredit or distort anything, it is simple done for encyclopedic reasons. Furthermore, quite a few number of editors agree that the splitting of this article is necessary. To wit, this section in the talk page is on actually splitting the article.
Can we then, start discussing how to best accomplish this? Cryptonio (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The unstated major premise here is that the article ought to be split. It oughtn't and here is why. --GHcool (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That is your opinion, only your opinion and only one opinion.
"I would encourage all participants to discuss how the main article should be split before proceeding with such articles." Fritzpoll

The greater vision here, should be the actual merger of the two articles already in place, which will produce a larger article of course, which will then be split into something more manageable. Cryptonio (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, no thanks. The other competing POV page was deleted for a reason. I interpreted Fritzpoll's statement to mean that we ought to discuss how to split the current article fairly without regard to the unfair, unilateral move that was taken before. As I said in the AfD, "The article is already broken up into articles that go into greater detail (see, for example, Zionism, Hajj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, British Mandate of Palestine, 1947 UN Partition plan, 1948 Arab-Israeli war, 1948 Palestinian exodus, etc etc)." I do not see any necessity for it to be broken up even further and fear that POV forks similar to the deleted page will result, but I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary provided that they are well thought out and intellectually honest. --GHcool (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That makes you factually inaccurate GHcool the article was not declared POV so please retract...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I never wrote that Fritzpoll declared your article POV. I was merely stating my opinion and the opinions of many, possibly most, of the people who commented in the AfD. --GHcool (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ghcool you are one of the most atrocious liars...and quite frankly not worth the bothering with...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And your's wasn't a personal attack??? for a balanced article I'm including the section Ben Gurions Racist attitudes...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from violating WP:NPOV and WP:Original research in order to try to prove a point. Also, it might behoove Ashley kennedy3 to refrain from tu quoque arguments, especially ones based on a false premise. --GHcool (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't seen me write articles without references, I certainly don't need to do any OR to find out that BG was an atrocious racist who had white supremacist and segregationist attitudes...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My mind is that : 1. the article could be cut into 3 parts :

-before 1920
-the mandate period (1920 - 1948)
-after the birth of Israel (1948 - )

My rationale for this is that 1920 and 1948 cut the article into 3 reasonnable sections and that both these dates are important milestone in the conflict (1920 for the first major violence ; 1948 for the birth Israel and the Naqba).
2. antisemitism should be removed from the section title concerning the Mufti because the fact he was antisemite is irrelevant. What is important is that he was antizionist. But I also wonder if a full section about him is relevant. Why not Weizmann, Ben Gurion or Jabotinsky... Ceedjee (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just adding balance....mind if the WP:Undue was to be removed then I would have to remove the BG is a racist section....The section that portrays hajj Amin as though he is an average representative of the Palestinians ....is somewhat tacky, I don't particularly like the BG bashing but for balance one has to achieve NPOV some how...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee, i agree that splitting these articles between time periods would make a great difference. But unless we deal with the fact that there are two articles covering the same information, we will still lag behind the underlying reason to actually split these two articles into section.
You proposal is adequate. Could we, perhaps, start with the creation of the article History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Origins-1920? and then start moving information to it?
Ashley, GHcool is hunkered in a position that only he can remove himself from. To the issue at hand, would you agree with Ceedjee's proposal and my suggestion? Cryptonio (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
By GH's rationale, we could just delete this article as well as the clone, and just have stand alone articles pertaining to each occurrence(as detailed above in his response). Cryptonio (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Btw, to further expand on my suggestion to Ceedjee's proposal, this article then, would cover the period of 1920-1948(History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1921-1248 since this article covers that period at face value in depth. Then this article Israeli–Palestinian_conflict would become History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1949-Present since it seems as if it covers current events in depth as well. Cryptonio (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Cryptonio's summary of my "rationale" is a straw man, a false dichotomy, and a slippery slope. I do not think we should "just delete this article as well as the clone, and just have stand alone articles pertaining to each occurrence." I believe we should have one (1) article titled "History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and have other smaller articles go into greater detail. I do not think "History of the Israeli Palestinian conflict," "History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1880-1948," "History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1948-1967" etc etc etc is valuable. --GHcool (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
That's good, because it wouldn't make much sense. read the proposal being studied above carefully. And please, save the space from those wikilink unless you bring up wiki-policies. No need for you to tell me what is it that I'm writing, i should know, i wrote it. Ignore this of course, if your purpose is to educate other editors. Cryptonio (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sections are split to automatically insert WP:POV

Why aren't the sections split into areas defined by stern gang atrocities?..

Because that would be autoPOV, so why are the sections split around Palestinian Arab attacks or revolts? Because that is also autoPOV...This article as laid out will never get past being a POV article....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No. We just have to do as in history books. Ceedjee (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The mandate option was chosen in 1920 at Paris conference, that is also the date at which the first High Commissionner arrived in Palestine and in 1920 is the date of the Nebi Moussa Riots. 1920 is from my point of view the best milestone. I can check in history books what can be found about that.
  • 1948 is obvious. I assume we don't have to discuss this as a milestone.
I suggest :
  • we keep the main article
  • we transfer (and neutralize) the material to 2 (or 3) other articles
  • in the main article (this one) we synthesise the material
  • we could add interesting sections such as historiography because it defers in both sides, the main controversies, etc
Facts are not enough for an encyclopaedia, we need to supply analyses.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 1948 was definitely a Milestone.
  • Founding of the Russian compound and establishment of European Consuls.
  • 1917 was a Milestone; (British Occupation of Enemy Territory)(also Segev Milestone)
  • 1920 was a Mile Stone; (Paris Peace conference, ultimately more important than Nebi Musa yet the article goes on about Nebi musa as if Paris wasn't happening)
  • 1923 was a Milestone; Boundaries of Palestine finally established.
  • 1928 Milestone (first disturbances/claims on the wailing)(also Segev Milestone)
  • 1929 Milestone (second disturbances/claim on wailing wall)
  • 1936 Milestone (Palestinian Arab General strike)
  • 1937 Milestone (General strike degenerates into open war fare for Palestinian Arab independence)
  • 1939 Milestone (WWII,)(also Segev Milestone)
  • 1945 Milestone (Elements of the Yishuv declare war, followed by Hunting season where left wing elements of the Yishuv gain supremacy over right wing)
  • 1946 Milestone
There are more milestones than you can shake a stick at.

Tom Segev does a break down as 1917-1927, 1928-1938, 1939-1948....No where near the mile stones pick out in the wiki article....the mile stones picked out in the wiki article are for one reason only and that is not for WP:NPOV....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Guardian20091105":

  • From List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008: Rory McCarthy (11/5/2008). "Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • From 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict: Rory McCarthy (11/5/2008). "Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen". Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mufti's anti-Semitism

Cryptonio has, for a second time, renamed the section titled "The Mufti and anti-Semitism" to simply "The Mufti." He/She says that my judgment is not a reliable enough source to label the Mufti as anti-Semitic. Cryptonio is correct; I am not a reliable source on anti-Semitism or the Mufti. However, the article currently states the following:

  1. A photograph of the Mufti in a meeting with Adolph Hitler, perhaps the most famous anti-Semite who ever lived.
  2. "The Hajj Amin stirred religious passions against Jews" and making false allegations against "Jews" not against Zionists (emphasis added).
  3. The Mufti "was involved in a pro-Nazi coup during which the Jewish areas of Baghdad were subjected to an anti-Semetic pogrom."
  4. "the Mufti joined the Nazis, serving with the Waffen SS in Bosnia."
  5. "The Mufti's radio broadcasts to Palestinian Arabs called for genocide against the Jews throughout the 1940s."

To repeat: the Mufti supported and actually met with Hitler, joined the Nazis, was involved himself in a pogrom, incited violence against Jews, and called for genocide against Jews. Based on this evidence, it would be proper to call the Mufti anti-Semitic. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum also calls the Mufti anti-Semitic. Benny Morris wrote in 1948 that the Mufti "was deeply anti-Semitic" (p. 21-22). Of course, Mitchell G. Bard, David G. Dalin agree with this analysis.[15][16] --GHcool (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite Mitchell Bard in support of anything, but there are academic historians in addition to Morris who can be cited in support of this claim. Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
That you include these allegations made by these historians(that he in fact was anti-semetic) at the end of the section on Amin, it would clearly be a SYNTH in order to include anti-semitism in the title. That his whole life involved 'working' for his cause, against an enemy, deserves mention whether or not it was against Israel, after all, he had interest on Palestine etc. The narrative of the section deserves to be mentioned, that he did this, that he said that, no discussion, but that we then label it as 'something'? well of course it would be OR. and then again, if you include what historians say about what we are labeling him, at the end of the section, you would be using violation SYNTH. Those points that you enumerate, in your opinionItalic text crosses the threshold of labeling someone a anti-semetic. Even when you go ahead and add those historians opinions at the end of the article, you'll still be making a judgment(that is not necessary) about adding a label to the title of the section, in which there are different opinions on whether or not(of course, it is not all that obvious to label someone this or that) Amin was anti-semetic. Again, the claim at the bottom of the section would stay, but if immediately after, you add anti-semitism to the title, it would be SYNTH. Which it wouldn't surprise me if it happens just as i've said. Cryptonio (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
And this is only a small change, out of the many that are necessary. If you are bugged down on this, I am afraid you won't be able to keep up. Cryptonio (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As we see, you went ahead and added that thing that you added. This is no way of editing an encyclopedia. What or how we label someone is more important than what he did, and at the same time what he did needs to be labeled. We say, that the mass murdering of Jews was/is called the Holocaust, and that Hitler was the main person responsible for the Holocaust, we somehow then must ALSO include that he 'was' anti-semetic? And if anti-semitism is such a bad thing, and somehow we leave it out, does that mean that there is nothing worse than being anti-semitic? Talk about fallacies. Cryptonio (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting the two long paragraphs at the end. No reasonable person claims that the Mufti's role in the Holocaust was a very large one. My reason for removing the paragraphs is that the Mufti's small role in the Holocaust has little to do with the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and would be better suited for the article on the Mufti. Also, the fact that his role in the Holocaust was small does not mean he wasn't an anti-Semite. David Duke was not even born when the Holocaust occurred and nobody denies that he is an anti-Semite. --GHcool (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The paragraphs dealt with Amin's anti-semitism. Will revert. Cryptonio (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Among modern historians, Morris and Elpeleg considered that the Mufti was antisemite but Mufti's antisemitism has never been given much weight or consideration. It is just mentionned in their works (and the second one wrote a biography of the Mufti).
It is wp:undue to have a reference to this in the title, as if his whole life and actions would have been driven by this antisemitism. He was a palestinian nationalist leader in Mandatory Palestine, therefore antizionist ((), certainly extremist in his views (given his involment in the different riots and violence organisation) and quite naturally therefore, antisemite.
But it is irrelevant for this article, as well as having a section about the Mufti himself in fact while no other protagonist has his own.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. No one in their right mind would say that the Hajj Amin was not an anti-Semite....
  2. No one in their right mind would place the Hajj Amin in a separate section as representative of the Palestinian people.
  3. Anything the hajj Amin did should be within the main body of text and not WP:Undue
  4. alternatively add sections on Ben Gurions racism and his anti Diaspora Jew actions and include a section on the Stern gangs Nazi affiliations.....for balance...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Mufti was representative of the Palestinian people during the 1948 war, the 1936 Arab Revolt, and prior. He was perhaps the single most prominent, powerful, and influential spiritual and political leader in Mandatory Palestine among the Arabs. Ben-Gurion is not the mirror image of the Mufti as Ashley and other anti-Israel ideologues claim, not even by a long shot. Ben-Gurion did not actively support genocide against Arabs, nor lead the Yishuv in that direction. The Stern Gang's alleged Nazi affiliations were not representative of the Yishuv as a whole (most of the Yishuv did not even like the Stern Gang) whereas the Mufti's Nazi affiliations were representative of the Palestinian Arabs of the time who saw Hitler as a hero against the British and against the Jews. --GHcool (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but your liberties to label people should be culled. And this is to the topic at hand, just because someone is arguing with you(which would mean, opposite of your views) does not mean he is anti- anything. And to the point, to be "anti-Israel" is to be a human being with a view. whether those views put them at odds with society(or the world), entails little to do with evil. When will "Israel" or its "subjects" deal with the United States dealings with Hitler? To speak on behalf of Palestinians(and yes they certainly have valid arguments) is not to be anti- ANYTHING, specially anti-Israel. The truth is very much POV, it could be discuss here in talk pages for naught. But NPOV is very much to the liking of wikipedia, and will stand on higher upper-echelons of reliability. Cryptonio (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
GHcool,
Having in the section Origin of the History of Israeli-Palestinian conflict article a sub-section called Al-Husseini's antisemitism is completely pov. That can only be found in old Israeli history books
What are the wp:rs sources that would claim that link ?
Ceedjee (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum a good enough RS? Benny Morris said the same thing in 1948 although I don't own the book and don't know the page number. Although reliable sources are a plus in any situation, they are hardly necessary for to prove that a man that called for the genocide of Jews and actively supported the Nazis is an anti-Semite. I have a feeling that the burden of proof would not be as unreasonable for other famous Nazis. Why do people who criticize the way the State of Israel was founded have such a soft spot for this genocidal Nazi scumbag? --GHcool (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi GHcool,
No, the USA Memorial Museum is not wp:rs enough. It is a tertiary source and we don't know exactly on what bases they make the claim. Additionnaly, concerning the issue of the antisemitism, this is an obvioulsy involved institution.
It is me who added the information from Morris last book concerning his view on the antisemitism of the Mufti :-). I had given the page number. It may have been lost. I will add this again. Nevertheless, I can tell you that he doens't focus excessively on this issue. He thesis is rather the 1948 was partially a religion war but he is already contested for that by other historians.
In anyways, I don't say he was not antisemite. I ask you what are the wp:rs secondary sources that would claim that this fact is relevant in the history of the I-P conflict. Be sure if I had them, I would have provided them. But the sources I have rather tend to the contrary, given they simply don't discuss the case.
Please, in your answer, clearly write that you understand my point, because I have the feeling there is a misunderstanding...
Ceedjee (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Did they also say it belongs in the title? A lot of information is included in the section, shall we summarize in the title all topics covered in the section? that actually sounds like a good idea. Cryptonio (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I found a solution. I just changed the heading to "Arab reactions to Jewish immigration." Now it is no longer a biography on the Mufti and is more relevant to the conflict as a whole. I encourage any Arab reactions, positive or negative, to Jewish immigration to Palestine to be included there. There's no need to just be Mufti-centric. --GHcool (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a first step. But anyway, see Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes before 1948. Ceedjee (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand your point, Ceedjee. If this were about one man's anti-Semitic beliefs, I'd agree with you that its irrelevant to the conflict as a whole. My argument (and I believe the facts support this) is that, at least from the origins of the conflict until 1948, the Arab reaction to Zionism was anti-Semitic in nature; that is, the "answer" to the notion of a Jewish homeland was the violence towards Jews as a people. This is somewhat unique to the Palestinian nationalist movement that one doesn't find in other nationalist movements of stateless people: the idea that not only should we have an independent state, but we should also harass and kill "the Jews." The Mufti of Jerusalem was for the Palestinian nationalist movement of the first half of the 20th century what the Dalai Lama is for the current Free Tibet movement; except that the Dalai Lama only wants political independence, discriminates between the idea of a Chinese person and the Chinese government, and does not advocate violence and harassment of Chinese people. --GHcool (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok.
I think I see what you mean.
Eg, 1920 Palestine riots were also a pogrom, ie an act of antisemitism. '29 at Jerusalem and at Hebron were also dramatic events lead also by antisemitism.
As a consequence, it could be argued that antisemitism drove (partially) Arabs in their opposition to Zionism. The question is : with what weight... Hard to say.
Tom Segev, in One Palestine. Complete and who cannot be accused of pro-Israeli or anti-Palestinian bias develops this idea. We can try to use his work, which is a wp:rs 2nd source.
I can gather main quotes and some of his arguments but that will not be easy because I think he doesn't make the link explicitely but only implicitely (if this last word is English).
Whatever, be sure that historians see the conflit -before all- as a nationalist one, so we should avoid wp:undue in giving too much weight on its antisemitic face, even if real.
Give me a few days to gather the information.
Ceedjee (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a waste of time(what i'm about to write). It is 1948, a Jew gets attacked in Thailand, for no apparent reason except that he is a Jew and the attacker is an Arab street bum. Clearly anti-semitism(used in the context, that the concept is mainly or solely used when this kind of attacks happens to Jews). It is 1920, nothing on the books(meaningful books, on the reality of Jewish demands on Palestine anyways) that says whoever is living in Palestine must share the land with whoever decides to move there. At first, no problems. Jews buy Palestine land, Puerto Ricans had no intention of doing so. Then Jews started to quote the Torah. BIG PROBLEM, all alarms goes off. "This land was not only given to us, but it still belongs to us". Umm, i'm an Arab at the time, i'm thinking "is this going to turn into a Book vs Book(religion vs religion) affair?" "because let me tell you, in our Book, there is also claim to this land". Anyways, the Jews said yes, this is will be that kind of a affair. I'm still that Arab, i'm thinking, "well...you could have been a Puerto Rican quoting their wica books, i would 'dislike' you very much if you try to take over our land". War ensues from that point. But now, think, what other 'group' 'people' 'nationality' was in a position of making a similar 'claim' as that of the Jews? No other group, except if they came in with guns and told the Arabs(as it was done against Jews) "get the hell out of here". To Jews credit, in their Book, it clearly states they always fought to the last drop of blood, even when the 'prophesy' had stated the chances of survival was stillborn. So, that this conflict has had ups and downs, violence and more violence, can't be used to label the "hatred" that one side feels for the other AND vice-versa. Clearly as that. And, lets not forget what happened to the Japaneses in the US during WW2. That the longest running dispute in human history spills over to Madagascar cannot be solely labeled "anti-semetic". Or anything other than a conflict.

That there are people who hate Jews no matter what. Ignorance That there are people who hate Blacks no matter what. Ignorance That there are people who hate Asians no matter what. Ignorance That there are people who hate hate hate. Ignorance. Cryptonio (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, please review WP:Soapbox. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the header can have the word "Allegations" in it: does any dispute the Mufti's antisemitism? Any RS's? IronDuke 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'm amending the title now. --GHcool (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
GHcool,
You have been involved in an edit war with Cryptonio for what concerns this "allegation" issue (and where you didn't the word "allegation") and kept the word Mufti's antisemetism whereas you recognize here above it is not correct to have this.
I would like you to argue that you are not making a fool of the whole wikipedia editors with your last comments.
Ceedjee (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll repeat Ironduke's question above: "does any dispute the Mufti's antisemitism? Any RS's?" --GHcool (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging Israeli-Palestinian conflict into this article.

Please be aware that we will attempt to merge the above article with this one. Information will be transferred before editing for coherence where needed. also POV issues will be resolved along the way. the conversation is outgoing and in here - [17]. Cryptonio (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this. I request that any such merge be discussed first through a formal request made through WP:MERGE. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My recent updates

I've divided the headlines into the main six time periods which are listed in "Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Periods of the conflict". What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it. --GHcool (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Some of it doesn't work. The British Mandate, for example, began before 1920. I'll try to make it work in my merger (which is almost ready for prime time). --GHcool (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The British Mandate of Palestine officialy began in 1920 - look for yourself - "Britain ruled Palestine in the years 1920-1948, a period in history referred to as the "British Mandate."" TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right. --GHcool (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Replacing the major events sub-chapters partition with time periods sub-chapters partition

In my opinion, it is currently not possible to provide a good comprehensive and neutral historical overview of the conflict because the sub-chapters of the article only focus on the most prominent events of the conflict.

In addition to that, I believe that a sub-chapters partition based the most prominent events of the conflict is a bad partition because the chosen chapters would always be controversial among both parties and might occasionally even skew the article to a one sided POV.

Therefore, I believe that only a sub-chapters partition based the main six time periods would enable us to provide the missing additional important information which didn’t fit into the current sub-chapters, which would help keep the historical overview more comprehensive and more neutral.

Even though I have added a time periods sub-chapters partition only a few days ago in addition to the major events sub-chapters partition, in my opinion it is absolutely necessary that we’ll only have a time periods sub-chapters partition.

What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think tomorrow I'm going to replace this article with my merge and see what happens. --GHcool (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I was away during the weekend but now I am back and I plan to improve this article as much as I can during the following days. Please help me work on each section separately instead of completely replacing it with your draft.
P.S - your draft still includes a sub-chapters partition based the most prominent events of the conflict. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

GHcool's draft

I guess I wasn't clear enough about this. Since your draft still needs much improvement, since it hasn't reached a consensus in the talk pages and since I've started working on intensively improving each section of this article per day as much as I can I ask of you to please refrain from replacing this entire article with your draft. I have already invested many hours on improving the last two sections which in my opinion are much better than in your draft. I'll be glad if you could join in and help improve the article with me and/or if you can help add important or missing sentences or add sources. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I thought you were following the discussion here, but I guess you weren't. I also spent many hours on my draft. Mostly, I'm trying to trim down the extra fat. That's why my draft is much shorter than the current version. May I ask if we use my version (since its more economical and reads a little better as more of a narrative) and you can add to it? I think we're working at cross purposes: my goal is to shorten the article to the essentials while your goal appears to be going into greater detail on particulars. --GHcool (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Even though I am trying to keep it shorter, my main aim is to keep the essential information in the article and present a wide overview while keeping it as NPOV as possible. Since this article focuses entirely on the conflict we aren’t restricted to keeping it as short as we were with the history section in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article. Therefore, I suggest that you let me finish my work, help me improve my latest major revamp, and after I'll finish my full merge we'll try to figure together how we can further cut down the essential information. I have to add that in my opinion the main aim is to keep the essential information and present a wide overview rather than just a short article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I will let you finish your work. I respectfully suggest that we keep things as simple as we can in this article while still maintaining NPOV. I imagine a casual reader who does not know the first thing about the conflict will find it hard to navigate though the article as currently written without becoming confused, bored, or both.
If we cannot agree on an approach, perhaps we can agree on a length. Right now, my proposal is 49 kb long and the article in its current form is 96 kb long. Let's agree that in a week from today (April 20), the article ought to be no more than 70 kb long. Is that a reasonable objective? --GHcool (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we should strive to keep it more understandable and stick to the essential while trying to keep it shorter by consider rephrasing of sentences and discussing what information is essential to our readers ALTHOUGH that doesn't mean we should create a "Israeli–Palestinian conflict for dummies". The Israeli–Palestinian conflict complex controversial on-going conflict which has been going on for more than a 100 years! And therefore I believe that our initial main goal shouldn’t be setting a size limit to it but to present a wide historical overview which would be based on the most essential information within reasonable size limits. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I was hoping for a more "Israeli-Palestinian conflict for dummies" approach with links to the main articles that go into greater detail if the reader is interested in learning more on a specific topic. --GHcool (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
why not keep a more serious article which would cover the entire conflict? The topic is important enough for a wide Wikipedia article. After I'll finish my work on it, it shouldn't be too long and I am sure that if we work on the article together we'll be able to improve it tremendously with time for the benefit of our readers. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just merged my article into this one paragraph by paragraph. If I deleted anything of yours that you feel is vital, I apologize ask that you restore the sentences you think were vital. --GHcool (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to Gsmgm recent revert

I wanted to point out again that I am still working on merging the content. you could read this discussion page and this discussion page and see for yourself that this action has been previously discussed. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to this misunderstanding I have reverted my recent work back. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest additions

During the last couple of days I've spent a lot of time in merging the information Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Historical outline into this article. I haven't finished merging all the information, nevertheless, I wanted to point out that any feedback you could give to my latest additions would be gladly appreciated. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The merge is finally finished. please help me improve the article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize you were finished before posting on your talk page. Great job! --GHcool (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
looks pretty good. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Osher Twito picture

I'm sorry User:Mbz1, but Osher Twito is not notable enough to go in this article. Normally I would give you the benefit of the doubt, however your insertion of this picture/caption into at least 2 other articles says to me you are trying to use Wikipedia to make a point. Please don't. Regards Suicup (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Everybody, who was hurt by hamas Qassam rocket as much as this boy was is notable enough to go in this article. It is not me, but you who is making a point by removing the image for the third time in half-an-hour.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Rockets don't discriminate between notables and non-notables. Victims often become noteworthy through being attacked. The photo appropriately illustrates the text in this section. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. --GHcool (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The picture is not notable, it is blatantly POV, and has not been individually chosen for this article, but rather spammed into any article the editor deems he should be making his point. However, why am I not surprised the usual suspects come to its defence. Indeed, this page has just undergone a massive revision to remove so-called cruft, the bloated factoids of each individual editors whim. And here we have exactly the same thing occurring, only this time it is a picture, not a sentence. The hypocrisy is damning. Suicup (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. --GHcool (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Is that it? What a copout. Suicup (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If we really are going to play this game, i'd like to have my arguments against the picture/caption refuted...that is unless you can't refute them and hence agree that the picture should be deleted. Regards Suicup (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Already answered. Please read, really read, what three editors have been trying to tell you. It's not a game. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. Suicup (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

there have been many victims on both sides during the last century why should we only show this image? this is why I believe that it would be much better to refrain from adding any images in the future of Israeli victims or Palestinian victims to this article and rather add this specific image to an article which focuses on the victims of the conflict. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I might agree with TheCuriousGnome, however, there are two grusome pictures of Palestinian victims in the Cast Lead article without any complaints. To censor this picture of an Israeli victim would be an application of a double standard. --GHcool (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You are talking about a different article though. If someone did it over there doesn't make it right to do it over here. As I said, the conflict has led to many victims on both sides during the last century, why should we only show this image of an Israeli victim in one period of the conflict? Please answer this question before you put the image back. If this image would stay, the next step would be edit wars which would included the insertion of many other different gruesome images would be added to this article which would include images of big terror attacks made within civilian areas, images of exploding buses, images of Muhammad al-Durrah, images of dead children, etc.. You must see that there would be no end to this and that these types of images would make the article unbalanced. I beg you to refrain from adding the picture in the future or else I would be forced to have the administrators involved and reach a decision about the inclusion of the picture. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

information Note: You guys really should all stop, take a deep breath, and pursue Dispute Resolution because I don't think you can resolve this on your own. shirulashem (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I see TheCuriousGnome's reasoning. I am going to suggest that the same standard be applied to the Cast Lead article though.
Also, as a side note, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Muhammad al-Durrah thing was a hoax, so I suggest that it not be lumped into a list which contains legitimate civilian casualties. --GHcool (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The population statistics

In my opinion it is essential that population statistics charts of the Arab and the Jewish population in Palestine/Israel would be included to this article for our readers to better understand the history of the conflict. Even though I just added population statistics to all periods of the conflict, I need your help in adding even more sources which would confirm the charts I just added and the population statistics charts in the two time periods period to 1948. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of TheCuriousGnome's edit here, I cannot accept the ambiguous way the data is presented. The tables after 1948 does not make any distinction between population within and outside the borders of the State of Israel, citizens and non-citizens of the State of Israel, or Arab and Jewish control over the Palestinian territories. I suggest that if the tables are added again, they make these distinctions clear. --GHcool (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you're right - it's better to make that distinction in those charts. For now I added empty charts though. I'll do my best to find the missing data for these charts as soon as possible (you are more than welcome to help me out). Do you approve of the way the empty charts are currently built? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Its a major improvement, to be sure. The only thing I disapprove of is the way the table is laid out in the 1948-1967 section. At that time, the West Bank was Jordanian territory (not Palestinian territory) and the Gaza Strip was under the control of Egypt, not Israel. The table currently implies that the situation is similar to the situation in 2009 by putting the populations next to each other. Furthermore, the number of Arabs in the West Bank could imply Jordanian Arabs and Palestinian Arabs. We must not include non-Palestinian Arabs in this table. For this case, I think there should be three categories: Jews and Arabs in Israel, Jews and Palestinian Arabs in the Egyptian occupied Gaza Strip, and Jews and Palestinian Arabs in the Jordanian West Bank. --GHcool (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have moved all of the demographics charts to a new section within this article. I believe that just from looking at them one can learn a lot about the history of the conflict - therefore I think it works much better now that all the charts are next to each other. Nevertheless, some important data is still missing in the charts and I am currently trying to find it. You are all more than welcome to try and help me find the missing data in the charts. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked all the books I own for population statistics. Unfortunately, most either state the statistics that are already in the article or do not differentiate between Jews and Arabs and just show the total population of Israel/Palestine/Palestinian territories. I may add one for the UN Partition Plan if I get a chance. --GHcool (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. In my opinion though, the UN Partition Plan chart you added does not belong to the demographic history section because while all of the other charts presented in this section attempt to give our readers the closest actual historic demographics - the UN Partition Plan data is not trying to present actual historic demographics but rather how the demographics would have looked like if the plan would have been actually implemented. Therefore this chart is confusing to our readers and in my opinion should be removed from this specific section. Please share your opinion of this matter. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok I've removed it including the section of the Demographics of Jerusalem which in my opinion shouldn't be elaborated on here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
While I see your point, I am inclined to disagree. Without the UN Partition demographics for context, the 1947 demographics could lead readers to believe that the 1948 war was a coup, that the Jewish state was a gift from the UN, or that the Palestinian exodus and occupation of the Palestinian territories was inevitable. Is there a wording, perhaps, that would make it more clear to readers than the one I wrote for the table that this is what was proposed and rejected by the Arabs and therefore did not become a reality?
Also, I'd appreciate it if you would not remove the Jerusalem demographics. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The Demographic history section is not intended to fucos on various cities, therefore, in my opinion The inclusion of the Jerusalem demographics is not necessary at all - it is enough to add a link to the Jersualem demographics article in the see also link on the top of the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCuriousGnome (talk • contribs)
I disagree. The status of Jerusalem has been and continues to be a constant source of conflict. Demographic data for Jerusalem is highly relevant in ways that demographic data for Haifa or Tel Aviv is not. --GHcool (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
we already have a article for Jerusalem's demographics. This article is big enough as it is, in my opinion a link to that article would be enough. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


I have also added a note which explains that the decrease in the Arab population between 1947 and 1949 is due to the rejection of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the subsequent 1948 war and the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I hope you would be satisfied with my latest changes. Please help me add the current important missing data (see section below). 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, but it still does not address the UN partition demographics. I'd appreciate it if you would not remove this necessary and relevant table. As for Jerusalem, I am unsure why you are so against having this data considering how contentious the status of Jerusalem is and how relevant it is to the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Certainly you don't believe that Jerusalem is just a city like any other in the context of the history of the conflict. --GHcool (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If we'll have too many different charts added to this section, eventually it would become a giant mess and with time it would only be skewed and biased. You must know that. Therefore, in my opinion, it is much better to focus on the basic demographic comparison and add a link to the extended articles instead of putting all the charts in this section. You could add the UN Partition Plan chart to the UN Partition Plan article and add a link to it from the side note. Same goes with the Jerusalem charts. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I still don't think we have "too many different charts added to this section." I do not plan on adding any more charts and, assuming you do not add any more charts either, I think the fear that will become "a giant mess" and "skewed and biased" is unfounded. If we're going to have a section for population statistics, I am going to insist that these charts be included. I am not asking you to remove the other populations of Israel charts and add them to the demographics of Israel article and so I would appreciate it if you do not ask me to remove the other vital charts and add them to their main articles. --GHcool (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, I appreciate the way you organized the section into "Jewish and Arab populations" and "Demographics of Jerusalem." It looks much better.  :) --GHcool (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The missing demographic data

The missing data which we seek is availble at the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. please help me obtain it. If nobody manages to find it on their website, we should try requesting the data from them through an email. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Section tag explanation

I put an NPOV tag on the Mandate section. It deserves a FACT tag as well, but I don't like multiple tags. Examples:

  • Neither the San Remo agreement nor the Treaty of Sevres called for the establishment of a Jewish Agency. That came with the Mandate for Palestine. However, not even the Mandate for Palestine called for an "independent" Jewish Agency. Actually its role was "advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine..subject always to the control of the Administration" (Article 4).
  • "Arab gangs committed terrorism and murder against Jewish convoys and Jewish residents." What about the hundreds of Arab civilians killed by Etzel?
  • [Grand Mufti] "played a key role in inciting religious riots", this is the Jewish claim not supported by others until the 1936 rebellion which was not a religious riot.
  • "He tried to gain control of the Western Wall (the Kotel), saying that it was sacred to the Muslims.". No, the Muslim Waqf already had control of it by law. And why are two Jewish names used but no Muslim names?
  • "Jews were massacred in Hebron, and the survivors expelled from the town." The first part is true but the second part is false.
  • "The Peel Commission of 1937 was the first to propose a two-state solution to the conflict, whereby Palestine would be divided into two states according to its population." Wrong, it was not according to its population.
  • (Peel Commision): "Arab state would include ...most of the Galilee", no the Jewish state would include all of the Galilee and the Jezreel Valley.
  • "These restrictions remained until the end of the mandate period, a period which occurred in parallel with World War II and the Holocaust, during which many Jewish refugees tried to escape from Europe." - a common but disgraceful distortion. Actually the Nazis closed the gates so that the immigration certificates were not even all taken up.
  • "During the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine ties were made between the Arab leadership in Palestine and the Nazi movement in Germany.", actually hardly any ties at all.
  • "These connections led to cooperation between the Palestinian national movement and the Axis powers later on during World War II.", a grotesque lie!
  • "During the war Amin al-Husayni joined the Nazis, serving with the Waffen SS in Bosnia.", this is a joke, right?
  • Why do we need a Mufti+Hitler photo in yet another article? Actually the effect it had on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was nil.
  • "In addition, during the war a joint Palestinian-Nazi military operation was held in the region of Palestine. These factors caused a deterioration.." Actually it was kept secret (try finding it in the newspapers of the time) and didn't cause anything at all.
  • "the Jewish Resistance Movement was disassembled in 1946", nonsense, only a temporary pause happened
  • "the Council of the United Nations", no such body

Zerotalk 12:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I helped with a few of your concerns. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
So, I added sources to the facts which Zero doubted were true. The following concerns remain to be dealt with at a future time:
  • Zero claims, "Neither the San Remo agreement nor the Treaty of Sevres called for the establishment of a Jewish Agency." I believe he is correct, though that is just a hunch.
  • Zero claims that Jews were not expelled from Hebron following the Hebron massacre. I am unsure if this is correct or not.
  • Zero claims that the Peel Commission did not divide the two states according to population. I'm unclear about what is meant by this claim. Surely, the Peel Commission calls for an Arab state and a Jewish state.
  • Zero claims that the Jewish Resistance Movement was only temporarily dissasembled in 1946. I do not know if this is true or not.
  • Zero claims that there is "no such body" as "the Council of the United Nations." I do not know if this is true or not. --GHcool (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
All of the concerns have been addressed. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hussein's federation plan

Does anybody aside from TheCuriousGnome believe that a little-known Jordanian plan in 1972 that never got even close to being off the ground and had nothing to do with the relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis deserve a full paragraph in the 1967-93 section? If not, I'll remove the paragraph within the next couple of days. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly relevant, as it was a proposed solution to the conflict. Regarding undue weight, personally I don't think 4 sentences is excessive, but I don't have a particularly strong opinion on that. In terms of historical significance, the Israeli response to the proposal included the first official claim of a "historic right" of the Jewish people over the Occupied Palestinian Territories, so has been seen by some as a turning point in Isreali policy. Prior to the Knesset resolution responding to Hussein's plan, the official Israeli position had claimed their only interest was security. Dlv999 (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Dlv999, do you think we would be able to rewrite (and maybe in the same opportunity reduce to some extent) the aforementioned paragraph in a way that would help emphasize the meaning and relevance of the event to Israeli–Palestinian conflict so that this would be more easily understandable to all? If so, please suggest a new phrasing in this discussion. Thanks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Div999, Zionists have been talking about historic rights to the Land of Israel since the days of Herzl, so I don't know this 1972 statement represents no turning point. The argument that its relevant because it is a proposed solution to the conflict is pretty absurd. I hereby propose that all Israelis voluntarily relocate to the Canadian tundra while all the Palestinians voluntarily relocate to the Australian outback. Should my proposed solution also be in this article? If you think my solution is too absurd, would you include the many less absurd proposals that have been equally ignored by all parties in the Middle East? --GHcool (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to Israel's official position, so your point about Zionists talking in the days of Herzl is irrelevant. Nobody ignored Hussein's plan, all parties strongly objected to it, but it was not "ignored". Dlv999 (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It was ignored by every history book I've ever read. --GHcool (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

/* 1948-67 */ invaded/INTERVENED IN; Dec of 14 May locality of 'the newly self-declared state'?

1 The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel of 14 May gave no exact locality of the new State of Israel. The nearest is the phrase in Eretz Israel.[1] Presumably the Arab armies marched into part of the Mandate set aside for the Arab state. Is that an invasion? The Jewish forces had already marched, or were also about to march, into areas set aside for the Arab state. Is that an invasion? To give an accurate description of where the Arab armies went, a reference to the former British Mandate seems better.

2 The Cablegram of 15 May from the Arab League[2] describes it as an intervention. An inclusion of both invaded and intervened in is a neutral description.Trahelliven (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

1920-48: British Mandate of Palestine: Break into 1920-45 and 1945-48

TheCuriousGnome

I agree that the split was not necessary. It just seemed to me that the end of World War II was a watershed, particularly when thw section had become rather long. What are your reasons for not liking the split? Trahelliven (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The article's current sections are essentially the main major distinct phases/time periods of the conflict:
In my opinion it would be a mistake to splitting these major periods into sub-sections mainly because the article would then eventually cease to focus on presenting the summarized most important events of the conflict in a neutral way, and instead would start to focus on a narrative of a certain party in the conflict (with sub sections such as "the rise of the Likud/Hams/Palestinian Authority/etc" which would quickly fill up with a lot of redundant information). Do you still believe it is necessary to split the "British Mandate of Palestine" into "British Mandate of Palestine I (1917 - 1945)" and "British Mandate of Palestine II (1945 - 1948)". In any case, although I oppose this split, I have no ownership of this article and therefore, if you have a convincing argument for splitting the section of the British Mandate period into two, and if the other participants in the discussion would support your proposal, we can definitely consider splitting this section or another section. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
TheCuriousGnome

I don't believe it is necessary. I do not have strong feelings about it. We'll wait and sse what others might think. There are more important things to have strong feelings about. Trahelliven (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A plea for a 100 year narrative

Given the importance of the conflict articles to our project I had hoped for more feedback at this RFC, but I think I overcomplicated the description. Some editors may also be thinking "we've been just fine for 10 years so is there really a problem here that needs solving"? I would like to encourage more editors to contribute.

The core issue behind the RFC question is that most readers know very little about the conflict and therefore need one single summary article to read and begin their journey, and we need that single summary article to broadly match the picture that the 1,000s of books summarizing this conflict take. Instead we have sat for many years with three primary articles (IPC since 48, AIC since 48 and ICMP 20-48) which are fine but are missing something above them to thread them together into the 100-year-narrative of the conflict presented by the vast majority of books on the topic.

I recognize that many editors may find the question is a little more dry and boring than many of the debates around here, but its importance to the average Wikipedia reader can hardly be overstated.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I think there's a considerable amount of NPOV issues that need fixing here. This article's presentation of the modern history of the conflict, particularly Oslo and since, focuses disproportionately on Palestinian terror attacks, while leaving out far more significant events that reflect negatively on Israel - for example, a whole section on the Second Intifada which doesn't mention Ariel Sharon's triggering visit to the al-Aqsa mosque, or the characterisation of 2005-present as "The strengthening of Hamas in the Gaza Strip".

I'm going to start work on a thorough NPOV clean-up, including some restructuring, and retitle 2005-present within the framework of Palestinian statehood, which has had far more significant developments in terms of the big picture consideration of the conflict. TrickyH (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. 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) 09:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm
  2. ^ http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cablegram_from_the_Secretary-General_of_the_League_of_Arab_States_to_the_Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict/Archive_2&oldid=1136798544"