Jump to content

Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Arab League

According to the Arab League's website, "Palestine" is a member of the League of Arab States. However, they do not refer to it as either:

  1. an original member; or,
  2. a "country" which joined later

Rather, they say:

"The Palestine Liberation Organization was admitted in 1976." [1]

So, how should the article describe this? We could be concise and say this:

--Uncle Ed 16:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

http://www.arableagueonline.org/arableague/english/details_en.jsp?art_id=847&level_id=11

The link above is incorrect. I believe the one i just wrote is the more official Arab League website which lists Palestine as a country called the State of Palestine.

Articles with a section on Palestinian refugees

Just how many different articles need a section called "Palestinian refugees", all with the same quotes? There's already an article on the subject; we should link to that. - Mustafaa 21:57, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mustafaa,

O.K.,

I will not change what you wrote, even though I believe it could have been written better. But please let me send readers to another version, and don't erase my links.

Thank you

Mike

Mike, Wikipedia does not have other "versions" of topics. Any content that is appropriate to add—verifiable and NPOV information—should be combined into the single article unless it's divisible into another topic (not another perspective). If you don't like what's there, you can't just create an alternate to "send readers to." And if you change what's there, it's always of course subject to being undone or further edited by the wikipedia community if they disagree with the changes, particularly if you just replace everything that has been built up over cumulative edits on a controversial subject with your own "version." Postdlf 7:40 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, Postdlf, Wikipedia DOES have other versions of topics. In fact, we keep a COMPLETE set of versions for all topics on our server farm. So Mike can link to an old version if he wants to; that's what they're THERE for. --Uncle Ed 21:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. He was trying to create a second article on Palestine, not to link to an old version. - Mustafaa 21:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Pro-Palestinain links should be first, not Pro-Israeli links. Pro-Israeli links first causes page to be biased. Cellsy

That's irrational. If your logic was true, then putting pro-Palestinian links would make the article look to be biased towards Palestinians! In that logic, no set could be put first. RK 22:35, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
J (usurped) 5:15, Dec. 26, 2004 (UTC)
 Ditto
That's rather silly. People looking for real information will try to read a mix of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli pages regardless of which comes first. And people trying to justify their own ideals will read only what they want to hear. But if we're going to get all-up-ons about it, put the UN links first because they should be the most factual and least biased. --Caliper 03:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
UN links first because they should be the most factual and least biased....now that's funny! Lance6Wins 16:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How about pro-Israeli links first because it is alphabetically in order? That seems the most logical solution.

The UN links should be placed at the very bottom of the list since the UN provides the LEAST factual and MOST biased point of view. Any person who has followed the issue and has enough knowledge on current affairs will recognise this as true. The reason for this is the fact that there are over 20 specifically Arab countries and many more Muslim countries in the UN who always vote as a block, which gives a skewed and inaccurate impression of the situation. As to whether pro-Israeli or pro-palestinian links, I honestly think that a person looking to seek out the truth would visit both links, read the articles and then formulate their own opinion. However, in this day and age, people tend to spread received information, without checking its veracity or fully understanding it themselves, in order to convince others that their worldview is the correct one. News agencies have self-interest at their core. Financial considerations are their number one priority and the result is bias! If we were to take CNN International as an example, the majority of its advertising revenue is derived from screening advertisements for Arab publications, Arab companies and holiday destinations in Arab & Muslim countries. The result? They mainly propogate a one sided view. The word "terrorist" thus becomes an 'emotive term' and a person who blows himself up on a bus of civilians is therefore a militant. They also fail to cover stories which don't go along with the worldview of their financial backers or if they do, it is covered in passing. We live in corrupt times!! To think that people argue about such petty things as to what link should come first is frankly pathetic. They are all printed on the same page and the one who is looking for a pro-Israeli link would look for that link even if the pro-Palestinian link came first. My point is that people should stop wasting time on such futile arguments. ay786 (pf70)


The UN vote is biased?

Dude, have you checked out the U.N voting records on issues regarding Palestine? The votes usually end 163 to 2. You want biased. Three guesses who are the guys that usually disagree. Jewish people have gotten the shaft end at times in history but in this particular case there really isn't much controversy on the matter.

The Palestinians have got the shaft in this. Only in the U.S., a little in Great Britain and of course Israel is there any real debate about this.... which incidentally are the nations with the largest Jewish populations. That's bias if I've ever heard of it. If you don't believe me the General Assembly's voting records are online. I've looked at every single vote on every topic over the last fifty years. Just a weeks work if your actually interested in promoting facts rather than misinformation.

If the U.N. should be ashamed of something is that they've let guilt regarding the holocaust and powerful U.S.influence cloud their judgment of what needs to be done for Israel and Palestine to coexist peacefully.

If the U.S. wants to continue to play hardball on the subject let them run away from the U.N. Do they really want to go back to a world of isolationism and protectionism? They'll lose the bluff if the U.N. members have the audacity to make the call.

The U.S. don't pay their UN bill anyways. Besides 75 percent of the worlds economy (and growing), 55% of the military and 95% of the worlds population easily trumps their influence. The U.S. has ended up fighting a war that's not theirs and perpetuating a global crisis that could easily end if the U.N. votes to send in peacekeeping troops and give all (or most) resolutions voted lands to the Palestinians while puting promises in place to protect the state of Israel. Some (not all) Israelis would then be free to make another association that they are being persecuted again because they are Jewish.

Boo hoo.I'm persecuted because I'm Black, I'm white, I'm Arab. Whatever works for you just get out of my face.

At the vary least give them some sort of continious land they can call a home, free of persecution so that they may have some sort of dignity. I thought that was the whole point of the Balfour accord and why Israel was created. Surely someone is Israel can empathize with that?

Sure they'll continue be the die hard Palestinian terrorists that want to kill all Jews and it will upset a lot of Ultra Orthodox Jews (many who are just as blatently racist), but it sure is better than having 300 million Arabs trying to kill you. Time will pass... people will move on.

The alternative of course is continue with the Israeli strategy of the last fifty years (settlements then cry Holocaust when someone trys to defend their territory) and to wait until Al Qaeda enlists enough support to aqquire WMD and decides to unannouced blow up Tel Aviv and Washington in one day. You think they care that Israel will respond? They're all going to G~d anyways.

Diplomacy will resolve this dispute not weapons.

BTW - Tell me I can't spell... or that some point is inaccurate.... but before someone warns me of Nazis and anti-Semitism... I'd like to warn you that you've lost all credibility by libeling me and making such an extreme associations because I simply disagree with you. Take it up with your priest, Rabbi, or Allah.. leave the rest of us alone and in peace.

J (usurped) 5:15, Dec. 26, 2004 (UTC)


Why is the UN biased? They are not biased to most people in the world. It is just israel who think that. Because Israel breaks international law and the UN complain, which is obviously unfair? PHussein 20:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israel, as a sovereign nation should, has protected and continues to protect its citizens from the excesses of its enemies. Enemies that have consistently denied its right to exist. The UN is biased, as stated in the previous article. DBR

The UN General Assembly voting records may be biased by the number of Arab countries who vote, but I'd bet that UN agencies and declarations are generally fairly balanced since the US has veto power and UN agencies are bound by the charter.

As far as which should go first, I would say that things that directly relate to Palestine should be listed in alphabetical order, that there should be no segregation between pro-X and pro-Y links. That would seem the sane way to do it.

Etymology

Can anyone comment on the claim that "Philistines" means "invaders" in Hebrew? My Biblical Hebrew dictionary, which supposedly contains every word in the Old Testament, only gives hitpalesh = "roll in dust", not a word likely to be connected! - Mustafaa 05:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In hebrew the word for "invade" is "palash" (the 3 base letters are p.l.sh), so now you can easily see how "Plishtim" (the way it's pronounced in hebrew) comes from "invaders". And another comment: In arabic the word for invade is "ghaza" (with the second 'a' pronounced longer), which is very similar to the palestinian city Gaza. --(unsigned)

I don't know the etymology of the two words, but the root of 'ghazaa' غزا meaning to attack or raid, is غزو 'gh-z-w', whereas Ghaza in Arabic is غزة root غزز.Palmiro 21:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is pure conjecture based on the old assumption that every name in the Bible must have a Hebrew derivation. Given the reference in Egyptian sources before most scholars regard Hebrew as existing as a separate language, other possibilities should be considered. There are any number of speculations in the literature but the bottom line is that nobody knows. --Zero 11:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


yeah, as to the UN being biased, I couldn't agree more. It has a long history of voting against Israel indiscriminately, as well as making anti-semitic allegations. Witness the resolution in 1972 that defined Zionism (the desire for a Jewish state) as "racism." The United Nations may as well rename itself the "United Arabs." - Papist

Correction required for: Status of territories occupied in the Six-Day War

It is more of a small factual error; but I think that Sinai should be included in the list of territories, including its final status today. It could be said that it was returned to Egypt, after Sadat's historic visit to Israel, and the final peace agreement between those two countries.

Just a thought, I thought I would ask before actually changing it.

Thoughts on this? Joseph 03:07, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. - Mustafaa 22:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could someone else do it? or has it been done? because of my personal feelings on Palestine, and the deleting and censure of anything I write, I would prefer someone else write it up. I think it is called a conflict of interest. I will just end up getting upset anyway, so I kindly ask that as a favour. Thanks in advance if someone does it. Joseph 14:31, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
I changed the odd wording that the status of Sinai was still subject to dispute, since it is not. If someone wanted they could add in the negotiations that led to the return of Taba, etc. - but it is fair to say that this is resolved.


Why include the Sinai or Golan Heights at all? This is an article on Palestine, neither are part of historical Palestine.

If this was an article on France you wouldnt include Poland and Ukraine on the list of territories they camptured in ww2.

Request for feedback: Wiki branches/voting proposal

This is off-topic for this page, but on-topic for controversial/disputed pages in general, so I hope you don't mind. I'm looking for a few veterans of edit wars on frequently controversial pages like this one, who would be willing to look over a design proposal for Wiki branches that I've written up and will probably attempt to prototype in the near future. The whole thing is long, but I'd be quite happy if you only looked at the much shorter section on "Branches", which is the most important part. I'm particularly interested in hearing whether you think such a branch mechanism (a) would improve Wiki workflow and consensus-building, by allowing alternative approaches to be developed and evaluated side-by-side, or (b) would hinder consensus-building by making it less necessary for the majority to take minority viewpoints into account. But in general, I'm interested in any and call comments, preferably on my talk page. Thanks! - Brynosaurus 09:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Newly released Churchill documents on Palestine, during World War 2

As time progresses many more newly released secret documents will be made public. There is today newly released documents, that I think may help to balance out this article. Would someone like to take a stab at looking these over? I am not sure how one could look them over on-line, but here is a link to the BBC story anyway, seems fairly factual and NPOV to me see: UK archives reveal Palestine plan

Again, because of my personal feelings on Palestine, and the constant deleting and censure of anything I write, I would prefer someone else write it up. I think it is called a conflict of interest. I will just end up getting upset anyway, so I kindly ask that as a favour. Thanks in advance again if someone is willing to tackle this. Joseph 14:31, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Borders of Palestine

Isn't the following disputed?

Palestine is the area bordered by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean Sea.

This amounts to a statement that Jordan is not in Palestine. Which is the same as saying that the definition of Palestine has changed, and that Jordan no longer is in it. Did I miss something? When did this happen? Jordan is not in Palestine!!!!!!PHussein 20:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather see a statement like:

  • Palestine, as defined by X since the year N, is the area bordered by... Before that, it also included Jordan; or,
  • Historically, Palestine was the are bordered by Egypt, the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, etc. Then in year N, the portion roughly east of the Jordan River was designated by X as an Arab territory and by the year N-2 eventually become what is modern Jordan. Now Y and Z refer to the portion roughly west of the Jordna River as Palestine and no longer refer to the entire region by that name. Q and R, however, still call the entire region Palestine.

Or am I wrong? Am I the only person left in the world who still thinks Jordan was or is part of Palestine? And does Israel, the US, the PLO, Jordan and everyone else all happily use "Palestine" for the western portion of the British Mandate and "Jordan" for the eastern (larger) portion? --Uncle Ed 20:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Palestine was a region, not a country, so exact borders are hard to define. That said, Jordan was definitely part of Palestine when the British captured it in 1917. When the League of Nations ratified the results of the San Remo conference in 1922, the part of Palestine east of the Jordan was re-named "Trans-Jordan" and removed from Palestine (and from Jewish immigration). The Golan Heights were also part of Palestine until 1923, when it was transferred to the French mandate of Syria under a Franco-British agreement. Jayjg 20:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Exact borders are hard to define for Israel too, since they seem to be constantly expanding...
Um, not really. Israel's borders have been constantly contracting since 1968, and it now controls only a small percentage of the land it controlled then. And please sign your posts. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and informative answer. (I was afraid you weren't talking to me any more, after the 'abuse of admin' scandal. I still consider myself on probation. I'm making hand-crafted mahagony napkin holders at Martha Stewart's estate in the Hamptons; tomorrow we'll pot some marigolds to decorate her prison cell ;-)

Maybe we need separate articles on Palestine (region) and Palestine (country)? Anyway, see ya Monday... --Uncle Ed 21:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Of course I'm talking to you Ed. I didn't approve of your actions, and I thought your e-mail on the list was quite unfair, but I still like you. As for Palestine (region) vs. Palestine (country), that wouldn't make sense, as there is no country of Palestine and never has been. There have various adminstrative units designated as "Palestine" over the centuries, but none have been countries. Jayjg 21:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See how many mistakes I'm NOT making, just by using talk first? Hmm. Maybe I'll stay in the Hamptons for the rest of the weekend... --Uncle Ed 21:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Palastine

It's commonly stated that a nation by the name of "Palastine" does not exist, and has not existed since 1948 before the attempted invasion of the state of Isarel.

What point are you trying to make? Jayjg 14:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A state is not the same as a nation. A nation has culture, language, history. A state has government, borders. State is objective, nation is subjective. No state of Palestine has existed since 1948, but arguably the Palestinian nation still exists. --Zachbe 13:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Arguably no "Palestinian nation" existed before 1948. Jayjg 15:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One might make such an argument, though ample evidence to the contrary can be cited. However, I can't see how anyone could argue that a Palestinian nation, in Zachbel's sense of nation, doesn't exist now. - Mustafaa 15:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Palestine has existed since Rome created it thousand of thousand years ago.PHussein 20:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rome, or the Roman Empire, powerful as it was did not CREATE Palestine. They simply conquered the existing kingdoms, dispersed its people (the Hebrews) and RE-NAMED the area as Palestine. Furthermore, if this is an argument as to why a Palestinian state should be formed then it is also a validation of Israeli occupation and annexation of territory. DBR

Is it clear that Jordan was established as an Arab palestinian state? And that the name palestinian was clearley associated with the Jewish population before 1948, for example the palestinian brigade was comprised of Jewish soilders etc.

Jerusalem - a divided city

Jerusalem - a divided city of disputed status... is "divided city" factually accurate at this time? Lance6Wins 16:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The most accurate description of Jerusalem would be that it is physically unified under Israeli control, but that the status of the East is still contested. Most East Jerusalem Arabs do not hold Israeli citizenship (though a large minority do) but rather permanent residency cards which allow them freedom of movement throughout the state, so politically there remains a division between the two sets of inhabitants. Socially speaking, since the Al-Aqsa intifada began there is little if any interaction between the two Jerusalems -- so in that sense, the city is very much divided. But the city is currently unified (for what it's worth).

It's worthy of note that, for the purposes of international law, even Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem is not universally recognized, since the whole city was earmarked for special "internationalized" status under the partition plan. Legal scholars would probably agree that customary international law would favour Israeli rights to sovereignty in the west, though of course East Jerusalem remains open to discussion. (anon) 23:07, 26 Nov 2004

The status of East Jerusalem is not "Disputed" or "Contested" within international law or indeed in any meaningful sense. It is an Israeli-Occupied territory and has been since 1967. The UN has issued condemnations of Israeli attempts to impose Israeli law on residents of East Jerusalem annually since the occupation began, and has consistently for almost 40 years condemned the military occupation and subsquent annexation of East Jerusalem as being in violation of the UN Charter and international law. This has also been affirmed by Extraordinary Assembly of High Contracting Powers to the Geneva Convention in December 2001, which stated very clearly that the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem did not create a political fact, was contrary to law, and was not to be recognized by any state. Even Israel's closest ally, the US, has consistently rejected Israeli claims to East Jerusalem.

The ONLY state in the world that accepts Israel's claim to sovereignty over East Jerusalem (including a massive and growing greater metropolitan area of Jerusalem) is ISRAEL. Every other state on earth rejects it, as does every human rights organization, the UN, the Geneva Conventions, and the International Court of Justice. There is no "controversy" and this claim is not "contested" - it is flatly illegal and condemned by the entire world. To refer to its status as "contested" is to introduce an enormous pro-Israeli bias - as if the ethnic expansionist schemes of one small state have a validity equal to the unanimous collective and historic weight of the entire body of international law.

Re the US stance, Jimmy Carter writes this month in an article titled "Colonization of Palestine precludes peace": "For more than a quarter century, Israeli policy has been in conflict with that of the United States and the international community. Israel's occupation of Palestine has obstructed a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land, regardless of whether Palestinians had no formalized government, one headed by Yasser Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas, or with Abbas as president and Hamas controlling the parliament and cabinet. The unwavering U.S. position since Dwight Eisenhower's administration has been that Israel's borders coincide with those established in 1949, and since 1967, the universally adopted UN Resolution 242 has mandated Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories. This policy was reconfirmed even by Israel in 1978 and 1993, and emphasized by all American presidents, including George W. Bush. As part of the Quartet, including Russia, the UN and the European Union, he has endorsed a "road map" for peace. But Israel has officially rejected its basic premises with patently unacceptable caveats and prerequisites." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/695187.html

well it is disputed . Zeq 22:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-Israeli/Pro-Palestinian" is a huge misnomer

The links should be listed based on their political orientation, not as "Pro-Israel" or "Pro-Palestine." Many people and organizations are both and surely many are neither... There are more than 2 sides to this conflict and we should not create this false binary in an attempt to simplify it.

I agree. How about "Palestine Soldarity Links" and "Pro-Zionist links" ? I mean, there are pro-settlement links on the list of pro-israeli groups. Meanwhile lots of the groups on the "Pro-Palestine" list also consider themselves to be doing what's in Israel's best interests.

I agree, originally when we first started adding links, many of the links I put up were vandalized with awful names, even the Birzeit University Guide to Palestinian Websites, the 50th anniversary of the Nakba (Palestinian cataclysm) Website, The Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center of Palestine, etc...
Some kind writers, corrected them, but the vandalism and disputes continued unabated. They would rename them this terrorist Website, the terrorist cultural centre, etc...You know, I even added the original Israeli Government Main Page - English and the Israeli Defence Forces Main Page - English links thinking it may aid others in seeing both sides of the issue, and no I did not name them badly, just as they appear now.
I do not care for the new names too too much, but perhaps it is better to have those, than the way they were before. In any case I defer to cooler and wiser heads with better ideas!
The Palestinian header is ok, I think, not great, but OK and liveable. What about 'Israeli and Zionist links' for the latter, it sounds better than 'Pro-Zionist and Anti-Palestine' links, the -anti-and -pro- sounds too negative? JMHO Joseph 15:08, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Meaning of "Pro-Palestine"

I'm not sure what "pro-Palestine" is supposed to mean. Jay just said above that Palestine is a region, not a country. Would we use the term pro-Palestine to mean actions which benefit the region called Palestine? Like, suppose Bill Gates gave $1,000 to everyone in Palestine... Would Jordanians get any of that money? How about Israelis (Jew, Arab or other)?

Or do you mean favoring the establishment of a new nation to be called "Palestine" and having territory somewhere in the region known from ancient times as Palestine?

This is an English-language encyclopedia, so you have to use words that English speakers can understand. And please read definitions of Palestine. --Uncle Ed 16:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The link title is "Pro-Palestinian", not "Pro-Palestine", which is quite different. Jayjg 03:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, then let me tweak my question, but it's pretty much the same:

Does pro-Palestinian mean benefiting the people who seek the establishment of a new nation to be called "Palestine" and having territory somewhere in the region known from ancient times as Palestine? or favoring their cause?

Or does it mean benefiting all residents of Palestine, including Jordanians, Israeli Arabs, etc.?

You see, I'm from a scientific background and I like clear, unambiguous terminology. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

The term Palestine is used in at least three different contexts:

  1. the historical region
  2. a political division of that region
  3. a prospective state in either of the above

I therefore propose that we stop having an article entitled "Palestine" and that every Palestine link in Wikipedia either:

In the old days, I would just go ahead and do this boldly, but I fear it would disturb others and detract from cooperative editing. So I'm going to wait a week or so for discussion. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree:
  • Palestine is a historic geographical region. this is what this article is (or at least should be) about.
  • There is currently no political division called "Palestine". Such a devision existed (in modern history) only between 1918 and 1948, and is covered by the British mandate of Palestine article.
  • The word "nation" is problematic as it refers both to a political organization (a state) and to a group of people (a people). There is currently no nation in the political sense called "Palestine" (unless you're referring to the self-declared "State of Palestine"). There does (arguably) exist a Palestinian nation (or people). This subject is covered by the Palestinian article. (A useful analogy here is the article Jew, which is completely independent from the article on Judea, even though the Jewish people originally got its name from the name of the country).
  • As for the prospective state, we already have a Proposals for a Palestinian state article.
If you'll take a look at the list of articles pointing to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Palestine) you would notice that almost all of them refer to Palestine as a historic and/or geographic region. So there's really no need for a disambiguation page.
I think we have quite enough articles on this subject as it is. Adding more will just add to the confusion and create more places for Zionists and Arabs (and their respective supporters) to bash each other.
For the same reason, I am in favor of merging History of Palestine (and probably also Definitions of Palestine) into this article, and also removing from this article anything having to do with post-1948 political history. This subject is already well covered in Israel, Palestinian Territories, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If at any point in the future there will be an actual state called "Palestine", my posion will change, and I will then support a disambiguation page with links to the current article and the article about the (hypothetical) state.
-- uriber 10:58, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

But there is a State called Palestine and recognised by more than 2/3 of the worlds countries and is popularily acclaimed by the absolute majority of the earth's population. I don't know about you, but that seems like a state to me.


--I have removed following topics from the disambiguation--

  • The Palestinian National Authority, governing parts of these territories.
  • The Palestinian people
  • Several Places in the U.S. named Palestine:
  • Palestine, Arkansas (city)
  • Palestine, Illinois (village)
  • Palestine, Ohio (village)
  • Palestine, Texas (city)
  • Palestine, West Virginia (town)
  • Also East Palestine, Ohio and New Palestine, Indiana.

The first two are not refered to by the word Palestine. A governing body or collection of people is not refered to by the location name of Palestine. In addition, including various US cities named Palestine is not necessary. -Raazer 18:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the placenames. These places are also called Palestine, and that's what the page is for, to disambiguate possible uses of the name when referring to a place. Jayjg (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The PNA is not infrequently referred to by the government name "Palestine". This may be loose usage (it should rather refer to the State of Palestine), but is worth including in a disambig page. - Mustafaa 22:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The PNA usage seems OK, I am not familar with it. But it is odd that the only topic that doesn't involve a singluar region from the middle east is the US place names. It is a disambiguation, but including that last topic highlights that this is just an attempt at quelling conflict over the status of the area, rather than a facility to direct interested readers to their desired topic.-Raazer 11:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg you persist in your edits without discussing and without evidence

Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967 and the Golan Heights in 1981. Do you dispute those facts? If so, provide contrary evidence. If not, cease your POV edits. Israel did not completely return Sinai territory to Egypt until Taba was returned. Do you dispute this? Why do you persist in perpetuating innacuracy? The Puerto Rican Olympic team has no bearing on the Palestinian recognition by the Olympics. For that matter, why not discuss Timor Leste or Macedonia? You just keep stepping on everything you can find that conceivably impart a negative light on your beloved Israel, like the Al Mezan center for Human Rights. Your POV pushing is outrageous and reprehensible and you do this all the time, day in and day out like some traumatized Holocaust survivor. Except when you are editing pages to promote your views of circumcision(+) and Jesus(-). You seem to think your view is the only authorized view and no one else has a right to an opinion. You refuse to discuss issues and just keep pushing your POV. You have no more authority than anyone else Jayjg. You need help Jayjg, serious mental help from a competent Jewish psychiatrist, like your father. Alberuni 01:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Civil discourse

I suggest we all review my favorite article, Wikipedia:staying cool when the editing gets hot and avoid making personal remarks such as:

  • Why do you persist in perpetuating innacuracy? Better to say that you disagree with the statement's accuracy.
  • You need ... serious mental help from a ... psychiatrist. Better to say that you think the statement is fantastic or incredible.

Alberuni, sometimes how you say something speaks louder than the points you are making. Please avoid personal remarks. --User:Ed Poor, aka "Uncle Ed"

Why do you persist in perpetuating innacuracy? is not a personal remark, it's an accurate observation of what is going on here. ----style 07:45, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Mandel reference

The article says:

During the 19th century, the "Ottoman Government employed the term Arz-i Filistin (the 'Land of Philistines') in official correspondence, meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became 'Palestine' under the British in 1922" (Mandel, page xx). However, the translation he gives is incorrect: Arz-i Filistin (أرض فلسطين) translates as "Land of Palestine." Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjaq alone.

Who is Mandel, and where did he say this? What is page "xx"? Why does the article cite him, and then immediately state he was wrong, by making a number of unsubstantiated claims and using un-defined non-English terms? Jayjg 16:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What undefined non-English terms? As to Mandel, I assume xx was meant to be p. 20 of an introduction, but I could be wrong. I suggest checking the edit history; that sentence has been in this article (under the older section #The Name, which overlaps a lot with #Boundaries) for a long time, and probably got garbled at some stage. - Mustafaa 16:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess sometimes pages do go backwards; look how much more detail [there was a while ago http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestine&oldid=2716718]! - Mustafaa 16:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hah. Never mind checking edit histories; just read the bibliography at the bottom of the page! - Mustafaa 17:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, and welcome back Mustafaa; I suspect a footnote would work better. "sanjaq" is an undefined non-English term. And the entire sentence However, the translation he gives is incorrect: Arz-i Filistin (أرض فلسطين) translates as "Land of Palestine." Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjaq alone. is unreferenced. Jayjg 17:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sanjak can fortunately just be linked. There is no need for references on "However, the translation he gives is incorrect: Arz-i Filistin (أرض فلسطين) translates as "Land of Palestine.""; this sentence (which I added) is common knowledge and can be confirmed from any Arabic dictionary, the more so since the Philistines don't even feature in Islam. The second sentence "Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjaq alone." is indeed unreferenced in and of itself - though obviously true, given the common occurrence of the term in medieval literature; I rather suspect the bibliography explains that as well, though. An edit history check might be able to track the energetic writer who put this information together (possibly Zero?), if you want to know which book it came from. - Mustafaa 22:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Judaea map

Cut from article:

In Roman times, the term "Palestine" (or rather "Syria Palestina") referred to an area roughly equivalent to the geographical region today bordered by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean Sea, minus the Negev and plus northeastern Jordan.[2]

I checked the link provided, and it did not mention Palestine or Syria Palestina, but rather Judaea. The reference is to a "Map of Judaea" with a tiny portion shown in red. No rivers or other details appear on this map.

I am not disputing the facts this sentence mentions, but merely saying that it is not up to Wikipedia standards of accuracy and clarity. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair point - and this article once contained a much better and more precise summary, which I think I'll readd. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestine&oldid=2716718. - Mustafaa 22:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why...

does Israel direct straight to the modern nation-state, while Palestine directs to this hotchpotch of borders, refugees, and history? The commonest referent of "Palestine" in modern discourse is far and away the nation and would-be state, as a quick Google check [3] confirms; and "Israel" has at least as much historical ambiguity to it as "Palestine" (see Israel (disambiguation)), so that's not a reason. I suggest applying the same solution as in the case of Israel: adding a disambig page and reserving this page for facts the modern-day State of Palestine and Palestinian Authority. - Mustafaa 09:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because the term "palestine" has multiple meanings. the most common is one of several names to refer to a particular piece of real estate. currently, there is no "state of palestine" and the "palestinian authority" is neither a "state of palestine" (that has achieved reasonable world recognition, just as taiwan has not) nor known as "palestine". as for the olympics having palestine...well, they also have puerto rico, a united states territory (at this time and since 1898(? spanish american war)). Lance6Wins 15:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lance, I have to side with Mustafaa on this one: it should be the same for both, so that Wikipedia (a) does not take sides and (b) does not even appear to be taking sides. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I second that.--Josiah 16:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
hmm.....either way is taking a side on the issue. one side is that of the United Nations (no palestinian state), the other is the side of the Organization of Islamic States (there is a recognized palestinian state). America does not point to United States. Persia does not point to Iran. Tanganyika does not point to Tanzania. German South-West Africa does not point to Namibia. Transjordan does not point to Jordan. British Mandate of Palestine does not point to Israel. Palestine should not point to State of Palestine. Lance6Wins 17:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Palestine should link to Palestine (disambiguation) then. I've also created a Definitions of Palestine page. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Might this be a good time to find the various palestine pages and see if we can create a better set of links to them? such would include (among others): Palestine, State of Palestine, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian Liberation Organization, British Mandate of Palestine, Transjordan. Lance6Wins 17:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please read my comment from Oct 15 on this page, for why I strongly oppose Mustafaa and Ed's suggestion. The analogy between "Israel" and "Palestine" is invalid. Israel *is* a state, "Palestine" isn't. Also, "Israel" did not have, in the last 2500 years or so, any political-geographical meaning, so "Israel" is not ambiguous. "Palestine", on the other hand, had been, and still is, a historic-geographical term (unrelated to Palestinians, "State of Palestine"" etc.) Please see the list of articles linking to this article, and you'll quickly realize that having this article talk about a 21st-century political entity (or even a 20th century national movement) is a very bad idea. -- uriber 08:54, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Israel is:

  • a post-1948 state, with some combination of the following statuses according to various sources:
    • not recognized at all;
    • in the 1948 armistice borders;
    • those plus the Golan Heights and/or East Jerusalem;
    • those plus the West Bank and Gaza Strip;
    • with or without the Shebaa Farms
  • a biblical kingdom, also with fluctuating borders;
  • a term (Eretz Yisrael) which has been given as a Hebrew equivalent for the English areal meaning of "Palestine" before 1948.

This strikes me as rather a lot of geographical and political ambiguity - and unsurprisingly, most of it precisely parallels the ambiguities in the political definition of Palestine. - Mustafaa 10:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You kind of made my point:
The fact that the borders of Israel are disputed doesn't add anything to the ambiguity of the term "Israel". Israel is a state, not "recognized" by some, with various disputed borders. All of this is exactly one, unambiguous, item.
The biblical kingdom is not commonly referred to as "Israel". Anyway, as it existed in the very remote past (as I said, about 2500 years ago), it is not commonly referred to at all. (This is in contrast with "Palestine", which existed as a separate geographical entity at least until 1948, and has numerous references in Wikipedia. Did you check out the list?).
"Israel" is (and was) never used in English as a synonym for "Eretz Yisrael" (and hardly ever used that way in Hebrew, for that matter). So no ambiguity here.
Bottom line: over 90% (I'm being conservative here) of the places where Wikipedia makes references to "Israel" it is to the modern State. Over 90% where it makes references to "Palestine", it's the historic-geographical region (you're welcome to challange these numbers). Which is why the "Israel" article should be about the modern state, while "Palestine" should be about the historic region. -- uriber 14:59, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
I agree to a point. How would you deal with the after 1948 "Palestinianism." Surley you are not saying like Ms. Golda Meir that there is no Palestinan nation, people, or any existance in the modern world! While, truely, Palestine is a historic region and a historic referent, is is also a modern and future entity and a territory claimed or recognised by many in the modern world. --A.Khalil

1920 to 1922/3

Between 1920 and 1922, Palestine was sometimes considered to be the area bordered by the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and short stretch of ocean coastline between the latter two.

Please do not remove this port of the region's history from the article. The future is not clear to us. about 65% of Jordanians are Palestinians. Palestine may be established east of the jordan river. it may be established west of the river, or cover both banks. its is not for us to decide. neither it is for us to eliminate history of the region. Lance6Wins 15:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Josiah

Please do not remove the history of the area between 1920 and 1922/3, without discussion. Lance6Wins 17:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It has already been covered with the valid point that user Mustafaa raised, which I and others agreed with.--Josiah 18:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you point me to that information (valid point that user Mustafaa raised) please. I do not see it anywhere on this page. I do not see anything here regarding Transjordan, nor anyone agreeing that the original inclusion of Transjordan within the Mandate should be removed. The only reference appears to be Jayjg and Uncle Ed's comments indicating the inclusion and date of separation. Nowhere agreement to remove this information. Lance6Wins 18:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The myth that Transjordan was a part of Palestine should be laid to rest by Article 25 of the Mandate, if nothing else: "In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined," which clearly implies that the eastern boundary of Palestine was not determined by the San Remo agreement which established the Mandate. - Mustafaa 11:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To my mind, quoting an article from a document that is less than 100 years old to settle a point about the geography of a region which was renamed almost 2,000 years ago, in order to put forward a political point of view, namely that Jordan should stand independent of Palestine, is either disingenuous or not not well thought through. DBR

Thanks for that bit of historical fact, Mustafaa. One of my biggest handicaps in trying to edit this article is my utter lack of any historical knowledge of the Middle East! "All I know is what I read in the newspapers."
It seems that there have been various definitions of Palestine over the millenia, with each empire making their own definition.
Perhaps the British Mandate of Palestine represents the geographically largest of these definitions. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Region, state, or what?

Regarding what Uriber said above, I'd say that the State of Israel is a rather well-defined sovereign nation -- despite having disputed borders.

But what is "Palestine"? And how do we use the word at Wikipedia? Or, again, how do people in English-language books and periodicals and broadcasts use the word?

We're going to need to refer readers to a Definitions of Palestine article to keep track of all the different levels:

For someone like me who is fluent in English but didn't study Middle Eastern history, a description of the geography and history of the region is the most logical starting place. I can't even begin to understand the claims and counterclaims and nationalistic aspirations without knowing this. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Or, again, how do people in English-language books and periodicals and broadcasts use the word?" - as Google shows, they overwhelmingly use it in the modern political sense (Ed's last two sub-senses, the latter being identical to or a superset of the former, depending on definition of "occupied".)

"how do we use the word at Wikipedia?" - well, if you have a look at what links here, just about every possible usage of the term is represented, but as noted, a surprisingly large proportion of the links relate to usages which, looking at Google, one might reasonably call virtually obsolete. Part of the reason for this is that Wikipedia has a rather extensive coverage of parts of history that impact this region; part, that Wikipedia has an extremely poor coverage of aspects of Palestine other than the purely political (look at all the red in List of Palestinians), say.

Covering both its historical definition as a region and its modern definition as a would-be state in this article is a reasonable compromise between these two, I suppose, and has been the historical goal of this page; however, looking through its history, it is clear that a lot of good material has been lost, and some intensive restoration is called for. It's absurd to have a page on Palestine which doesn't so much as contain a flag, or a map, or a mention of the role of Jerusalem... - Mustafaa 11:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I may have been guilty of removing the flag.
I agree that Jerusalem should be mentioned; it's easily the most important city in Palestine -- whether geographical region, political division or other entity.
However, I think the flag should go in State of Palestine. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think a Google search is the right way to determine the correct (or even most common) usage of a word. If you look at the top results on Google, you'll see they're almost all strongly-POVed websites dedicated to the creation of a state called "Palestine". So this merely prove that the word is used in this sense by people holding a specific POV, not by the general public. Also, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very much in the news, and nowadays much of the fighting is taking place on the Internet, Google results are heavily-skewed towards "hot", disputed topics. Wikipedia's mission is quite different. It is here to give the reader deep background information, including information about scholarly topics which do not make it to the newspapers (or web pages) on a daily basis. Palestine (the historic region) is one of these topics, and it deserves a full, detailed, article, which is not infected by current disputes. This is why I suggest having this article deal with the period until 1948 (perhaps even only until 1918), accompanied by a clear reference (perhaps at the top) to other articles which deal with the history of the region after 1948 (or 1918), and with it's current status.

"Covering both its historical definition as a region and its modern definition as a would-be state in this article is a reasonable compromise between these two, I suppose, and has been the historical goal of this page" - No. covering two very different, and very vast, topics on a single article is a Very Bad Idea. That this has been the historical goal of the page is exactly why the page looks like it does - a big mess. Concentrating on one of these meanings would give a much better chance of producing a decent article. For what you call the "modern definition" we have the Palestinian state and State of Palestine articles (which perhaps should be combined), and there is no reason to spread that content over to an additional article (this one).

That there is no flag here is a good thing. Historic regions (and especially ones which such long histories) don't usually have a (single) flag. Various flags have been used by the occupants and occupiers of Palestine over the generations. As Palestine is not a separate political entity today, but divided among several such entities, it does not have a flag.

A map would be a good idea, but only if you can find one which does not show any specific borders. Any depiction of specific borders will start a never-ending fight here. And since Palestine's borders are not (and never were) something clear-cut, any depiction of such borders would be misleading. (Of course, having a series of maps showing the borders of specific administrative or political units called "Palestine" at various times throughout history could be a good idea - but none of them can be simply titled "Map of Palestine").

Jerusalem, of course, should be mentioned, as it has been the chief city of Palestine for most of its long history. -- uriber 16:46, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

The State of Palestine article intro says:

The State of Palestine was unilaterally proclaimed on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the PLO, in Tunis.

At the time, the PLO did not have control over any part of Palestine (or any other territory), and therefore the State of Palestine did not fulfill one of the typical roles of a state - namely, occupying a territory. However, it laid claim to the whole of Palestine, as defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, rejecting the idea of partition.

Is this really true? I find it hard to believe, as it would seem to include Jordan, which everyone has been saying is NOT part of Palestine.

Someone please straighten this out for me, once and for all:

  • Is Jordan part of Palestine?
    • Who says so?
    • Who says not?
  • When were the various definitions made and unmade, and for what purpose?

Because this all bears on the mainstay of the argument for "a Palestinian state":

  • there ought to be a Palestinian state, in Palestine, for "Palestinians"
  • there is no such Palestinian state
  • Jordan is either:
    • not a "Palestinian state"; or,
    • not in Palestine; or,
    • not hospitable to Palestinians

And also the definition of "Palestinians" is also related. I say they they are:

  • stateless Arab residents of Palestine (the historic or geographic region)

Mustafa says they are a distinct ethnic group (like the Kurds), or that they have some sort of "identity" akin to ethnicity which has intrinsic value and deserves perpetuation.

The upshot of all this is that "Palestinians" deserve a homeland, but they don't have one because Israel is in the way, so Israel should let go of as much land as is required to create the one and only state of Palestine; and if it loses its Jewish character or even its sovereignty in the process, who cares? They're a bunch of thieves, anyway....

Sorry if I've stepped on any toes with this summary, but I really am trying to get a complete statement of the significant points of view here, so I'm just rushing this all out in one torrent. Don't worry, it's only a first draft and I'm not planning to throw any of it into the articles absent confirmation that it's accurate. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To Uriber:

"Covering both its historical definition as a region and its modern definition as a would-be state in this article is a reasonable compromise between these two, I suppose, and has been the historical goal of this page" - No. covering two very different, and very vast, topics on a single article is a Very Bad Idea.

In that case (and I do see that argument), this should be a disambig page, as I believe Ed suggested at some point. It would be POV to the point of offensiveness to claim that the "region" sense of Palestine is more important than the "political" sense - indeed, I would claim the political sense is of interest to a lot more people than the regional.

To Ed:

Is this really true? I find it hard to believe, as it would seem to include Jordan, which everyone has been saying is NOT part of Palestine.

British Mandate Palestine did not include Jordan, except for the years 1920-22. See, for instance, http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/fd4d250af882632b052565d2005012c3?OpenDocument , a report to the League of Nations from 1936 which gives Palestine's boundaries quite clearly near the beginning.

  • Is Jordan part of Palestine? - no. Most of it, by area, never was; some parts have often been.
    • Who says so? - a lot of Israelis; the Jordanian kings, during the period immediately following 1948 when they still had hopes of taking over the rest of Palestine
    • Who says not? - every Palestinian I've ever met, the whole Arab world, every nation that recognized both Palestine and Jordan
  • When were the various definitions made and unmade, and for what purpose? - I think the article as it stands covers that.
Mustafa says they are a distinct ethnic group (like the Kurds), or that they have some sort of "identity" akin to ethnicity which has intrinsic value and deserves perpetuation.

Not akin to Kurds so much as akin to, say, Algerians - a relatively homogeneous group of people with a shared history and culture who have been forged into a true nation, rather than a mere cultural area, by a serious common threat of national annihilation. Come to think of it, a comparable ethnic group might be Israelis themselves - to pick a comparison bound to outrage all sides concerned - though Palestinians come from a much less diverse set of backgrounds.

The upshot of all this is that "Palestinians" deserve a homeland, but they don't have one because Israel is in the way, so Israel should let go of as much land as is required to create the one and only state of Palestine; and if it loses its Jewish character or even its sovereignty in the process, who cares? They're a bunch of thieves, anyway....

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, a two-state solution will always be second best. The Palestinians should have their land back; let the Israelis stay by all means (no "pushing them into the sea" nonsense), but if they want land, let them buy it, not steal it. If giving the Palestinians their land back means making Israel a majority Arab state - or renaming it - so much the better; I fail to see why its "right" to remain ethnically homogeneous (after forcibly reversing the ethnic balance) should trump the much more concrete fact of the Palestinians' title deeds. - Mustafaa 11:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What other sources say

Here are the first sentences from the "Palestine" entry on several mainstream on-line English reference sources:

  • "A historical region of southwest Asia at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea and roughly coextensive with modern Israel and the West Bank." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, via dictionary.com [4]
  • "1. ancient region SW Asia bordering on E coast of the Mediterranean & extending E of Jordan River; 2. former country [...] now approximately coextensive with Israel" - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary [5].
  • "historic region on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, at various times comprising parts of modern Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and Egypt; also known as the Holy Land." - Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, via encyclopedia.com [6].
  • "Region, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea." - Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service [7].

These sources all disagree with Mustafaa that the most common usage of the term "Palestine" is a modern political one. Furthermore, none of them even mentions that such a usage exists. I suggest we stay in line with these respectable sources, and not promote a usage of the word which (according to a quick Google search) is used almost exclusively by holders of a certain POV. -- uriber 12:43, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Have you heard of the difference between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics? The word "Palestine" is used far more widely by news media than by historians talking about the region, simply because news media publish more (note, for instance, Google News.) The state of Palestine is recognized by two-thirds of the world's nations. To attempt to restrict its meaning to a historical region would be manifestly prescriptive, and indeed - given that most English speakers live in the minority of countries which have not recognized Palestine - could reasonably be attributed to systemic bias. - Mustafaa 13:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did hear about the difference. I believe most modern dictionaries (including the ones I quoted) take the descriptive way, i.e. they reflect the way a word is actually used by native speakers of English (as opposed to, say, "news sources published in English). The American Heritage dictionary, for example, has many entries for slang (and even vulgar slang) terms which were never "officially" accepted into English in any way. The dictionary includes them simply because they're actually being used. Which is why I think we can trust it to reflect actual usage also in the case of "Palestine".
This is the English Wikipedia, and I believe that it should reflect the usage of words by English-speaking people. Is is very much possible that the word "فلسطين" in Arabic has a different meaning than that of "Palestine" in English. However, this is irrelevant here, since this article is about "Palestine" (as used, over many generations, by English speakers, which tend to live in English-speaking countries), not about "فلسطين".
Thanks for the link to systemic bias - I haven't seen it before. I do believe we have an issue with systemic bias here, except it's in the opposite direction than the one you're pointing to.
Systemic bias, according to the page, occures when "[for] structural reasons, [...] Wikipedia gives certain topics much better coverage than others" . Also "Wikipedia is biased toward over-inclusion of certain material pertaining to (for example) [...] anything already well covered in the English-language portion of the Internet".
Issues related to Palestinians and the Israeli_Palestinian conflict are a great example of such a case. Since many Wikipedians seem to have a strong interest in the subject, and since (as you demonstrated) this subject is heavily covered by online news sources and other web pages, it seems to get a disproportionate coverage on Wikipedia. Other topics, related to history and geography (such as Palestine, the region), on the other hand, tend to be neglected by Wikipedia. This is what I'm trying to fix.
-- uriber 13:53, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

For a potentially comparable example, note our treatment of Western Sahara, a country entirely under Moroccan occupation which was effectively never independent, going more or less directly from Spanish to Moroccan hands, but which is widely recognized by other countries. Incidentally, its name can obviously be taken to refer to a region - and if more Moroccans were on Wikipedia, I have no doubt some article on the "Western part of the Sahara" would already exist. - Mustafaa 13:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Western Sahara" is much more like "West Bank" than it is like "Palestine". "Western Sahara" was never widely used to convey anything other than this clearly-defined geopolitical unit (although in theory it could have). See how many Israelis there are on Wikipedia, and yet no-one wrote an article on the "Western Bank of the Jordan River". This is because the term "West Bank" (like "Western Sahara") has a single, clear, well-defined, modern geopolitical interpretation. "Palestine", on the other hand, has had for the last couple of millenia, and still has, a fuzzy, historic-geographical interpretation.
-- uriber 14:08, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Uriber and Mustafaa, first of all, thank you for addressing my questions and comments at such length -- as well as answering dispassionately. I was trying to sum up (not stir up!) the dispute, and your calm responses have been of immense help.

Secondly, I have no wish to enshrine any particular version of Palestine as some sort of official Wikipedia definition. There is an ambiguity, and it must be addressed. I regard Mustafaa as probably the most authoritative source of, er, Arab opinion -- so I figure if we can find a formulation which satisfies all his concerns we are probably going to reach a stable consensus (without resorting to voting). On the other hand, Uriber raises some interesting points, too.

So how about this?

Or Geography of Palestine and Politics of Palestine, respectively.

Everything about the definitions of Palestine relating to borders could be merged into the geography article -- which might also mention climate, crops, etc.

Everthing about the political history, such as 4 millenia of immigration, invasion & conquest could go into the politics article -- or at least be outlined there: sort of a backbone article with many ribs, eh? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I kind of like it. But how do "religious" "ethnic" and "cultural" fit under there? Geography is fairly bland, unless your dealing with borders. Borders by nature is political, (lots of links between them I guess). Politics in some views doesnt necessarily cover religion, ethnicity and culture (in fact most people dont seem to really care to separate very well between these four). Backbone with ribs and various appendages seems logical - but how to share control over the wedding tackle? -SV 22:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The political history can not be separated from the geography, and that's not the separation that Mustafaa was suggesting anyway. And as Stevertigo noticed, you'll have constant problems with what to put in which article (probably resulting in two overlapping articles). So I don't think this is agood idea. -- uriber 08:31, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I notice that German Wikipedia seems to have opted for basically this. It sounds like a good idea in principle, and Definitions of Palestine would make a great starting point... - Mustafaa 22:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has an articles about Palestine (the region)[8], the Palestinian Authority[9], and the "State of Palestine"[10], just like the English Wikipedia currently has. The only difference is that the article about the region is called "Palestine (region)" instead of just "Palestine", and there is an additional disambiguation page (called "Palestine") pointing to these three articles.
I can live with that solution (although I don't really like it), as long as someone goes over the >500 existing links to "Palestine", and changes all of them to point to "Palestine (region)". -- uriber 08:31, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

MCAT proposal

I decided to name my suggestion MCAT - which stands for More Crap At Top. Thanks to Stevertigo for the name (see below). -- uriber 19:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's my proposal. Leave the article names as they are now, and add the following at the top of the Palestine article:

This article is about the historic geographical region known as Palestine.

The term "Palestine" is also sometimes used when referring to one of the following topics:

For information on these topics, please see the linked articles.

There are also several places in the U.S. named Palestine.

-- uriber 09:04, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I like the German solution better - A "deep disambiguation" page for Palestine is important here - otherwise a sidebox with all the various articles should be included. More crap at top is a bad idea IMHO. -SV 16:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What "various articles"? -- uriber 17:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ones related to the concept of Palestine, its history and its variants... ?? -SV 22:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) 

Palestine (disambig)
    Biblical Palestine
    History of Palestine
    Palestine (region
    [[
    #U.S. cities named Palestine
Palestinians
    Philistines etc...
    Palestinian refugees
I disagree that a sidebox with all of these links should be included (included in what article, BTW? If you're saying this should be on the Palestine article, then your first link is a self-link).
Biblical Palestine and Palestine (region) don't even exist, so there's certainly no need to link to them. History of Palestine should, IMO, be merged into this article. Palestinians is included in my MCAT proposal, so no need to include it in a sidebox. Philistines and Palestinian refugees are not directly-enough related to this article to be included in a sidebox. Philistines will be linked when they appear in the main text, and Palestinian refugees can be linked from Palestinians (and a whole bunch of other articles) - but do not need to be linked from here. -- uriber 19:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would make sense to move most of this article to Palestine (region)... - Mustafaa 23:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambig paragraph

"land claimed by the Palestinians" is unnecessarily narrow; many Palestinians will no doubt still call Jaffa "Palestine" even if Arafat signs away all claim to it, and many Arab countries would probably still call it Palestine even if every single Palestinian renounced it (or died, for that matter.) "Land seen by the speaker as rightfully belonging to the Palestinians" is more accurate. - Mustafaa 23:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"land claimed by the Palestinians" is highly accurate and not-prejudical of the matter. "Land seen by the speaker as rightfully belonging to the Palestinians"...it would be better to replace "the speaker" by the person's name. Lance6Wins 14:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how one would know that when referring to "Palestine", the "speaker" believes that the land "rightfully belongs to Palestinians"; surely many people mean it in a geographical way. On the other hand, "land claimed by the Palestinians" is undeniably true. As for the whole "2/3rds recognize etc." part, it seems too tendentious and politicized for an opening paragraph, and invites return responses like "however, no Western countries, nor the UN" which just gets the opener further bogged down in claims and counter claims. I think it's better form to just briefly describe the geography and claim involved in the introduction, and then get into the detail in the detailed sections. Jayjg 14:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to add; as I pointed out above, "land claimed by the Palestinians" is not undeniably true. - Mustafaa 15:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And as I pointed out, the idea that when referring to "Palestine", the "speaker" believes that the land "rightfully belongs to Palestinians" is idle speculation, and that the 2/3rds business is tendentious detail which invites further debate and doesn't belong in an opening paragraph. Please respond to those issues. Jayjg 15:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right about "speaker", actually: better to return to my previous wording: "Land seen as rightfully belonging to the Palestinians".

As for the 2/3 business, it's relevant insofar as it prevents people from deleting the whole thing on the tendentious grounds that it's "not a proper state". But I suppose there may be less comment-inviting ways to do that; any suggestions? - Mustafaa 15:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Palestine" is land seen as "rightfully belonging" to Jews as well as Palestinians, so your proposed wording is even less accurate. I don't see anyone deleting the article or even attempting to. And I don't understand what's wrong with this basic wording:
In present-day usage, the name is most commonly used in a more specific political sense, referring to areas of the former British Mandate of Palestine claimed by Palestinians. These areas typically range from a claim to the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and part of Jerusalem, to the whole of the former British Mandate of Palestine, including Israel (see State of Palestine). The Palestinian Authority considers itself the forerunner of a Palestinian state. Jayjg 19:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That ""Palestine" is land seen as "rightfully belonging" to Jews as well as Palestinians" is irrelevant; the fact that some people see it as the former does not somehow imply that other people don't see it as the latter. - Mustafaa 22:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well then, shouldn't your opening say "rightfully belonging to both Palestinians and Jews"? And what exactly do you object to in the latest formulation? Jayjg 02:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. "Palestine" in this sense means "land considered (by whom? depends on context, hence my use of the ambiguous passive) to rightfully belong to the Palestinians." That said, I don't object too strongly to your latest formulation (although it's missing one of the links); however, I prefer my suggestion below, of turning this into a disambig page, to either. - Mustafaa 00:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the description will have to go somewhere, won't it, even if this is turned into a disambig page? What link am I missing? Jayjg 03:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The new Palestine (nation) page should have room for about a subheading per link, I should think. The missing link is Palestinian territories, previously linked to from "land" (though that is perhaps not the best way to link to it anyway.) - Mustafaa 23:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So can I make the change then? Jayjg 04:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palestine as nation or region

I have started an article called Region of Palestine. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's really sad. I'm very sorry to see that Wikipedia is once again resorting to creating new stubby, awkwardly-named, and completely unnecessary articles, instead of fixing existing ones. I wish the procedure for creating a new article was as complicated as the one for deleting an article - then we might have been seeing less quantity and more quality. Anyway - since it seems my input on this was not really helpful, I think I'll say goodbye again and go back to persue my other interests. -- uriber 15:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's not Wikipedia that is resorting to this, it is a couple of people, and one determined admin in particular. Your points were well taken, and you would be quite helpful in striving to curb this silliness. Jayjg 15:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The way to fix this article is not to try and squeeze everything into this article, nor to attempt the Solomonic solution of removing sections related to its national, or conversely its regional, name, only to see new visitors readd stuff about the other meaning. Rather, the solution is to split this article along the lines discussed, and merge much of the Palestine stuff back into one of the resulting articles. I think two articles would likely suffice:

plus, of course,

From the former, one could link or cover to such topics as:

From the latter, one could link to or cover, to edit Uriber slightly:

I prefer the idea of covering them, since an article covering the topic as a whole seems to be surprisingly lacking. - Mustafaa 16:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like your outline, and I hope Uriber will stick around long enough to give his opinion, too. By the way, I agree with Jay's criticism of my reckless spawning of mini-articles. But I only do it in the hopes of ultimately reducing the total number. You have have to have some place to put the stuff when you're sorting it, and private subpages just doesn't seem to do it for me.
If we're not working at cross-purposes, then putting everything out into the open ought to help. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not to sabotage this beautiful working relationship, but I just found this little gem:

The concept of "Palestinians" is one that did not exist until about 1948, when the Arab inhabitants, of what until then was Palestine, wished to differentiate themselves from the Jews. Until then, the Jews were the Palestinians. [11]

Is this merely Israeli POV, or what?

It's important to me, because I know that I have a hard time distinguishing between objective truth and mere POV. If one side in a dispute asserts something which I regard as objective truth, that makes it even harder for me to take a step back and say, "Hold on, the article can't assert this, it can only attribute it to an advocate."

So help me out, because I'm having the flat earth problem here! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, it's flatly not true; Palestinian newspapers were already addressing its readers as "Palestinians" in 1911, and the nisba "Filastini" was being used in the 1st century AH (see Palestinian#The origins of Palestinian identity. The story has its origins in the half-truth that Palestinians did not for the most part see their identity as a national one until the 20s or so, with some holding out until the 70s; ie, for many people, "Palestinian" was a term that could be argued to be more analogous to, say, "Virginian" or "Yorkshireman" than to "Frenchman" or "Japanese". - Mustafaa 19:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many Jews also considered themselves Palestinians until after 1948; and I believe it's more accurate to say that most Palestinians did not see their identity as a national one until the 1960s. Jayjg 19:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, Mustafaa and Jay, I am hearing 2 different points of view here. Is one of you simply "wrong", or shall I try to accommodate both POVs in a neutral way? (ha, ha, trick question ;-) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2 different POVs? The only point on which we disagree here, I think, is the date when most Palestinians came to see their identity as national. The rest is purely factual. I think the strength of the Palestinian nationalist movement in the 30's shows otherwise, but I'll see about tracking down some good citations later on. I don't suppose any professional historians, or Zero, are listening? - Mustafaa 20:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey Mustafaa, see comment above in Disambig Paragraphs section. Jayjg 20:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is getting interesting. I just might break my rule about not accessing the 'pedia over the weekend. :-) Good sabbath to all! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On Palestinian national identity, btw, turns out Zero has already covered it in Talk:Palestinian - Mustafaa 23:13, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

> It is real chutzpah for RK to quote from a book called "Palestinian Arab National Movement" (Volume 2 even) in order to prove that there was no such thing. What RK doesn't tell us, probably because he doesn't know, is that the Palestinian nationalists had gained the upper hand by the next Congress (Dec 1920). They passed a resolution calling for an independent Palestine. Then they wrote a long letter to the League of Nations (which I have) about "Palestine, land of Miracles and the supernatural, and the cradle of religions", demanding, amongst other things, that a "National Government be created which shall be responsible to a Parliament elected by the Palestinian People, who existed in Palestine before the war." In this letter they even call themselves "Palestinians" (in which name they included Jews other than Zionists).
Interesting that the small number of elites (often Christian, I believe) who were involved in the Congress felt that way. However, I was talking about how "most Palestinians" felt; something, I admit, which is much harder to gauge. Jayjg 23:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My orthodox Jewish grandfather defined chutzpah as "colossal nerve". RK is taking an enforced 4-month break from Wikipedia. I hope when he comes back he can be cooperative, because I value his insights. How he contributes them is another story. Perhaps it is universal that getting upset distorts one's equanimity (either that, or I'm the only one). --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Golden Domed Al-Aqsa mosque??

The picture caption talks about the golden domed Al-Aqsa mosque? But it is the Dome of the Rock - Qubbat as-Sakhrah that is golden, not Al-Aqsa. Either replace the pic with one clearly showing Al-Aqsa (which is not golden) or change the caption to talk about the Dome of the Rock. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removing the picture. The article talks about the region, not Muslim Palestinian aspirations to Jerusalem, subject to negotiations. Alternatively, we can insert pictures of the Jewish holiest sites, as well as Christian, and commence a religious war here. Another alternative, we can place a page from Palestinian school textbooks about the region. I dare anyone to find a map with the state of Israel on it, then talk about "Palestinian aspirations". ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"not part of the Israeli govt position on the territories"

Mustafaa, what do you mean by "not part of the Israeli govt position on the territories"? Jayjg 16:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I mean that, as far as I'm aware, the curiously interpolated (and ungrammatical) "Indeed, that these areas were set aside by the League of Nations for a Jewish National Home as the British Mandate of Palestine" forms no part of the "provisions" that "the Israeli government cites ... as proof that the areas in question are "disputed" and not "occupied."". - Mustafaa 16:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about adding a link to Israeli-Palestinian_conflict? (I think that article is weak, but nonetheless, it is relevant). Sivamo 21:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Events leading up to the 1948 war

It would be fair to say that a low-intensity war was well underway between the partition resolution and the end of the Mandate. To say that "most of the land allotted to the Palestinians was in Jewish hands" is misleading at best and possibly false. If we were to include such an assertion, we should also include information about the attacks made by Palestinian irregulars and the Arab Legion on Jewish communities in what was to become Northern Israel and the Kfar Etzion block.

Jewish refugees

Syria's "encouragement" for Jews to stay was nothing more than a sham. Jews were effectively driven out of Arab countries, either by overt force or threats of force; or by intimidation, discrimination, and the like.

To the contrary, Syria's Jews were forced to stay there; that's one of their principal complaints against Syria. You cannot coherently claim that the term "driving out" includes "forcing to stay"! Moreover, they left many Arab countries, notably Yemen and Morocco, where no more oppression was happening than at any other time. - Mustafaa 11:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you'll forgive the comparison, Jews were also forced to stay in Nazi concentration camps, but it would take some imagination not to characterize the few who escaped as anything but refugees. Of course they were refugees, as were those from Yemen. --Leifern 13:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To begin with, the Jews of Syria certainly fled Syria, whenever they had the opportunity, always at great risk, and sometimes at the cost of their lives. As for Yemen, after the partition vote in 1947 Muslims responded with a progrom, killing over 80 Jews in Aden, and destroying hundreds of homes and businesses. In June 1948 in Morroco Muslim riots killed over 40 Jews. Other incidents occured in subsequent years. If the Arabs in Israel (the majority of whom never even saw an Israeli soldier) "fled", then the Jews in Arab lands certainly "fled" as well. Jayjg | (Talk) 14:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term being inserted was a straightforwardly false blanket statement "were expelled", not "fled" - which is rather closer to the original wording, "left". - Mustafaa 15:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I agree, that's not a fair statement, but I didn't insert it that way. I added "or were expelled" after "left" or "fled". Jayjg | (Talk) 19:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The flag

Since the moderate position seems to be a partition of the land and WP is not supposed to take sides, I strongly feel we should either include both flags side-by-side, or none. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which flags? Jayjg | (Talk) 01:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's only one flag that's commonly associated with the name "Palestine". The other side thinks that it should be renamed "Israel", and has done just that to those portions of it that it has annexed. - Mustafaa 02:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article says: "Palestine... is a region in the Middle East extending inland from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Its political status is hotly disputed.". Why add even more controversy to the conflict and take extremist exclusionist position? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think Humus Sapiens is right to point out that the article rather explicitly refers to the area currently known as Israel, more than once. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the Israeli flag should be presented here is ridiculous. The classical region of Palestine arguable encompasses numerous countries... Israel, Jordan, probably Syria, and Lebanon. Should we line up all of these nations' flags together? No, we should treat the term "Palestine" in its contemporary meaning as described in the second paragraph of the article. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the article ends: "The boundaries that a Palestinian state would or should have are hotly disputed. Areas typically cited include (at the lower end) the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and part of Jerusalem, and (at the higher end), the whole of Israel as well" That would seem to rule out Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, but definitely include Israel. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See British Mandate of Palestine which reads, "This territory at this time included all of what would later become the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, a part of the Golan Heights, and the Kingdom of Jordan". See Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian which reads:

In historical contexts, especially predating the rise of 20th century Zionism, Palestine was mostly a geographical term, particularly used in Greek, Latin, Arabic, and other languages taking their geographical vocabulary from them; it comprised the Roman sub-province of Syria Palaestina, roughly equivalent to ancient Canaan (including the Biblical kingdoms of Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia) and thus included much of the land on either side of the Jordan River.

BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Right, but this article is quite clearly referring to a more specific and restricted territory in its second paragraph (as you yourself pointed out). The two flags would not be appropriate for the British Mandate of Palestine or Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian articles, but it seems odd that an article referring to a territory of which a large majority consists of the State of Israel, and the rest the Gaza Strip and West Bank, would include the flag for the smaller portion, yet not for the larger. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, this article focuses on the contemporary usage of the term Palestine: "In present-day usage, the term is used in political advocacy to refer to land the speaker considers as belonging to the Palestinians, particularly the State of Palestine..." BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is a lot of duplication between State of Palestine, Palestine (region), Definitions of Palestine, etc. Perhaps, this article shoud be a disambig between them? Perhaps it should explain how and when the Arabs hijacked the name "Palestine" (Falastin)? In any case, as the article says, the region includes Israel, so either include its flag or none. Sidenote: Note how one side offers ways to avoid controversy, as the other side seeks how to throw Jews into the sea. Reminds anything? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I proposed making this a disambig page months before HS did, though I'm glad to see the suggestion revived. However, as the article stands now, it deals primarily with the political idea of Palestine, Region of Palestine-related content (including the story of how the Arabs began to call the region Palestine from the 1st century AH, if not earlier) having been spun off into its own article. This is rather appropriate, since the term is used far more widely in the political context than anything else. Jayjg's argument that, since the article mentions that some proposed political entities of Palestine would include a reconquered Israel, it should include the Israeli flag, is untenable; several Israeli parties advocate annexation of at least some of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, so shall we include the Palestinian flag in Israel? Or, if it comes to that, shall we add the Moroccan flag from Western Sahara, or the Russian flag in Chechnya? Or remove the current flags from both articles? - Mustafaa 06:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The patent is yours, I wasn't watching the discussion here. The suggestion is definintely a sound one, with such multitude of derivatives. Now to the subject: article State of Palestine contains its own flag, State of Israel its own, and to include only Palestinian flag here (IOW, to exclude Israeli flag) is to spill over anti-Israel political campaign to WP. The region includes Israel, and the article is not (and shouldn't be) only about the State of Palestine. I invite you to drop exclusivist extremism and work together on creating moderate mainstream encyclopedia. Since there is a controversy, what do we lose if we do not include any flag? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Right now, the article is primarily about the political meaning of Palestine, and almost entirely excludes the region. If you don't like this, the solution is to help turn it into a disambiguation page, not to weaken it as it stands by not including the only flag ever connected to the name of Palestine. - Mustafaa 07:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The very first line says Eretz Israel. Consider my removal of the flag(s) here as the first step in the right direction. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned out

From what I can tell, we've been arguing about issues that are covered in other articles. I think it's cleaner, easier to read and more neutral to simply describe the term and point readers to specific articles.

Please note that I have not tried to favor one side or the other with this edit; my whole point is that its current form was all over the place and had become a discussion forum on many issues that are "discussed" elsewhere. Let's try to avoid gaps and overlaps, ok? --Leifern 04:00, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Ordering of 'related topics'

This is a small matter, but i find it somewhat odd that the first link on the Palestine page is Eretz Issrael and the second is Zionism. These are undoubtably related, but the message sent by having those as the first entries is blatantly pro-Israel. Furthermore, this ordering does not serve to educate people about Palestine. If someone is interested in Zionism or the concept of Eretz Israel, they will look them up. If they want information on Palestine, they will come to this page. These terms (Palestine, Eretz Israel and Zionism) are not at all symonymous. Zinnling 16:36 UTC, 7 Jan 2005

Zionism and Eretz Yisrael are certainly topics related to Palestine, as much as any of the others. Zionism is all about Jews returning to Palestine. In deference to your point about POV, I've moved the links farther down the list, and replaced some red-linked "See also"s that do not exist. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

question

can we please turn this into Palestine (disambiguation) and let the article about what we normally refer to as Palestine be the main article? --Revolución (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better. "Palestine" should go directly to what is now called Palestine (region). I'll raise this on the Palestine (region) talk page. --Zero 02:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Add another vote against Palestine being a disambiguation page. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
And another. It's ridiculous - like searching for Europe and getting redirect links to EUEFA, Eurovison etc. --Vjam 22:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No, all you need to do is look at the many links that need to be disambiguated. It is patently obvious that disambiguation is needed. --Leifern 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
At the moment things are screwed up, with the article and its talk page going to different places. I'm trying to fix it. Consensus is for "Palestine" to point to its main page. There is no reason to treat it differently from other pages on countries or geographical regions. --Zero 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Tell me what you think of my solution (see my contributions). -- Dissident (Talk) 05:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Languages in order of historical appearance in the region

What is the reason for the Arabic language to be listed first? I relisted the langs in order of historical appearance in the region: Hebrew (10+ c. BCE), Greek (3 c BCE), Latin (1 c BCE or later), Arabic (7 c CE). Please correct if I'm mistaken. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Would suggest this list of alternatives needs altering anyway, since the alternative names do not describe the same thing - Syria Palaestina and Eretz Yisrael are not true synonyms (they are conceptually different from the title of the article), and I don't know about the Greek. Suggestions anyone? --Vjam 10:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there may be an edit war brewing over this, since Eretz Yisrael has been taken out, put in and taken out of the list. Just as Israel is not a translation for Palestine, neither is Eretz Yisrael - it's innaccurate to have it in the list. It would be comparabale to having "al-andalous" in a list of translations of "Spain". --Vjam 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

These terms, as well as others like Canaan (which I am planning to add) were used for this geographic region with changing borders. The article Spain talks about the country not geographic region. The removal of Eretz Israel won't fly because this is how Jews called it for millennia and even during the British Mandate, as can be seen from אי on the Mandatory coins. For the record, I wouldn't have a problem adding "al-Andalus" to Iberian peninsula. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The list of translations should include only direct, relevant translations, not associated terminology, which should be referred to elsewhere. This is just a matter of convention. Eretz Israel is a culturally specific term which conveys more than the alternative Palestina - it is not, therefore, a direct translation. The fact that it was used by Jews during the British Mandate is not the point - the point is that it was not used as a direct translation, but to convey additional cultural and political meaning. --Vjam 10:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"direct, relevant translations" of what? Remember we are not talking about a stable country but of a geographic region with changing borders. For at least 3,000 years, the Jews called this region Eretz Israel and to remove this toponym from Hebrew box is a POV. True, it has religious connotations but we don't describe them here in depth. OTOH, the term Palestine clearly has political connotations (even more so after creation of the PLO), that is why (א"י) was inscribed on Mandatory coins and banknotes. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

By convention the brackets following the English should include translations of the term into languages to which it can be said to belong. I would suggest this means Hebrew and Arabic (although there might be a case for certain other languages eg Russian, Turkish), and Eretz Israel should not be included. Translations must refer to a conceptually identical idea compared to the original. It might be debated as to when exactly the modern concept of Palestine as a region came into being, but I think it is clear that it did not exist in ancient Roman or Greek times. "Syria Palestina", for example, was a demarcated political entity, not a genral reference to a geographic region. It is therefore not a translation of "Palestine" (at least not in the sense that this article has been created to talk about). The case of Canaan, incidentally, is similar. There is a clear association between ancient Canaan and modern Palestine, but it is, at the end of the day, not the same thing, and so words for "Canaan" are not translations of Palestine. As stated above, Eretz Israel is a cultural and political term as well as a geographic one. You can immediately tell the cultural background of someone using it - it would not be used (except in a very specific context) by an Arab speaking in Hebrew. In short, its full definition is not identical to that of "Palestine", and it is not, therefore, a translation, but an associated term.--Vjam 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There clearly can be political connotations when the term "Palestine" is used (particularly, for example, if someone uses it to refer to Israel). But these are not, as is the case with Eretz Israel, a necessary part of the meaning of the word. Eretz Israel carries its politics with it everywhere it is used. That's what makes it different. --Vjam 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved Eretz Israel to "see also" as a holding position. Please don't revert prematurely. Thanks. --Vjam 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is acceptable as a compromise. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Mandate of "uncertain boundaries"

Have removed the reference to the boundaries being undetermined, since this does not seem to be supported. Article 25 of the Mandate document [12], which was cited in support of the statement says no such thing - it provides for greater discretion in governance (a power to withold application of the Mandate) over the territory between the Jordan river and the eastern frontier. --Vjam 09:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It says "In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined" which implies that they hadn't been determined yet. However, it is hard to see what point the sentence is making and why it is important, so I'd say to leave the sentence out. --Zero 10:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well it is kind of important to a section entitled "British Mandate" to know whether the boundaries were certain or not, so I'd say it should go back in if its true, but it needs supporting. I'm not sure what can be read into "ultimately determined". I'm guessing this might be about uncertainty over the future of what is now Saudi Arabia. Whatever's in there, it should be supported and clear. The phrasing in the article originally implied that all the boundaries of the mandate were uncertain - I doubt very much whether this can be supported. --Vjam 10:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that particular phrase was in reference to that square-shaped chunk of Jordan that points towards Iraq. My dim memory is that its fate had not been decided yet when the mandate document was written. The Jordan-Iraq border is still a bit uncertain today, apparently. In 1920 there were also uncertainties about the border with Syria (see Golan Heights) but these appear not to be mentioned. My personal opinion is that these issues were too minor and technical for mention in this article. --Zero 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What is a "refugee"?

A "refugee" includes someone who flees from difficult conditions in their homeland, whether war or persecution. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to "Jimena", the assocation for Jewish refugees from Arab lands: [13] Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We ought to use the definition of refugee in international law. This is simply someone who has applied for and been granted asylum due to a threat of persecution. Even if we were more speculative and included people who would have been granted asylum had they applied for it (which we should not), the idea of 800,000 refugees is still false. Whilst the existence of incidences of persection to varying degrees in Arab countries is not denied, it is simply not the case that most emmigrants were fleeing anything - in the majority of emmigrants were attracted by a better life in Israel, France, the US etc. To label them refugees just feeds a racist fallacy (IMO) that any Jew who is foolish enought to come into contact with an Arab will find him or herself set alight. Also, you are reverting "around two thirds went to Israel", which is just a statistic you can look up if you like. Thanks. --Vjam 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Jewish exodus from Arab lands. It is well-documented that Jews in Arab lands were - to varying degrees - persecuted and discriminated against in Arab lands. If you insist on referring to these people as anything but refugees, I for one will insist that Palestinians be referred to as non-refugees as well. --Leifern 21:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, I am not suggested that people who fled Arab countries due to persection (I am certainly not denying that this happened) are not refugees. What I am disputing is the idea that there were 800,000 of them. This is the number of migrants. The number of refugees will be much smaller. --Vjam 21:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If you go through the history of every single Arab country, you will find that in each of them, Jews either faced discrimination of outright persecution. It is impossible to speculate what the future would have held in store for them if they had stayed, and there were certainly historical basis for them to fear the worst. It is absurd to describe these as migrants motivated by economic opportunity - they pretty much had to forfeit all their property when leaving the Arab countries and either start anew in other countries or live in refugee camps in Israel. As I said, if these are not refugees then most Palestinians are certainly not refugees. And I don't think we want to get into that tit for tat discussion. --Leifern 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
By your reasoning, you must also state that there were far fewer than 711,000 Arab refugees who left Palestine, since many of them were simply migrants as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lieferm: It is possible to speculate about the future, because many Jews did stay in Arab counties for many years. Up to the 70s, there were still tens of thousands of Jews in Casablanca, for example. They left because it became easier (finacially and legally) and/or more attractive for them to do so, not because they were threatened with arson. Yes some were undoubtedly persected and fled and were refugees, but 800,000 is false. Either some sort of statistical distinction should be made if possible, or the matter should be dropped. If you don't want to get into tit for tat then don't, but there's no denying that the words "refugee" and "flee" are inflamatory if untrue, so I'd say the onus is on those propsing them to back them up (in respect of 800,000 people), not for me to prove a negative. --Vjam 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The situation in Morocco was unique, with a sympathetic monarch. Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, etc. were quite different. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually the Yemeni monarch was highly sympathetic and once I was told by a confidant of the Yemeni community in Israel that those old enough to remember him do so fondly. But this is way off-topic for this page. --Zero 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
But even in Morocco, there were disturbing signs. It is one thing to say in hindsight that Jews would have been fine if they stayed - the point is that at the point of decision, they were motivated by fear that wasn't just paranoia. In addition to that, Arab (and European) regimes have an interesting record of tolerating Jews until and unless they become "too" visible or seemingly powerful. In any event, that logic could have been applied to Palestinians, too - those who stayed are fine. --Leifern 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: What you say may or may not be true, but that's for another page. --Vjam 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "for another page"? The statement about Jewish refugees immediately follows a statement about Palestinian refugees. It's this page. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said, if you think the principle that "if some of those who moved might not be refugees, then we should either try to count those who are or drop the term entirely" applies here, then it must also apply for Palestinian refugees. I will await your edits on all pages related to Palestinians and then accept them here. Until that happens, I will not accept any attempts at making it seem like these people were anything but refugees. Frankly, I consider your campaign here to be the equivalent of Holocaust revisionism. --Leifern 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Vjam, you persist in characterizing the extent of persecution and discrimination of Jews in Arab lands to be "limited" with a "much smaller" number being refugees. This is simply not true, and hugely offensive to the large number of Jews from these areas who a) will consistently tell you they fled, often taking great risks and incurring huge financial losses; and b) have absolutely no interest in returning to these areas. I realize that conditions for Jews in Tunisia, Algeria, and Morrocco have varied over time, but there can be no debate that Jews had reason to fear persecution, discrimination or worse simply because they were Jews in these countries. There are still Jews in Iran, but do you think they have free, happy lives? --Leifern 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
On the Palestinian side, I'm not sure about the credibility of the evidence that suggests that Palestinians who fled were themselves migrants (that's mostly the thesis of From Time Immemorial right?) or that they were not former natives who wandered away earlier and them came back as the economic opportunities grew, or that they represented a noteworthy portion of the 700,000. On the other hand, while I hate to nitpick on who exactly 'fled' or who 'was forced out' since my experience is that you are a refugee because you are unable to return to your land or property, to say that the persecution and discrimination of Jews in Arab lands was 'limited' is, according to most verifiable sources, highly inaccurate. With 'limited' exceptions, 'Widespread and systematic' was more like it. Ramallite (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is mostly historical geography and generally speaking it is one of the best Palestine/Israel-related pages. Can I suggest that we restrict this issue to a minimal description that uses the same wording for both migrations? There are plenty of other pages where it is expanded on in "depth". --Zero 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. In fact, I think that's what used to be in there, before this all started. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The two migrations should be described in the same terms if they are substantially similar, not simply to even things out. This is a question of accuracy, and should not become one about sides. The phrase at issue is: "800,000 Jews fled persecution or discrimination in Arab lands". What I feel this ignores is the wide diversity of experience of the migrants in question, and over a long period of time. Motivations were various, and I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed (economic reasons, zionism, migration incentives and, of course, persecution). Far from all of the migrants would characterise themselves as escapees, in any sense. But the phrase used ascribes one motivation to all. This presents a skewed view of history, which paints Arab countries, unfairly, as unremittingly agressive to their Jewish populations. --Vjam 21:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, I take "revisionist canard" as a slur. Please cool it. The persecution of and discrimination against Jews in Arab countries during the period in question, there can be no doubt, is highly significant. However, it is only a partial explanation of the mass migration of Jews from Arab countries. This seems to be to be beyond argument, and it must be reflected in the article. --Vjam 14:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A refugee is anyone who leaves his or her place of residence because he/she has reason to fear mistreatment, in the form of discrimination, confiscation, harrassment, persecution, or genocide. In every single Arab country, Jews had good reason to fear these things would happen. The fact that they got better lives - economically, culturally, educationally, etc. - in other places doesn't take away from this fact; it adds to it. Terms like "highly significant," "partial," etc., are weasel words that seek to create an impression that most or many of the Jews who left Arab lands did so simply because they saw greater economic opportunity elsewhere. This in turn will reinforce the canard that the Palestinian refugee problem is altogether different from the Jewish refugee problem. What you're doing is very transparent as is apparent in some of the comments related to your edits. There can be no question that the migration of Jews from Arabs land in the 20th century was a refugee stream. --Leifern 14:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I second Zero's suggestion above. By the way, Leifern, "the canard that the Palestinian refugee problem is altogether different from the Jewish refugee problem" - that is your one statement that I have to disagree with completely. Unless you (erroneously) consider all Arabs as a single nation (so the Arabs of Palestine would be responsible for the sins of the Arabs of Iraq), I don't see how the two are similar. In fact, I'd argue that the Arab refugees of Palestine and the Jewish refugees that arrived in Palestine have their oppression by other Arab regimes as something in common. Ramallite (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's an interesting point that we could discuss at length elsewhere. I happen to agree that political leaders, tyrants, and national chauvinism are the main cause for the conflict and the misery on both sides, but that's clearly a POV. My point about the canard is the repeated and systematic attempts at characterizing Jewish emigration from Arab lands as something largely voluntary, based on economic opportunity in lands "stolen" from Palestinians; rather than what it was - an escape from a hostile environment. --Leifern 15:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Your explanation of the 'canard' makes more sense now, I guess I misunderstood your earlier reasoning. In order to prevent revert wars, it might be useful to present citations to that effect, such as this one. All should remember that each POV should be presented itself in a NPOV fashion. Ramallite (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, okay so you perceive that there is a myth propogated that Jewish migration was mainly prompted by economic oportunity (you will note, though, that this is not something I have claimed). I'd suggest that the answer to this is not to promote a myth at the polar opposite. It's wrong to reduce it to "Arabs bad-Jews persected-mass exodus". I'd suggest that common sense alone tells us that migration patterns over such a wide geographic area over such a protracted period are likely to have a more complex story behind them. I don't think it's appropriate to crowd a short phrase "800,000 Jews fled" with citations putting different sides of a case - that should be kept to the talk page. I've gathered a couple of internet references, below. I've done this quite quickly and I've gone exclusively for Jewish sites (lest I be accused of simply reproducing an anti-semitic "canard") and about Morocco (since I ahve a better idea what I'm looking for, know for a fact that my side of the argument is right in this context and so that's what I put into google). I may therefore not have the most authoratative sources available. Howvever, I think I have a low burden of proof here - to cast reasonable doubt on the idea that the Jewish migrantion we are talking about was exclusively caused by persecution.

http://www.sefarad.org/publication/lm/017/morocco.html The youths of the big cities continued to search for a better life. Having moved first from the smallest of mountain and desert communities, next to the regional centers, and finally to the biggest of cities, they departed for the advancement possibilities of Israel (starting in 1949), France, and the world in general.
http://artengine.ca/eliany/html/mindandsoulinjewishmorocco/historyofjewsinmorocco.html As usual, when living conditions do not accommodate decent living, Jews seek to move elsewhere. Moroccan Jews immigrated to other countries when given opportunity. Traditionally, they went to Zion for religious reasons. They also left Morocco to other Mediterranean countries due to persecutions. But they went to Argentina and Palestine, as well as Spain, Britain, Holland and Italy for economic reasons too. Later, AIU offered educational opportunities in France, Switzerland and Belgium. Younger Jews benefited from them but in relatively small numbers.
http://rickgold.home.mindspring.com/Emigration/emigration1.1.htm You cannot compare Moroccan Jewish history with European Jewish history. You must put it into its Moroccan context. Optimistic portrayals don't explain the emigration, while pessimistic ones don't explain the thousands of Jews who remain. The fact that emigration took place over a thirty year period shows that neither explanation is correct.

Thanks. --Vjam 16:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

When someone decides to leave the country they and their parents and grandparents, etc. were born in, they obviously have to take a large number of factors into consideration. Even in the most hostile environments, there have always been Jews who remained, and I suspect that is the case for any refugee group. In granting political asylum to individuals, the country considering the case has to consider whether the asylum seeker has a reason to believe that he/she will face discrimination, persecution, etc., on account of his/her religion, ethnicity, political convictions, sexual orientation, etc. There can be no question that Jews in all Arab lands had reason to harbor such fears. The fact that such individuals face varying degrees of uncertainty elsewhere is really beside the point - it's not like they are less refugees if they're successful. To characterize the Arab Jews as refugees only requires that we prove that they faced discrimination and physical danger because they were Jewish in those countries, and that standard is easily met. You will see from my edits of the history of Jews in Arab lands that I have been generous in acknowledging Arab authorities where they protected the Jewish minority, but the truth of the matter is that conditions have fluctuated considerably over time. --Leifern 16:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Refugee is primarily a legal concept, so to include it where the legeal definition is not met (at all, I would suggest, but particularly where unqualified) misleads the reader. A refugee must have a well founded fear of persection from which the state cannot protect him or her (because the state is doing the persecting, refuses to offer protection, or is incapable, for example where it doesn't have sufficient control of the country). This is a high legal standard. In the case of Morocco (again I'm talking about what I know about, and I accept it may have been different elsewhere), it is absolutely inconceivable that the position of Jews in general can have met this standard at any time since the end of WWII (indeed, even during WWII occupation I'd suggest that the protection efforts of the Moroccan authorities exceeded those of occupied Europe). Even if we take a more casual definition of "refugee" the word implies someone who has no realistic choice but to leave or very probably suffer very serious consequences (I'd suggest that any definition of refugee more casual than this is one that would normally require inverted commas, and cannot be used at all in an encyclopedia article). Incidentally, facing legal discrimination or social prejudice of a non-persecutory order does not qualify someone as a refugee. --Vjam 19:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the issue here is not whether persecution, discrimination and uncertainty existed, which is not contested, but whether these things were a sole causal factor. Your formulation avoids explicitly making this claim but is designed, I think, to give that impression, so I'm editing it as a weasel phrase.--Vjam 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If you apply the legal concept, the term "refugee" absolutely applies - virtually all and certainly the vast majority of Jews in Arab lands had reason to fear persecution. To compare the conditions in Morocco with those in occupied Europe is crazy - conditions don't have to be bad as "facing complete annihilation" to qualify for refugee status. You will have a lot more credibility if you apply the same level of skepticism toward Palestinian refugees. The one-sided edits does nothing for the credibility of your attempts. --Leifern 19:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Liefern: "virtually all and certainly the vast majority of Jews in Arab lands had reason to fear persecution". This is false, and this is the nub of the problem. The standard is high, and if you don't accept this then you are just plain wrong. Examples of persection would include death squads, unjustified incarceration, unjustified confiscation of property, revocation of citizenship, state sponsored incitement to violence. Less serious form of discrimination and prejudice do not constitute persection and do not make refugees. Undoubtedly, persection is part of the picture you are talking about. But in a country such as Morocco (again, for example), there was none, I would suggest. But the way you want the article to read is that such activities were going on against Jews across the Arab world for a period of 30 or more years. This is just untrue, and grossly unfair to the countries concerned (or some of them at least). --Vjam 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A) It certainly is true. And in fact, there were all those things in all those Arab states. B) If you think the standard is that high, I await your edits on sentences about Palestinians - or else you think that different standards apply to Jews than to others. --Leifern 20:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A) "All those things in all those Arab states" is a ridiculous claim. If you can provide information about just one instance of any one of those things being employed against the Jewish population in one country (Morocco) since 1948, then I'll probably let you have the argument. If you can find several separate cases, then I'll let you have the argument no contest. Please note: clear verifiable examples. B)The statues of the Jewsish migrants has no bearing on the status of the Palestinian migrants. That has its own story, and you are welcome to open a separate discussion about it if you wish. It should be noted that anyone who, ahving committed no crime, has been displaced from his or her home and is prevented from returning is a refugee. But lets not go off on a tangent about a separate case. --Vjam 14:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Just read the article on the History of the Jews in Morocco as well as the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, which contains numerous references. And of course the story of Palestinian refugees is a separate issue - because you obviously apply a double standard to Jews.--Leifern 16:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The two articles you refer to don't actually contain any references to those types of activities in Morocco. In fact, I'd say they give the more complex picture I am trying to get across. You seem to me to be clutching at straws. Moroccan migrants account for around 250,000, more than a quarter of the total population we are talking about. I would assert that none or very few of these can be classed as refugees, and at least a majority cannot properly be described as having fled. That is unless you have any information to the contrary which you are able to share. Therefore, "nearly all" of the 800,000 cannot be supported. I've also removed your reference to "widespread pogroms", since the Jewish Exodus Article seems to suggest this is only relevant in relation to Libya.--Vjam 23:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Colonial powers, etc.

Sidduqi wrote this paragraph, which has been deleted twice:

The European colonial powers decided to partition Palestine without the consent of its native citizens. One part was to be given to the European Jews who have faced discrimination and violence in Europe. This plan was not acceptable to the Palestinians and they argued that Europe should deal with problem of dicrimination of European Jews in Europe. Most of the Arab and Muslim states were under European colonial rule and could not vote or participitate in this UN partition plan. This plan created millions of Palestinian refugees and their land was given to the European Jews. A week later, the Jordan-backed rival First Palestinian Congress convened in Amman and denounced the UN partition plan. A week later, the Jordan-backed rival First Palestinian Congress convened in Amman and denounced the UN partition plan.

It is not that I want to dismiss this perspective, but the story is a bit more complex and may even belong in another article. First of all, the phrase "European colonial powers decided to partition" is grossly misleading. UNSCOP proposed, and the United Nations General Assembly recommended, a partition plan. This is not the same as "European colonial powers," nor did it constitute a decision. In fact, the UK opposed the plan. The term "Palestinians" at the time included Arabs, Jews, and several other minorities, and just who was a "native" there is a matter of ongoing debate. I agree that world powers at the time created new nation states around conference tables rather than through engagement with the people who lived in the areas being so divided, but this was the case for virtually every Arab (and Asian, and African) state - in Transjordania, a royal family was imported from what used to be Saudi Arabia. It is also false that the "plan" created millions of Palestinian refugees - the number was lower, and the refugee problem came about from subsequent events, not the plan itself. I think the conventions that rejected the plan should be mentioned, but this needs to be a lot more precise and specific to read as anything but a partisan rant. --Leifern 19:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to your excellent comments, it also is uncited, refers to opinion as if it were fact, and in any event the section is just a summary of the plan, and doesn't give either side's POV, rationale, justifications, etc. It's also inaccurate - for example, as you pointed out, the number of refugees created was much lower (711,000 according to the UN), and a number of Arab and Muslim states were independent, and, in fact, voted against the plan (e.g. Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen). Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of the Muslim states were not independent and were colonies in 1948. The Palestine page must have Palestinian, Arab and Muslim perspective also. The whole rationale of Jewish claim to Palestine is based on Bible. My quotes from Bible regarding patriarch Abraham journey from his native Ur to Palestine was deleted. So was the claim by both Jews and Arabs to be descendent of Abraham. The whole perspective of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim on UN partition plan is completely ignored. As I stated ealier, I will resinsert these perspective in the Palestinian page. The Jewish, Zionist, and pro-Israeli perspective is well represented in the Israel page.
Siddiqui 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the geographical region of Palestine. This is precisely why moving the Palestine page to the region of Palestine rather than the disambiguation page was such a bad idea. This is an encyclopedic article; there should be facts, not points of view in it. I don't object to including facts that are relevant to the point of view included, but it has to be fact. As we've pointed out, the sentences you included are factually wrong - it wasn't colonial powers, they didn't make a decision, and just who the Palestinians are in this context is ambiguous. --Leifern 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Then the following few words ' Bible: Eretz Yisrael "Land of Israel" ' are factual but my quotes from Bible are not Biblical ? If it is a geographical description page about Palestine then remove all non-geographical info. Questioning existence of Palestinian people is another controversal issue raised by Zonists. Your comment do not reflect any neutrality !
Siddiqui 14:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Palestine and Palestinan version of events

My additions to the Palestinian page have been removed by persons with out giving valid arguments. This page seems to have became extension of Israel page rather than discussing Palestine. The Eretz Israel does not translate into Palestine but is continously added by few people. The Biblical story about land of Palestine been given to patriarch Abraham and at that time the existence of a native population is totally ignored. Then the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim view of the UN partition plan for Palestine is totally ignored. I have added these views. I hope that somebody would not remove them without giving valid arguments. Since we do not want a football game of reversions every five minutes.

- User:Siddiqui 16:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User 'Jayjghas' has deleted the information as discussed above without discussing the issue. I hope that nobody would remove the info in the future without giving valid arguments. Since we do not want a football game of reversions every five minutes.
Siddiqui 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui, I don't have a problem with the biblical stuff; but your "Arab views" are full of factual errors. To repeat:

  • It wasn't "European colonial powers," but the United Nations that approved the partition plan
  • They didn't "decide" anything - the UNSCOP plan was simply recommended
  • If you are to apply this standard to the partition plan, you have to apply it to nearly every sovereign state that once was part of a colonial empire - please show me how you have done this for Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, etc., and we can see that there is some consistency
  • There was no Palestine National Congress in 1948 - it was convened for the first time in the 1960s. There was an Arab High Institute and an All Palestine Government that was active in 1948, but this was by no means a democratically elected, or even representative body; and it was in King Abdullah's influence.

In addition, this issue does not even belong in this article, which is supposed to be about the geographical region of Palestine, not the political entity of Palestine, which is discussed in State of Palestine.

You're not responding to these objections. This isn't about promoting one side or another, it's about maintaining some semblance of encyclopedic standards. --Leifern 15:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If this page discusses the geographical Palestine then all political and historical perspective should be removed not just my additions.
Siddiqui 16:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That would be acceptable to me.--Leifern 19:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Abraham comments under Name and boundary section?

Surely the comments about Abraham coming from Ur etc are off topic as they have nothing to do with the origin of the name or the borders of the region (besides the fact that they contain POV half-truths like omitting the tradition that the inhabitants at the time had usurped the land from his ancestors and that Arab origins are more complex than descent from Abraham). Also the info on the Philistines digresses from the main topic too much and should be cut down bare relevant minimum. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The coming of Abraham to Palestine and God promising this land to his descendents is the main reason for the conflict. If you think it is a geographical page why then there are pro-Zionist political/historical views ? Why are they not balanced by Palestinian views.
Siddiqui 15:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph is not relevant to the topic of the name and boundaries of the region, the name comes from the Philistines and initially referred only to the smaller coastal region where they lived. So how is mention of Abraham coming to the region relevant here? The information makes sense as a paragraph in the History of Palestine article not in a geographical article in a section explaining the name and changing definition of the boundaries. Also why do you see it as "Palestinian views" as it is a mix of Jewish, Christian and Islamic views in general?
Also be careful when you revert as you are also reverting spelling and grammar corrections as well as other improvements. I have also cut down on sentences about Philistines, David and Amos which also go off topic and would make more sense in history articles about Philistines. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph about Abraham is off-topic and does not belong. Nor is this article about the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is about the historical geography of a particular region. --Zero 04:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Then first remove all non-geographical information before deleting Palestinian version of events. I do see other reference to history from Bible and but my Bible reference is unacceptable. There must be one rule and no exceptions.
Siddiqui 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The one rule is that Wikipedia policy must be followed; please stop inserting factually incorrect, POV, unsourced, and off-topic material. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The following line is also from Bible and must be removed:
"Several names for the region are found in the Bible: Eretz Yisrael "Land of Israel", Eretz Ha-Ivrim "land of the Hebrews", "land flowing with milk and honey", "land that [God] swore to your fathers to assign to you", "Holy Land", and "land of the Lord"."
The following line does not explain the reasons of Palestinian and Arab rejection of UN plan:
"The Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states rejected the partition plan, and attacked the newly declared state of Israel in 1948."
There is no mention of European-Christian-German Nazis committing "genocide" of Jews in Europe but highlights the Arab "persecution and discrimination". I guess "persecution and discrimination" is a bigger crime than "genocide" !!
"Also following the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel was the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, in which over 800,000 Jews fled persecution and discrimination in Arab lands. About two third of these resettled in Israel."
Siddiqui 17:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
None of those are lines from the Bible, they are names used in the Bible, which is a work that Christians and even Muslims consider holy. And one cannot insert factually incorrect material simply in order to hold an article hostage because one doesn't like other material. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, Which lines are not from Bible ? I was referring to only one specific line from Bible in the article:
"Several names for the region are found in the Bible: Eretz Yisrael "Land of Israel", Eretz Ha-Ivrim "land of the Hebrews", "land flowing with milk and honey", "land that [God] swore to your fathers to assign to you", "Holy Land", and "land of the Lord"."
Secondly, What about other issues such as Palestinian version of UN plan and "persecution" of Jews in Arab lands while totally ignoring European-Christian-German Nazis committing "genocide" of Jews in Europe.
Siddiqui 19:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indent). Siddiqui - please try to understand what we are trying to say:

  • There are articles on other meanings of the term "Palestine" that are more appropriate for differing political views. This is intended to be about the geographical region, not any political entities.
  • With respect to the biblical sources - these should be presented as early descriptions of the region. In all likelihood, the section needs to be expanded to take into account other, non-biblical sources, including archeology; but we can't treat biblical texts as undisputed proofs of one thing or another.
  • The disposition of the area after the end of the British mandate surely is an important topic, and I don't think that anybody would deny that it needs to be described in a way that takes into account differing interpretations. But a factual presentation has to avoid wording that at best presents a bias and at worst is incorrect. We have pointed out a number of factual errors in the sentences you keep inserting. This is not a matter of presenting the Arab/Palestinian perspective as a counterbalance to any other perspective - it's a matter of being precise.
  • It used to be that the article termed Palestine referred to what is now Palestine (disambiguation). Though everyone thought that was annoying from their point of view, neither was it offensive to anyone. I have put wheels in motion to see if we can revert to that. I do understand that you want an article about Palestine to reflect your perspective on things, but I think much of the problem is due to ambiguity.
  • I am not sure what you mean by "genocide" in scare quotes. Care to elaborate? --Leifern 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am again added Palestinian version of events. Nobody has given any logical criticism but have used their admin privileges.

May be we can discuss each line that is contriversal. I ask you again, why does the following line is added in Palestine page.

"Several names for the region are found in the Bible: Eretz Yisrael "Land of Israel", Eretz Ha-Ivrim "land of the Hebrews", "land flowing with milk and honey", "land that [God] swore to your fathers to assign to you", "Holy Land", and "land of the Lord"."
Siddiqui 16:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It has been explained several times that the insertion is factionally incorrect, POV, and not relevant. If that's not "logical criticism" then it's hard to see what might be. Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


What is factionally incorrect ? Be specific. But first can you please reply to my question why is the above quote from the Bible is added in the Palestine page while my quotes from Bible are being deleted.
Siddiqui 21:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed

Siddiqui's insistence on including the "Arab perspective" is so full of inaccuracies and misleading points that the article now has lost encyclopedic value. We have pointed out several times where the insertions are wrong, but he/she keeps insisting on inserting them again, verbatim. I have to say, this also illustrates the folly of shuffling around the various Palestine pages, which now causes confusion between the region known as Palestine and the political entity named Palestine. --Leifern 15:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish, Zionist and Israeli perspective on the events is well presented in this article. Then it should also be balanced by Palestinian, Arab and Muslim perspective.
Siddiqui 16:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Please try to read the objections we're raising - they're not against your perspective per se, they are against a) the factual accuracy of what you write; and b) whether they even belong in this (rather than other) articles. --Leifern 16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Then please first remove all non-geographical references. Any Bible history, if included, should reflect my quotes from Bible too.
Siddiqui 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

More on refugee

Vjam has repeatedly tried to rewrite history by claiming that a large proportion of Jewish emigration from Arab lands was simply a result of economic opportunism, and that although there was some unfortunate incidents where Jews were persecuted by Arab regimes, there is simply no basis to characterize the migration as "fleeing" nor the emigrants as "refugees." This is clearly rank historical revisionism of the same kind we find among Holocaust revisionists. The arguments Vjam has used rate from "we don't know what motivated those emigrated," to "clearly, things were not nearly as bad in Arab countries as they were in occupied Europe during the war years," to "it's not my job to apply the same criteria to Palestinian refugees as I would to Jews." And "it wasn't all that bad in Morocco." Morocco had anti-Jewish riots, institutional discrimination, emigration bans, and other things that clearly worried the vast majority of Jews.

To some extent, the proof is in the pudding. Virtually the entire Jewish population that lived in Arab countries has left, leaving a nearly negligible remnant. Those who came to Israel had to live in the squalor of tent cities for quite some time after they arrived. The various organizations of Arab Jews consistently characterize themselves as refugees, and in private they express themselves even more strongly. You will scarcely find greater political hawks than those Israelis who once were refugees from Arab lands or descendants of them. --Leifern 16:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Liefern, if you really think I'm guilty of "rank historical revisionism" then you should pursue arbitration. I think this accusation is just a last throw of the dice on your part. --Vjam 23:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You're correct in assuming that I'm frustrated - you are simply refusing to take into account any known facts on this issue and just insist on a version of history that any witnesses to the matter would dispute. There are numerous reputable references listed on the main article about the exodus of Jews from Arab lands that prove beyond any reasonable dispute that the most correct characterization of those Jews who left Arab lands are "refugees." The arguments you propose against such a characterization are specious and unconvincing. This amounts to revisionism. --Leifern 00:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, let me ask you this: what would it take to convince you that someone is a refugee? And then, show me how you apply this to, say, Tibetans and Palestinians to prove that they are refugees. --Leifern 00:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To label someone a refugee implies that they were, or were imminently about to be, victims of persecution organised (or allowed to happen) by the state, or that they were ejected from the country. In the case of at least one Arab country (Morocco), accounting for between a qaurter and a third of everyone we are talking about, no general case for this can be made. This is important, because the use of the word "refugee" implies a serious allegation against Morocco that is simply not historically true. What it would take to convince me would be evidence that I am wrong about this. Claiming in broad terms that it is a well known fact will not do, nor will claiming that other wikipedia entries back it up, because as far as I can see they don't. I don't know much about Tibet, but Palestinian refugees are, in general, refugees because they were forced from their homes by war and not allowed to return. Morrocan Jews, chose to leave for a variety of reasons (none of which, generally, qualify them as refugees) and have always been free to return. I feel I must caution against confusing the issue, though, and insist that the issue doen't become one of "if the Palestinians are refugees then its only fair that the Jews must be too". It's only fair if its true. --Vjam 13:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Moroccan Jews experienced pogroms that the state did nothing to prevent, and were prohibited from leaving the country for several years. The other Wikipedia articles include countless references to prove the point, as does every organization of Arab Jews. I am not saying that if Palestinians are counted as refugees, then Jews must to. I am saying that the same criteria should be applied to all, which is what you are resisting. I don't know where you have a quarter and a third comes from - probably thin air. But you've shown your colors pretty clearly - you simply won't allow the same criteria to be applied to Jews as to all other people. --Leifern 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pogroms? Care to elaborate? The only major violence against Jews (in terms of numbers of people involved) is normally though to have been the anti-Jewish riots in North Eastern Morocco in June 1948. However, I am unable to find a source that refers to them as anything other than riots. If you have any evidence that there was organisation of state collusion behind them that could justify this claim, that would certainly be of interest. It should also be noted that Morocco was in the control of the French in 1948. French complicity in "pogroms" is not strictly inconceivable I guess, but again its a serious charge and needs backing up. In any event, a terrible but isolated event in Moroccan history does not give you cover to portray all Jewish migrants from the country for the next thirty years as "refugees". You'll also accept, I hope that there is a crucial difference between "did nothing to prevent" and "failed to prevent". The prohibition (restriction is probably more accurate) on emmigration is not something I would defend, but it also didn't create any refugees (how could it?), and it should be acknowledged that the motivation for this was Moroccan wory at losing its Jewish population, not wanting to keep that population there so it could carry out supposed pogroms on it. Lastly, "a quarter to a third" is reflected in the figures in the Jewish exodus from Arab lands article. I'll leave the article as it is for not, since it sounds to me so clearly POV that few would take it at face value. --Vjam 17:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is rediculous. Why does Vjam continue to remove the word refugee concerning Jewish refugees--when by definition they are clearly so--but leaves "700,000 refugees" in tact concerning Palestinians? There needs to be consistency and not this double-standard he is trying to create. Frankly, this is nothing but POV-pushing and needs to stop. Aiden 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
"Riots" - which is to say, violent acts targeted at Jews with no meaningful at preventing - took place in Oujda and Djerada, followed by widespread economic boycott of Jews throughout Morocco. The many Jews that moved to cities were confined to ghettos with terrible sanitary conditions even by Moroccan standards. In 1956, Jews were prohibited from leaving Morocco until 1963, virtually opening floodgates. There are countless accounts of widespread bigotry against Jews in Morocco. I don't see what French colonial power had to do with anything. In response to Aiden's comment, yes, Vjam is trying to do what David Irving and others do - they don't deny the existence of mistreatment but try to play it down, way down, so as to create the appearance that Jews are just complaining endlessly. --Leifern 20:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, there is no requirement for consistency between descriptions of two quite seperate migrations. To suggest that there is such a requirement will not give rise to neutral writing. Liefern, much of waht you say is true, but it only tells half a tale. The 1948 riots are a singel event in Moroccan history. Perpetrators were severely dealt with (there were executions), and nothing like that happened again - it does not add up to the sustained, organised persection that the word "refugee" suggests. There was an attempt at an economic boycott, promoted by opposition right-wing politicians (on a point of fact, this happened in 1967, rather than 1948) but it was not supported by the mainstream and was not successful. Many Jews lived in ghettos, but were not confined to them. I don't know about their sanitary standards, but nor do I think these would make grounds for refugee status. The basic pointis that Moroccan Jews as a class do not fit the definition of "refugee", by comparison to other historical cases. For example, black South Africans under Apartheid had no general right to be considered as refugees. A telling point is that Morrocan Jews were not considered refugees under the Law of Return. During the 50s at least (and maybe after I don't know) Moroccan Jews needed to be fit for work in order to go to Israel. Please stop the ad hominem attacks, by the way. --Vjam 12:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the same criteria should be applied to two different migrations. Otherwise, it would be a double standard. The Law of Return allows any Jew to immigrate to Israel for any reason; there is not and never has been a requirement that anyone be fit for work. You are obviously misinformed. --Leifern 12:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Leifern is correct about there being no "fit for work" requirement in the 1950s. However, why is this discussion here? There are long detailed articles where you can discuss these matters, They don't belong here. I propose to replace this little section by
For a description of the massive population movements, Arab and Jewish, at the time of the 1948 war and over the following decades, see Palestinian exodus and Jewish exodus from Arab lands.
Please agree so we can end this pointless war. --Zero 13:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd agree to that. --Vjam 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove bias?

The basis of this page and discussion is that it should be filled with facts that neither Palestinians nor Israelis would disagree with. What about Turks? Egyptians? Romans? Canaanites? Why are we dividing truth amongst the two groups which currently fight over it?

Furthermore, there is an inherent Jewish bias (NOT diametrically opposed to the Arab or Islamic view) to the article as a whole. Geography and history are termed with reference to historical Jewish representations. The history commences and concludes (i.e. continues to the present) from a Jewish point of view. "The Bible" this, and "the Bible" that... Not everyone reading the article wishes it to be presented from a Jewish/Christian/Islamic point of view.

"The Bible this" and the Bible that" because we are dealing with a region that the Bible speaks about extensively. If the article was about Troy then it would have the Iliad this and the Iliad that. If it was about Mexico then it would be the Aztec Codices this and the Aztec Codices that. Get real. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
(I would recommend that you register and sign your entries). At this moment, the article largely reflects edits written by someone who wanted to represent the "Arab perspective" on the article; I think the article suffers, but it's not because there's a bias - it's because assertions are made that are false and does nobody's perspective any credit. --Leifern 18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Parsing Siddiqui

Here are the sentences Siddiqui insists on:

The European colonial powers

Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, you may be talking about two events: one is the outcome of the San Remo Conference after World War I, when the victorious countries to that war determined that Palestine was to be a homeland for Jews, but this did not explicitly involve a partition. Or you could be talking about the UNSCOP recommendations. UNSCOP consisted of representatives from Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. With the exception of the Netherlands, none of these were or had ever been European colonial powers.

decided

In fact, neither UNSCOP nor the UN decided anything. UNSCOP recommended and the UN gave its support to a partition plan. The international community then did absolutely nothing to enforce or implement the plan.

to partition Palestine without the consent of its native citizens.

I think we can agree that consent was an impossible ambition, given the fact that the native "citizens" had widely different goals and were frequently in conflict with each other. But I'm going to guess that you don't count Jews as native citizens in Palestine.

One part was to be given to the European Jews who have faced discrimination and violence in Europe.

"Discrimination and violence" has to be the understatement of the day here at Wikipedia - "genocide" is the appropriate term. But setting aside that (and the poor grammar), the part was set aside as a Jewish state for the Jews already in the country, who could then admit anyone they wanted. And as it turned out, they admitted lots of Jews from Arab countries.

This plan was not acceptable to the Palestinians and they argued that Europe should deal with problem of dicrimination of European Jews in Europe.

At the time, there was no representative body for the Palestinians, but it is certainly true that Arab states rejected the plan. I don't believe they had any opinion about the fate of European Jews, but as for the Palestinian Jews, the plan was to throw them into the ocean.

Most of the Arab and Muslim states were under European colonial rule and could not vote or participitate in this UN partition plan.

Let's see, by 1948 the following Arab countries were independent: Lebanon (1943), Syria (1944), Jordan (1946), Saudi Arabia (1932), and Egypt (partial in 1922). Subsaharan Arab countries were less than a decade away from full independence for the most part.

This plan created millions of Palestinian refugees and their land was given to the European Jews.

Certainly, the plan did not create millions of Palestinian refugees - credible estimates give the number between 600,000 and 800,000, which is not a number I wish to trivialize, but we should be precise here. As for what was "given" to European Jews, that is a matter of some dispute, and is therefore discussed in other articles.

A week later, the Jordan-backed rival First Palestinian Congress convened in Amman and denounced the UN partition plan. A week later, the Jordan-backed rival First Palestinian Congress convened in Amman and denounced the UN partition plan.

The First Palestinian Congress convened in 1919 and called for Palestine to be part of Greater Syria. To be sure, there were lots of meetings among Arab leaders in 1948, but none looked like an assembly, and they involved a power struggle between King Abdullah and Amin al-Husayni. Again, let's be precise here.

--Leifern 18:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all see Siddiqui's agenda and agree his edits are not to be taken seriously. He has yet to add anything NPOV or sourced. USA Aiden 20:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
My agenda is to present keep the record straight and present Palestinian point of view. The whole article is written from Israeli Zionist point of view.
  • The Bible says that Abraham travelled from Ur in Iraq to Palestine to claim this land while there was a native population living in Palestine. There is no mention of the existing native population nor that both Arab and Jews claim Abraham as their forefather.
  • The quote from the Bible: "Several names for the region are found in the Bible: Eretz Yisrael "Land of Israel", Eretz Ha-Ivrim "land of the Hebrews", "land flowing with milk and honey", "land that [God] swore to your fathers to assign to you", "Holy Land", and "land of the Lord". " is added to make exclusive claim for the Jews.
  • The inclusion of discrimination of Jews in Arab land is added while the discrimination and genocide of Jews in Europe is not included.
  • It does not include why did the Palestinian and Arabs rejected the UN plan.
Siddiqui 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you please respond to the points raised, rather than discussing other subjects? Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You guys are avoiding answering my initial questions that I asked few days ago. Then you raise your questions and expect me to answer them. Why don't you answer first my question that I asked few days ago but never got the reply. I will give answer to each and every question that you asked me if only if you answer my initial questions.
Do I have to recruit my friends to play this reversion game so that nobody gets banned on third reversion ? May be 15 friends may have 30 reversion in a day without anyone getting banned.
22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You keep inserting this stuff, and it's factually incorrect, POV, uncited, and off-topic. Instead of responding to that, you just threaten to recruit friends for revert wars. Why don't you respond to the objections instead? Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui's "initial questions"

Siddiqui, it is against Wikipedia policy to hold up many objections because you want some other, unrelated question asked. But for the sake of courtesy, let me address the question (I believe) you're asking. It relates to your sentence:

"Several names for the region are found in the Bible: Eretz Yisrael "Land of Israel", Eretz Ha-Ivrim "land of the Hebrews", "land flowing with milk and honey", "land that [God] swore to your fathers to assign to you", "Holy Land", and "land of the Lord"."

There are a couple of problems here:

  • It is not clear to me what the purpose of this sentence is. I assume that you are including biblical scriptures as historical sources (rather than religious prooftexts). If we are going to discuss the various names of this area that are mentioned in biblical texts, we should include names found in other texts as well.
  • We should distinguish between descriptive names ("land of milk and honey," "the land that I promised to your forefathers") and proper names (Canaan, Eretz Israel, Zion, Judah, simply Eretz, etc.)
  • Various names should have a separate section that includes not just Hebrew names, but names in other languages
  • All names should be properly referenced. If they are descriptive names, there should be a good reason why they are included.

There, now can you please address our points? --Leifern 23:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Toponyms

I've been thinking of incorporating a table such as below into the article. The dates need some fixing/referencing.

Toponyms of the Holy Land (or the Land of Israel or Palestine)
Name Geographic region Language (pronunciation) Earliest use
Canaan According to Exodus, lies to the west of the Jordan river and includes Sinai. he: כְּנַעַן 19th century BCE ?
gr: Χανααν 4rd century BCE?
ar: کنعان 7th century CE ?
Holy Land ? he: ארץ הקדש (Eretz ha-Kodesh) 13th century BCE ?
la: Terra Sancta 1st century CE ?
ar: الأرض المقدسة (al-Arḍ ul-Muqaddasah) 7th century CE ?
Land of Israel According to Genesis, extends from the Nile to the Euphrates. he: ארץ ישראל (Eretz Yisrael,
also ... ארץ Eretz Ha-Ivrim) 		13th century BCE [14]
Judea Roughly the territory of the southern West Bank he: יהודה (Yehuda) 13th century BCE ?
gr: Ιουδαία 4rd century BCE ?
la: Provincia Iudaea 1st century BCE
Land flowing of
milk and honey 		? he: אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ

(Eretz zavat halav udvash)

6th century BCE [15]
Philistia Small coastal area, roughly the territory of the Gaza Strip. he: פלשת (Pəléšet) 11th century BCE ?
Palestine A Roman province, borders varied. gr: Παλαιστίνη Palaistinē 5th century BCE [16]
he: פלשתינה (Palestina) 2nd century CE ?
la: Syria Palæstina 2nd century CE ? [17]
ar: فلسطين (Filasṭīn or Falasṭīn) 7th century CE ?
Outremer The territories of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and other crusader kingdoms. (fr) 11th century CE
Rechenu ? aeg: (R-h-n-u) 19th century BCE ?
Zion Originally a name of a mountain in Jerusalem, became a synecdoche for the Promised Land. he: ציון 6th century BCE ?
  1. ^ Merneptah Stele
  2. ^ Ex.3:8

Would it be of any use here? If so, please edit right here before inserting into the article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What I find annoying about this sort of thing is that the names are not really the same region. The borders of Canaan for example are defined in Exodus and it lies exclusively to the west of the Jordan and includes Sinai for example, the various regions called "Palestine" don't include Sinai and Mandate Palestine before Trans-Jordan was split off included much land east of the Jordan. Philistia was a small coastal area. Land of Israel according to the ideal borders in Genesis extends from the Nile to the Euphrates. Judah was roughly the southern West Bank. Why lump all these together as if they all refer to identical regions when they don't? Kuratowski's Ghost 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact so many different names are being lumped together one could even include "Syria" and "Phoenicia" as they are just as roughly the same area. To see how silly it is imagine if this was done to Spain say and the names: Iberia, Spain, Catalonia, Hispalis, Hispania, Valencia and Portugal were all lumped together as different names for the "same" region. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
In case your annoyance is not with me, I share it. As we all know, fluctuating borders is the nature of the region, and this is far from being unique. Almost all borders in the world were unstable. The question is, can we systematize the toponomy of this important region over history in an encyclopedic manner. If we decide to use some kind of a table, we could add a "Notes" column. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think a list of names can be produced, but would agree with Kuratowski's Ghost that the title doesn't match the table - it's really a list of historical/biblical places within the region. I'd also query the datings. Whilst it's not something I know much about, surely there can't be any historical evidence for any placename being used over 20,000 years ago (?). I'd caution against using the Bible as an authority on this, if that's where the dates come from. --Vjam 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, that may be the point of the article, and perhaps an interesting one, too. The area in question only has some geographical boundaries (e.g., the Jordan River, Golan Heights, etc.), but these have corresponded to political and ethnical boundaries in varying ways in the last 3,000 to 4,000 years. This would take a lot more research to uncover, but the good news is that there are lots of historical atlases for the areas. --Leifern 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said, the dates are to be fixed. Where did "20,000 years ago" come from? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
19th BCE is over 20,000 years ago, or is my maths funny? Any dates need credible citation.--Vjam 00:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Your maths is funny :) 19th century = +/- 2nd millenium BCE = +/- 40000 4000 years ago Kuratowski's Ghost 23:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
millenium = 1000 years, century = 100 years. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I need a calculator...All the same, dates need standing up. --Vjam 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I am adding the geographic region column. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

War of talks, Oh my God!

Is there something such as a territory the belongs to no country (even Antarctica was claimed and maybe has some administration. What some people call Palestine is either

Create an article abt the WB and GS and call it Palestine (country), Palestinian territories means territories that belong to no entity.

Ottoman Rule section

The third and fourth paragraphs of this appear to be little more than a repetition of Joan Peters-style historical revisionism (in addition to being unsourced). I am commenting them out for the moment; maybe somebody will have the time to work on them to bring them more into line with the historical record. Palmiro | Talk 16:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What, precisely, are you disputing? To me it looks like you're deleting inconvenient facts. --Leifern 16:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've already replied on your talk page, but the answer is basically everything. There were precious few facts there, to start with. Similar claims made by the same anon were quickly reverted out of the Palestinian territories article with the edit summary "revert original research: includes personal interpretations, statements devoid of reality, unsourced material, and is inappropriate to that section anyway" and nobody there objected: I suspect the only reason they stayed here is that the page isn't watched as closely. If you really want to defend this passage, I will reply in more detail, but do you really think it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Palmiro | Talk 16:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's parse this passage:

Although pockets of Jews remained in Palestine since the Roman periods,...

You're disputing the uninterrupted presence of Jews in various town (including Jerusalem):
No, but this doesn;t fit in well with what follows

... the Ottoman Sultan embraced European investments and settlement, ...

The Ottoman empire didn't embrace European investments and settlement?
It did embrace investments, not just represented by Zionists, and it had a somewhat more nuanced attitude to Zionists, who were only a small element of the various European elements seeking commerial involvement in the Empire. This is a distorted version.

...prompted by the Zionist movement spearheaded by Theodore Herzl in the late 1800s.

OK, there was immigration before Herzl, but there is no question this increased immigration

Spurred by the World Zionist Congress in Vienna and the development of an extensive campaign from the Russias, Europe, and America, significant numbers of Jews began moving back to the Holy Land to build collective farms, larger settlements, and eventually founded the new city of Tel Aviv.

Is this in dispute? That they moved in significant numbers, built kibbutzim, founded Tel Aviv?
Actually, this sentence is more or less acceptable.

Subpar property was often offered at outrageous prices, yet the Jews were eager to repopulate the land of their ancestors.

I believe this is amply documented many places.
This grossly misrepresents what went on, where in many cases Zionist settlers bought land from absentee landlords and expelled the local peasantry. It may not be untrue in and of itself, for some cases, but it is part of an utterly distorted picture of the situation.

The Sultanate benefited greatly from increased rent revenues and broader economic activity, in what had been a sparsely settled and subsistance level or economy.

There are countless travel accounts that indicate that this was a sparsely populated and poor area.
This is propaganda. The local population lost out considerably in many cases; you need only read any reasonable history book to see that.

This influx of investment from the Jews encouraged immigration of Arabs from throughout the Sultanate, following new jobs and industries sparked by these investments.

Again, is this in dispute?
The claim that there was massive Arab immigration to Palestine as a result of Zionist colonisation is not, as far as I know, generally accepted.

Many of the 'Palestinians' can trace their lineage back to this period, and can often be found to be from nomadic tribes from as far away as Saudi Arabia. For example, the Wahabi tribe, originally from Arabia, has many decendents among today's Palestinians.

This probably needs to be firmed up, but I have seen several examples of Palestinian writings pointing out that Palestinians are of diverse descent.
This is obvious propaganda. Look, even the word Palestinian is in scare quotes. I am not aware of any significant immigration to Palestine from Saudi Arabia. Who are these Wahabis anyway?

Therefore, as Jewish populations increased, so did corresponding Arab populations. Yet, since the Jewish growth was outpacing the Arab influx, sometime in the early 1900s, tensions began to be noticable, laying the groundwork for Arab riots in the 1920s, recognizing that the Jewish track was to eventually dominate Palestine.

Again, I think this is beyond dispute.
This is pure editorialising "recognizing that the Jewish track was to eventually dominate Palestine"; there was no Arab influx, on the contrary, it was Jews who were immigrating and the Arab population that was growing naturally; tensions arose before the 1900s.
So, all in all, there was one sentence that is debatable, but you deleted everything. If you think it is all objectionable, be specific. Otherwise, it just looks like POV-pushing. --Leifern 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, there was one more-or-less OK sentence and the rest was propaganda, as written. Anybody familiar with the history of the region would recognise that. It could be rewritten salvaging the rare facts and putting them in correct context, but it would have to be a complete rewrite. That's why I commented it out. Palmiro | Talk 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems we agree on the following facts:

  • There have been Jews in the area known as Palestine for at least 2,000 years
True, but irrelevant to Palestine under the Ottoman Empire.
Huh? I can see how it would be inconvenient, but it is not irrelevant.
This is an article about the entire history of Palestine. Who was living there in 0AD doesn't belong in the section about 1517-1917.
  • The Ottoman Empire welcomes direct foreign investment from Europeans, including "Zionists"
This is not quite adequate, and needs to be dealt with more fully.
  • In part because of the rise of the political Zionist movement, Jewish immigration to the area increased
In part? Did it also increase for other reasons during the Ottoman period?
There had been Jewish immigration to the area before then as well.
Yes indeed, but was the increase during the last decades of the Ottoman period attributable to factors other than Zionism?
  • Much of the land was acquired from absentee landlords, without consideration of tenant farmers
Yes.
  • Both Arab and Jewish population increased, though there is dispute how much of the Arab growth was "natural"
How would you like "Both Arab and Jewish growth increased, the latter due to immigration by foreign Zionists?" Thought not. This needs to be put more neutrally. I do not think any serious historians accept that there was any sort of massive Arab immigration (on the other hand, there was a fair amount of Arab emigration to the Americas, how much exactly I don't know) along the lines of Joan Peters, and we can't give the impression that that is a matter of serious historical debate.
It's interesting how everything Joan Peters writes is rejected part and parcel when what is really disputed about the main thesis of her book is the way she calculated her explanation for the astonishing growth rate. Demographic changes in the mandate (and before then) are a matter of serious scholarly dispute, but Peters's explanation is viewed as inadequately proven. Having said that, I don't think anyone disputes that most of the growth of the Jewish population in the late days of the Ottoman Empire and the Mandate was due to immigration, though these immigrants obviously also had children. I would say that terms such as "foreign Zionists" and "colonial occupation" reflect a pretty severe and possibly blinding bias, but wouldn't be upset if someone wrote the truth that Jews immigrated to Palestine. In more Jews had been allowed to do just that between 1933 and 1945, those Jews would not have been murdered in Europe. --Leifern 17:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding 'terms such as "foreign Zionists"', that was sort of my point. Palmiro | Talk 17:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Arab attacks on Jewish targets started in the 1880s.
A fact, indeed, but not put without context like that. That misrepresents what was going on, which was a response to dispossession.

Seems to me that the original passage had many flaws but it was not false in full cloth and certainly not propagandistic. --Leifern 17:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, selecting facts and their presentation in the way that passage did is pure propaganda. Just because it chose some actual facts doesn't mitigate its false presentation of the situation. Palmiro | Talk 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Could we please get sources for the following since they are in dispute:
  • "the Ottoman Sultan embraced European investments and settlement prompted by the Zionist movement".
  • "Subpar property was often offered at outrageous prices"
[18], From the Palestinian Ministry of Information, here [19], which also documents point number one and number three.
  • "The Sultanate benefited greatly from increased rent revenues and broader economic activity"
  • "This influx of investment from the Jews encouraged immigration of Arabs"
See here: [20], an attempt to sort out the issue.
  • "Many of the 'Palestinians' can trace their lineage back to this period (of immigration)" (LOL)
Well, here's the thing. If we accept the fact that there was Arab immigration to Palestine during and following the Ottoman period, after around 1880, it must follow that at least some are descendants of these immigrants. I honestly don't see what difference it makes for either side of the argument. Aside from entertaining you, this shouldn't be a big issue to work out.
  • "For example, the Wahabi tribe, originally from Arabia, has many decendents among today's Palestinians" (Good one, I thought we were Pashtun Afghanis myself))
I'm not sure where this comes from - from what I've read, Palestinians can trace their heritage to many places, including Greece. In any event, what difference does it make.
I believe there were also many members of the Sufi tribe in Ottoman Palestine. Palmiro | Talk 17:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Therefore, as Jewish populations increased, so did corresponding Arab populations"
I think you conceded as much - both Jewish and Arab populations increased at the same time. I realize there is a disagreement about causality, but it seems to me that improved economic conditions played a role.
  • "Yet, since the Jewish growth was outpacing the Arab influx, sometime in the early 1900s, tensions began to be noticable, laying the groundwork for Arab riots in the 1920s, recognizing that the Jewish track was to eventually dominate Palestine." (This causation is original research unless sourced).
I think we can be more precise here about causality. --Leifern 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, the following are clearly POV and/or OR (can be better-written):
  • "yet the Jews were eager to repopulate the land of their ancestors" (Jews paid ridiculous prices because they were eager - that is both POV and OR unless sourced)
"Eager," I agree, is a weasel term, but I'm not sure it's POV. There can be no question that the Jewish immigrants were highly motivated and idealistic, why else would they go to the trouble? Just as an example, the US was a much more attractive destination.
  • "in what had been a sparsely settled" POV - sparse compared to Boston maybe, but that's the population in Palestine.
I agree that "sparsely" is a relative term, but there can be no question that agricultural and industrial output increased dramatically during the time in question. I'm not sure this relates to population density, but it certainly relates to capital density.
  • "following new jobs and industries sparked by these investments" POV / OR
Among many others, see [21], there are huge bibliographies about this
  • "Many of the 'Palestinians' can trace their lineage back to this period" Placing 'Palestinians' between semi-quotes is blatant POV and propagandistic
I wouldn't have done that, but that would have been an easy thing to edit. However, a distinction must be made in this particular context between Palestinian Arab and Palestinian Jews.
  • "recognizing that the Jewish track was to eventually dominate Palestine." Original Research
Clearly this entry is, like Palmiro said, highly POV and propaganda in nature, and elements of it can stay if it is re-written. But it is structurally unsuitable (namely, the notion that Palestinians are descendants of Arabs who came to Palestine from the 'sultanate' to benefit from the Zionist enterprises - this is "From Time Immemorial"-style nonsense). Ramallite (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not currently in a position to contribute much to this debate (writing now from a random hotel room) but I'll mention one thing. The study of Karpat that summarises the 19th-century population of the whole Ottoman empire province by province (see Joan Peters for the citation!) shows that as a whole Palestine was one of the most densely populated parts. There were parts that were sparsely populated, so this does not contradict the travelers's tales about wastelands, but if the coastal plain is included the picture was quite different. A second point is that until the end of the century the economic impact of Zionist immigration was no more important than, say, the Germans. --03:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestine's economy was exceptionally buoyant from around the mid-1860's until World War I because it became increasingly integrated into the world economic system and was closely tied to the European economies. There's a fascinating contemporary report from German engineer Herr Schick ('Progress In Palestine' (The Times, 1880)), on the growth of the towns, westernization of the population, imports of European furniture, advances in agriculture, new settlements, new plantations, new factories, Ottoman investment in new military infrastructure etc, etc. One of the leading experts in this area is Gad Gilbar of Haifa University, according to whom "the bearers of this growth were primarily local Arab-speaking Muslims and Christians". For the rest of the analysis backed up by lots of relevant statistics see Gilbar's chapter in Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social and Economic Transformation (Brill, 1997). --Ian Pitchford 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So it's just a big concidence that this "exceptionally buoyant" economy emerged after educated Jewish immigrants began returning to Israel? Ahhh, I see. Aiden 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There were many factors involved in improving the economy, and the Zionist movement was just one (and in the mid-1860s, a negligible one as a matter of fact). There are many problems with your sarcasm here. First, not all Jews who came to Palestine were educated, and not all Muslims and Christians in Palestine were uneducated (as many supremacists love to claim - not that I assume you are one of them, but you'll see what I mean if you read, for example, propaganda by Bibi Netanyahu who actually wrote in his book that Israel built universities for the Palestinians, which is as absurd as can be). Second, a major factor (at least in Palestine) was Arab temporary emigration to Europe and the US, where they worked for a number of years and sent back a lot of money to their families back home. Also brought back a lot of trade and technology connections. This was certainly true of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Ramallah. Concurrently, there was a major movement of non-Zionist religious influx (protestants, catholics, Quakers, etc) that brought with them a lot of benefits including founding of new schools and establishing connections between Palestinians and Europe. This was all taking shape between 1870 and 1910. So pinning the entire buoyant economy on propaganda misrepresentation that suits a right-wing agenda is, well, just that. It's actually absurd to think that nobody had any interest in such a strategic location as Palestine, with its significant coastline, except for the Jews.Ramallite (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying there weren't a wide variety of factors, Ramallite. I was simply pointing out that Ian habitually omits Jews from any positive occurance. Aiden 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
My apologies if I misunderstood. Also, bear in mind Ian's source regarding the 1860s, and that the first wave of Aliyah didn't start until 1881, whatever that implies. Ramallite (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's right. The date is exactly the point. By 1880 the economy had been thriving for 25 years. --Ian Pitchford 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

But the article you mention was published in 1880, and though before the first major Aliyah, is subsequent to several Aliyah such as Hovevei Zion's in 1870. I'd have to rediscover the source, but I've also read that by 1860 the Jewish population of Jerusalem was more than that of Christians and Muslims combined. Some figures point to only roughly 411,000 Arabs in all of Palestine at that time. Even that is a liberal estimate considering an Ottoman census of 1893 points to only 414,648 Arabs. So exactly how much credit you give to one group or the other for economic revival is very speculative. —Aiden 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The Jewish fraction of the population of Jerusalem city probably passed the 50% mark in the 1870s, but Jerusalem was only a fraction of the Palestine total. In fact the Jewish economy of Jerusalem was severely depressed, with much of the population living in poverty, so its importance to the regional economy would have been even less than the population suggests. According to Justin McCarthy's book, the 1860 population of Palestine was about 3.5% Ottoman Jews, a few percent (exact figure unavailable) foreign Jews, 8.5% Ottoman Christians (similar comment on foreign Christians) and the remainder Muslim. Also, the 1893 Arab count was not as you say but about 500,000. --Zero 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a report in The Times on 5 June 1889 saying that the Jewish population in Jerusalem had reached 30,000 and that the city was growing rapidly owing to the influx of new immigrants. However, the report is from the London Jews Society in a letter asking for donations to support its work: "It should be remembered that the Jews of Jerusalem, though very poor, are in many ways deserving of help. They have been attracted to this town, not from any mercenary motives, but from the ardent desire to live and die in the city of their forefathers, made sacred to them by so many hallowed memories". ('The Jews In Jerusalem', pg. 16; Issue 32717; col C). The picture is one of a Palestine growing from the mid-1850's onwards because of large-scale structural changes in the economy (integration with the European and wider global economy) and limited Jewish immigration for religious reasons to Jerusalem, which had a depressed local economy. --Ian Pitchford 10:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Uncommenting out the section. This is pretty standard history, check Avneri for example. We have a separate article for POV slandering of Joan Peters :P Kuratowski's Ghost 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying that WMD in 2003 in Iraq is "pretty standard history, check Britney Spears for example". "The comments above by Zero and Ian refer to works that clearly show that this is definitely not standard history but misrepresentation at best, and probably a lot worse. Plus, there are severe POV problems with this paragraph which you ought to have recognized but didn't bother to address. Ramallite (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Questionable Passage

This passage seems questionable at best:

"British terminology applied the word Palestine to the part west of the Jordan River and Trans-Jordan (or Transjordania) to the part east of the Jordan River. This terminology was applied consistently during the Mandate period and it is difficult to find any official documents that use any name other than "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" when referring to the whole area of the Mandate. Nevertheless, the fact that "Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River continues even today to have significance in political discourse. (see History of Palestine, History of Jordan)."

First of all there is no sourcing given for this assertion. Secondly, the phrase "British terminology" and the general thrust of this paragraph is vague. What "terminology." By whom? There is no question that the Mandate itself applied to both sides of the river Jordan. What is the contradiction to this historic fact?

The overall thrust of this paragraph seems to be to contradict, without evidence, a historic fact. It detracts from the neutral POV of the article and should be removed if it cannot be substantiated. Even if it can be, to say that Palestine was "considered" is not correct. It indisputably was. --Mantanmoreland 17:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The passage seems fairly clear and fairly accurate. "British terminology" means the terminology used by the British government. For example, starting in 1924 the annual reports from the British government to the League of Nations are titled "REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN" (sorry about caps). This use of terminology was quite consistent from then on. --Zero 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. Transjordan was separately administered beginning in 1924. The language in the paragraph gives the mistaken impression that Transjordan was always referred to as such even prior to being split off from Mandatory Palestine in 1924.

I think that unless there is evidence for references to Transjordan prior to 1924, the language that I cited should be removed as misleading.

In any case, the use of the word "considered" unecessarily weakens what is an undisputed historic fact, which is that the original Palestine Mandate was on both sides of the Jordan River.----

In fact the name "Transjordan" or "Transjordania" appeared quite a while before it was separately governed, as the name of a poorly-defined geographic region (just as "Palestine" was poorly-defined). An example from 1921 (spelled "Trans-Jordania") is here. You can see that it refers to "Palestine and Trans-Jordania" both being included in the area of the Palestine Mandate, illustrating that even in 1921 British terminology sometimes restricted "Palestine" to west of the river. An example of a 1921 non-government usage is here. Official examples from 1922 are here and here. Those are not the earliest references in the English language; for example the Oxford English Dictionary lists a usage in 1898. --Zero 09:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites. it might be a good idea to link some of those sources to the item, and also add the phrase "and included in the Palestine Mandate" to the sentence above, as that is I think why it has significance in political discourse. --Mantanmoreland 15:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Transjordan" had no political significance prior to the division of the Mandate. The assertion that it did is nothing more than a blatant and rather shameless rewriting of history. That the area was called is not relevant. The passage in question falsely claims that the area east of the river was politically separate prior to the division, which is wishful thinking. References to "Trans-Jordania" from 1921 indicate that that a move was underway at least 3 years prior to the division of the Mandate to distinguish between the two, but (and hopefully this doesn't come as any great surprise) that's not proof of the statement that they were never both considered equally integral parts of "Palestine", it's only proof that geopolitical changes aren't spontaneous. That the OED refers to the area east of the river as Trans-Jordan as early as 1898 is even more moot, since at that time the area was a political nowhere backwater of the Ottoman Empire, and utterly irrelevant to the offical status of the territory once it became part of the Mandate. That said, the more important point is that Jewish settlers went to settle "Palestine" prior to the Mandate and settled "Palestine" indiscriminately on both sides of the Jordan. Tomertalk 10:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what your point is. The discussion above refers to geographic terminology and not to political or historical importance. --Zero 12:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This apply to 1948 war as well

Fawzi Kaukji has orgenized an army called "Rescue Army" in fact it had several parts "the Syrian Rescue Army" the Iraqi one, the Lebaneese one etc... Those non palestnian iregular forces ("militants") have invaded Palestine as Early as Jan 1948. In fact they took part in the decicive battle of Feb 1948 on Tirat Tzvi (Tirat Zvi) - after they lost that battle many Palestinians from the area just left to Jordan because they saw the lose as the first time orgenized Arab forces loosing to Jewish defenders of Tirat Tzvi.


The Arab_Liberation_Army article need to be corrected and include facts about the invasion of the army into Palestine already in early 1948 ( before the state was decalred: Zeq 18:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I add some sections?

Sorry to interrupt your lively debate, but can I add a couple of sections in this article?

I would like to add a section on demographics, describing the various groups of inhabitants of this land; and I would like to add a section on the geography of this land, you know the the physical features, rivers lakes etc.

I understand that there are already articles describing the geography and demographics of Israel, and those describing that of West BAnk and Gaza, however, I don't belive there are any that describe the geogrphy and demographics of the land of Palestine (i.e. that west of the Jordan River).

172.160.72.159 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Go for it. It's O.K. if there is overlap with other articles, especially with the vagaries of the boundaries of "Palestine." Sfahey 16:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is my first section:

Demographics of Palestine

Up until the 19th century, Palestine maintained a relatively stable population. Near the turn of the century, Palestine (according to Ottoman statistics) had a population of about 424,000 of which 98% were Arabs. The immigration Jews (and to an extent of Arabs), dramatically changed the demographics. By 1948, the population had risen to 1,800,000, of whom 66% were Arabs, and 33% were Jews.

In the second half of the 20th century the demographics have mainly been affected by the Palestinian exodus and Jewish immigration. Today the population of Palestine is about 10 million, of which 45% are Arabs and 54% are Jews. In addition there are also about 648,000 persons of Palestinian descent living in refugee camps outside Palestine.

The current growth rate of Gaza Strip (3.77%) and West Bank (3.13%) are much higher than that of Israel (1.2%). Consequently, the population of the Palestinian territories is quite young. The literacy rate of all areas is above 90%.

Migration patterns in Palestine vary. In the state of Israel (and its settlement holdings), the rate of immigration exceeds that of emigration. In the territories, however, the opposite is true.

The predominant ethnic groups are Arabs and Jews. The majority of the Arabs profess the religion of Islam, although there is a significant minority of Christians and Druze. Of the Jews the majority is Israeli-born, and the rest are immigrants from Europe, Russia, Middle East and other areas.

The breakdown of ethnic groups in each territory is as follows:

Territory Arab population % Arab Jewish population % Jewish Others % Others Total population
Israel 1,192,608 19% 5,027,783 80% 56,492 1% 6,276,883
Gaza Strip 1,368,031 99% 8,258 1% N/A N/A 1,376,289
West Bank 1,980,060 83% 405,555 17% N/A N/A 2,385,615
Total 4,540,699 45% 5,441,596 54% 56,492 1% 10,038,787
Data from the CIA World Factbook

What do you guys think? Stay tuned for the geography section. 172.162.189.144 04:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your pop figures for the end of the 19th century are not correct. The Ottoman Statistics for 1900 according to McCarthy, The Population of Palestine, were 499,000 Muslims, 63,800 Christians, 23,600 Jews who were Ottoman citizens and an unknown number (probably 10-20,000) of Jews who were not Ottoman citizens. Another thing is that referring to the same region as "Palestine" after 1948 is edit-war bait so it would be best to avoid doing that. --Zero 05:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The amount of people at the turn of the century is debatable. iF you insist, then will put up your figures, once the section is up.
Currently I'm looking for major stucture errors not small numerical ones (which no doubt can be easily edited later on).172.138.114.72 15:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe you would do better to put your additions/edits in the article instead of here. Be careful about using too many tiny paragraphs.Sfahey

I am always weary of making an article too long, I thik in this case though your info is more relavent than a lot which is currently there, maybe we should move some of the current sections which show history before say the 19th century to a history of Palestine article, anyone agree?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. This article should be about the general info of Palestine, such as geography, demographics, economy, the culture, religions and political status. History, ofcourse, is an important part, but should be kept minimal. Given the feedback, I think that people generally want me to put the section up.Bless sins 14:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This section is very problematic for several reasons, but first and foremost because any reference to Israel as a part of "Palestine" is naive at best and extremely POV at worst. What exactly is the point in referring to Israel, and independant country, as part of a political entity which ceased to exist in 1948?
While an independant Palestine may become reality, Israel will not be a part of it, and is considered by no-one (except some extreme Palestinians) a part of it today. There is no sense in including Israel's (i.e. post-1948) demographics in this article- unless giving today's US demographics in an article about the American Colonies makes sense to you.
In my opinion this article should (especially regarding demographics) limit itself to the period before 1948.
And some other points for improvement-
  1. As noted before- the Ottoman statistics are wrong (and have no reference).
  2. There was also an immigration of Arabs to Palestine, probably due to the improving economic situation. [22] [23]
If it seems I am overly aggresive I apologize, but I feel that in a subject as controversial and emotional as this, every effort be made to remain as impartial as possible.
-Sangil 19:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; the information included has little to do with the modern-day definition of Palestine, unless you support an agenda like that of Hamas, which insists on the destruction of Israel. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear 172.138.114.72
Whom was your section approved by? It is currently POV to a great degree. If you don't want it to be changed by others please amend it, or explain why population statistics of Israel are relevant.
-Sangil 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I was was under the impression that we weren't talking about the demographics of modern Israel, which I agree would be POV to put in this article. If we could find accurate statistics I think most people would agree with putting them up for the British mandate period, or the Ottoman period (which would be extremely unlikely to find accuratcy here).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right of course, the demographics of the British Mandate of Palestine, as well as of the Ottoman period, would be relevant.
However 172.138.114.72, who is the author of the section, disagrees, and has made many references, including a table (see above), to the population of present-day Israel.
-Sangil 23:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In the introduction, Palestine is described as follows:

Palestine (Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina, Arabic: فلسطين Filastīn or Falastīn, see also Canaan, Land of Israel) is one of many historical names for the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the banks of the Jordan River, plus various adjoining lands to the east and south.

Clearly, the "Land of Israel" is associated with Palestine(region). Not only that, Palestine is defined as a region "between the Mediterranean Sea and the banks of the Jordan River". There is nothing in there about a "State of Palestine". AS far as I'm concerned, this section is about a region not a country.

If you guys suggest that Israel is NOT a part of "Palestine(region)", you better change your introduction. Bless sins 08:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, why should demographics be limited to 1948, if the history section extends well beynd that date?Bless sins 08:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The key word is one of many names, just like Judea and Samaria is one of many names for the west bank, however in both of these cases it is extremly POV to only use those names. the other part about demagraphics I think goes along with this, plus in the history section it only talks about History that affects regions of Palestine which is not considered part of Israel (which is what the mainstream name of Palestine refers to anyways).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears some users here have a difficulty in understanding the current situation, so I will try to make it clearer:
  1. The 'geographic', 'political', whatever entity called Palestine in the sense which includes the land of present-day Israel ceased to exist in May 1948 and is no longer relevant. It is used in this context only by extreme Palestinians who do not recognize Israel.
  2. Therefore, in order to maintain NPOV, any use of the term "Palestine" in this 'wider' sense (i.e. area of British Mandate) should limit itself to the period before 1948. One cannot seperate geography and politics. Refering to the geography of a 'region' which ceased to exist as an entity implies this entity still exists. Any references to a date later than 1948 are as ludicrous (at best) as describing the 'demographics' of present-day Germany in an article about the Holy Roman Empire.
  3. Any reference to "Modern (i.e. post-1948) Palestine" will be automatically taken by many people to refer to the "Palestinian Territories"/"Palestinian Authority", as it is clear that the Palestinians wish to found a state called "Palestine". Therefore any article about Palestine post-1948 which refers to Israel is highly POV.
  4. The introduction should clearly state that while it deals with an area now belonging to Israel, the entity called "Palestine" ceased to exist after 1948, and therefore the article also does not go beyong this date.
-Sangil 11:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
So perhaps there should be no history beyond 1948 as well? The article should clearly state that Palestine ceased to exist as of 1948.
Secondly, would mind directing me to the article that talks about the region between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. (The article should not ignore the land and the peoples of West Bank and Gaza Strip) Bless sins 12:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you go to the Palestine (disambiguation) page, it defines "Palestine" as "geographical region in the Middle East." Once again, Palestine is referred to as a region and not state. And regions, as you know, do not go extinct (for example, the Middle East has changed hands many times, from Ottomans to Europeans, to Arabs; yet it has always been called Middle East)Bless sins 14:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, MSN encarta[24] describes "Palestine" as:

Palestine, historic region, the extent of which has varied greatly since ancient times, situated on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, in southwestern Asia. Palestine is now largely divided between Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories, parts of which are self-administered by Palestinians.Bless sins 15:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote you bring is perfect- it says that Palestine is now divided between Israel and the Territories- just what I requested. I think you will agree that the sections in the article regarding the history after 1948 have nothing to do with Palestine as a region, nor with the demographics etc. of Israel proper, but rather with the political entity "The Palestinian Territories" aka the West-Bank and Gaza Strip.
Regions of course do not become extinct, but usage of certain terms does- you will find no references to modern aspects of the 'region' of "India" which once included Pakistan, Burma etc. even though this region, as you say, did not become extinct. The *USAGE* of the term India to denote this area, however, is obsolete, if not offensive. It is the same here.
And yes, i think the history section also should end in the 1948 war (explaining *why* the term Palestine as a region fell out of use), and go no further
-Sangil 16:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that usage of terms go extinct. For example, India (region) has become "South Asia", and was also known as the "the Indian Subcontinent". Similarly the term "Christendom" has also been replaced by many other terms (I will not specify for brevity's sake). Therefore, when Palestine (the name) went extinct, it must hav been replaced by some other name (e.g. LAnd of Israel, Holy Land) ...whatever. The question is what is this region called now? Would you be so kind as to direct me to the article that talks about Israel and terrirtories in general? Bless sins 23:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
'India' did NOT become 'South Asia'. South Asia referes to a geographical region which includes the Indian Subcontinent (also a geographic term), among other areas. 'India' as a political entity which includes present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma (i.e. the British Empire "India") has no equivalent term today. It simply does not exist nowadays, under any name.
It is the same here. There is no *current* political term referring to both Israel AND the Palestinian territories unless you are a right wing Isareli (in which case you would simply use 'Israel'), or member of Hamas (in which case you would use 'Palestine', or something like that). Holy Land is a religious term, and Eretz Yisrael does refer to this region as a whole, but it is a Zionist/Jewish historical term and I think my Palestinian colleages would object to the use of this term in this case, just as I object to "Palestinian Territories' referring to Israel proper.
So, in answer to your question- what kind of article are you interested in? Historically, Eretz Yisrael, British Mandate of Palestine, and Palestine all refer to this region. Politically, there is no such article (there shouldn't be, anyways), just as there is no article that talks about "Mexico and Texas" or "Japan and Korea" in a current political context. I hope I answered your question..:)
-Sangil 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

removing Some History sections

I removed all the History sections that is not directly relavent to anything up to the 20th century. The article is already too long, and there is already a History of Palestine section with a link to this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is the general article for Palestine and the article is not 'too long.' You've removed a large amount of historical background information relevent to its name, religious importance, and other contextually important information. —Aiden 01:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
We already have a history of Palestine article which is linked to the page. I don't see why this is such a conflict, the other article is virtually the same as the info I removed. I don't see why it makes sense to repeat the same information. When I brought it up in the previous talk section people seemed to agree with me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
A large amount of material in this page is not anywhere else in Wikipedia. I don't agree with your deletions, and I don't understand why you think only the 20th century is important. --Zero 03:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, I guess I was wrong, I thought at least some people would agree with me, oh well- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree. I think a short historical overview is appropriate. However currently this section is much too long, and is mirrored by another article ("History of Palestine"). IMO this sectioned should be drastically shortened. If someone disagrees with this please justify your position.
Another issue- until the British removed it from their mandate in the early 1920's, Trans-Jordan (at least the area near the Jordan river) was part of Palestine (examples-during Roman and Crusader rule). If the area encompassing present-day Israel is mentioned, so should areas which are located in present-day Jordan.
-Sangil 08:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This article should cover the historical geography of Palestine. This is different from the political, cultural and demographic history that History of Palestine seems to be focussed on. For example, the various usages of the word "Palestine" through the ages is covered in this page, but for history in general those things are less important. Of course there is no sharp boundary so there is some overlap and some choice about where particular items go. But, please, do not delete material from this page unless it is really covered elsewhere not just in general terms but in details. The details on this page were quite an effort to compile. --Zero 12:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll add: details of the 1948 war and who rejected or accepted whatever proposal by whom is a fine example of what does not belong here. --Zero 12:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we're all agreed there should be no overlap. As for what actually goes here, your suggestion sounds good, historical geography here, political etc. there. Are you up to separating the topics? Should this article be renamed Historical geography of Palestine? Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding stupid- what is historical geography? Does geography have a history?
I thought that mountains, lakes and such don't move around very much..:)
-Sangil 18:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical geography means what the area has included in various periods of history. For example Historical armenia is much larger than modern Armenia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestine_(region)/Archive_6&oldid=1251519365"