Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Citations

There are a lot here with lots of different formatting. I hope nobody minds if I go through the references and make them all one semi-uniform citation style. I like MLA the best. --GHcool (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It took a few weeks, but now I'm finally DONE! --GHcool (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

internal violence

Can Wikifan please enlighten us all as to how conflict between Palestinians is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and why so much space should be devoted in a top-level article that is a summary of a number of other articles? nableezy - 03:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a multi-faceted war. The intra-fighting among Palestinian groups is not independent of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is a direct part of it. The current war between Hamas and Fatah had influence over the peace process and has spilled over into Israel. And of course Israel has been actively training and protecting Fatah. I don't see why editors are upset over a highly-notable topic, while much less relevant information remains. A lot of the article is potentially original research. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because it looks like an attempt to include as much negative information about one side of the conflict as possible? Much like the section of dubious merit above it which includes the hilarious allegation that RFK's assassination was fallout from the I/P conflict. If internal Palestinian violence shapes the I/P conflict in a major fashion it would be beneficial to include how. It's like including a section on the USS Liberty, Rachel Corrie or King David hotel bombing here; there's no point beyond innuendo. Sol (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The USS liberty had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Your analogies have no relation to internal violence. Intra-fighting is not inherently negative information, it is simple fact. The most lingering issue currently is the split between Hamas and Fatah. The war is a serious part of the israeli-palestinian conflict, especially these days when rivaling groups are looking to influence the peace process through violence. Please, feel free to add "positive" information. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Positive information about the I/P conflict? Precious little of that. :P The point is that it's only moderately related, like those examples. I'll try to look up some information on how it shapes the conflict. Wasn't there some issue with that lynching photo or were the liscense problems resolved? Sol (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No references in History section

Seems very un-Wikipedia. While readers _can_ go to the 'History of' article, there probably should be RS-supported substance in this article too.Haberstr (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I volunteer to tackle this in time. --GHcool (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Palestinian violence outside Israel" is listed under "Current issues in the dispute"?

The article is portraying events from the 1960s and 70s as if they are current events. There isn't any corresponding mention of Jewish or Israeli violence beyond the borders of Israel, e.g. the Deir Yassin massacre, the Lavon Affair, The Qibya Massacre, the Es Samu raid, the Lillehammer affair, & etc.

In 2009 and 2010 alone there have been three or four international fact finding commissions that have recommended that Israelis be prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those recommendations are being actively followed-up and reviewed but are not mentioned.

The Gaza blockade has been declared an illegal form of collective punishment and a crime against humanity by the responsible treaty bodies, the ICRC, the EU, and the General Assembly. I can't imagine why on Earth it is listed under "Actions toward stabilizing the conflict". harlan (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

deleted unsatisfactory section

Deleted:

However, General Assembly resolutions are legally non-binding and have no force as international law.^[1] and that the rights of refugees are not inherited by their descendants. The Palestinians are the only refugees where decedents inherit refugee status. The decedents of refugees in Sudan and Congo, are not considered refugees and are not entitled to United Nations subsidies.^[2]^[3]

Reasons:

This dot point is one of a list introduced as "Palestinian and international authors have justified the right of return of the Palestinian refugees on several grounds:", but it is clearly an attempt to construct an argument against those grounds. As such it is obviously a violation of WP:SYNTH. There are other places in the article where properly cited counterarguments can be noted.
The old claim about descendants is false and neither of the two citations even address the question. The first one is about the Rwandan Nationality Code (what does that have to do with it?) and the second is so bizarrely irrelevant it looks like an editing mistake. The fact about descendants under UNHCR is easy to determine; just go to their web page and download the current operations manual. "Item 184: If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity... Item 185: As to which family members may benefit from the principle of family unity, the minimum requirement is the inclusion of the spouse and minor children. In practice, other dependants, such as aged parents of refugees, are normally considered if they are living in the same household..." (UNHCR Handbook, HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1)

Zero^talk 10:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. 194 binds Israel for the obvious reason that Israel voted for it - and again voted for the refugee provisions, in accord with the Arab states, a few months later in the unanimous GA 302 or 303.John Z (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to deal with the odd reference to Rwanda but didn't know what to do with the statement overall. Maybe yours is the best way to deal with it.Haberstr (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

All right I agree the paragraph is problematic and my revert was premature, but the reality is the entire section is mostly SYTH and far from neutral. According to the original Palestinian refugee articles, Palestinian are the only refugees whose mandate is not resettlement. From I understand, the 15,000,000+ decedents of refugees in Sudan are not entitled to refugee status. The Palestinians are the only refugees where decedents inherit refugee status, even though nearly half of the Palestinians refugees living in the West Bank and Jordan are citizens of Jordan. European Court of Human Rights ruled the right of return has no legal basis. I don't know much about the UNGA resolutions other than they are plenty of em' and legally non-binding. The section places a narrow and excessive focus on Palestinian injustices. Less than a paragraph is dedicated to the Jewish exodus, even though many more Jews than Arabs were expelled. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the section as a whole is a mass of SYNTH and altogether unsatisfactory. It looks like an abandoned war zone. Zero^talk 07:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Zero's objections look reasonable. Sol (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Same problem, different article

Here we go again. Resolution 194 simply reaffirmed decisions contained in resolution 181(II). Judges, legal publicists, and legal scholars agree that the General Assembly and the Security Council are "unconditionally bound" by peremptory norms of international law. See for exampleThe Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, by Alexander Orakhelashvili, The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 no.1, pp 59-88. It is doubtful that Efraim Karsh is even qualified to comment on that situation. Alexander Orakhelashvili wrote that a "just settlement" can only refer to a settlement guaranteeing the return of displaced Palestinians. He said that it must be presumed that the Security Council did not adopt decisions that validated mass deportation or displacement, since expulsion or deportation are crimes against humanity or an exceptionally serious war crime.

It was a well-established principle of 19th century customary international law that cessions of territory were never understood to be cessions of the property of the inhabitants.[1] Treaties, like Article 144 of the Treaty of Sevres, reflected that principle. The Turkish government was required to recognize the injustice of the law of 1915 relating to Abandoned Properties and to declare them to be null and void, in the past as in the future. It was also required to solemnly undertake to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the return to their homes and re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects "of non-Turkish race" who have been forcibly driven from their homes by fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914. The international community also intended that their communities be restored to them. [2]

The provision of minority rights guarantees, including the protection of homes, places of worship, and communities were a condition for termination of a League of Nations mandate regime and cessions of territory. See Luther Harris Evans, "The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758; and Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 069100711X, pp 92-93.

In the Southwest Africa case, the ICJ ruled that the consent of the UN General Assembly was required for the termination of any LoN Mandate. Resolution 181 contained several legally binding decisions, including those regarding termination of the mandate, minority protection, and a trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem. Those decisions were adopted in accordance with the terms of Article 18 of the UN Charter [3] and the General Assembly's powers and functions regarding non-self governing territories and peoples under Article 85 of the Charter.[4] ICJ President Elias wrote "It seems clear that, as far as General Assembly recommendations in respect of the nine specifically enumerated matters in Article 18(2) are concerned, its "decisions" in the form of "recommendations" are binding upon all once they are adopted by a two thirds majority." See Taslim Olawale Elias, and Richard Akinjide, "Africa and the development of international law", Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988, ISBN: 9024737966, page 70.

The representative of the Jewish Agency, Moshe Shertok, said "With regard to the status of Assembly resolutions in international law it was admitted that any which touched on the national sovereignty of the members of the United Nations were mere recommendations and not binding. However the Palestine resolution was essentially different for it concerned the future of a territory subject to an international trust. Only the United Nations as a whole was competent to determine the future of the territory and it's decision therefore had a binding force." See UN Doc. A/C. 1/SR.A 127, para 7, April 27, 1948.

The United Nations and its subsidiary organs say that Israel has a binding legal obligation that flows from resolution 181(II) and that the United Nations has a permanent responsibility in the matter that has its origins in resolution 181(II). See Report Of The Committee On The Exercise Of The Inalienable Rights Of The Palestinian People [5] U.N. doc. S/12090, 29 May 1976; and United Nations General Assembly resolution 57/107 of 3 December 2002 cited in "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" [6] Journal of the International Court of Justice, page 159 (pdf file 51 of 139) harlan (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"just settlement" can only refer to a settlement guaranteeing the return of displaced Palestinians.

Wrong Harlan, no binding UN-resolution has remotely inferred the decedents of Palestinians have a right to return to a country they were never citizens of. Over 150,000,000 were displaced in wars and partitions in post-WWII, a Palestinian right of return would set a legal precedent that would likely destroy the economies of European nations assuming descedents of those affected by the Western Betrayal pursued a right of return. The European Human Rights Court ruled against a right of return. EHRC doesn't have jurisdiction over Israel/Palestine yet but it is the closest to international law we have now. Most of your posts agrees with the gist of what I'm saying: non-binding resolution. the ICJ ruling on the security barrier was again, non-binding and advisory and doesn't say much about a supposed right of return. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Zero's objections seem well founded. Sol (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding to Harlan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You aren't "responding" to anyone. I cited a passage for you from a journal article about the meaning of the phrase "just settlement" in UN Security Council resolution 242. The author said that it meant "guaranteeing the return of displaced Palestinians". You are making a non-sequitur argument about their descendants.

The ICJ was advising the General Assembly on the consequences that arise "from the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions". See UNGA resolution ES-10/14, 8 December 2003. The rules and principles of international law don't cease to operate when they are mentioned in a UN resolution or an ICJ advisory opinion.

The Court said that the UN has a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine as a result of General Assembly resolution 181(II) "until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy" (paragraph 49). The Court noted that resolution 181 (II) on the future government of Palestine, devoted an entire chapter of the Plan of Partition to guaranteeing the existing right of freedom of movement and right of access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites (paragraph 129). The Court also expressed the opinion that the situation can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) - which require a "just settlement of the refugee problem". See paragraph 162. harlan (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait wait - so now you're talking about an interpretation made by some scholar who inferred UN242 called for a return of displaced Palestinians? So what? UN242 says nothing about a right of return in plain english and any interpretations made by scholars are interpretations. The ICJ wall link said nothing about a right of return - I read your link, the page you listed, and translated the french version - nothing about displaced Palestinians is mentioned. A "just settlement of the refugee problem" couldn't possibly be inferred that millions of decedents who have never sit foot in Israel somehow have a legal right to enter that new state even though no legal precedent in international law supports such a move. The UNSC provided no specific resolution or provision endorsing a right of return or compensation for refugees. And the "just settlement" reference was ambiguous, and probably applied to the hundreds of thousands of Jews being interned by Arab nations and expelled to Israel in post-67 war era. Of course, those Jews were assimilated and were not allowed to camp outside their original homes supported by a special-UN organization tailored for their leadership and needs.

The modern peace process starting with the Oslo Accords, stipulated under Article XII that policies towards the rights of refugees would be part of a negotiated settlement. No mention of right of return.

1996 Israeli-Palestinian interim agreements

express a similar function, a negotiated settlement with no mention of moving Palestinians born in the West Bank/Gaza into the Israeli state as part of a "just settlement."

The Jordan-Israel peace treaty again says nothing about a right of return, but a "settlement" probably monetary or finances to improve the standard of living for refugees.

So, aside from a few non-binding UN resolutions and advisory rulings on Israel's security barrier, contracting agreements between Israeli and the Palestinian leadership say nothing about a right of return. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You obviously did NOT bother to read Orakhelashvili's article, because he explained the operation of the customary rule contained in Article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (page 63). It provides that "A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law." A number of journal articles have questioned the validity of the Oslo Accords in light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. They preclude any special agreement between the Occupying Power and local officials that would prejudice the rights of the inhabitants under the Convention. See for example Kearney, Michael G., Palestine and the International Criminal Court: Asking the Right Question (July 1, 2010), UCLA Human Rights & International Criminal Law Online Forum, page 13. SSRN: [7]. Both of those conventions reflect rules of customary international law that are binding on non-signatories.

The five basic requirements for a Security Council resolution regarding the Middle East settlement were established by President Johnson in an address at the State Department's Foreign Policy Conference for Educators on June 19, 1967. He specifically mentioned justice for the refugees and restoring the victims of past and present conflicts to their homes. Israel insisted that the resolution not depart from the principles contained in the President's speech. See for example Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 423 [8]

Regarding treaties with Jordan. Prior to the Lausanne Conference, Ben Gurion told US PCC representative Ethridge that "Arab Palestine might be accorded a special status in the settlement through a federal device in union with Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume VI, Page 927 [9] In "The Missing Reversioner", footnote 24, Yehuda Blum pointed out that Israel had signed an armistice agreement on April 3, 1949 with Jordan rather than Transjordan. He said the name of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan was changed in 1949, and that the reason for the change was that the country now included a large part of Arab Palestine. See Moore, John Norton, The Arab Israeli Conflict Volume II, Readings, ASIL/Princeton University Press ISBN 069105648-X, pages 296-297. The Kingdom of Jordan recognized the PLO as the “sole legitimate representative” of the Palestinian people on October 28, 1974, long before the union with the West Bank was dissolved in 1988. [10] Israel also recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people before it signed the peace treaty with Jordan.

The written statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the ICJ Wall case outlined Israel's policy of expelling the Palestinian population during the 1967 war and earlier conflicts. There was an annex devoted to a discussion of the documentary evidence.[11] The Court's legal analysis included a discussion of the Hague and Geneva rules regarding displacement by an occupying power and the requirement contained in Article 49 that "Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased." See paragraph 126. FYI, Articles 7 and 8 preclude any special agreement with the PLO that would renounce that right.

I quoted the President of the ICJ who said that resolutions adopted under the terms of Article 18 are binding. I also quoted the statement of Moshe Shertok who said that UN resolutions regarding territories subject to international trusts have binding force. harlan (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Who said resolutions adopted under Article 18 are legally binding? Article 18 is simply a mandate as to how the UNGA functions and operates. All UNGA resolutions are non-binding. The non-alignment movement has a super-majority in the UN and thus any resolution pertaining to Israel will be passed regardless.

I'm really not disputing any of your sources or your claims. It seems you aren't disputing what I am saying either. The Palestinian leadership has not questioned the integrity of the Oslo Accords and the international community, including the UN, the Quartet, and EU all refer to contracts signed between Israelis and Palestinians with full legal force. A few legal journals and scholars "questioning" the legality of the peace process is meaningless. Plenty of scholars provide plenty of interpretations and plenty of opinions.

The Six Day War was a conflict with Jordan, not the Palestinians. Arabs displaced were citizens of Jordan in the West Bank (Jordan is the East Bank). But regardless, we're talking about an event four decades ago. The issue with the Palestinian right of return is why decedents are entitled to refugee status, and if later generations can sue for citizenship or land. All legal precedents say no, more recently the European Human Rights Court. The Palestinians are now entering their what..6th generation? According to the UN, the Palestinians are the only refugees whose mandate is not resettlement. The right of return has no legal basis. A nice comprehensive article published by the JVL for further reference. I'm tired, probably will edit this later. thanks for being cordial. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've not been discussing Palestinians who were not dislocated from Palestine. The children born to Palestinian refugees living in other countries have the same nationality as their parents. That nationality had it origins in international law and Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

In a de jure sense, Gaza and Jerusalem were part of the Mandated State of Palestine and have not yet become part of any other sovereignty. See for example Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. XVIII, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341. A State does not cease to exist simply because its territory is occupied. For example, the Charter of the League of Arab States stipulates that its members recognize the de jure existence of the State of Palestine. So, the children are political refugees, but that does not mean they are also displaced persons. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention contains a prohibition against population transfers or deportations. It also provides the legal basis for the right of persons to return to their homes after hostilities have ceased. It has been universally ratified and reflects the rules and principles of customary international law. harlan (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Article 18 of the UN Charter is part of a multilateral international treaty which describes the functions and powers of the General Assembly. It says that the General Assembly can make "decisions" on "important questions". The words "non-binding" do not appear in the UN Charter. Whiteman's Digest explains "The first stage in interpreting a particular clause of a treaty is to examine its ordinary meaning in isolation from the whole document. This is, in itself, not conclusive, but, as stated by the International Court of Justice, "If the relevant words in their natural and ordinary meaning make sense in their context, that is the end of the matter." See Marjorie Whiteman, Digest of International Law. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970) vol. 14, p. 371.

The ICJ dismissed the idea that General Assembly resolutions are non-binding in the "Certain Expenses" case. France and Russia said the General Assembly had exceeded its authority when it created the UNEF Expeditionary Force. They subsequently refused to pay their share of its costs. The Court said "Thus while it is the Security Council which, exclusively, may order coercive action, the functions and powers conferred by the Charter on the General Assembly are not confined to discussion, consideration, the initiation of studies and the making of recommendations; they are not merely hortatory. Article 18 deals with "decisions" of the General Assembly "on important questions". These "decisions" do indeed include certain recommendations, but others have dispositive force and effect. See page 163 (pdf file 28 of 65)[12] The majority of post-WWII international treaties are contained in General Assembly resolutions, and all of the UN territorial trusteeships were created by agreements contained in legally binding General Assembly resolutions. The Interim Agreements between Israel and the PLO expired in 2000. The subsequent status quo arrangements are not part of any formal treaty agreement. harlan (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay Harlan, what are you arguing? That the Palestinians are not the only refugees whose decedents inherit refugee status? The only refugees whose mandate is not resettlement? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are confused. Even if there were no UNRWA, Palestinians would still legally qualify as refugees under the terms of the Refugee Convention and Protocol. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled in the targeted killings case that an international armed conflict has existed in the Occupied Territories ever since the first intifada. See the subsection of the opinion "The General Normative Framework, A. International Armed Conflict"[13] Article 33 of the Refugee Convention prohibits the expulsion or return of a refugee to a place where his life or freedom would be threatened, i.e. refoulement. But there is no legal mandate to resettle rather than voluntarily repatriate refugees. Once the circumstances in connection with which a person has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, and they are able to return to the country of their former habitual residence or nationality, the terms of the refugee convention simply cease to apply.

In any event, many countries, like Japan, no longer consider Palestinians to be stateless. Children born to Palestinian parents living in Japan are registered as having Palestinian nationality, see [14] In 1995 the UN adopted a "pro-active homeland-orientation". A "homeland-orientation" is the equivalent of a repatriation-orientation. Shortly thereafter, Prof. Barry Stein and USAID said that "Repatriation not only has become the preferred durable solution, it is the only available durable solution. Less than one per cent of the world's refugees are resettled in third countries and almost none of the countries of asylum are prepared to offer permanent status to their refugees. By default, if the number of refugees is to be reduced it will be by means of repatriation."[15] harlan (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Harlan what do you want? The Palestinians are the only refugees whose decedents are considered refugees and the only refugees with their own special refugee organization within the UN political apparatus. This is a fact. The decedents of the 900,000+ Jews that were expelled from Muslim lands, including many Israeli leaders, are not considered refugees and didn't receive a dime from the UN. Over 150,000,000 people were displaced in post WII, and yet the Palestinians are the only refugees who are considered perpetual refugees even though 40% of Palestinian refugees are citizens of Jordan. So let's see - Palestinians receive subsidies from the UN (second only to Congo per capita), subsidies from Jordan, subsidies from EU aid (2 billion annually) in addition to whatever the Arab nations deliver - and this is before we consider Palestine's 15 billion annual economy.

So I'm not ignoring what various scholars say on the uniqueness of the Palestinians, I'm asking what do you want? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't trouble me that the Palestinians are receiving foreign aid. If that sort of thing complies with WP:NOT, then you might check and see if JVL compares aid to the Palestinians with the subsidies Israel has received over the decades in the form of grants and loan guarantees, tax-exempt foreign charitable contributions, & etc. The Congressional Research Service says that between 1971 and 2001 Israel received 78,908.6 ($ in millions) in grants and loans from the US government alone, while the Palestinians received 703.4 ($ in millions) See Table 11. Total U.S. Assistance to the Middle East: 1971-2001 on page 29 [16] There are reports that the settlements have cost the State of Israel more than $17 billion. [17] So, it probably costs the average taxpayer more to support the ex-pat New Yorkers living in Efrat than the Palestinian refugees living in Jenin.

Zionists leaders claimed that the Jewish right of return and a state of their own, as enshrined in the Balfour Declaration, was part of the "law of the United Nations", e.g. [18] Israel claims that all Jewish children living abroad inherit a legal status from their parents. In 1950, the "Law of Return" was passed stating that every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel, and granting automatic citizenship and benefits to any Jew who makes aliyah. See the JVL article Who is a Jew? [19] Is that what all of this WP:COATRACK regarding the "unique" status of Palestinian refugees is about? Guaranteeing the return of dislocated Palestinians in accordance with article 49 of the Geneva Convention is not unreasonable. Granting citizenship to descendants would NOT be unique either. harlan (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you still on this Harlan? The Palestinians are the only refugees whose decedents inherit refugee status, and the only refugees with their own special UN-funded organization designed to cater to their leads. These are facts and it seems you don't deny them. I ask again - what do you want? If you want a political discussion I suggest you join a forum. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, the definition of Palestine refugee has never been unique to Muslims or Christians. When the Plenipotentiary delegates decided to exempt refugees who were receiving the protection of the UNRWA from the terms of the draft UNHCR Refugee Convention, there were 17,000 Jewish refugees under UNRWA protection in Israel and the UN PCC was maintaining a registry of their property, blocked accounts, and etc, e.g. [20] [21]

The Introduction of the UNHCR Refugee Convention and Protocol mentions three groups of "refugees" and explains that the Convention does not apply to those refugees who are the concern of United Nations agencies other than UNHCR, nor to refugees who have a status equivalent to nationals in their country of refuge. The Refugee Convention is used to determine the status of the remaining refugees. All of the Jewish refugees from Palestine and the other Arab countries living in Israel fell into one of the two categories exempted from the terms of the UNHCR Convention. [22]

A refugee is any person who is outside the country of his or her nationality with a well-grounded fear of being persecuted for reasons or race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, who is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. The conventional rules regarding refoulment apply to all members of a protected social group. That includes any members of the group born in refugee camps. So, as a general rule, children born in refugee camps do inherit the refugee status of their parents and are listed on any travel documents prepared for the parents.

That was the case with the Kmer and Montagnards in the camps on the Thai-Cambodian border, [23] and is still the case with the Hmong living in the camps in Thailand today, e.g. See "Growing Up in Refugee Camps" in the article "The Refugee Experience in Thailand". [24] The claim that Palestinians are unique in that particular respect is a doubtful proposition. Most other armed conflicts have not spanned multiple generations. harlan (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, the Palestinians are the only refugees whose decedents inherit refugee status. The fact that this conflict has spanned multiple-generations is not predicated on the plight of Palestinians and has nothing to do with refugee laws. So, as a general rule - most "refugees" are not considered refugees six decades later. According to the UNRWA, the Palestinians are the only refugees whose descendants inherit full refugee status. Refugees in Sudan, Somalia, and Congo - cannot pass off their refugee status to their children. And anyways, the majority of Palestinians refugees don't even live in refugee camps, so analogies to Thailand/Cambodian are laughable. If the UNRWA was eliminated and the Palestinian refugees were merged into the universal standards applied to all other refugee groups, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the "Introduction" of the UNHCR Convention and Protocol itself stipulates that there are two other categories of refugees to which the UNHCR rules do not apply, the claim that those rules are a "universal standard that is applied to all other refugee groups" is obviously a moot point.

Zero cited the UNHCR manual which said that if the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependents (young and old alike) are normally granted refugee status. The UNHRC Refugee Convention allows anyone to be considered a refugee on the basis of inherited characteristics, like race, nationality, & etc. I gave you examples of other ethnic groups that are considered refugees. All of that should have concluded this discussion.

I cited the Israeli High Court decision in the "Targeted Killings" case. It advanced the view of the Israeli government that there has been an on-going international armed conflict ever since the first Intifada began and that the risk of accidental civilian casualties has to be weighed against the military benefits. On a number of occasions the head of UNHCR has called for strict adherence to humanitarian principles in the on-going conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The High Commissioner said that includes "respect for the universal right of those fleeing war to seek safety in other states", e.g. [25] The General Assembly has endorsed a number of fact-finding reports regarding human rights violations, collective punishment, and war crimes in the Occupied Territories that would otherwise qualify Palestinians as refugees on an ipso jure basis under the terms of Article 1.A.(2) of the UNHRC Refugee Convention. harlan (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Token examples in Thailand/Cambodia are irrelevant in this case and incomparable. The issue with Palestine is a refugee status entering its 6th generation. If we keep this up, 500 years from now Palestinians will still be referred to as refugees. At that point it will be tough to sell Palestinians as refugees. The UNRWA has been widely condemned for its rubric and criteria for Palestinian refugees and some claim that it perpetuates the conflict. In every other war, the mandate of all refugees are resettlement. Can you show me a precedent in post WWII where decedents of refugees were allowed to camp outside the homes of their ancestors? You know - like the 10,000,000 displaced in the partition of india, 1 million killed. And yet all refugees have been resettled. But applying the Palestinian rubric, there are now hundreds of millions of refugees in India and Pakistan.

You continue to dodge the fact that Palestinians are the only refugees whose decedents inherit refugee status at birth. I don't see what collective punishment/targeted killings have anything to do with refugee status. The plight has no weight on refugee status. No one could compare the plight of black muslims and christian dinka refugees in Sudan to the plight of Palestinians, but their decedents are still not considered refugees and their mandate is resettlement. In fact we don't even know how many Sudanese refugees there are because the UN has not allocated enough resources to establish a comprehensive census. Millions are stranded in Egypt without any aid whatsoever. But the Palestinians are second to Congo.

The manner in which Palestinians are designated as refugees has no precedent or remote parallel in international law. The differences between the UNRWA - which is essentially run by the Palestinian Authority - and the UNHRC, responsible for all other refugees, are too damning to ignore. Even top officials within the UNRWA have confirmed these issues. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, your posts have turned into unsourced soapbox editorials. I suppose the former top UNRWA official you are referring to is James Lindsay. Israel had already created a humanitarian crisis with the blockade before Operation Cast Lead. In January of 2009 the IDF destroyed or damaged most of the UNRWA schools and facilities in Gaza, used white phosphorus munitions in populated areas, and destroyed or damaged around 28,000 homes. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees reminded everyone involved about "respect for the universal right of those fleeing war to seek safety in other states". A few days later on the 8th of February, WINEP (AIPAC) published a report authored by Lidsay condemning UNRWA and recommending that the Palestinian refugees living in Jordan be repatriated to the combat zone in Gaza. Needless to say, WINEP Research Fellows are a lobby group who get paid to blame others and minimize the problems caused by you-know-who.

Palestinians are designated as refugees because they are legally unable or unwilling to return to the country of their nationality and/or because there is still a war going on in their country. There is no statute of limitations contained in the Refugee Convention or Article 49 of the Geneva Convention.

The UNRWA does not establish the criteria for determining refugee status, that is the job of the General Assembly Sixth Committee (Legal), [26] the International Law Commission, [27], the Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees, [28] and the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, [29]. FYI, Lindsay was responsible for day-to-day operational matters like drawing-up service contracts for refuse collection and dealing with the legal red tape generated by the governments of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, & etc. harlan (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan you are the one SOAPING. I've asked numerous times what you want exactly and instead you continue going on another tangent. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Zero removed the material you added and I cited several sources that provide an opposing published viewpoint. The Orakhelashvili article has been cited and quoted in the UN Resolution 242 article for a long time now. The subsections of this article need to be harmonized with the information in the other Wikipedia I/P articles. harlan (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And did I challenge Zero's edits? No. The entire section is mostly OR and a significant shunk of the article is pure synth. The refugee section mostly consists of cherry-picked copypasta from the original articles hosted on Wikipedia, and sourcing is pretty terrible. The section should be cut down significantly and summarized, the bullet-type format is not consistent with wikipedia editing code. I also doubt the event is an "issue in dispute" as far as the modern i/p conflict goes. It's an historical event but not an issue in dispute in terms of "current issues." If anything, the event should be merged into a brief history of the israeli/palestinian conflict, starting from the early 20th century. The war did not begin in 1948. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with the Spanish Reconquest

This article does nothing to explain the difference in attitudes and public opinion between this conflict and other conflicts where native peoples return and reconquer the land they once had from invaders. One such conflict was the Spanish Reconquest, where Muslims conquered Spain after the Roman Empire fell and ruled Spain for a few centuries. The Spanish eventually were able to take Spain back from the Muslim invaders. The situation is basically the same in Israel, where the Arabs invaded and conquered Palestine, inhabiting it for a few centuries under Ottoman and then British rule. The Jews have since come back and reconquered it like the Spanish did with their own country. On the other hand, Spain was very brutal, forcibly converting Muslims and Jews to Catholicism; if they did not want to convert, they were forced to leave (with all their money left behind, which funded Christopher Columbus's voyage). If Jews and Muslims were found to be pretending to be Christians in order to stay, they were tortured until they admitted it and then were executed (the Spanish Inquisition).

So my question is, why do the Israelis get so much condemnation for retaking their land but the Spanish get none, even though the Spanish were much worse? I think this needs to be addressed in the article (by an expert of course, or else it will be removed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angleprior2 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that it would be because it happened over 500 years ago. (68.81.33.112 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

LOL! I'm not sure you'll get very far as an Israeli apologist if you think 'at least we're better than brutal medieval Spanish crusaders' is a good point. LMAO. DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Numbers Don't Match the Linked Reference

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the number of casualties given in the first table is supposedly based on information taken from B'tselem. When I follow the given link to the B'tselem site and add up the numbers I find there, I com up with: 1049 Palestinians and 277 Israelis.

The chart here gives: 7978 Palestinians and 1503 Israelis.

These two sets of numbers are wildly different. Clearly either the chart needs to be corrected, or a better reference/link given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

First impression. Map Issues.

The very first place a visitor to this article will go is likely the eye-catching map. Or maybe I'm just a visual person. Either case - Gaza is "Palestinian Authority" -controlled? Ummm, maybe we should try update that. Pär Larsson (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --GHcool (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

filling in the something

Regarding the "Palestinians have committed <something> violent acts all over the globe as part of their struggle against Israel" in the "Palestinian violence outside of Israel section".

Having had my attention drawn to that section by the IP vandalism I tried to tone it down a bit with this edit as it was unsourced.
GHcool had a go at sourcing the "thousands" with this edit using an MFA page but it was reverted by Frederico1234, rightly in my view, because the source doesn't support the statement.

Anyone have a better source for the number of attacks carried out by Palestinian militants outside of the green line ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

History section

Does anybody else think that the history section is an almost arbitrary and unnecessary listing of Wikipedia articles? Its almost like the See also section. If nobody objects, I will delete the lists and replace it with a link to History of the Arab-Israeli conflict within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-Palestinian" redirect

Hi -- Any idea why "Pro-Palestinian" should redirect here? "Pro-Israeli" doesn't (not meaning it should). I tried to find a discussion about this, to no avail. Does anybody remember if/when this was discussed? Best, —Ireilly ^talk 06:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that redirect seems a bit odd. I don't think there was any discussion. The history is here. Redirecting it to Palestinian people would be pointless too I guess. It should probably be deleted. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I just added see also: List of Palestinian solidarity organizations. I also see this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Palestinian_cause. While the title and article aren't perfect, obviously there are a variety of Palestinian resistance organizations using different tactics and if Palestinian political violence is worthy of a topic, the larger topic of Palestinian rights activism does seem worthy of one article, not just mentions here and there spread over a variety of articles like: [Israeli-Palestinian conflict]], Palestinian people, Boycotts of Israel, 2011 Israeli border demonstrations, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And I removed it. Many of those organizations are not pro-peace (such as International Solidarity Movement) and some are not even Palestinian solidarity organizations (such as B'Tselem). --GHcool (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A lacking lead

Have any of the contributers to this article noticed that the lead contains no mention of the 1967 Israeli occupation of Palestine nor of its continuation, nor of the numerous UN Security Council resolutions demanding that Israel leave? This is like an article on mid 20th century territory disputes between Czechoslovakia and Germany that doesn't mention the German invasion of Czechoslovakia.

The Israeli Palestinian conflict is centred around the occupation and besiegement of Palestine. Can we all admit that at least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.36.245 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternately, shouldn't it refer to the Israeli occupation of portions of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, since there was no "Palestine" in 1967? This is why we carefully discuss and craft this article rather than allow one POV or another to dominate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your history is bizarre. Palestine has existed as a geographical region since around 450BC. Palestine was temporarily a territory of the Jordanians and Egyptians after they invaded illegally in 1967. Before that it had belonged to the British and Ottomans. Saying that Jordan and Egypt were invaded in 1967 via the occupation of the West Bank is like saying Argentina invaded Britain in 1982 when they invaded the Falklands. I can't find any signs of careful discussion or crafting in the article. Perhaps by people like you who are ignorant of the basic tenants of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.36.38 (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

present state of peace talks

Claims support for a two-state solution has waned among both Israelis and Palestinians, but only cites polling referring to Palestinian opinion. Would be good to actually draw from both sides if we're going to assert something about both Israel and Palestine.99.50.137.222 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I changed the article to reflect the source. --GHcool (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My fault. I was looking for update-to-date polls of Israelis but couldn't find anything and then forgot about the edit. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Unbiased

I have just finished reading this article and found it to be very educational and informative. There is no bias towards Israel here. I see no agenda being put forth by the author of this content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.24.95 (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

the article is biased towards Israel. I am not going to attempt to remove the bias as the resistance to it has been insurmountable and I have a life to lead, but I am simply going to attempt to contribute by declaring that the article is in a state of unresolved dispute, which is true by virtue of the fact that I (and others) exist. I apologise for the annoyance this fact causes. Thank you. :) Woodystewart (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that it is incredibly one sided. So for instance there are sections like "Israeli security concerns" and "Palestinian violence outside of Israel" but no corresponding sections detailing "Palestinian security concerns" and "Israel violence outside of Palestine" The bias is as clear as day 68.188.25.170 (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read only this article as a source on the conflict, you come out sure that Palestine is the "bad guy," and the one maintaining the conflict. Needs to be moderated with more information towards the Palestinian point of view to be overall objective. The tone needs major adjustments to be objective. 67.2.184.155 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If that's what you think, register an account and start editing! But be advised, all Israel-Palestine topics on WP are subjects are great debate, and contentious edits are likely to cause rancor. Be sure if you do want to add/change/delete material you do so in fashion that respects WP's policies on verifiability, neutral point of view, and notability!

Join us WP editors! Come on in.... the waters fine (though occasionally a little hot). NickCT (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added the NPOV tag to reflect ongoing discussions on this talk page. Articlebuilding to follow 07:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.238.66 (talk)

Confusing poll in the "Present status" section

The description of the poll results published in the Jerusalem Post is confusing: "72% of Palestinians endorsed the denial of Jewish history in Jerusalem and 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage. However, a majority of Palestinian support dialogue over violence. Among Palestinians, 65% preferred talks and 20% violence.[18]"

It is very inconsistent to be against violence but in favor of kidnapping soldiers. Does anyone think it would be better to delete all mention of this poll? Olorinish (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This can be remedied very easily: change "majority[...]support" to "majority[...]claims to support". Why delete mention of such a defying poll? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how you could think that inserting a word that doesn't appear in a source could clarify things. Adding things that don't appear in sources is never okay. If the poll results are confusing and contradictory, so be it. We just need to report them without messing with them.

Here are some more secondary source's coverage of the poll for comparison.

JTA
UPI
The Guardian
Here is the summary of the results by the polling organization, The Israel Project. Here are some slides with the questions and the results. These could be cited as sources so that people can see the results for themselves.

Sean.hoyland - talk 06:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we need to report the claims, but we cannot guarantee the degree of truth in these polls by endorsing those claims with sentences like "this much percentage prefers peace talks". Therefore, the word "claims" serves as a NPOV tool. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't do that. I've removed the word "claims". Please don't do something like that again. You are editorializing and adding a qualifier to a specific result of a poll. We can't guarantee the degree of truth of anything. We just need to reflect reliable sources. We aren't allowed to pick certain results and add qualifiers to the results we personally find questionable and leave qualifiers off the results we find plausible. That's not how WP:NPOV and WP:V work at all. It's how you can intrduce bias as it says in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. We aren't endorsing anything. We are including the results of a poll and we say so. We aren't making statements about the state of mind of people in Wikipedia's narrative voice as if it's the absolute truth. They are poll results. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Should I really start digging for sources that show the general inclination among the Muslim public to "embellish" during public polling due to either fear of Islamic activists or "serving the cause"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is covered by discretionary sanctions to prevent POV pushing editors from contaminating the talk page and content with partisan disruption, so, no, you shouldn't do your own original research and synthesis to demonstrate how the results of polling the Muslim public are inherently unreliable and therefore this poll is unreliable. What would be better would be to review the other sources provided and try to write a balanced NPOV policy compliant section based on a variety of sources highlighting the major results in the same way the sources do so that our presentation is representative. As for your removal of "while recognizing Israel's right to exist" based on WP:PEACOCK, is that constructive editing ? I don't think so. You could just find another source to support the statement such as this JPost article. You seem to be POV pushing with your editing approach. Not a good idea at all in this topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

...and this article reveals the lack of truth in that statement, in the words of one of Abbas' people. Your article talks about something he told the Dutch parliament, yet has never made an official statement out of it. Very POV of you to leave out statements like "the majority of Palestinians prefer dialogue over violence" and then preach to me about POV. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

i concur with the bias accusation, and furthermore, it is outdated

The article is clearly biased, favoring Israel. this sentence :"Since mid-June 2007, Israel's primary means of dealing with security concerns in the West Bank has been to cooperate with and permit United States-sponsored training, equipping, and funding of the Palestinian Authority's security forces, which with Israeli help have largely succeeded in quelling West Bank supporters of Hamas" appears under "Israeli security concerns", but neglects to mention the Israeli invasion of Palestine, blockade, border fence etc. Under Israeli Occupation/ Settlement of West Bank, no mention is made of the Flotilla incident, the laws forcing Palestinians to pay for demolition of their own homes, Palestinian refugee camps, etc. Additionally, a quote from Hamas is included which gives the impression that Palestinians uniformly oppose the peace process on religious grounds. There is no mention of the deaths as a result of Israel's blockade, and the widespread international criticism of the occupation is played down, represented by only a quote from a human rights organization. In the section on rocket attacks, it is not made clear that the rockets fired at Israel do not contain explosive heads and as such act as large bullets more so than bombs. I sincerely hope this bias is apparent to anyone seeking information on this issue and that the wikipedia community will undertake the necessary steps to eliminate this overt bias.

Beleca (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Israeli invasion of Palestine??? Laws forcing Palestinians to pay for the demolition of their own homes??? Oh yeah, the rockets are clearly harmless, as a matter of fact it's a big game, which the big bad Israeli kids just don't wanna play with the innocent peaceful Palestinians. Better have reliable sources for your conspir... sorry, claims. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was clearly out of line. It only helps to solidify bias which is why this issue is "complex." The facts on this issue are very basic and clear, far clearer than many historical conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.147.144 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Outdated Map

Palestine looks like that now: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/palestine/images/oslo-map1.gif Of course the image is bad, it might be good to get a better one, but make some research in serious papers (most likely non-israeli ones if you want NPOV) and you'll find that palestinians territories are now islands surrounded by Israeli control zones, or walls, or both. This has to be put on paper, and is perfectly NPOV. But if you want, in addition, to get a better article, you can also write that Israel is already (or will very very soon be), demographicaly talking, an arab state, and that only apartheid-like measures prevent them to get rid of that dumb "Pure Jewish State" fantasy that has already cost so much lives for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.137.37.99 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So... another excuse for multiple reverts?

What's wrong with From Time Immemorial as a source for the existence of not-so-insignificant Arab immigration to pre-Israel Palestine, other than "it tips the scale away from the myth that all Arabs, who call themselves Palestinians, have allegedly lived in the area for centuries"? Where's your POV now, Sean? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Whats wrong with using discredited propaganda as a source in an encyclopedia article? Really? The scholarly literature is filled with demonstrations of the execrable nature of that "source". Try this somewhere else, it wont fly here. nableezy - 17:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read it. I have no opinion about it. I am aware that many people do not regard as a reliable source. So, you should take it to WP:RSN and explain exactly what you want to add and what the source says and see what the community thinks. My POV is non-existent and irrelevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Discredited propaganda? By whom? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone aside from the Israeli MFA, Alan Dershowitz and Joan Peters, herself. -asad (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's funny because here are a little more names that support the book as credible, and there is a surprising balance between that and the negative reviews. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You can read Yehoshua Porath's review in the NY Review of Books, or this one in the London Review of Books. You can find Albert Hourani calling it worthless and ludicrous. There is literally a a huge number of reviews on this book that denounce it as a poor attempt at rehashing tired propaganda. The Wikipedia article is crap, mostly due to a committed fan of Peters' ensuring that it remains that way. nableezy - 17:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Big words for someone who openly (on their user page) declares hirself as a devout anti-Zionist and ensures that certain articles remain a certain way, as part of a group of editors that always seem to back each other up when it comes to reverting additions that are not anti-Israeli in their inclination, as well as stalking the tiniest 1RR violation to consequently report it to ArbCom, thus making sure their view prevails. Fairness, anyone? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, okay? nableezy - 19:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now that you have gotten that out of your system. Please read the rebuttals of Joan Peters' fraud and don't take our word for it. -asad (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

All of those are just blanket praises of the book, and seeing those names isn't exactly surprising. Anyways, it is one thing to praise the book, it is another thing to defend it against its fraudulent rewrite of history. -asad (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "getting it out of my system". Too many editors have mastered the art of NPOV abuse, also known as WP:Civil POV pushing, and it's up to other editors (such as myself) to call out on ~~your~~ their bull$#!+ from time to time. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. nableezy - 19:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, after you finish calling me out on my "bullshit", please read the rebuttals. -asad (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So... back to the question at hand (whether or not the Palestinian population before the formation of Israel was partially immigrant). Instead of going in circles for the great witch hunt, how about this? How about this collection of quotes from Palestinian leaders, acknowledging that Palestinians are in fact migrants from neighboring countries? How about this? This article cites all its sources. Back to the book... this review states that "Professor Porath asserts this but he does not provide the evidence necessary to convince a reader", "facts[...]will not be established by heaping scorn on Miss Peters" and also calls for "critics [to] go beyond polemics and actually prove her thesis wrong." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You may want to reconsider using such "sources" to prove your point. By doing so you, rather blatantly, discredit your view. A collection of random websites or an essay in a non peer-reviewed MEQ by an economics professor are not anywhere close to being reliable sources for the subject. Experts in the field were nearly uniform of their denouncement of From Time Immemorial as being a poor attempt at presenting propaganda as though it were fact. nableezy - 19:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

nableezy - you really need to chill out, i think. this is very aggresive behavior for an editor. it is on this page and several others. just be civil. please. in any case, it is clear that while controversy surrounds this source, it is nonetheless quite acceptable. so, now, we will offer the nableezy compromise: partially-immigrant, according to the controversial book from time.... Soosim (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh no, From Time Immemorial is discredited propaganda, and no editor that is at all serious about being a part of an encyclopedia would even think of using such a crap source. That isnt an acceptable "compromise", that book is not a reliable source. Nothing in what I wrote on this page is uncivil, and if you want to show yourself as principled you would consider directing that comment to the person who wrote the inane screeds above. nableezy - 14:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence to support the statement "it is clear that while controversy surrounds this source, it is nonetheless quite acceptable". I don't understand the basis of that statement with respect to Wikipedia's mandatory policies regarding sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The source in question has been thoroughly discredited, AFAIK even the author has never tried to defend it since its flaws became public. Anyone who thinks it an appropriate source either knows nothing about Wikipedia's policy on sourcing, namely WP:V, or shouldn't be editing in the topic area. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

sean - it fits wp:rs 2.1, 4.2, and it certainly isn't 3.1. so, what's the issue? just use a qualifier like everything else written in the arab israeli conflict genre. Soosim (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not anywhere close. It is not a piece of scholarship and the academic community has largely rejected the book as tired propaganda. nableezy - 14:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

nope - that is your opinion (and others), but not everyone's. there are plenty of prominent scholars who agree, and who disagree. let it ride. Soosim (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt true. There arent plenty of prominent scholars who regard Peters' book as anything other than trash. The book has been shown, repeatedly, to distort source material, to ignore pertinent information, and to pass on already refuted propaganda. I question the good faith of anybody who attempts to use such a source. We are not here to propagate the myths and half-truths that one can find googling some phrase. We are charged with seeking out the best sources. This "source" is not that. When you attempt to use such crap in an article you betray your motivation as not seeking to create a "neutral" reference but to fill a supposed encyclopedia article with your favored groups propaganda. nableezy - 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

well, did you see | this? about a dozen prominent scholars, authors and others. not sure why you say otherwise. (and yes, there is the flip side, but the point here is that there are two sides. one. two. Soosim (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The merits of the book have been serious challenged and discounted, none of those people are answering those challenges. They are just two or three line reviews that authors fish for when releasing a book. I would be surprised to see if any of those people who gave the good book a review before Finkelstein's criticism came out would still, to this day, stand by it 100%. It would be tantamount to career suicide. -asad (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of those people arent prominent scholars, and nearly every one of any consequence is from a review prior to its being exposed as a fraud. nableezy - 18:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow... I cited four sources that point to Arab immigration to pre-Israel Palestine during yishuv regardless of the book issue, yet no one responded to that properly. So... here's a question for nableezy, Sean and asad: are you denying that such immigration occurred? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh ? Why are you asking me questions ? Yes, I believe all Arabs in the Land of Israel are immigrants and should be expelled. In fact, ultimately, everyone there can be traced back to the East African rift valley area so perhaps everyone should be expelled. Now, having got that out of the way, back to the matter at hand. Your sources are low quality. Can you not see that ? Please, please, please only use high quality sources in this topic area. The sanctions say that we have to utilize reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions". Everyone's time is wasted when you bring unsuitable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually did respond. Up above where I wrote A collection of random websites or an essay in a non peer-reviewed MEQ by an economics professor are not anywhere close to being reliable sources for the subject. You brought a collection of blogs and random websites, along with a paper by an economics professor, to back your assertion. Those arent reliable sources. nableezy - 06:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you guys arguing that "partially immigrant" is incorrect, or are you giving him a hard time about the source for the sake of giving him a hard time, while challenging something you know to be true? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curioisity, do you actually think that the very first sentence of this article should introduce the Arab population as partially-immigrant? How about introducing the Zionist yishuv as European or invading? Arab immigration to Palestine was negligible, and putting, as the very first description of the Arab population that they were partially-immigrant is a blatant POV push that I cant honestly believe anybody is defending. nableezy - 14:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean – watch your tone, Mr. Neutral. "Eh ? Why are you asking me questions ? Yes, I believe all Arabs in the Land of Israel are immigrants and should be expelled." Uhm... no, I asked if you deny that there was an Arab immigration, thus putting the Jewish and Arabic population into a teeny weeny more of a correct proportion. Quit putting incriminating words in my mouth at once.

Nableezy – one of the "blogs" cites dated newspaper articles as its sources, would you like to verify it? Go ahead, I can also do it myself later. The economics professor is still a professor, whose writings are as much a WP:RS as any other source. And... just out of curiosity, why do you think the first paragraph of Palestinian People should present Gaza and the West Bank as "Israeli-occupied"? Is that not a POV push? How are these two any different? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Watch my tone ? Oh for fuck's sake. Do not ask me questions about my personal opinions about anything on this talk page. The place to find answers is in reliable sources, not unreliable sources, reliable sources, which can then be discussed here. If you do ask me anymore questions about my personal opinions I will say exactly what I want. So, if you don't want that to happen, don't ask. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is getting more and more ridiculous by the minute. It isnt a "POV" that the Palestinian territories are "Israeli-occupied", and the attempt to equate the two issues is rather bizarre. An economics professor writing in a non-peer reviewed journal on an area outside of his expertise is not a reliable source for the topic. Your attempts at twisting the policies of the website into supporting what the plainly do not will not succeed. You bring garbage sources and discredited propaganda and demand that we accede to your demands on what the article should say. Sorry, but that wont fly. nableezy - 18:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So why not concentrate on the real reason you object to this rather than have a silly discussion about the sources? Even if he brought an impeccable source you'd still not agree, so wouldn't it be preferable to cut to the chase? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If he brought an impeccable source I may or may not disagree with including that as the first description of the Palestinian Arabs, but I would likely be amenable to including it in the body. But he hasnt brought an impeccable source, so I dont see why I should imagine what my response would be if he did so. What he did was bring crap to add crap to the very first sentence of the article. nableezy - 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, with reference to your comment of 17:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC), have you read WP:NPA? ← ZScarpia 23:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and calling an editor on their unruly behavior is not a personal attack. See, if you read WP:Civil POV pushing, this is exactly the kind of reaction that is expected from editors that behave in such a way. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean, now that you've got that out of your system (or have you?), I wasn't asking for an opinion on a philosophical matter, I was asking if you deny a historical fact that a certain number of Arabs migrated to Palestine after Zionists began settling previously uninhabited land.

Nableezy – didn't quite get the difference between "partially-immigrant Arab population" and "Israeli-occupied territories" as far as POV goes. I'm also opening a sub-paragraph and nominating a new book. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

New sources proposal

OK, so here's the deal.

This article by a professor from University of Illinois cites 43 sources, all verifiable, all reputable and can surely be considered WP:RS.
This is a book by Aaron Klein, doesn't seem to have been disputed as "deceitful propaganda", has nothing but good reviews. This is "just some guy" who organized the relevant quotes from that book, naturally – all verifiable.

So... can we accept these sources and move on please? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. A book published by WND Books by an author of WorldNetDaily fame and a non peer-reviewed journal article by a professor in a completely unrelated field? Sorry, but no, these arent reliable sources. Just for comparison, here are several sources that discuss Arab immigration as a significant factor in Arab population growth in Palestine:

Tessler, Mark (1994), A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Indiana University Press, p. 211, ISBN 9780253208736
The significance of the discrepancy lies, in part, in its implications for competing claims about Arab and Jewish rights in Palestine, with some supporters of Zionism asserting that heavy Arab immigration undermines the Arabs' claim to be the indigenous population of Palestine. Israeli as well as Palestinian scholars have disputed this assertion, however, concluding that it as at best a theory and in all probability a myth. As expressed by a highly respected Israeli analyst, who writes in direct response to Zionist arguments about large-scale Arab immigration, "one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase."
Christison, Kathleen (2001), Perceptions of Palestine: their influence on U.S. Middle East policy, University of California Press, p. 49, ISBN 9780520217188
According to British demographic statistics, Jewish immigration from 1920 through 1938, totaling 306,049, was more than ten times the level of Arab immigration, which totaled 23,407.
Metzer, Jacob (1998), The divided economy of mandatory Palestine, Cambridge University Press, p. 31, ISBN 9780521465502
This number (8.5 percent in total Arab growth ...) may thus be interpreted as an upper bound estimate of net Arab miigration, but even this does not alter the picture of a community whose growth was driven primarily by natural increase
Note that Metzer includes in his 49000 net increase 12000 due to border changes, not immigration

So no, we cant accept those "sources" you brought. Actual scholarly work directly disputes it. nableezy - 04:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought you liked to call these types of "arguments" ad hominem – do not digress please. It does not matter what field that professor majored in, it matters that he cited 43 sources that are all verifiable and can be considered WP:RS according to Wikipedia standards. As for the book – comment on the content, not the opinion you and your peers might have about the publishing body. And please, quit bringing sources that regurgitate that same article by Porath, it's getting old already. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Uhh no, saying that an author and publisher do not meet the requirements of WP:RS is not an ad hominem, at least not in the sense that it is a fallacious argument on Wikipedia. The sources I brought are in books published by university presses. Those are reliable sources per WP:RS. That the economics professor cited his sources does not magically make the source "reliable", reliability is determined by the reputation of the publisher, or, barring a solid reputation, the expertise of the author. MEQ was not peer-reviewed at the time of that paper, and the author is not at all an expert in the field. If you would like to use Mr. Gottheil in an economics article by all means feel free. Here however he is not a reliable source. That you think that it does not matter the publisher or the fact that the author has no expertise in the field demonstrates that you have either not read or not understood WP:RS. Ill quote the relevant portions for you: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. Later, When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. And in WP:V: Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources. The sources you brought are of low quality. They are directly refuted by the academic sources by authors with actual expertise in the topic. nableezy - 16:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so is it OK to use Gottheil's cited sources independently? Assuming, of course, that we verify them, of course... Also, nowhere does it say that peer-reviewed is a requirement, only a preference. Oh wait... the Wikipedia article does refer to MEQ as peer reviewed, doesn't it count that it has been since 2009? (Please cite a policy in your answer.) As for Aaron Klein, who is a veteran Middle-Eastern correspondent, why are you not accepting his book as a reliable source? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If whatever Gottheil used is a reliable source you can use it as such. However, at the time of the article MEQ was not peer reviewed and did not have anything close to a good reputation. As far as a book by Aaron Klein published by WND, please. No serious editor should consider using such a crap source in an encyclopedia article. The fact remains that several actually reliable sources directly contradict what your collection of unreliable sources claim, and that is what counts. nableezy - 21:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you've reached your foul language limit for today as far as I'm concerned. Unless you can back up your repeated "crap source" remarks, I will take you to ANI and if I do, this will not be my only evidence of your systematically unruly behavior. This is your last chance for (truly) civil communication. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to take me to ANI for calling WND Books a crap source you are more than welcome to do so. You are attempting to cite to WND what several expert authors have written in sources published by academic presses directly refute. So, dude, do whatever you feel like doing. nableezy - 16:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

They don't "directly refute" it, they keep sticking to the British published figures, ignoring the other aspects. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On MEMRI, you defend "sources" by a religious nutjob who calls for boycotting companies that sell to/buy from Israel, as well as the destruction of every Jew, but WND is crap... how NPOV of you. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? What religious nutjob am I citing at MEMRI? Le Monde diplomatique? Unless you can provide diffs of my defending a source from somebody who called for the destruction of every Jew you should remove that blatantly dishonest personal attack. nableezy - 18:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am, and I am referring to Al-Qaradhawi and this source. This is the diff where you are calling to reinsert the link. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That is simply a lie, a malicious one at that. The link I am calling to restore, one that you surreptitiously removed, is this, which is a report by the Mayor of London's office, not anything by Qaradhawi. If you do not remove the malicious lie that I am attempting to use a source that calls for the destruction of every Jew I will take you to AE. Such bad faith attempts at attacking my character are not acceptable. nableezy - 19:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You called for the reinsertion of this source, which is basically a secondary covering of Yusuf al-Qaradawi's work. Mr. Qaradawi is quoted here to have said in a public convention: "Oh Allah, Take This Oppressive, Jewish, Zionist Band Of People; Oh Allah, Do Not Spare A Single One Of Them; Oh Allah, Count Their Numbers, And Kill Them, Down To The Very Last One." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That is one lie after another. That report is not basically a secondary covering of Yusuf al-Qaradawi's work, whatever that means, but is in fact a report by the Mayor of London's office in which that office responds to distortion of translations by MEMRI. But if you want to continue making such baldly false and malicious charges, Ill repeat myself. Stop lying about what I did, stop lying about the source, and stop insinuating what you are so despicably trying to hint at. nableezy - 23:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So... you did not endorse a source that defends a person who was reported (by a source that you don't exactly like, but is still a WP:RS nonetheless) to have shouted anti-Semitic incitement onto a crowd? No, really, because a personal attack such as calling me a malicious liar needs to be clarified. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to the absurd charge that I supported using a source that advocates for the destruction of all Jews?!? That is a malicious lie, and your absurd attempts to plaster together a suitable connection linking a report by the office of the Mayor of London that raises issues of serious distortion in translation by your supposed reliable source with supporting the destruction of all Jews only makes clear the absurdity of such a malicious lie. You charged that I defend "sources" by a religious nutjob who calls for boycotting companies that sell to/buy from Israel, as well as the destruction of every Jew. That is a bald face lie, and given its content I think I am being easy by saying malicious. I could have gone with defamatory, slanderous, cowardly, or any other number of adjectives. You have yet to retract such an obscene personal attack, and you want to say my calling you out for it is the attack? Yeah, good luck with that. nableezy - 05:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, hair-splitting demagogy is not going to save you. Answer me directly, without weaseling. Did you or did you not defend the reinsertion of a source, which is a WP:SECONDARY coverage of a "scholar", who was quoted to incite a crowd with Islamic texts that call for killing all Jews and boycotting companies that do business with Israel? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but poor attempts at distorting the events will not save you. I reinserted a paper by the office of the Mayor of London that discusses, among other things, distortions by MEMRI in their translations. You said that because I did this I supported using a source that advocates for the destruction of all Jews. Where pray tell does this advocate for the destruction of all Jews? Because I dont see it, and I dont see how anybody who is not attempting to levy a bald faced malicious lie in an attempt to accuse another of antisemitism in a cowardly display of intellectual dishonesty could possibly come to the conclusion that I advocated for using a source that called for the destruction of all Jews. But maybe thats just me. nableezy - 06:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The source is an endorsement of Qaradawi, and Qaradawi made that statement. I can repeat this for as many times as needed... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You can repeat whatever you like, however the claim that i supported using a source that advocates the destruction of all Jews remains a bald-faced and malicious lie. Guess what that makes you. nableezy - 19:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What a brilliant use of demagogy. You endorsed a source that endorses someone who advocated for the destruction of all Jews while refusing to verify the incriminating quote. Guess what that makes you. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Too long

Surely, SURELY this article is about 10 miles too long. Can't we break it up into multiple articles? People just want to read about the conflict in general, they don't want a blow-by-blow account.

It's a huge job and I don't understand the subject enough to do it myself but if you could, it would be great. Cheers. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What happened to NPOV?

I see multiple paragraphs and pictures of Palestinian attacks on Israel but no pictures and virtually no text on Israeli bombings of Palestinians

Needs to be edited to restore the Neutral Point of view(NPOV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.141.3 (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who actually reads the article will quickly dismiss this complaint as untrue. --GHcool (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No GHcool, they won't. the section on Jerusalem in particular is very heavy handedly proIsreal. All but the last few lines are decidedly antipalestinian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.3.242 (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC) This article is clearly biased in favour of Israel. You would have to blind to not see that. It's full of content on Palestinian attacks etc. and contains none/very little information on the Israeli attacks on Palestine for example the Flotilla raid in May 2010 in which 9 men were killed and many more injured; an event which received widespread condemnation. All the pictures are of Palestinian attacks and none of the Israeli misdemeanour's. It's amazing that this article is allowed be so biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.219.2 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Amendment required

"Many Palestinians nowadays believe that Israel is not really interested in reaching an arrangement, but rather interested in continuing to control the entire territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River". This is unverified and patently incorrect as, currently, Israel clearly does not control "the entire territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River", as the West Bank is under the political jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority and Gaza is governed by the Hamas goverment. AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the POV unverified material.
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It is extremely interesting to notice that you did not also object to a similarly unsourced converse claim right below it. I have rewritten the whole section with a source. I have also removed recent additions you made to the article. They appeared to have been plonked in a random location where they had no apparent relevance and insufficient context—that is, it was unclear as to why the article was describing one thing and then suddenly began describing the intricate details of another. The added information also presented the claims of one side without giving equal weight to the other. Nightw 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I would like to see that paragraph about the United Nations added back, but perhaps in a different section. The in-text attribution was good, but it needs some kind of counter-claim—i.e., what Obama/Netanyahu thought of it matched with what Abbas' reasons for it were and what, say, China or Russia thought of it. Nightw 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"It is extremely interesting to notice that you did not also object to a similarly unsourced converse claim right below it." Attempts of mine to correct erroneous material do not automatically confer upon me omniscient extraordinary powers to identify all imprecisions in an article. Please refrain from insinuating that I have deliberately countenanced unreliable material.

"They appeared to have been plonked in a random location where they had no apparent relevance and insufficient context". Please elaborate and expand upon your concerns with provision of specific examples that apparently violate specific WP principles. It is necessary to detail your objections to an edit prior to reversion. A sole terse edit summary fails in this regard.
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the passage about Netanyahu's accusations problematic. Both sides have made numerous accusations against each other. Why are we giving this one particular set of allegations by Netanyahu prominence without documenting any response or counter claims from the Palestinian side? Dlv999 (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Present status section

@AnkhMorpork - You restored a section I deleted with the edit summary "See talk". Your comment above doesn't actually address the section in question. Was this an error on your part? NickCT (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. The poll results cited are referred to by the The Jerusalem Post and feature in a Reuters news article; these sources are considered mainstream and reputable so this does not constitute undue weight. As to POV, I suggest mentioning the source of the poll in the article, as opposed to a mass deletion. In the future, can you declare your proposed actions on the Talk page before embarking on controversial unilateral amendments AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the above poll does not belong in the "Present Status" section of the article. It's truly mind-boggling that the "Present Status" contains what most would consider anti-Palestinian propaganda (Whether the poll is accurate or not is irrelevant here) and makes no mention of what the Israeli mindset is at the "Present Status". All this section does is give the reader the impression that it is Palestinian attitudes that are stalling the Peace Process, an impression which is completely biased and subjective. It's glaringly obvious that this is violation of NPOV. It is quite obvious that people are objecting to it's inclusion in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.219.2 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"these sources are considered mainstream and reputable so this does not constitute undue weight." - The issue is more that we are dedicating an entire subsection to a single news report. That's a little odd and potentially undue.

" considered mainstream" - Sure JP and Reuters might be mainstream. The Israel Project (i.e. the people who actually conducted the poll) certainly isn't. If you want to include this material, we'll have to qualify it using language like "According to a poll conducted by the Israel Project, a nationalist Israeli group, the peace process has been predicated on....".

"can you declare your proposed actions" - Honestly, I didn't think this would be all that controversial. By-the-by, is this your first account? NickCT (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Greenberg is highly respected, he was Bill Clinton's pollster. Having said that, I agree with NickCT that using one opinion poll to create a section on the present status is problematic. I would prefer one or multiple secondary source that collected and analyzed a number of different analyses. GabrielF (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate Stanley Greenberg's credibility. What I will debate is taking at face value poll results, when that poll was paid for a obviously partisan entity. If Phillip Morris paid to poll doctors to assess medical attitudes towards smoking, would we take those results without a pinch of salt? The numbers are tainted, period. NickCT (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you NickCT for following protocol and engaging in a discussion pertaining to a significant amendment. It is sensible to presume that any modification to a semi-protected article detailing the Israel-Palestine conflict will be controversial, especially the wholesale deletions that you performed.

Your claims of NPOV imply a bias in the article so assume that there will be dissension to your edit. Finally a cursory view of the edit history would have revealed the many disputes relating to that paragraph.

As GabrielF mentioned the pollster is highly acclaimed in his field and is clearly a reliable source. Disputing his findings on the grounds of a bias in the party that commissioned them is libellous and unfounded. You have conveniently omitted that the poll was also commissioned by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, a specialist polling Palestinian organisation led by Dr. Nabil Kukali. There are no reasonable grounds to challenge its authenticity and claims such as it is "anti-Palestinian propaganda (Whether the poll is accurate or not is irrelevant here" are simply false. The veracity of these polls should not be disputed and they are oft quoted in the wider media.

As for undue weight, this is only one of many polls that have been conducted on these issues,(yes even by Palestinians) 1,2, 3 and cannot be said to be unrepresentative of Palestinian public sentiment. The BBC has relied on similar poll results conducted by a Palestinan organisation. 4.

Your reason provided for your edit was "It's entirely based on a single poll, which probably makes it undue.... secondly the poll was conducted by a partisan source, which raises POV concerns", and this demonstrably is not the case.

It is preferable to redress a perceived impartiality in the paragraph through provision of counter arguments and information as opposed to extirpation of verifiable material, which as you will gather is the nature of this entire article, should you read it.

Finally, please refrain from insinuating objectionable sock-puppetry charges which as you should be aware are offensive.

Many Thanks AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, How can the "Present Status" part of the "Peace Process" section comment only on Palestinian mindsets at this present moment, and make no comment whatsoever on where Israel stands at this present moment?

Also how you can consider a paragraph which details how Palestinians have the "need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees" as not anti- Palestinian propaganda is truly amazing. The reader is given the impression that it is Palestinian mentalities at present which are stalling the peace process, a view which is completely subjective and has no place in this article.

The way I see it, there are two actions we can take here;

1) Add some material on what the Israeli position is at present so the paragraph contains both points of view.

2) Remove the paragraph from the article, or put it under a different heading which presents both points of view.

I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.219.2 (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also if you read the article it is quite clear that this article is very selective in what quotes it picks out from it - only the most negative and inflammatory material. For example, no mention of

"The survey’s more positive findings included that only 22% supported firing rockets at Israeli cities and citizens and that two-thirds preferred diplomatic engagement over violent “resistance.”

"only 45% said they believed in the charter’s statement that the only solution to the Palestinian problem was jihad."

"When asked what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s top priorities should be, 83% said creating jobs. Just 4% said getting the UN to recognize a Palestinian state, and only 2% said peace talks with Israel."

The above are quotes from the same source which you "considered mainstream and reputable" - why are they omitted from the article? Most likely because it didn't suit the message some people want this article to convey.

Regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.219.2 (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"The way I see it, there are two actions we can take here; 1) Add some material on what the Israeli position is at present so the paragraph contains both points of view. 2) Remove the paragraph from the article, or put it under a different heading which presents both points of view." Agreed. I refer you to "It is preferable to redress a perceived impartiality in the paragraph through provision of counter arguments and information as opposed to extirpation of verifiable material, which as you will gather is the nature of this entire article should you read it." I have not advocated that the article remains unaltered and your persistent misconstrual otherwise is a matter of your invention.

General antipathetic sentiment towards Jews is a relevant factor in understanding the present status in the Peace Process, and consequently the poll results are apropos and cited. For example, the BBC concludes based on a poll finding that "The broader Palestinian population has become, if anything, more radicalised, setting its sights on something more than ending the occupation." 1 While there certainly exists other findings they must be pertinent to warrant inclusion. Public opinion on what the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s top priorities should be, have little bearing on the subject at issue. I agree that the article can be expanded and the level of support for violence included. The problem with including specific statistics such as "22% supported firing rockets at Israeli cities and citizens" is that they will have to be contextualised with other findings such as "67% supportive of armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel" and high levels of support for recent acts of violence, to prevent undue weight being attached to a specific finding.

I was referring to the poll when I said it did not constitute anti-Palestinian propaganda in response to another contributor's allegations that it did. This was because the poll was verifiable and a statement of fact, and this information in isolation cannot be considered misleading or manipulative. You are now challenging the paragraph in its entirety and I made no comment as to its status.

May I congratulate you for finally discussing your POV on the Talk page and desisting from your previous edit warring.

Many thanks AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, thank you for your response. I think we are in agreement that the paragraph needs to be changed. You are correct in saying that antipathetic statement towards Jews is relevant to the Peace Process but there is a bigger picture here and the current paragraph does not encapsulate this. The Israeli position at present is just as important as the Palestinian one, and by excluding it from this paragraph it gives the impression that Palestinian mentalities are stalling the peace process (As I've previously stated this a completely subjective and has no place in the article).

I don't think you have really answered my question as to why the poll was selectively quoted to give as negative an image as possible of Palestinian mentalities at present. You are arguing that you want to prevent "undue weight being attached to a specific finding". However this is exactly what is happening - the whole paragraph hinges on the most negative and inflammatory contents of the poll whereas the more placid contents are excluded i.e. I personally believe that this quote;

"When asked what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s top priorities should be, 83% said creating jobs. Just 4% said getting the UN to recognize a Palestinian state" holds far more weight than some of statistics indicated in the paragraph at the moment.

Also It is true that the a source is verifiable and indeed a statement of fact, but the way the paragraph is constructed is Anti-Palestinian and serves merely as "propoganda" rather than given the reader a balanced point of view. Just because the source is cited, verifiable, statement of fact etc. It doesn't mean that this paragraph gives a balanced point of view. Only one source is being quoted and it's very much pro-Israeli. I really can't see how we can disagree on this point.

Unfortunately as I have only just set up a Wikipedia account I can't edit the paragraph until I pass the criteria, but hopefully someone else can come up with a compromise that provides a balanced view for the reader.

Many thanks for your contributions, I look forward to reading your response. Oconnon9 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I repeat that "Public opinion on what the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s top priorities should be, have little bearing on the subject at issue (The present status of the Peace Process)", and I cannot fathom the grounds of your disputation that this statistic "holds far more weight".

Please refrain from levelling accusations of content being "selectively quoted with intent give as negative an image as possible of Palestinian mentalities at present"; such comments are agitative and unsubstantiated and breach WP:CIV , WP:PA. Ellipsis and imprecision should not be characterised as a deliberate attempt to mislead.

With regards to "I can't edit the paragraph", you should instead be providing your proposed amendment on the Talk page for discussion. Should consensual ratification ensue, you can submit an Edit request. Many thanks. AnkhMorpork 23:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork - This paragraph is about the present status of the peace process. Do you honestly believe that the fact 83% of Palestinians believe that their governments priority should be creating jobs compared to only 6% prioritising UN recognition and 4% "making peace with Israel" has "little bearing" on the present status of the peace process?

And you "can't fathom" why it would?Oconnon9 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct. That Palestinian people prioritise Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' responsibility to create jobs over making peace with Israel is too indirect to be relevant. Many thanks AnkhMorpork 23:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talk • contribs)

That doesn't make any sense. "Too indirect"? How is it too indirect?Oconnon9 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparative importance of various issues to be prioritised by Mahmoud Abbas are impertinent to the present position of the Peace Process because:

They are specific to Mahmoud Abbas' chairmanship, he may be viewed as an incompetent negotiator, but chiefly because
They are comparative; pursuance of peace may actually be considered important but not as urgent as creation of jobs. I maintain that this order of precedence is not informative as to the status of the Peace process.

I do not intend to become embroiled in a theoretical debate; should you propound a paragraph change which includes this statistic, I shall resume discussing this. <br />Best wishes <br /> <br /> AnkhMorpork (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I sense we are not going to agree on this but hopefully some neutral people can give their views on this matter.

Thanks. Oconnon9 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest I had a look at the official results of the Israel Project poll [30], and press release[31]. The results show that the Jpost article is factually inaccurate. The press release also mentions an interesting result not reported by Jpost:-

"Taking into account Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that “he would not consider any plan that divides Jerusalem and that Palestinian refugees should settle in Palestine, not Israel,” a majority of Palestinians still support returning to negotiations."

Of course the international consensus of a two state solution involves a Palestinian capital in EJ. So in terms of this paricular question, despite the explicit rejection of the terms of two state solution by the Israeli Prime minister, the majority of Palestinians still favour returning to negotiations. I guess the problem with these polls is often they can be spun both ways. I would say the Jpost reporter is guilty of some sensationalism and definately factual inaccuracy in this article. Some other sources come to very different conclusions from the same poll [32], [33]. Dlv999 (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999 (talk), can you clarify:

Which "international organisations and statesmen" have concerns about the two-state solution? Sources seem to only refer to the EU and Nick Clegg.
Where in the sources is it indicated that the "another EU report" is not the same one? Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph to directly refer to the Israel Project's report. How the JPost refers to this article is irrelevant. Contrary to what you claim in your revert, my edit was not "unexplained" and my reasoning was clearly detailed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&action=history

Can you elaborate why my amendment is "clunky and less accurate", now that I'm quoting directly from source as opposed to a medium's interpretation?

The reason I have amended "contradictory" to mixed results is because the polls refer to different things, The Hebrew University discusses opinion regarding the Clinton Parameters, the Israel Project's has a totally different question. Also, the target group is different, the Israel Project's relates solely to Gaza and the West Bank while the HU's includes the opinion of East Jerusalem. Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

AnkMorpork I'm a little confused at your reasoning. Haven't you been claiming that Jpost is an RS on the subject? I'm unsure why you would now claim how it reports the poll is "irrelevant". Aside from that, you made two edits -one explained, one unexplained. I only reverted the unexplained edit, as I could see no rational for it. The headline for the first poll in the cited RS is "support growing for the two state solution", the cited RS for the second poll states "Support for a two-state solution, in which Israel and Palestine would exist side by side, has dropped in the past nine months." So in terms of the cited RS the polls are contradictory.

Requested Clarification:In what Russia called a "historic step", representatives of all regional groups seated on the council condemned Israeli settlements. Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said settlement activity put into question the viability of a two-state solution."If you look at the map, you start wondering how even theoretically two states can be set up in Gaza and West Bank given this new reality," Churkin said.[34]

Representatives of Britain, France, Germany and Portugal said Fernandez-Taranco's briefing made clear to the 15-nation council that Israeli settlement activity was undermining attempts to restart stalled peace talks with the Palestinians. "One of the themes that emerged was the severely damaging effect that increased settlement construction and settler violence is having on the ground and on the prospects of a return to negotiations," the four European Union council members said in a joint statement. South African Ambassador Baso Sangqu read a statement on behalf of the 120-nation bloc of non-aligned countries that generally reiterated the European statement, describing settlement activities as "illegal" and "the main impediment to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Brazilian Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti echoed Sangqu's words in a statement she read on behalf of Brazil, India and South Africa. Lebanon's UN envoy Nawaf Salam made similar remarks.[35]

The Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, strongly condemned Israel’s decision ratifying the construction of more that 1000 new settlement units...He alerted that the quickened pace of settlement construction on Palestinian lands is part of the attempts by the Israeli occupation to create a new fait accompli on the ground thereby blocking the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. [36]

South Africa's Deputy Minister of International Relations (and January's January's president of the Security Council) Ebrahim Ebrahim told the council that Israel's ongoing expansion of illegal Jewish-only settlements made the two-state solution "a distant, if not a pipe dream." [37]

As to your second question see citation 18[38]- it is about a report on settlement in East Jerusalem, but it also briefly discusses "a spate of recent European reports and statements" including an EU report on Israel's policies in area C. Citation 19[39] and 20[40] are articles discussing the Area C report. Dlv999 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Haven't you been claiming that Jpost is an RS on the subject? I'm unsure why you would now claim how it reports the poll is "irrelevant"." I shall address this point if you object to the article being based directly on source. This is presumably preferable especially as you stated "I'm a little uncomfortable with the Jpost as a source for the poll" and posted "the official Israel Project press release so that the results of the study can be documented using that citation". 1 As previously stated, I do not intend to become embroiled in tangential discussion.

I only reverted the unexplained edit. Apologies. Prior to your edit you stated the following on my Talk page, "Just a comment re: the Israel Project poll. I'm a little uncomfortable with the Jpost as a source for the poll. It has been shown to be factually incorrect on reporting the details of the poll. Your recent edit also removed the evidence of Jpost's inaccurate reporting so now readers are not in a position to make a judgement on the matter." I therefore assumed your subsequent amendment 20 minutes later was in conjunction with this concern and not one of which you had made no mention.

Contradictory headlines do not amount to contradictory polls and I amended accordingly. The purpose of the main body of the article is to expand on a laconic headline and as I already mentioned polls refer to different things. The Hebrew University discusses opinion regarding the Clinton Parameters, the Israel Project's has a totally different question. Also, the target group is different, the Israel Project's relates solely to Gaza and the West Bank while the HU's includes the opinion of East Jerusalem. Finally, the polls reflect attitudes from different time periods. Since they are not examining the same thing and have different subjects, different target group, different time frame; it's nonsensical to describe them as contradictory and in opposition to one another. Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Further to your clarification, a statesman is a "man who is a respected leader in national or international affairs" and none of your cited personages meet this description. I am therefore altering this to "political figures". Please avoid using unverified and unnecessarily strong language promoting a POV. Another example of this would be you describing Catherine Ashton expressing "dismay" when the source states "regret". 1

The international organisations appear to be the EU and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. This does not corroborate your claim of "international organisations", especially as the OIC is not a significant viewpoint that have been expressed by reliable sources. Furthermore, you are according equal validity to these organisations which is misleading.
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As a general comment, I am pleased to see how the section in question has evolved. It is well-sourced, reports neutrally and evenhandedly without added commentary or coloration, and has a reasonable flow. It is getting to be on the long side, and the temptation to make it a catchall of recent and current events should be resisted. Significantly greater length risks both "recentism" and giving undue weight to the present status in the context of the entire article and history. The discussion here has also been long. Thanks to all who in recent days have helped develop the section to its present state. I hope it will now remain stable and without major changes. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The material detailing criticism of Israeli settlement policy is excessively long. Approximately 3/4 of the Present Status paragraph is devoted to this. Additionally, the length of this paragraph is incommensurate with the paragraph sizing throughout the article. This paragraph needs to be condensed with a focus on its effect on the Peace Process. Extraneous information such as "Palestinians welcomed the statements by the Security Council members, but were concerned that the US had not also censured Israel's settlement activity. Palestinian officials released a statement that urged Washington "to join the international community in supporting a meaningful right to self-determination for the Palestinians, and to firmly stand by its policy against Israel’s illegal settlement activities." do not address the Present Status of the Peace Process, and should be removed. The style is also 'he said, she said' and could do with some re-work.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing. A very good idea, to trim an already overlong section wherever repetitiousness, overemphasis or extraneous information is involved. Those are much-needed changes, possibly major ones, that I would welcome. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If the Palestinian position on the issue is excised, then the Israeli position should also be removed. The paragraph is long to make sure both Palestinian and Israeli positions toward the statements were represented. You cannot remove one without the other as it will be unbalanced. If length is an issue, both should be removed leaving just the statements of the Security Council members - which is the subject of the passage. Dlv999 (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite all the changes to the paragraph, it still gives the reader no inclination on what the Israeli position is at the moment regrading their support for a two-state solution or alternatives etc. 75% of the material seems to focus on singling out Palestinian actions and discussing Palestinian support (or lack of) for a two-state solution.

Take the following for example;

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told Irish Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore that Palestinian Authority incitement was a “confidence destroying measure” and that "the only way to move to peace is to prepare our people for peace and not for brutal terror." Netanyahu cited the PA’s official television broadcast of a program in which the perpetrators of the Itamar massacre who killed five members of the Fogel family in Itamar last March were glorified. This came just days after the PA’s mufti in Jerusalem quoted from a Muslim text calling for the murder of Jews.[22]

Why was the material on illegal Israeli settlements removed yet this (which displays only one POV, is highly biased and uses highly inflammatory language) remains?

Whatever shred of neutrality that was restored last week has been removed and the same people with pro-Israeli views have reverted the paragraph to its previous biased state. Disappointing to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oconnon9 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

O'Connon9, I agree. The passages documenting criticism of the Israeli position by a wide variety of the international community all documented by RS has now been reduced to 3 lines. Meanwhile Benyamin Netanyahu's own personal allegations against the PA is given four lines. There is not even an attempt to give the Palestinian position, or any counter allegations that have been made by Abbas. Dlv999 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Current Issues in Dispute Paragraph

"The expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has led the majority of Palestinians to believe that Israel is not committed to reaching an agreement, but rather to a pursuit to establish permanent control over the entire region of Palestine in order to provide that security." What the source actually states is "the construction of new Jewish settlements in the West Bank has led... to believe that Israel has no intention of ever giving up this territory for a Palestinian state.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Well spotted, that was leftover from the removed paragraph. I will fix it. Nightw 17:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Look okay? Nightw 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you construct an introductory statement to contextualise the paragraph beginning "In January 2012, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu told Irish Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore" seeing as you removed "The apparent endorsement of violence by the Palestinian Authority has been cited as undermining the Peace Process by Israeli officials". Otherwise, it appears like a news bulletin.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, yes I see what you mean. The only reason I removed the first sentence was that it wasn't in the source and, phrased as it was, seemed to refer to a specific incident without naming it. Have rephrased it. Take a look and see if that works for you. Nightw 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the PLO's campaign to join the United Nations received widespread support, it was criticised by U.S. President Barack Obama as a "distraction" that would not help solve any of the issues on the ground. Netanyahu criticized the Palestinians for avoiding direct negotiations, while Abbas argued the continued construction of Jewish settlements was "undermining the realistic potential" for the two-state solution.

"Although" breaches WP:NOR through synthesis
"campaign to join the United Nations" should be better expressed as bid for statehood at the UN
"On June 29, 2011, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution calling on the administration to oppose the unilateral Palestinian statehood efforts, and to urge Palestinian leaders to "ease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation process", and declared that the Palestinians' efforts demonstrated an "absence of a good faith commitment" has been entirely omitted
If you wish to lead with "the PLO's campaign to join the United Nations received widespread support", I would like mention that the Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic oppose this move, in line with WP:Balance
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to include the statements of the US Senate. The President is the representative of the US in the international arena, and his statement at the UN has been documented. The PLO's campaign was widely supported, this is verified by RS. I see no reason to document by name the few countries that opposed the move. I think the arguments over semantics are off the mark, and simply represent your own opinions. Dlv999 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with every single point Ankh made. I find Dlv's arguments weak. He "see[s] no reason" to document which countries objected, but does feel it pertinent to mention something about "representatives of all regional groups seated on the council" as if that has any kind of meaning. Way to NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"representatives of all regional groups seated on the council" has meaning, because that it how it was reported by RS as per cited source. I have already discussed the changes above and the inaccuracy of the current edit . You have reverted to a factually inaccurate edit. The Security Council did not issue any statement as I have already pointed out. There is zero justification for your revert. Instead of accusing me of POV editing I would ask you to read the cited sources and to accurately reflect them as I am trying to do. Dlv999 (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC) In fact the names of the individual and groups of nations that made the statements was originally in the passage, but they were removed, so it seems odd that people are arguing for the naming of countries when they support Israel, but the removal of this information when they are critical of Israel's policies. Dlv999 (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999There is always justification for a revert if you introduce new material, consensus is needed for its inclusion as per WP:BRD That is why NightW and I are discussing this paragraph despite my initial very obviously different version. Currently, your methodology appears to be to google and insert any reference to a topic that is mentioned in the article with no regard to the paragraph's structure or objective. An example of this would be your lengthy critique of settlement policy in a paragraph discussing the Present Status of the Peace Process.

Although the President is the representative of the US in the international arena, the US senate is a distinct body that must ratify all treaties with foreign governments, and as such, is relevant additional information. I find it surprising that you see "no reason to document by name the few countries that opposed the move", when you previously have found it necessary to document the thoughts of the UN assistant secretary-general for political affairs, that "Britain, France, Germany and Portugal, the four EU members on the council, released a joint statement" , the comments of the South African Ambassador Baso Sangqu, Brazilian Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Lebanon's UN envoy, Nawaf Salam,, The Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Professor Ekmeleddin, and South Africa's Deputy Minister of International Relations. You appear more than happy to use the logic "has meaning as it was reported by RS as per cited source" when applying it your own edits but summarily reject it when applying to others.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, I had 6-7 RS that linked the settlements to the current status of the process. A bold edit was made on the passage in question, which introduced factual inaccuracies - at the request of the editor I refrained from reverting and instead discussed a method to resolve the inaccuracies. If there is no consensus for this I suggest we revert to the original text before the bold edit. The names of the nations who have expressed criticism of Israeli policies have been removed from the article, and I have not attempted to re-introduce them. All I am looking for here is equal treatment. Could you please explain the reason for removing names of countries that have been critical of Israel but advocating to introduce the individual names of those who have shown support.Also you have misrepresented my edits, one of the edits you linked was to the talk pages- in fact it was a response to a request for more information by you.Dlv999 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "although" is synthesis. Can you explain more? Are you saying the word is synthesis?
That wasn't what it was. You can't get "statehood" through the United Nations. The request was to join the United Nations as a member.[41]
We've already got the position of the U.S. in there. As Dlv999 says, that's actually the only position named in that paragraph. Plenty of other countries passed parliamentary resolutions on the subject. If we were to add more positions, I'd suggest another major one (e.g., the EU, China, the Arab League or Russia). Otherwise we're giving too much weight to the United States' stance. Anything more than one sentence for one country is excessive.
This ties in with the above. If we start listing individual positions, then it's giving too much detail about one event in a 60-year timeline of events. Perhaps it's better not to name any specific positions and just make a general statement? Nightw 10:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of the word "although" implies criticism of the minority view, which is not contained in source. Please read the WP:SYN passage which states "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research" and provides examples that are analogous to this case.
I would like the PA's bid to be better explained with consideration of national statehood, as was widely reported. I feel that "join the UN" could be rephrased or expanded to a more informative version. My objections have nothing to do with POV. Something like "campaign for the state of Palestine to full member status at the UN and have recognition on the 1967 borders" would be preferable.
The executive (President) and legislative function (Senate) of US do not have shared opinion, and are frequently at odds.
I am not satisfied with mention of "widespread support" without discussing counterbalancing views. I am agreeable with not "naming any specific positions and just make a general statement"

If 4 is suitably addressed, then I agree that 3 is unnecessary. However as it stands, some balance is required if you wish to state that the efforts received "widespread support"
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well what would you rather? "...received widespread support, but some countries were critical..." (and not name the U.S. or anyone specifically)? I'm still not following you on your first point. "Although" is an ordinary conjuction used to join two parts of one sentence; you can use another word if you want. Nightw 15:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks great.

Nightw 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad we're in agreement finally
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The first paragraph tells the reader who criticizes Israel. The next paragraph needs rephrasing in a more generalized tone as well. No one cares about some Irish guy and his name and position should be removed -- I'm not even sure Netanyahu's name should be mentioned -- he's not a focal point to the argument made by many (add more then Just Israelis here -- e.g. UNESCO: [42] , US Senators: [43] , etc.) regarding PA incitement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A

tag and

tag be added to the "Present Status" paragraph of the "Peace Process" section of the article. The paragraph is very subjective and inflammatory. It presents only one POV. Also too much weight is being applied to one source (the only source cited in the paragraph)

Thanks

Oconnon9 (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Edit reqeusts are only allowed for non-contentious changes. Please discuss tagging with your fellow editors and have one of them add whatever tags you reach a consensus to add. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree here. There is repetition over repetition (over repetition...) of the same condemnation of settlements inflating a single idea to mythological proportions (in usual fashion). All the names that repeat the single idea need to be bunched together with the idea expressed once or twice -- not 10 times. I'll probably apply this methodology in the next couple days, shortening that portion of the section to "readable" status. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Source from today that I will probably incorporate somehow into the text -- Page 3 here: http://digital-edition.israelhayom.co.il/Olive/ODE/Israel/Default.aspx?href=ITD%2F2012%2F02%2F13 -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC) + 08:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jaakobou. A comment on your edit. The Security Council itself did not make any statements as your summary suggests. Following a briefing on the status of the peace process, representatives of all regional groups seated on the council issued statements. (i.e Russia, the four European countries, South Africa on behalf of the non-aligned block, Lebanon and Brazil on behalf of Brazil and India), there was no unified security council resolution. Dlv999 (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Also the statements did not simply say that the settlements were "a principle obstacle to the resumption of talks" as your edit suggests. The criticism was that the settlements were not only an obstacle to the resumption of talks, but that they were "the main impediment" to the viability of the two state solution. Apart from these details I think your edit is reasonable. Dlv999 (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The polling information should be restricted to attitudes appertaining to the peace process and condensed into a single paragraph. Attitudes towards violence should be relocated to the paragraph Societal Attitudes.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999,

I am not wise in the small details and would not mind at all if you suggest a rephrase on that sentence and a half regarding the UN related attitudes.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested revision to accurately reflect the facts and cited RS: In December 2011, following a UN Security Council briefing on the status of the peace process, representatives of all regional groups seated on the council condemned Israeli settlements and settler violence, naming them as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks. The statements, viewed by Russia as a "historic step", asserted that Israeli settlements were "the main impediment" to the viability of the two state solution. The statement was echoed by the non-aligned bloc This revision was reverted by NMMNG, but I feel it is an accurate reflection of the cited sources. Dlv999 (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit on the wordy side with descriptions such as, "representatives of all regional groups seated on the council". It is best to group them together if they are saying the same thing or almost the same thing with minor variants. We want people to read without getting tired half-way (no offense intended -- I'm describing the spirit of my recent contribution). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously you rate concision higher on your priority list than factual accuracy and faithful representation on RS. Dlv999 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, no. Factual accuracy is extremely important. I just did not dive very deeply into the intricacies of the UN text while summarizing it into 2 sentences. I have no objection to changes. I just hope that changes won't make the text tiresome on the reader. By all means, feel free to change the text, or present change ideas here. To be honest -- I'm not understanding where the text is at fault at this point in time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking a deeper look at your suggested text, it seems to compound the same information into 3 cumbersome-to-read sentences over the current use of 2 concise ones. I don't see much value in the duplication of "principal obstacle" with "the main impediment". Both terms mean exactly the same thing and this is exactly the problem the section had -- the same idea was repeated over and over (and over...). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, perhaps I could ask you three questions which highlight my issues with the current version:-

Do you feel there is a significant difference between "one of the principle obstacles to resuming talks "and the "main impediment to the viability of the two state solution"? (both statements are made by RS - you only include what in my opinion is the milder first statement in your edit)
Do you think there is a significant difference between an official UN Security Council statement -as per your edit- and various members sitting on the security council each issuing individual statements -as per RS-(bearing in mind official resolutions and statements by the Security Council carry legal weight, while individual statements by members do not).
Do you think it is significant that RS mentions "settlements and settler violence" as the issue while your edit refers to "settlement growth and policies" in the Palestinian territories?

Dlv999 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to further explain your concerns. I'll give the text another look tomorrow to see if I can suggest something that will meet them (within' contextual reason). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Heyo Dlv999,

I think our addressing of your concerns improved the section further. Hope you feel the same way.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have made one more minor alteration reflecting the terminology from the cited BBC article, let me know what you think. Dlv999 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not much of an expert on UN bureaucracy and the term "regional groupings" was confusing to me, when compared with the previous "members" one. Upon examination of the source you provided, it seems the US did not join the condemnation so to use the word "all" is extremely confusing, even if it is somehow accurate. I see a more elaborate description in this text: "The envoys who criticised Israel represented the European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab Group and a loose coalition of emerging states known as IBSA." -- is Russia part of that list or are they separate?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The current edit reads all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council...., this is supported by citation 22(the BBC report)[44] All the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council and citation 21 (the Al Jezeera report)[45] all regional groups seated on the council.... If you want to go into further details on exactly who made statements I don't have a problem with that (but I think it was you that removed this information from the article in the first place). USA and Russia are permanent members, and are not part of any "regional groupings". Dlv999 (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well...

I still don't understand the difference between "members" and "regional groupings" and why the US was not part of the statement while the term "all" is used. Worse than that, if I don't understand it, the average reader would have a hard time following this inside a paragraph dedicated to a generic description on something relating Israel. That it is cited is not enough if it is confusing, it needs to be written differently. As such, I would like to (a) understand it, and (b) find a rewrite that is less confusing. I am not against something like "envoys who criticised Israel represented the European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab Group and a loose coalition of emerging states known as IBSA". My current concern is usage of "all", which might give the wrong idea to the laymen reader.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The "all" is used in the cited sources which are mainstream news reports meant for the general reader. I don't think it is reasonable to claim that two separate mainstream sources are presenting information that is not understandable to the average reader. The quote from the Russian envoy in the article (calling the move a "historic step") is specifically in reference to "all regional groups" making statements not "members". If you remove the "all" you are not accurately representing the sources. By all means add extra information, but you cannot remove the "all regional groups" because it is a key fact that is being reported by multiple RS. As I have already explained, the US is a permanent member of the security council and not a part of any regional group. Dlv999 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The more specific and expressive (even if reliably sourced)the presentation of one side's views, the more necessary it is to balance with detailing opposing ones. Your presentation of a UN consensus is misleading. Additionally, JP mentions criticism of continued settlement construction unlike Al Jazeera. I will try and link to actual statements. 109.158.234.14 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In December 2011, all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council named settlements and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks, a call viewed by Russia as a "historic step". The statement was echoed by the non-aligned bloc.

"all the regional and political groupings" - You have omitted the US position. For clarity, what is the difference between a regional and a political groupings that you wish to include both these descriptions?
Demonstrate that all the regional and political groupings criticised "settlements and settler violence". The statements describe "settlement activity" and "continued settlement building" and not simply 'settlements'. Even Al Jazeera expands on its initial terse description.
"The statement was echoed by the non-aligned bloc" - These views are included in "all the regional and political groupings" so this is unnecessary repetition.
"as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks", Looking at the sources, this phrase appears to be Al Jazeera's personal view and not a direct quote. As such, it should be removed or better sourced since it currently violates WP:UNDUE. I have only observed the non-aligned bloc criticism of "the main impediment to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." This is not the view of "all the regional and political groupings".
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First off the current edit is not my creation, it is a collaborative effort. If anyone has reliably sourced information they wish to add I have no issue at all with that.

Has already been addressed:- The US is not a regional grouping. The non-aligned group does not represent a region, it represents a political grouping, same as the IBSA (Brazil, India). Both regional and political groupings are mentioned in the cited RS hence the justification for inclusion
Quoting from citation 21 [46] representatives of all regional groups seated on the council condemned Israeli settlements and settler violence, naming them as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks.
I have no issue with removing this clause, it was not my addition
Al Jezeera is a cited RS. The article should reflect the cited RS. I cannot understand your claim that a news report of events is a "personal view", this argument makes no sense at all. Also it seems nonsensical to dispute the attribution of the "main impediment" quote as it is not even in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You cite Brazil as a constituent of a political grouping. Yet it is commonly described as being a member of the Latin America regional group. As such, there appears to be unjustifiable overlap within the expression "all the regional and political groupings", which represents them as distinct members.
Please address specific concerns and not just focus on select keywords. I have already stated that Al Jazeera says this, yet it expands on this description and details the criticisms relating to "settlement activity" and "continued settlement building". This is more informative and explanatory terminology.
Will do
Al Jazeera is a RS and merits inclusion. However its views should not be given undue weight. Since they are the sole source that states, "all regional groups seated on the council condemned Israeli settlements and settler violence, naming them as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks.", this should be reflected in the article. Note that your introduction which uses the BBC's expression of "all the regional and political groupings" conjoined with the views of Al Jazeera that makes no mention of the political groups, is a violation of WP:SYN.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

1.cited RS specifically refers to "regional and political groupings" your own POV is irrelevant. 2. As I have already pointed out, if you want to included further information supported by RS I have no issue. I am opposing removal of sourced information, that is all. 4. Both the Al jezeera and BBC sources refer to "all regional groupings" both reports refer to the exact same statements, the exact same groupings - please read the sources, this is beyond tedious going over the same ground with you again and again. There is no source which contradicts the Al Jezeera report. Until you find one that does there is zero justification for an undue claim. Dlv999 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Both the Al jezeera and BBC sources refer to "all regional groupings" both reports refer to the exact same statements, the exact same groupings." Wrong. The BBC refers to "all the regional and political groupings", the Al Jazeera source only mentions "all regional groups". You have combined the two to state "all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council named settlements and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks" As such this statement violates WP:SYN. Your consistent WP:OSTRICHIMPRESSIONSTICKMYHEADINTHESAND as a means to ignore failings pointed out is counter-productive to a satisfactory collaborative effort.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

However you seem happy to insert "settlement construction" instead of settlements as in the original cited source and this is not your own synth? "Regional and political groupings" reflects all three cited sources which all name the exact same regional and political groupings. The non-aligned group is not a regional grouping, it is a political grouping, it is mentioned in all three sources. No source contradicts the BBC's statement of "all regional and political groupings". I am suggesting a reversion to the original edit, which clearly indicated which members made statements, what they each said and who they were representing.

In December 2011, following a briefing to the security council by UN assistant secretary-general for political affairs, Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, representatives of all regional groups seated on the council condemned Israeli settlements and settler violence, naming them as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks. Russia called the move a "historic step". Its Ambassador questioned the viability of a two state solution in light of Israel's settlement activity saying "If you look at the map, you start wondering how even theoretically two states can be set up in Gaza and West Bank given this new reality,". Britain, France, Germany and Portugal, the four EU members on the council, released a joint statement, saying that Fernandez-Taranco's briefing made clear that Israeli settlement activity was undermining attempts to restart stalled peace talks with the Palestinians. The South African Ambassador, Baso Sangqu, released a statement on behalf of the 120-nation bloc of non-aligned nations that echoed the European statement, describing settlement activities as "illegal" and "the main impediment to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Brazilian Ambassador, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, reiterated Sangqu's words in a statement she read on behalf of Brazil, India and South Africa. Lebanon's UN envoy, Nawaf Salam, also made similar remarks.^[4]^[5] Dlv999 (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As you have recently stated "the current edit is not my creation, it is a collaborative effort", I find your request for a mass reversion surprising. You have failed to deal with my query regarding synthesis, I shall therefore repeat it, "The BBC refers to "all the regional and political groupings", the Al Jazeera source only mentions "all regional groups". You have combined the two to state "all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council named settlements and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks" As such this statement violates WP:SYN". Demonstrate where all political groups have "named settlements and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks". As to my reversion from "the original cited source", in fact I have expanded to use terminology from that very source. Since you very kindly and magnanimously stated "if you want to included further information supported by RS I have no issue.", I saw no problem with altering and expanding to a more informative version that relied on the very same source. My edit does not contradict yours but merely clarifies it; unless you wish to claim that the Al Jazeera article relied upon contains contradictions?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Including further information supported by RS" does not mean deleting information supported by RS and replacing it with information that suits your own POV as you have done. The cited source summarizes the issue as "settlements", you have cherrypicked "settlement construction" (which appears once in one of a number of statements) from elsewhere in the article to suit your POV, there was certainly no agreement for this and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. "Settlement construction" is fine for the one statement in which it was used, but the RS clearly states that overall the issue was settlements your use of "settlement construction" in this contest is your own synth. You have challenged the text on which the collaboration is based. The basis for the summary is that the criticisms can be accurately described as per RS in this way. If a summary of the criticisms cannot be agreed upon, which with your involvement now seems to be the case, I think it is reasonable to suggest a version of the edit which fully explains exactly who made statements and exactly what those statements were. You have expressed a lot of issues with the current text. Please point out what issues you have (if any) with my suggested edit. My problem with removing the "political groupings" is that this effectively removes the non-aligned block and IBSA from the criticism (as they are political, not regional groupings) All three cited sources we have discuss these political groups so I do not think it is justified on any level to remove them from the article. The edit I have suggested removes the phrase "political groupings", but specifically refers to the groupings individually, therefore staying true to the facts as represented by RS. Please address your further comments to my suggested solution. Dlv999 (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am in favour of working out a satisfactory version of the current text and see no reason for a sudden wholesale revert to a previous text that was also problematic, namely the repetition of the same arguments. Such changes are disruptive as the current text represents the will of several editors.
For the third time, you have failed to address this point, "The BBC refers to "all the regional and political groupings", the Al Jazeera source only mentions "all regional groups". You have combined the two to state "all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council named settlements and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks" As such this statement violates WP:SYN". Demonstrate where all political groups have "named settlements and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks". You have sidestepped this issue by prattling about the unjustification of removing "political groups" which I am not suggesting. Your equivocation and use of the word synth out of context leads me to think you are not knowledgeable of its meaning and I urge you to read WP:SYN
I altered the text to a more informative and explanatory version from within the same text; it does not contradict yours but merely clarifies it; unless you wish to claim that the Al Jazeera article relied upon contains contradictions. As you yourself state, your preferred expression "summarises the issue". The Al Jazeera source and the others listed constantly refer to settlement activity and a continuation in settlement construction, as do the very statements themselves, and I find your insistence on an elliptical single mention within one of the sources highly peculiar. Your accusation of cherry picking smacks of WP:KETTLE and I can provide you with numerous examples of the terminology used - unlike you.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no consensus on a general summary that would accurately reflect the criticisms of each of the statements. Trying to describe the statements together has led to a problem because the criticisms in each statement are not identical. To solve this issue I am suggesting returning to an edit which explained exactly who made the statements and the specific criticisms made by each statement. The arguments are not repetitive as they are not the same, as this interminable debate we are having about the differences between each statement is showing. I have understood your concerns about the inclusion of "all political groups". I have raised a concern that if the reference to "political groups" is removed then the passage contains no reference to the the non-aligned block and the IBSA - both political groupings mentioned in the RS. My suggested solution to both our concerns is to remove the term "political groups", but to discuss the statements of these groups separately as per my suggested edit. "settlements" is the way the RS summaries the issue. Your own suggestion "settlement construction" is only used in one of the statements. Settlements being the issue is a "catch all" which will accurately describe all of the statements. Settlement construction is only accurate for the statement that explicitly refers to "settlement construction". I am not cherry picking because I am recommending using the terminology used by the RS summary. Alternatively let us describe the specific criticism of each statement to avoid this issue of a suitable summary term that accurately describes them all. Dlv999 (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"I have understood your concerns about the inclusion of "all political groups". I have raised a concern that if the reference to "political groups" is removed then the passage contains no reference to the the non-aligned block and the IBSA - both political groupings mentioned in the RS." As I have pointed out to you numerous times, the RS does not refer to the "political groups" in the context that you have described. If you accept that the current format is unsatisfactory, please remove this phrase from the paragraph or include it in its correct context. I have no objection to reference to political groups being made in an accurate manner, it is the current synthesis that needs to be changed.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, do you support my suggested solution to solve both our concerns? That is the description of exactly who made the statements and the specific criticisms made in each statement.

No I do not support it. However the current format is inaccurate and requires modification. Please alter accordingly.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "all political groups" because of of BBC and AlJazeera synthesis. I have replaced Al Jazeera description of "principle obstacle" in line with WP:UNDUE. "The page should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view...To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." Currently, only the AlJazeera source supports this claim so further sourcing is required before you can present it using the Wiki voice. Alternatively you can attribute it to AlJazeera. Finally "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject... for example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."19:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk)

The current edit does not accurately reflect the sources. I have found some more sources and I intend to re-wright the passage to include the substance of the criticisms that were made. Given that the following passage criticizing Palestinians quotes a letter from a minority group of a national parliament and the opinions of the Israeli primeminister I think that balance requires that the we at least include the substance of criticisms made at the UNSC by official envoys from political and regional groupings representing most of the globe. Any input and suggestions gratefully received. Dlv999 (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sure I will be able to contribute with some input and suggestions. A note of caution: please consider the feedback you received for your last effort and try to satisfy the concerns mentioned above on this Talk page. The main issue appeared to be summed up by Jaakabou, "All the names that repeat the single idea need to be bunched together with the idea expressed once or twice -- not 10 times." The paragraph should address the effect of settlement activity on the present status of the peace process and should avoid becoming a detailed critique of settlement policy with emphasis on individual stances. Happy drafting and good luck.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Judgement Day

The NightW edit states that "...a clause of the Hamas Charter that declares the need for Muslims to fight the Jews before the arrival of Judgement Day". What the source says is “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews". Please amend to reflect this conditional requirement.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

^ "The resolution in question, number 194, was passed by the UN General Assembly on December 11, 1948, in the midst of the Arab-Israeli war. The first thing to be noted about it is that, like all General Assembly resolutions (and unlike Security Council resolutions), it is an expression of sentiment and carries no binding force, Efraim Karsh, The Palestinians and The 'Right of Return', Commentary Magazine, May 2001.
^ "Rwanda/Democratic Republic of Congo: Process by which Congolese nationals of Rwandan origin can obtain Rwandan nationality, including: what family ties a...." UNHCR. 29 April 2008.
^ Clawson, Patrick. "Aid to Palestinians Exceeds Marshall Plan Aid to Europe." Jewish Virtual Library.
^ "Security Council members line up to criticize Israel". Jerusalem Post. 12/20/2011. Retrieved February 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Israel condemned at UN over settlements". BBC. 22 Dec 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2012.

[1] "The resolution in question, number 194, was passed by the UN General Assembly on December 11, 1948, in the midst of the Arab-Israeli war. The first thing to be noted about it is that, like all General Assembly resolutions (and unlike Security Council resolutions), it is an expression of sentiment and carries no binding force, Efraim Karsh, The Palestinians and The 'Right of Return', Commentary Magazine, May 2001.

[2] "Rwanda/Democratic Republic of Congo: Process by which Congolese nationals of Rwandan origin can obtain Rwandan nationality, including: what family ties a...." UNHCR. 29 April 2008.

[3] Clawson, Patrick. "Aid to Palestinians Exceeds Marshall Plan Aid to Europe." Jewish Virtual Library.

[4] "Security Council members line up to criticize Israel". Jerusalem Post. 12/20/2011. Retrieved February 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[5] "Israel condemned at UN over settlements". BBC. 22 Dec 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]