Talk:West Bank barrier/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

weaslespeak or Why I reverted Marsden

Marsden edits are clearly one sided POV and uses "weaslespeak" such as "israel claim" Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms

" In some areas the route diverges from this line, in many cases to include Jewish settlements on the Israeli side of the barrier. Israel claims that these divergences are justified on the basis that they frustrate acts of terrorism directed against Israeli population centers."

His view is that the route was only designed to include settlments while the excuse is security. Some would say that security is the issue . This is part of the controversy.

Zeq, to say that something is "justified" means that it is morally correct. "Israel claims that x is justified because ..." is clearly, in my opinion, more NPOV than "Israel justifies x by noting ..." Regards. Marsden 14:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. -- "... to include Jewish settlements ..." can be read two ways: first, as just indicating effect; second, as indicating intent. If you'd like to change to wording to clarify that no intent should be read into the statement, that would seem very reasonable to me. Marsden 14:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, you have that exactly the wrong way round. Israel justifies X by noting ... is better English and more NPOV than Israel claims X is justified. By using "claims," you're hinting that the assertion is not correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

So, by implication, not using "claims" more strongly suggests that Israel is correct? Which of the following is true beyond any reasonable doubt: that Israel claims that the divergences are justified because they frustrate terrorism; or that the divergences are justified because they frustrate terrorism? Marsden 15:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not using "claims" avoids the view that Wikipedia doesn't believe them. If you have to use that sentence constructions, what's wrong with "says"? "Israel justifies X" is not the same as saying "X is justified". This is just a question of good English. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like "says" -- that could almost mean that the receptionist who answered the phone at the embassy gave the opinion. How about something along the lines of, "It is Israel's position that ...?" Marsden 16:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. -- what would you think of a statement that "the PFLP justifies terrorist attacks by noting that they are necessary in a legitimate struggle for national liberation?" Marsden 15:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If I had to use this construction (and I wouldn't), I would write something like: "The PFLP justifies its attacks by saying they are necessary to further what it sees as a legitimate struggle for national liberation." Not brilliant English, but not POV either, and better in both senses than: "The PFLP claims its attacks are justified by saying ..."

I have no idea what Marsden is thinking, but I do know that your reversion makes this POV again. That the route diverges from the line is not a "claim", it is a fact. The second half of the sentence is a reason given for this fact, and Israel claims one reason (security for "Israeli population centers" which means settlements). Palestinians claim another reason. The way you wrote your sentence, you write it as if it is an uncontested fact when it is actually the POV of one of the two parties. I can revert you now and you won't be able to revert back because you have reached your 3RR limit, but I won't.

I will give you a chance to correct it, and I will be working on a thoroughly revised text in the meantime. But I must ask you yet again: DO add more information to balance the article, DO NOT remove properly sourced text just because you don't agree with it.

Answer : You can revert what ever you want to revert if you think this is the proper way to reach consensus or Neutarlity. In any case anecdutal stories that only dramatize the subject will be removed, jsut as you shortemed to 2 lines, the summery of what was the terror situation inn israel PRIOR to when the barrier was built so we should strive to have the "effect on palestinians" summerized in the same way - without too much drama. Zeq 19:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Also please find a source for "the NAD they have often been arbitrarily closed for extended periods leading to loss of crops at times of security alerts", or else it is your OR.

I provided a source for that.

What are you trying to claim that israel arbitrarly close the gates ? Israel could avoid builduing Gates if all it wanted was to prevent access.

You know why those gates are closed. Because there are days when there are alerts of suicide bombers on the way.

It is amazing that this whole article does not include the word "suicide bombers"......... Zeq 19:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You also removed "63 shops set up to circumvent the blocking from Israeli shoppers of one of the few thriving Palestinian commercial centers behind the barrier " which explains why the ramshackle mall was there, this was properly sourced.

Answer: YOu are giving an explanation to why shops were where they are, you are using the exitense of the barrier in this explanation, Yet the whole issue is that the shops were destroyed BEFORE the barrier was built.....

Does not make any sense ? and also this quote does not add anything to issue at hand.

You want to bring the truth about Nazalt Isa. Bring it. You know the truth:

The barrier was deep in the west bank in that area. There was pressure on israel to move it to the green-line. So Israel moved it EXACTLY to the green-line.

About a year BEFORE that move (and 6 month BEFORE the move) Israel destroyed few shacks that were ileagly built on the green-line (where the no man land used to be until 1967) Zeq 19:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "after giving their owners 30-minutes notice" was in the UN report that you brought to my attention, and it seems to be a claim. If you don't like it, find a source that says that they had 5 days notice. But don't delete it,

Answer: I will continue to delete it because it has nothing to do with the barrier itself or it's affect on the palestinians.

The issue is were those legal demolitions or not legal.

If they were leagl then 5 minutes, 5 days is not the issue. If they were not legal why no one filled a petition with Israel's supreme court ?

You can not say thaty the court is cooperating with everything the goverment does. Every day it issue another rulling in favor of Palestinians and against the goverment (and I am glad about it)

So when there is no court chalange the owners know why (they know more than you) and the only thing left is for anti-israel propeganda to make claims. Zeq 19:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

it demonstrates the effects of building the barrier (i.e. quick demolition of business places) on Palestinians. Lastly, you keep removing "The report notes that more freedom of movement in rural areas may ease Palestinian access to hospitals and schools, but also notes that restrictions on movement between urban population centers have not significantly changed [1]" for no reason. You included one half of the sentence but not the second half, and that is not nice of you. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, your long long entry pasted from another website about the NAD yesterday, what's your point? I don't understand what you are trying to claim. And if you respond, please make a short quick reply and not pages of more quotes. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In my edit I included both. He keeps reverting it to his one sided view. I tried to accomodate him by applying the suggestion in wikipedia contriversial subject guidelines but to no avail. He just want his POV. It does not work this way here. Zeq 13:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marsden that some wikipedia editors are evil cause they support ethnic cleansing or genoside. For the record, let me clearly say that I support the two state solution and restoration of all rights to palestinians in the occupied terrotories.

However my political beliefs are my own. In wikipedia we should still edit according to guidelines not POV.

about NAD

Rammalite asked what is the point about NAD.

Nad, which has been used as a source for some of the info in this article. Is actually a goverment funded multi million dollar prpeganda operation based in Ramalla employing over 20 PR specialists. Is this what we should be using as a source ? Zeq 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

First section of this article is again non neutral

The firstsection should give an explanation what this barrier is, who build it where and why.

By Focusing on the "Where" with the settlments issue and avoiding giving same sapce to the terror issue it is again non neutral.

The fence/barrie (call it what you want) was something that the settlers were against.

It was Israel grassroots movments (such as this http://www.hagader.com/English/about_hagader.asp ) which forced the goverment to build the barrier and they specifically said this to the settlers and the goverment :

"It is appropriate to leave the subject of the exact location of the security fence to the discretion of the Israeli government, but it is already obvious that this fence, the length of which is estimated at hundreds of kilometers, must create a complete separation between the Palestinian population and the Israeli population. This security fence could create, within a relatively short period of time, effective protection for the inhabitants of the state of Israel.

What Will Become of the Jewish Settlements?

It is impossible to include within the protected zone all of the isolated settlements in the areas of Judea and Samaria, as some of them are located deep within the occupied territories, far from the “Green Line”. Nevertheless, the movement is of the opinion that the protected zone should include large Israeli concentrations of population in Judea and Samaria and the strategic divide in the Jordan Valley, in which there is almost no Palestinian population."

The barrier is not about settlments, it is to protect the 95% of israelis who DO NOT live in settlements. Going into the route issue before the section that intreduce the controversy without giving equal space to the issue that broght the need for the barrier is non-neutral. If some word I used is non nuetral it can be changed but once again those balnket reverts are not helping the creation of a NPOV article. Zeq 18:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I did some revisions

I did some revisions on the first few sections, even though there is still too much redundancy. I tried to incorporate everybody's arguments but I only made it to the bottom of "Effects on Israeli Security". In case some wonder why it's so short compared to the "Effects on Palestinians" section after it, I just couldn't find too many sources about "effects" that don't say the same thing: It's brought down terrorism, in some areas it's down to zero, it's working! End of story! As for Zeq, I am still not done with the Effects on Palestinians (although I reverted it to my version because it's easier to work from), but I don't think you noticed that you repeated yourself in many places. Also, you added something about "security alert" when the NAD said that the gates are sometimes arbitrarily closed, but the NAD didn't say anything about security alerts. In some other places I removed sourced info to either shorten the phrases because the point is already made, or because the sources were not relevant (like the USA think tank that made up an imaginary water agreement that you cited as a real agreement). I tried to incorporate a lot of your work in the beginning of the article, but have not been over the "Effects on Palestinians" yet. Let me know what you think so far. That goes for everybody else too. Oh, and I didn't spell check thoroughly because I'm terrible at it. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: Your focus on the Palestinian POV is non neutral. What you did is a major revert (for example you ignored my comment on the word "now" in the Qalqiliya section and just started to edit from your own tprevious text. Then you added the weasleword "claimed" on the reason why the wall was built)

Zeq- read the article:

The Israeli government states that the purpose of the barrier is to prevent the infiltration of terrorists. The NAD claims that a true security measure would entail Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and building of a barrier on "Israel's side of the (border with the West Bank)"

let just look at the first section of the article is focus on the route and the harm it cause Palestinians. What is missing there is :

Zeq- read the articleRamallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The reason it was built (terror)

The Israeli Supreme Court made reference to the conditions and history that led to the building of the barrier.. stated that these actions...did not provide a sufficient answer to the immediate need to stop the severe acts of terrorism. . . . Despite all these measures, the terror did not come to an end. The attacks did not cease. Innocent people paid with both life and limb. This is the background behind the decision to construct the separation fence (Id., at p. 815) Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

2. The fact that it stopped terror

Israeli statistics indicate that the barrier has drastically reduced the number of Palestinian infiltrations and suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians in Israel. During the twelve month period from August 2003 to July 2004 three suicide bombers launched attacks from areas where the barrier has been completed which resulted in no deaths or injuries. In contrast during the preceding twelve months, from September 2002 to August 2003, 73 attacks were successfully carried out from these areas, in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1,950 were wounded. According to other statistics, the number of Israelis murdered by terrorists coming from areas where the barrier was built dropped to zero in the first half of 2004, as opposed to 46 in 2003 before the barrier was built.Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

3. The fact that israel deny it is a permanenet border (and indeedcmade numerous changes to the route)

The Security Fence that is being built is intended to counter terrorism of the most brutal kind, not to dictate a border that is and remains the subject of permanent negotiations. It is our hope that by building this fence its very function will become irrelevant and that one day it will be dismantled.[5]. I can make it more clear.Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

and more....

There are mistakes in fact as the court siad clearly that it is not the IDF alone who will decide on the route. The court said the route must be such that affect on the palestinians can be minimized and proportional and clearly said that the court itself will be involved in looking at the route segment by segment and everywhere it will violate humanitiarian int'l law it must be changed. You have not included att all the fact that the route is a compromise between security needs and rights of palestinians.

Show me the quote and I'll be happy to add it.

I can go on and on on the changes you have done.

Remember I'm not done yet, and please point out briefly where the other problems are.

I will give it a chance for other editors to look at all the material I provided and you deleted (like maps showing how close is the green-line to Tel-aviv etc...)

That map was listed as a source for the reason to build the barrier, but had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for the barrier, it was just a map about the proximity of the West Bank to Israeli cities. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This article as it is now is mostly reperesenting the Palestinian POV. Why don'y we just put a link to nNAD_PLO, the palestinian, goverment sponsered propeganda operation based in rammalla and get it over with ?

Because that would not represent the Israeli POV.

Alternatvily look at what I have done: I am not against including material that the barrier cause Palestinians who live next to it.

The human rights sources you provided do not say the barrier only affects those who live next to it. That seems to be something you are trying to push, but is not supported. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Heckm, I even gave you source material about it you did not have.

I don't understand.Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You on the other hand removed source material that show the other side.

I added the Israeli government, and removed this International Christian media thing that was just quoting Maariv and the government with its own twist !Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

So I am avoiding a revert out of resepect to you and will give a chance to restore and to other editors to work on this barrier. Zeq 06:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to work more this evening.

Also worth noting is that you removed sourced material that talked about the issue but on the other hand added data that has really noting to do with the barrier (such as the 30 minutes warnning that was given prior to demolitions of ileagaly construted shacks that were build exactly on the green-lines' no mans land (in Nazlat Isa) without ant building permit.

You are the one who added that the shacks were demolished in order to move the barrier to the green line. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Basiccaly you have reverted a lot of work that was done already.

Actually, a few editorial changes are not "a lot", and I added Israeli government sources, which were underrepresented (and still are by the way).

What I learn from all this is that the suggestion (by slim and others) to discuss before making changes does not really work in this article.... rules can not apply just to one side. It takes two to Tango. Zeq 06:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You have never tried it before, how do you know? Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you work for NAD ?

Rammalite I looked at the changes you made to "effect on israeli security" (such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=25180710&oldid=25179950)

Are you saying they are good or bad (in your opinion of course)? I added material to show the barrier has really worked from the Israeli perspective. But more could be added Ramallite ^(talk) 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that arguments made in this propeganda material http://www.nad-plo.org/facts/wall/WallMagazine%207-2005.pdf (such as that the wall actually does not save lives and does not increase Israel security ) have found their way into this article.

These statements have not found their way into the article, just like a lot of Israeli gov't statements haven't either. But the NAD source is a legitimate Palestinian source, even if it not everybody agrees with it. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me be clear: There are two groups who don't like the wall.The two groups are: Palestinians who are against the two state solution and Settlers who are against the two state solution.

I absolutely disagree. Are you saying that those who favor the 2-state solution support the wall? Read the UN sources that you provided, to see if those who favor the 2-state solution agree with the barrier as you say. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Each of these groups think, that by using force (and God) they will eventually drive the other people out. The Palestinians who object the two setate solution and the settlers all see a big problem in the wall: It creates a border, a demarcation line.

That is exactly what the NAD says. You must work for them too!! :) Ramallite ^(talk) 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

So natually, both of thse groups are trying to show that the wall is bad and not working. WE should represent this on this article but not in the way you have done.

Since I am sure you are not a settler but I know you are from Ramalla I wonder if you are one of those paid 20-30 researchers and PR experts in NAD ?

Please tell me I am wrong but I must say that you are doing a good job and if you work for them they should give you a raise: You have exccelent english and you are very presistent in pushing your POV into this and other articles. Zeq 07:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning is that since I am a Palestinian who speaks good English and knows how to read UN reports, I must work for a propaganda Palestinian organization that is against the 2-state solution. I have encountered this often: when a Palestinian has good English and knows a thing or two about human rights, he/she automatically is compared to right-wing extremists on the other side. This is prejudice. I'll introduce some of my own POV just for you, Zeq: I don't see peace happening as long as one side tries to impose on the other what it would not accept for itself. If Israelis don't want to be separated from each other by military barriers, it is a mistake to think that imposing it on Palestinians will lead to peace. As for my job, I am not sure what you asked is appropriate, but my page explains what I do, and you can decide for yourself if NAD has a need for people like me.;) Ramallite ^(talk) 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No. That is not what I said. The problem is that you sue propeganda material by a well finanace PR office (NAD) and what you wrote on the barrier is very similar to the ridiculaus claim they make. Let's make one thing clear: It is the suicide bombings which built the wall. Israel govrement did not want it. The settlers did not want it. The Palestinians who are against the two state solutions did not want it.

But the Israeli public grass root effort eventualy made the goverment build it. This is an important part of the story and it is not mentiond here. The fact that the Israeli goverment choose and evil and stupid route for that wall and that the israeli courts are now correcting the goverment error is mentioned but not in a balanced way. The fence started as a grass roots effort: http://www.7th-day.co.il/hayom-hashvie/fence.htm

The current revision of wikipedai article about the wall needs a major change to adapt it from propeganda to reality.

Zeq 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You know very well that most of the barrier does what it is supposed to do. Between israelis and Palestinians. In some places the route is wrong and harm palestinians. But it is not what you are trying to make it to be. Zeq 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You asked: "Are you saying that those who favor the 2-state solution support the wall?" I said that those who ooopse the two state solution ooopse the wall cause it creates a demarcation.

But many Palestinian propeganda (like NAD) can not openly say they are against the two state solution (They use euphamisms like "Right of Return" that they hope will turn israel into a palestinian Majority country. So they claim that the wall prevents two states while in effect this is exactly what the wall does : It divide the land by having (mostly) Israelis on one side and (mostly) Palestinians on the other. No wonder the settlers are against it. No wonder the Hmams is against it. But why those who claim to support the notion of separating to two countries that will live in peace are against it ? do they want continued suicide bombs attacks ? I prefer the current situation where the calm facilitiate israeli withdrawals (such as north west bank and Gaza) and maybe even a return to negotaiation.(hopefully)

Zeq 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know what I know, stop claiming that I do. You have no idea what it's like to live behind the barrier, and I'm not going to talk about it either because it's not relevant. According to Palestinian, Israeli, and international sources, the barrier is having a much larger humanitarian effect than what it is "supposed to do". Since you seem to be complaining about my contributions to the article, and since you seem to be claiming that the Israeli court is the most neutral source, why don't you consider one of the following:

1- Start an alternative article on your own talk site, for example here, and write in it everything you want. You can cut and paste this article to your page and do it there. Afterwards, we can compare and see what it is exactly what you are trying to say. It seems to me that most of what you are complaining about being missing is in the article.

2- Ask me to stay away from this article for a period of time (a week? 2 weeks?) and I will gladly do so. Then you can insert everything you want without having to worry about discussing them here. Afterwards, we can discuss again.

Let me know what you think. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

p.s. One of the chief people at the NAD has no problem stating he supports the One State solution[2], but that is not relevant for this article. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Kibutz Metzer - How it became a house hold name in Israel

Israel’s security fence opposed by many from The Israeli Kibbutz Metzer

In 2002 Israel began constructing a security fence to reduce the number of Palestinian terrorist attacks into ‘pre-1967’ Israel from Palestinian population centres and villages (see Beyond Images Briefing 5 – The Security Fence). Many Kibbutz Metzer members protested against the implementation of the plan. They were concerned that the route of the security fence would cut through olive groves belonging to a neighbouring Palestinian village, Kafin. They claimed that the fence would deprive Kafin farmers of about 60% of their fields, and that the fence should be rerouted along the so-called ‘Green Line’ – ie the pre-1967 border – in order to overcome the problem. A meeting was scheduled to take place on Monday 11 November with Israeli Defence Ministry officials at which Kibbutz members were to have argued this case on behalf of their Arab neighbours.

Attack by Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade Gunman

The meeting did not take place. The night before, Sunday 10 November, a lone Palestinian gunman entered the Kibbutz. He approached the home of 34 year old Revital Ohayon, fired two shots at the front door, kicked it open and entered the bedroom of Revital Ohayon’s children Matan (5) and Noam (4). She had just finished reading them a bedtime story, and at that moment was on her mobile phone to her ex-husband. She tried to shield the boys, but the gunman shot both boys dead at point blank range. He then shot her. The gunman killed two other adult kibbutz members - the 44-year old secretary of the Kibbutz, and a woman – before fleeing. The Palestinian Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, which is the so-called “military” wing of Yasser Arafat’s PLO organisation, claimed responsibility for the attack. Kibbutz official: “we need the strength to remember our message…” Israel was rocked by the attack. Heart-rending images of the childrens’ blood-stained bedroom were broadcast across the country. Yet despite the emotion of the moment, here are comments made shortly after the attack by Dov Avital, the new secretary of Kibbutz Metzer:- “Although the thirst for revenge is natural, we need the strength to remember our message, and remain firm believers in our desire to live in peace with our neighbours….” “We are not Quakers or anything. I believe that the IDF has to go after and kill these terrorists, but the government needs to remember that most Palestinians are not terrorists, and that it is imperative to give them a diplomatic horizon. There is no other solution….”

Beyond Images Comments

?The murders in Kibbutz Metzer demonstrate - yet again – the random cruelty and total senselessness of Palestinian violence.

The ultimate irony is that the Kibbutz had long promoted coexistence and cooperation with the Arab villages around them. Yet this did not shelter them from the crime inflicted that night. We also learn a lesson in the strength of Israel’s society. Dov Avital reminded fellow Kibbutz members that “we need to remember the strength of our message”. Those words apply not only to the Kibbutz but, arguably, to Israel as a whole, and help to explain its peoples’ resilience. After more than two years of sustained violence against Israeli men, women and children (see Beyond Images Briefing 48), and the collapse of expectations for a peaceful resolution, many wonder what gives Israeli citizens the strength to continue their day-to-day lives. Perhaps the key lies in Dov Avital’s words. Israel only exists because of “the strength of its message”: that the Jewish people – left, right, religious, secular - desire a land in which to live securely, and to have the opportunity to develop that society in coexistence with its neighbours. It is only that “message” which gives Israelis the strength to overcome the challenges they currently face.

http://www.beyondimages.info/005.html http://www.beyondimages.info/b22.html Zeq 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Prolog

After the fence was hastly built in this area. Israel Minstry of defense decided to accept the Kibutz request andmove the barrier to the grren-line. (see map 1 on page 3 of http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/Barrierupdate7mar04.pdf )

A year before building the new fence on the green-line, 63 stals and 7 homes in Nazalat Isa (built without permit in the 1980s on what was until 1967 the no mans land between Israel and Jordan) were demolished. No court petition to stop the demolition was ever filled. Every demolition is always done after at least 30 days notice is given to owners so that they can file court petition to stop the demolition. Those who have valid cases do so. The route of the new fence/wall is next to the demolished shacks. Now ask your self what should be in the encyclopedia ?

No doubt, the issue that the (ilegal) shacks were destroyed with a 30 minutes warnning is the most critical aspect of this story. Anyone reading wikipedia will surly think so.

The word "illegal" is POV - since the people who live there are Palestinians under Israeli rule, they do not recognize the term "illegal" as valid since the whole occupation is, according to them, illegal. (should have been signed by ramallite)

Every word is POV in your mind, unless you use it. Israel is a country of law, The int'l humantirian law apply in the occupied territories. So don't confuse the issue by blaming always the occupation. . If the homes were legal why is there no court petition to stop the demolition. You may not like the law but it is the law saying that the law is the law must be POV as well Zeq 18:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"illegal" is not neutral in this sense, the neutral phrase is "without Israeli permits", because "illegal" makes it look like it is common opinion, whereas Palestinians claim that the Israeli occupation is itself "illegal" according to International Law, so according to Palestinians, it doesn't make sense for an "illegal" occupation to say that something is "illegal". But you are right, that is one POV. therefore, the neutral phrase is "without Israeli permits", and even then there should be a source.Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Shimon Peres once said that if it was not for palestinian terror israel would end the occupation years ago. IMHO, palestinians and the settlers have the same goals: To continue the war until the winner takes all.

Thank you for your opinion (which is not very humble actually), just make sure you don't try to inject it into the article. In the 1980s terror was defined as making speeches and throwing stones, there were no bombs, and the occupation didn't end. If that is what Peres said, then here is something that Saeb Erekat said after Abu Mazen was elected: he said that it wouldn't matter if Palestinians elected Mother Teresa as their president, the Israelis would find a way of claiming she a terrorist [3]. So you see, there is a lot of statements made on both sides.

Or may be we should take UNRWA words to describe the current situation (well sourced:-) "The new Barrier constructed at Nazlat Isa has isolated a small community west of the Barrier and east of the Green Line."

Has anyone bothered to look at the map and ask himself : what does UNRWA means by "Isolated behind the barrier" ? A quick look at the map would give the answer The palestinian town of Nazalt Isa is now "isolated" from israel on the green-line. So if this as NAD and all others who claim "move the wall to the green-line" really want ? So why are they complaining about the route of the wall in Nazalt Isa ? I'll tell you why (original research since I have friends there)

They were VERY happy when the wall was in the west bank (isolated them from the rest of the west bank) and they had direct access into Israel for work. Now they are "isolated" on the palestinian side and they don't like it. They are not the only one. Palestinian Residents of east Jerusalem have just filled a petition with the Israeli court asking that the wall will be moved, wait not toward the green-line but away from the green-line so that they would be on the "israeli" side. I did not invent this story this is a petition pending before the court - I kid you not. reality is not what NAD want you to believe.

Zeq 16:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok Zeq - you have made your points (believe me you have). Since there are so many sources that show that the Palestinians (the NAD) are liars and they are actually really happy about the barrier, I strongly encourage you go with one of my two suggestions - just start writing your version of this article on an alternative page (like here) and have other editors help you. When you are finished, then everybody can agree on which article to use, or how to combine the two. Palestinians in Nazlat Issa, I assume you are saying, were happy because they now had access to jobs in Israel without competition from other Palestinians, and now they are angry because they also no longer have access. This is all "relative" happiness based on a population under occupation and a very very bad economy, and is not a recipe for peace. The Kibbutz Metzer terrorist attack was incredibly horrible and hugely embarrassing for most Palestinians, and if Israel hadn't destroyed most of the police stations in 2001-2002, things maybe would have been very different. I would go after the Kibbutz Metzer terrorists myself if I could. In Jerusalem, the residents have given up on the barrier being removed completely (the Israeli high court rejected a petition to remove it), so now their only option left is to try to keep it as far away from them as possible. These Palestinians do not have Palestinian ID cards, they have Israeli ID cards, so they only have access to Israeli facilities, and their schools and hospitals (and family) are in Jerusalem. If the wall is built at its current route, they will be cut off from Jerusalem, but will also not be able to have any benefits from the PA because they do not have Palestinian IDs. Please present all the facts, but not here. This page has had enough. Please start writing the article the best way you see fit. And if you do want to write more on this discussion page, please consider making your entries short and

without

so many

spaces

like this.

Thanks! Ramallite ^(talk) 17:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You have missed my point compeletly and please don't be so sarcastic. (I like your Humor but please be serious)

Sorry, I was trying to make a point, because it's still difficult to understand what you want exactly. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Point number 1: If we are to use anecdotutal data that dramatize the issue (Like 30 minutes warnning for demolition of few shacks or " the most fertile land" we will use this over drmatiztion for both sides: We will intreduce into this article sentnces like "Palestinians terrorists killed in cold blood the most innocent children" "the Palestinians only gave the mother 0.5 second warrning before murdering her and her children"

This is from the source you provided, not my own words. You showed me many sources and I used them. Now you don't like these sources anymore. And your example about 0.5 second warning is rubbish, because nobody defends the actions of terrorists (except of course the terrorists), but Israel always defends its actions which is why they are held to higher scrutiny, and I'm guessing that is why the UN included it in their report Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Point number 2:

There are israelis who are against the barrier There are israelis who support it There are israelis who are in favor of the barrier but object it's route There are Palestinians who are against any border between israel and Palestine (even if it is on the green-line) There are Palestinians (mostly farmers) who are truly hurt by the barrier route that seprate them from their land (but Israel trying to accomodate them in some way) I am not saying they don't suffer. They do suffer and we should represent that and the effort Israel doing to mitigate it. There are palestinian who (even if they don't say it outloud) are benefiting from the calm and reduction of military checkpoints that the calm enabaled.

This is like saying "there are prisoners who, even if they don't say it out loud, are benefitting from the free food, television, and room they are getting instead of being chased after by the police all the time". I am not here to press what we think or who we think is benefiting from the wall, all we can do is cite proper sources (including the PLO and Israeli governments). Ramallite ^(talk) 19:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You choose to present here only one view: That of the PLO (via their NAD propeganda ) The UN (on all it's instituations) is anti_israel, pro PLO and was even abale to get a (poorly reasoned) verdict from the ICJ justifying the palestinian position.

If you carefully read my edits from this morning, you will see that I did not only present one view. Please read my additions carefully. The NAD is not quoted as much as the Israeli government, the UN, Btselem, and other reports are in this article. Also, I don't recall ever touching the ICJ part, that was written before I joined Wikipedia. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

We should represent here all views. Without too much drantizations. You actaully prooved that you can do it (when you sumerized the 3 paragrphes from israel supreme court to 2 lines)

First you said it was excellent, then you objected, and now you like it again. Make up your mind!! Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you can start by restoring all the reverts during your recent major edit you got rid of many of my previous contributions)

I didn't revert, I added (and subtracted repetitive text, like Jenin was already mentioned, and this article is not about Gaza, or about a hypothetical barrier in the Jordan valley). If I revert to your version, I re-introduce all the problems that I told you were there before: Repetitive text, incorrectly sourced material, too much elaboration about a single checkpoint which you say doesn't even exist, etc). Also, for example, you entered a couple of sentences about the August 2005 report, but these were already entered in the same section at the bottom. I think this also goes for the March 2005 report, but I can't remember. Anyway, compare the two versions carefully, you'll see what I mean. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If you will not revert yourself I will. Do you want to just keep reverting each other (I don't but you do not leave me any other option)

For the third time, I'm recommending that you go ahead and write an article that suits your taste - if you do it on your page here, nobody can touch it except you, and when you are finished, you can tell all the other editors about it and see if people agree to use your version instead of the version that is here now. I don't know about you, but that seems to me like "an option". Ramallite ^(talk) 19:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: You had clearly reverted and edited from that point. Major parts of my work from the last few days are now missing from the article. So if your claim is that you "did not revert" I 'll give you a chanse to interudce your changes with a neutral POV as a base. Your suggestion that I write a seprate article on my page will not work. We will have to mege at some point and that is going to be a headcae. I suggest that we both edit this article but that avoid removing neutral info and stop dramtaizing the subject with such stories as a "30 minutes warning". Also I would suggest that you avoid NAD based propeganda as a source. Zeq 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I will gladly handle the headache of merging articles. However, in response to your statement, can you please give me a list of what you say I took out from what you wrote? A lot of it is moved, but the only significant chunck removed was the story about the benefits to Jenin residents because somebody already had written it before and it was there (shorter). Please give me a brief list of what you claim I removed and I will either explain to you if (or why) I did or show you that it is still there. I commented out the 30 minute statement even though I completely disagree that it is "drama", and I removed the "now" from the road into Qalqilya. Also, the second introduction paragraph at the top of the article is mainly yours. Lastly, this sentence that you insist on: "The reduction from a previous figure was due to an easing of the closures in Qalqiliya (population 45,800). While the city remains encircled by the Barrier, the checkpoint at the entrance of Qalqiliya is not manned" has nothing to do with the paragraph that it is in. I know you got it from the UN source, but I still doesn't make (contextual) sense. Maybe you can explain what this statement has to do with the paragraph, which explains that, after Israel moved the barrier, less Palestinians were stuck between it and the Green Line. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Bantustans"

I do not want to participate in (nor get in the way of) the revert war that is going on here, but I did have to make one change to Ian Pitchford's most recent rewriting of the second paragraph, for as long as it remains. I edited out the reference to "Bantustans." In light of the separation of the "Apartheid Wall" issue into its own article (which of course has had its own controversies), I think it is inappropriate to re-introduce the "apartheid" issue into this article through the reference to "Bantustans." Removal of that reference required certain other editing but I tried to keep it to a minimum. As I said, I suspect it is not going to matter for long but the "Bantustan" reference seemed glaring enough to require immediate action. 6SJ7 16:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "Bantustan" is a direct quote from Palestinian sources. I have not used it and do not think it is a good idea to insert it, but in general, when certain words are directly from the source, they are normally allowed as long as they are attributed to that source specifically. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't think what is going on is an "edit war" since that usually entails back-and-forth reverting until the 3RR limit has been exhausted. I actually do not think that my version omits what Zeq included, in fact, I have tried to include and clarify his POV and even omitted my own sourced edits to counter his objections. The only thing I feel is missing from my edits (apart from a lot of redundancy and language problems) is more elaboration under "Effects on Israeli Security". I have asked an editor who is familiar with this to take a look, but do not know if he/she will have time or interest. If you are interested, please feel free to have a go at it. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It may very well be a direct quote from Palestinian sources, but I don't think that is the point. I suspect "Apartheid Wall" was a direct quote from Palestinian sources also. The question is, are we going to have the exact same discussion, editing, reversions, creations of new sections, creation of new articles, and on ad nauseum, every time "Palestinian sources" think of a new way to compare the barrier and its effects to apartheid-era South Africa? First it is "Apartheid Wall," then it's "Bantustans," what's next? "South Africa-style racial separation"? "South Africa-like homelands"? "Measures typical of the Afrikaaners"? Or do we then move to the 1870's-1950's U.S. South? Jim Crow? Plessy v. Ferguson? Separate drinking fountains? The ability of the human mind to create inventive analogies is endless, but it doesn't mean the analogies are appropriate and it certainly doesn't make them NPOV, even as "balance." Why can't the article be about what it is about, without insisting on comparing it to other situations in other places and at other times? 6SJ7 18:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about that, but if certain phrases or labels reflect the popular view of one side of a conflict, it is not against Wikipedia policy to state it as such, regardless of how other editors may feel about it. Why can't the article be what it is about? Because we can't decide ourselves what it is about, all we can do is quote sources on both sides to illustrate in a balanced view what they think it is about. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not notice before that the "Apartheid Wall" article already refers to "Bantustans," so that is yet another reason why it does not belong in this article. Since there is a separate article about all of the South-Africa-related analogies that some people have decided to make, those analogies (they are not really "names") belong there, not here. I would agree that something about "apartheid wall," "Bantustans" could legitimately remain in this article, if that other article did not exist. I have come to accept that the other article is a reasonable solution (and I will live with the name of the other article, momentarily at least.) But if you are permitted to have "South Africa" references in both articles, then the purpose of that other article disappears, and that issue has to come back into this article, and I think it would have to be edited way, way down because it would overwhelm this article. I am not suggesting that any of that happen, I am just explaining what I did here. 6SJ7 01:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There must be two walls

If we look at what is currently built it mostly follow the green-line and is placed in some places between Palestinians farmers and their lands but there are gates open 3 times a day so that they can to get to their fields. This wall stop terrorism. It also cause some villagers lengthen the road to near by towns but the Israeli court has ordered the government to revert the route where such hardship occur and to balance the security needs with human rights.

The calm brought by this wall has allow Israel to remove military presence in major part of the west bank which helped rejuvenate the commerce between Palestinian cities, jump starting the Palestinian economy. The calm also allow Israeli economy to revive and once the wall was completed along (mostly) the green-line in the northern west bank, not only did Israeli army moved out but also Israel removed 4 settlements form the northern west bank.

Plans for future expansion of that wall leave 7-10% of west bank land on the Israeli side of the barrier (mostly in places where there is already Jewish settlements) but most of this is not yet built. So far less then 4% iof the west bank land is on the Israeli side of the built part of wall (it is a fence but nevermind)

Then there is the other wall: It is built around and between Palestinian towns, surrounding them, choking them, and creating "Bantustans" with no movement between towns. This kills the ability of the Palestinians to have a future state.

As far as your sources say, there is no free movement between Ramallah, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem (which are otherwise contiguous) because of the concrete fence in that area. Your sources also say that Qalqilya is severely restricted except in one direction, which is sometimes also closed by checkpoints (although you say the UN map from August 2005 is wrong about that). Ramallite ^(talk) 17:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So dear wikipeadia editors: Which wall are we going to write about in this article ? The balanced one or the propaganda one.

So Israeli opinion = "balanced', Palestinian opinion = "propaganda". We write about both opinions, the balanced and the propaganda. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No. You write from a conmpletly Palestinian POV while I (try) to accomodate both views but I use facts. You quote from propeganda sources but I could have (while I do not) quote similar tyoes of sources from settler propeganda.

Instead I use mostly the UN (not the most Israel friendlu organization) Stop stop claiming that what I write is "the Israeli opinion. I have said many times that the route in some places is wrong and harms palestinians. But what I will not alloow id to over dramatize this issue. we are writing an encyclopedia Zeq 18:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want the propeganda one why not get right to the source and remove this article all together: http://www.nad-plo.org/facts/wall/WallMagazine%207-2005.pdf

Because that would violate Wikipedia policy. Please read this carefully. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: I am editing an article. No more no less. None of the examples in the link you provided apply. Zeq 18:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, please Please: Enough about the "Qalqiliya gate"

ramallite, I have brought enough sources that there is no checkpoint in the entrence to Qalaqiliya. What else do you want ?

The UN said:

"9. The previous Barrier route had approximately 93,200 West Bank Palestinians living between the Green Line and Barrier. The reduction in population is due to an easing of the closures in Qalqiliya (population 45,800). While the city remains encircled by the Barrier, the checkpoint at the entrance of Qalqiliya is not manned. http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/OCHABarRprt05_Full.pdf

this was in March. A map of the area in August showed a checkpoint there. Palestinian newspapers have photos of the checkpoint every few weeks. But in any case, I removed reference to it in my version, in your version, you said that "there is no checkpoint". Which is better, not to mention it, or to mention its nonexistence? Ramallite ^(talk) 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli court said:

"A number of paragraphs in the opinion discussed the city of Qalqiliya. The ICJ quotes the Dugard report, according to which the city is sealed off from all sides. Residents are allowed to exit and enter through one military gate which is open from 7am to 7pm. This conclusion contradicts the Secretary-General's written statement, according to which there is no checkpoint at the entrance to the city. The State adds that two open access roads now lead to the city of Qalqiliya. Part of the obstacle east of the city was dismantled. "

What does "part" mean? Either it is there or it isn't. Again, this was according to research done in 2004. And again, I don't have any reference to it in the article, you do. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Part means part not all. The access into the town is open and I suggested that you just pick up a phone and call someone in the city. Itv was open since 2004 and until today. If it will be clsoed agin (why ?) we are sure to read about it in the news. Zeq 18:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

writing an encyclopedia is about facts. Not propeganda. Please please please nough with the Qalqiliya gate. You have already agreed to removve this nonsense. Don't tell me it is coming back into this aricle. There is no way we can progress like that.

You brought back mention of it :) Ramallite ^(talk) 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And don't lie about connection between Ramalla and Jerusalem. Everyday thousands (actually tens of thousands) pass between the two via gates in the wall. Zeq 18:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am relying on your sources that the cities are cut off by the barrier. Accusing me of "lying" is against policy. The "tens of thousands" you speak of is your own OR, and yes, people with blue ID cards can cross (but not easily), most of us (with Palestinian IDs) cannot. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

ramallite: Every ramalla resident can cross the checkpoint into Jerusalem. You know this is the truth. Zeq 18:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to argue this, and I am going to try to refrain from discussing OR with you. If you want to compare experiences, I have done so in the past on my talk page but not on article talk pages. But as far as getting from Ramallah to Jerusalem, I cannot do it, nobody with a green ID can. If I could, I wouldn't have had to miss a friend's wedding (who is Jewish Israeli). The best way to settle this is for me to send you my ID card and (assuming you are a male and look like me), you can try it yourself. Barring that, I know about my own country better than anybody living outside it. Please do not try to argue with a Norwegian about Oslo, and please don't try to argue with a Palestinian about Ramallah. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct according to the policy (thanks for getting it to my attention) I should have comented on the content not on the one making it. So let me correct my self: The content of your claim that there is no access from ramalla to Jerusaelm is a lie. Zeq 18:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My claim is not "there is no access", settlers can do it easily. My claim is that Palestinians cannot cross from Ramallah to Jerusalem (except for those with Israeli IDs or permits - see page 2, and it is almost impossible to get a pemit). Thank you for your non-apology. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to create a compromise re-write which incorporates parts of both versions, and which has a more logical flow and is less repetitive. For example, the previous version mentioned terror attacks on Israelis four times! I've cut that down to one. I've also made the impact on Palestinians more prominent, including that it restricts their movements and access to jobs, and that it almost completely encircles some towns. I think the new version is far more readable and coherent; thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jayjg

Thanks for your input. From my point of view, there was never really a dispute with the introduction, all I ever did with it was incorporate Zeq's paragraph into it. He reverted it as part of a total revert of me, and then he also reverted User:Ian Pitchford as well. I'm not aware that he specifically objected to my intro per se since it was pretty much his. What you did looks fine to me. However, the dispute going on is with the "Effects on Palestinians" section, where User:Zeq incorporated a lot of sources from the UN and Israeli supreme court, but refused to let them be NPOVed. So I worked on incorporating his edits, but he still didn't like them. My problems with his version are:

He quotes what he wants from his UN sources, but refuses to allow his quotes to be placed in context. For example, he quotes the UN saying that checkpoints in rural areas have been removed because of the barrier, but refuses to add the followup sentence in the report: that this has not ameliorated movement between urban areas.
His version has a whole section in the intro about a hypothetical barrier in the Jordan valley. If this barrier does not exist, nor is it planned, what's the point? (I don't think Zeq has a problem with it, but his blind reverts reincorporates this into his version).
In "Effects on Israeli Security", his version has two paragraphs (a good chunk of the section) on the Gaza barrier. This article is about the West Bank, not Gaza. I removed the parts about the Gaza barrier (save for one sentence in the intro of the article itself), but it gets re-incorporated with his reverts (again, probably not due to his specific objections). I have also tried to add more to the "Effects on Israeli Security" section myself, but it is still far from complete given it is a fraction of the length of "Effects on Palestinians" section. That is why I have asked User:MathKnight to take a look, I hope he will be able to.
The "Effects on Palestinians" section has many repetitions because of Zeq's edits, including twice mentioning the impact on Jenin (in different places), and twice referring de novo to the August 2005 UN report, along with deletions.

In a nutshell (and I have no idea what kind of nut this common cliche refers to), his reverts remove useful additions and add a lot of redundancy and bad grammar to a piece that I don't even think he would object to if he read it properly (except of course his disdain for anything coming out of the NAD, which happens to be an official Palestinian department). Thanks for your attempts on the intro. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

To Jayjg: Your attempt is very good and concise. Thanks. (I made really minor changes of a word here and there) You are 100% correct that mentioning 4 times is not needed. Zeq 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramalaite: My suggestion is to write the effect on Palestinans that woukld include the negative and the postive (calm have allow reduced checkpoints. Checkpoints were and still are the major issue hurting Palestinian economy and thus removal of checkpoint is very positive) The negative I would suggest to write without too much dramtizations such as "30 minutes" "most fertile" etc... There are palestinian farmers who need to wait at gates, manned by the Israeli army, before they can gain access to their fields. That is a fact . The drama about "most fertile" or "not so fertile" does not add much. Zeq 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't pick and choose what I like and don't like. Palestinian sources (and the UN) say that one of the major problems with the barrier is that it cuts off Palestinian-owned farmland, some of which is the most fertile in the West Bank. This is not drama. I honestly don't understand your objection to it. It is (according to sources) a legitimate Palestinian complaint about the barrier. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

To Ramallite, serious question, not related to text of this article:

Few days ago I was in Qalandyia (not to confuse with Qalaqiliya) . I saw in one hour hundreds/thousands of Palestinians from Rammala crossing the checkpoint into east Jerusalem. Is any of my observation is wrong. can you explain ? Thanks. Zeq 19:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you know they were from Ramallah? They may have been visiting Ramallah and going to home to Jerusalem. Anyway, yes, your observation is wrong, because Qalandia is not the entrance to Jerusalem. The entrance is at Al-Ram checkpoint further south. Again, page 2 of that report talks about the barrier blocking entry to Jerusalem for anybody without an Israeli ID (or a permit which is almost impossible to get, I've tried). Our OR is not something to debate over on this page, but if you want an answer to your question: Go to Al-Ram checkpoint further south, or to Abu Dis, or the Bethlehem checkpoint on the barrier. See how many Palestinians (West Bankers) are crossing. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. How do I know they were from Ramalla ? I asked them. From that Checkpoint some continued to Jerusalem, some to Beit-lehem (via Abu Dis where there are sometimes checkpoints (on days of security alerts) but sometimes it is open (to all). I will take your suggestion and checkout the A-ram as soon as I can. Thanks. Zeq 20:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

according this this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901851.html Qalandiya is between Ramalla and Jerusalem. Last week many crossed in the short time I was there (this is OR so It is not used in the article). Zeq 06:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed on the highway between Ramallah and Jerusalem, but is not the checkpoint that is considered the entrance to Jerusalem. Palestinians can cross on foot through Qalandia checkpoint, but cannot use their cars except with special permits that are hard to get, then they must turn left to go towards Pisgat Ze'ev and find highways that link them to other parts of the West Bank that don't go to Jerusalem. You are probably talking about people crossing on foot, which even I can do usually (with the usual humiliation of course). The checkpoint that is considered by the IDF to be the entrance to Jerusalem is further south at Al-Ram, and you won't find any West Bank Palestinians crossing there, either by car or on foot, except those special rare cases in which they were able to get a permit (usually older people). If you see the line of cars there, they are all yellow-plate. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I am glad that "even you " can cross there. From there it is possible to get to beitlehem. Also there is a different exit from Ramalla (Sudra) that I understand cars can exit. But the point is that all this has NOTHING to do with the wall. The A-ram Checkpoint have been there way before the wall. But this is not the place for all this OR. anyhow I glad that you can cross intro (parts of what is considered by some) "east Jerusalem" Zeq 14:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody considers the Qalandia area part of East Jerusalem. The whole point of this discussion is the UN report about the effect of the wall on preventing Ramallah and Bethlehem residents entering Jerusalem being true. Of course Al-Ram has been there way before the wall, but before the wall we didn't need to use Al-Ram, one could sneak in from any side street or building or field. Now, when you cross the Qalandia checkpoint, you haven't crossed the wall, and cannot go towards Jerusalem. It is you who has a great sense of humor, soon you will be calling Jenin "part of East Jerusalem"!!! If you'd like to discuss this further, please do so on my talk page. Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 15:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that you are correct. In fact I am quite sute you are not. Once crossing Qaalandyia one can travel without restrictions to Ataror air port which is Jerusalem airport and is inside the city limits. While I may not favor the borders of the city of Jerusalem (I wish it was split to two cities) it is now one city and once crossing qalandyia one can get to parts of the city.

You totally mis my political viwes BTW, but this is not for this discussion. In an nut shell I would tell you that i will be very glad to see an indpendent Palestine on 100% (or 95%) of the west bank. Zeq 15:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Why Palestinians are gertting into Israel

It is very hard to find data in english about this subject.

The simple reason is: It does not intrest anyone but Israelis.

There is pleantty of Hebrew data http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D+%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%99+%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D

or better yet:

http://www.google.co.il/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D+%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%99+%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D

They come for many reasons: Looking for work, smuggling, looking to to get married and gain Israeli citizenship,some gays are running away from treatment in the Palestinians areas to a more tollerent Israeli society.

One of the major reason they cross is for theft: Palestinians from the west bank are involved in 40%-80% of cars theft in israel . Some come to preform terror acts.

So I am not sure we should include all that info so I just removed the word "work" and left the sentnce as :

"gain access into Israel"

BTW, it is estimated that there are 100,000 - 150,000 Palestinians who ilegaly live inside Israel.

I presonally know many who either hope for or already marry Palestinians who have Israli arabs (alestinians who have Israeli ID) to get israeli premanenet resident status. I would estimate that this is the main reasons for getting into Israel not for terror. As Israeli residency give very nice social security benefits not avaiable to Palestinias.

Zeq 05:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

according to this old data http://www.ishitech.co.il/1003ar4.htm the Palestinians who cross legaly into Israel come for several reasons:

"Among Israel's f security issues is its need to seal its borders against terrorism while allowing Palestinians to enter and exit Israel in order to conduct their business, visit families, and work in Israel."

"Names of the barrier" section

I made a few edits in this section. Originally my explanation was all going to be in the edit summary but it got too long (as is this page, I am noticing.) I made some statements that were too "sweeping" less so. I put the sentence about Israel's names for the wall into active voice to parallel the sentence about the Palestinian names. In the last sentence, about international names for the wall, I took out the word "inconsistent" and replaced it with "various" (and other minor rewording to accommodate that change. The different names aren't necessarily "inconsistent," they are just different. This also runs into a larger point, which is that the whole idea that the "name" of the barrier is a serious issue, is itself a POV. However, I know there is no point in trying to delete this section (or in doing anything significant about the other article that is entirely about one of the alleged, so-called, ridiculous, "names" for the wall) so I have done these small edits to make it a little less POV. 6SJ7 00:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

A few weeks ago, I listed a number of problems with the article here after my attempts to reason were not interpreted in good faith. I was hoping other editors would look into it but nobody has, and I'm afraid any attempt by me to even add a comma will get reverted. Therefore, based on the list, I am adding a cleanup tag to the top of the article for the time being. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to clean it up would be to eliminate the article entirely, along with satellite articles comparing the barrier to pre-Mandela South Africa. All Wikipedia really needs is 1 or 2 sentences in the Israel article, that say Israel has constructed a barrier to keep out terrorists, and that part of the barrier takes in some disputed territories on the West Bank in order to enhance its protective features. Of course I will not do that since it would be labeled "POV," which I suppose it is, but it also is true. I don't see this kind of attention paid to border-control measures by other nations. 6SJ7 21:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

According to my thesaurus some synonyms for "enclyclopedic" are "knowing, all-knowing, comprehensive, omniscient, wise". Let's try and produce something comprehensive and leave governments to promote their own viewpoints. They have the resources and don't need our help. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)}

11:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, Hilary Clinton is nobody and does not deserve to be quoted on this page. ---Zero 11:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You are weslome to voice any opinion on her in any approriate page as long as it is properly source. This article is about the barrier not on her. (unsigned by User:Zeq)

Great logic! My friend Frank has some really interesting opinions on this barrier thing. I'll add some of them tomorrow now that I have the perfect reply when you object. --Zero 12:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Checkpoints

There are two types of Checkpoints: 1. so-called "deep" checkpoints, inside the west bank. These are checkpoints such as beit Ibba, Hawarra etc.. These checkpoints have nothing to do with the barrier. These are internal to the west bank. (my own personal view is that they are there mainly for settlers security and I wish israel would remove these checkpoints) 2. "barrier" checkpoints: In effect these are border crossing into Israel from the west bank. In effect anyone that crossed them can get anywhere inside Israel. These are the checkpoint near Tul Karem, near Klakliyia etc...

MachsomWatch focus on the first part although they sometimes monitor the otherones as well. They make no distiction between them so their reports in general are not relevant to the article. if they would seprate the reports to two parts in one of them covering only the barrier gates/checkpoints this will be appropriate to this article. (unsigned by User:Zeq)

You are wrong. Many of the checkpoints monitored by MW daily are in the barrier or barrier-under-construction. There is MUCH more relevant factual data in those reports than in that ridiculous blog you want to link to. --Zero 12:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"That blog" is not the least bit ridiculous. A bit too smooth perhaps for my taste, but it is nevertheless fully consistent with my own reserve duty, which I have had the very great "pleasure" of doing several weeks per year, and no, I don't visit from the USA to do it. I live here. Does it give a specific POV that PA residents on the other side would (and do) vehemently dispute? Of course it does. But it is still a very important, and not-enough-heard POV. But that is the whole point of these external links: to provide examples and real-life backup for the various POV's represented in the article. Want to provide counter-examples of the daily torture that these crossing points create from the POV of PA residents? Go ahead. That is what Wikipedia is for. The effort to remove that link smacks of a fear to truly represent all viewpoints. By the way, I rarely if ever get involved in all the political nonsense at WP, in fact this is the more or less the first time and I probably won't be doing it much again. But since it is a real part of my life I thought I would just this once. Dovi 14:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Be specific. Which checkpoint they monitor are barrier checkpoints ? You are diminishing their work. They are against the internal checkpoints. By claiming the checkpoint these noble women monitor are barrier checkpoints you are justfying the exitance of such checkpoints as "gateway to israel"........ Zeq 12:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The ones I have been to are Bethlehem, Abu Dis, Ar-Ram, Qalandiya. I also know of Jubara. I'll give you a full list tomorrow. --Zero I received this list: Jalame, Rihan, Shaked, Sha'ar Efrayim, Qalandiya, Abu Dis, Bethlehem, Sansane. Of course they also monitor many internal checkpoints. They would monitor all of the checkpoints of every type if they had the resources. --Zero 22:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Map - Ariel Bloc

I haven't read the entire discussion and am actually hesitant to edit the article, considering it's already one big POV war, but the map on the page is incorrect - the fence around the Ariel bloc has not been approved (or completed). Here is a more detailed/accurate map: [4] - I'd post it, but not sure of the copyright status (although the map has been cited in several websites I've seen). -- Ynhockey || [[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]] 06:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC) I also noticed that it says in this article that under 5% of the barrier is a wall, but in Apartheid wall, it says 7%. -- Ynhockey || [[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]] 07:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Parts of the Ariel detour are actually under construction. The other parts were approved then came into doubt due to Supreme Court decisions. Afaik, just now it is approved in principle but final approval hasn't been given. The map on this page is too small to properly show the different degrees of approval. There is a more recent and detailed map than the one you found, here. As for 5% versus 7%, this is a difficult statistic to determine. It keeps changing, so numbers you find around the web are likely to be out of date. In the past couple of years, the increase in concrete walls in the Jerusalem vacinity probably means that the percentage has increased. Probably. --Zero 09:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

What it's called

As per most recent edits:

I don't think it's original research to point out what lengths of the barrier are fence vs. wall - it's a simple statement of fact
There is a whole section on the name in the article itself. --Leifern 19:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those comments in principle, however "less than 5%" being inserted is most probably wrong. --Zero 01:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes in "Palestinian Opinions"

I am restoring the original (though not perfect) version for the following reasons:

"are essentially unanimous" was changed to "generally" based on points introduced further down in the section (which have also now been reverted, see following points). None of those quotations, had they been proper, provide evidence that the barrier is 'not opposed' by those claimed to have made these statements. They merely cite opinions of why the barrier was built. Further deductions is an example of original research.
"However, some Palestinians believe that the primary factor driving the barrier's creation is high incidence of Palestinian terrorism not Israeli political or territorial aims." Again, assuming the quotations are correct, they are merely arguing the first part of this sentence, not the second part about Israeli political or territorial aims". In fact, at least the first quotation (the Palestinian author Tawfiq Abu-Bakr)) has been known to write articles in Palestinian newspapers criticizing the militarization of the Intifada precisely because it gave Israel an excuse to impose conditions that favored its territorial ambitions.
The three quotations: these appear verbatim in a small number of websites that I googled, either from a right-wing powerpoint presentation or a right-wing rally leaflet. This alone shows that these quotations are unverifiable. The 2nd and 3rd quotes are not from Palestinians, so they are irrelevant to the section. The first quotation I looked for extensively in English and Arabic, but could not find it anywhere (or anything close to it). Abu Bakr was highly critical of Palestinians using armed violence as well as the PA's failure to impose reform and crack down on internal strife. So it is possible that he blamed Palestinian incompetence as the reason for giving Israel an excuse to build a wall. However, lacking an actual verifiable source, there is no way to tell. He regularly published columns in the Palestinian press, I doubt (but don't rule out) that such a phrase (which had he actually said it, is almost certainly taken out of context of a wider quotation) would be published in a Jordanian newspaper, it would probably be censored there. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ramallite. These additions did not make any sense. Zeq 04:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your well written reasoning and for pointing out that better verification is needed. I agree and appreciate being corrected. However, "Palestinian Opinion" is not limited to "Palestinian opinion is that it supports the barrier" or "Palestinian opinion is that it opposes the barrier." This is too simplistic and does not include all opinions. Opinions are more complex and should be described as such -- with verification. For instance, the text could read "Some Palestinians have the opinion that the construction of the barrier by Israel is primarily motivated by land grabs, political posturing, etc. {Insert supporting verification here.} However, some Palestinians have the opinion that the construction of the barrier by Israel is primarily motivated by security in response to the high level of sniping and bombings post-2000. {Insert supporting verification here.}" This would be very relevant in a section on "Palestinian Opinion". In fact, much of the text on the page is devoted to "Some Palestinian opinion is that Israel is primarily motivated by land grabs, etc., and not security" so putting the full information here is just a better way of organizing it. Off to get better citations... -HelpfulAuthor20060103, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If indeed you can find verifiable quotations by Palestinian representatives (not to be confused with non-Palestinian Arabs) that suggest that security was the primary motivation, then yes, addition of such material would be appropriate. The reason the text is as it is (although it was written before I came to WP) is because any search for Palestinian opinion about the wall, from any official or non-governmental Palestinian organization, shows strong opposition in varying degrees (from calling it a land grab to calling it an Apartheid Wall). Although some sources may concede that protection against bombings is legitimate, these sources claim that the current route of the wall indicates that "defense" is a pretext rather than an actual reason. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Still, this is an oversimplification because it's not just a matter of "oppose vs. support". People don't just grunt in single words. They have more to say and the actual complexity can be described. It is consistent to simultaneously have the opinions (1) to oppose the existence, (2) that decision to construct was primarily motivated by security, (3) that the subsequent decisions concerning route were motiviated by land grab, etc. As you suggest, some sources do claim that protection against bombings is legitimate and I have read/heard sources (e.g., previous quotes) who have this opinion with regard to the wall. To be NPOV these opinions should be represented in the article where they, now, are not. Off to get better citations... -HelpfulAuthor20060103, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes in "Effects on Palestinians"

Reorganized into categories for more structured presentation of the effects. "The barrier generally runs..." sentence moved to the section on the route. "Many Palestinian..." introductory sentence removed because no citation and very little information conveyed in long article. Section on the effect "barrier reduces ability to conduct terror and (possibly) increase participation in political process" added with citations; this is an important effect on Palestinians that was missing. -SeattliteTungsten 12 Jan 2006

A couple of notes:

"Reduced Ability to Conduct Terrorism - this is a rather POV title, since the section is titled "Effects on Palestinians" and each point should show a general effect. This title, made as a point under this section, makes it seem like 'conducting terrorism' is a general Palestinian past-time. Furthermore, Hamas does not abide by the PLO charter you referred to, and the reduced terror is actually an effect on Israelis, not on Palestinians, and therefore would be more appropriate in the section 'Effect of Israelis". If you want security effects on Palestinians, it should be noted that Israeli attacks on Palestinians have not decreased as a result of the barrier.
The last segment (Economic impact) has a sentence that now seems out of context, it states "most of the city's well" although there is no mention of any city, because this sentence was separated from the one before it that refers specifically to Qalqilya.

Ramallite ^(talk) 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"title rather POV": this doesn't seem POV to me according to the POV descriptions but I changed it to "Partial Elimination of Terrorism as a Political Tool". This description seems very factual because they (Hamas, Al-Aqsa, etc.) do use terrorism as a political tool. Sadly, the PLO charter says that armed struggle is not only one of a number of possible tools but that it is "the strategy, not merely a tactical phase".

"makes it seem like 'conducting terrorism' is a general Palestinian past-time": the text doesn't say that Palestinians in general use terrorism as a political tool but that specific Palestinian groups use terrorism as a political tool. It is reasonable to discuss the effects of the barrier on major Palestinian groups in the section "Effects on Palestinians" even when the effect is not on every Palestinian. The groups cited, Al-Aqsa/Fatah (Al-Aqsa is "closely linked to the Fatah party") and Hamas, represent significant fraction of elected officials -- perhaps about 75% but I don't have the exact numbers in front of me.

"Hamas does not abide by the PLO charter": I changed the wording so that the citation is only for Al-Aqsa while Hamas and Islamic Jihad have their own citation from Amnesty International.

"reduced terror is actually an effect on Israelis [and should go in the other section]": reduced terror has an effect on Israelis but reduced ability to use terror as a political tool also has an effect on Palestinians. The effect is that they change strategy and tactics, according to the citation from the Washington Post. The seems reasonable to me, not that my opinion counts. No matter what you think about terror as political tool, if the ability to use it is reduced then other tools will probably be used more. This isn't original research and is cited in WaPo. We cannot know whether "barrier" -> "reduced terrorism" -> "more electoral participation" is truly a causal relationship but some people think it is and therefore it is included. This is an effect on Palestinian groups and is, therefore, included in the section on Palestinians. (A single event, "barrier" or "reduced terror", can have multiple effects. If one effect is on Israelis and another effect is on Palestinians, these should be noted in each respective section.)

"Israeli attacks on Palestinians have not decreased as a result of the barrier": some of the text in this section (not written by me) suggests that the barrier does result in decreased Israeli attacks on Palestinians. If you have other evidence that the attacks have not decreased, feel free to list this with an appropriate citation.

"sentence that now seems out of context": I moved this to "loss of land" since "loss of water" is reasonably grouped with "loss of land".

Thanks for the comments! We have a better page now. -SeattliteTungsten 13 Jan 2006

Map

What happened to the map of the barrier route? It seems fairly important to this article. Gregor Samsa 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User Zeq removed it, see his edit summary. You could try reinserting it but adjusting the caption to read "approved and proposed route" to address his concerns, especially if you can cite it. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a more recent detailed map suggested by an editor: [5]. Someone else suggested a map put out by the Israeli government (this one is older): [6]. They are far more detailed than is necessary for our purposes. I think the old, simple map was fine, but I'm not particular. Some sort of map is necessary. Gregor Samsa 00:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Terminology (again…)

Hm, I do realize that this has come up and been debated and subsequently defeated, but still: I feel that using the terms Bantustan and Apartheid wall for rhetoric/polemic effect conveys more personal opinions than the curious reader will likely want to know when seeking info on the West Bank. Allow the reader the option of deciding for him or herself. Apartheid wall may or may not be an apt comparison, but in any event it is a metophorical and anachronistic reference to a set of laws formerly in effect on an entirely different continent. How about just saying discriminatory and using the more (politically) correct enclaves or gerrymandered cantons when defining and describing encyclopedically to the reader what this structure is and does. The spirit of the NPOV ideals is about steering clear of unnecessary use of satirical or epical wording, right? //Big Adamsky 09:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Pushing

Zero is attempting to insert into this article his POV that israel does not fiollow the 4th Geneva convention. This is not true and his attempt to present the supreme court versdict as such is misleading . Pleaseread the verdict. Zeq 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, when you don't understand something I write, you can ask on the Talk page and I will explain it. Your reverting is a real pain. The Israeli government argues that the 4th Geneva Convention does not apply to the OT. It has hardly any choice, since 4GC plainly makes all the settlements illegal. "Israel's position is that the Convention is only applicable to territory of a High Contracting Party. Neither the West Bank nor Gaza were previously under the control of a legitimate sovereign hence the nonapplicability of the Convention. Nevertheless, Israel has undertaken to act de facto in accordance with the humanitarian provisions of the Convention." [7] So, the govt position is "it isn't legally required but because we are such nice people we voluntary apply the humanitarian parts of the 4GC" (i.e. a fraction of the full 4GC). The Supreme Court at least 6 times has cited this "voluntarily agreement" to avoid having to rule on whether the 4GC applies by force of law. The Supreme Court has been doing this since the 1970s. You can read the 2005 decision where this is written more clearly than in the 2004 decision: "seeing as the government of Israel accepts that the humanitarian aspects of The Fourth Geneva Convention apply in the area, we are not of the opinion that we must take a stand on that issue [whether the 4GC binds by law] in the petition before us." --Zero 14:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Zero, Why don't you read the court decision, they specifically say which part of the petition are relevant and apply to the case. It sais in plain english (or if you want me to look up the original in Hebrew) in any case this is a verdict about the wall not about the settlments. BTW, the court have several times rulled about the settlments, last time it was when it allowed the Gaza evcuation to go through. Zeq 14:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the important legal point here is that the Court does not make a decision about the general applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention because the parties agree that it applies to the issue under review, leaving intact the precedent that the Convention is not justiciable. --Ian Pitchford 10:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except that it is only the "humanitarian aspects" of the 4GC that are agreed by all parties to apply. As far as I know, it has never been spelt out which parts of 4GC constitute the "humanitarian aspects". This formula works very well. In court cases like these two, the government can make just enough of a concession that the court can avoid ruling on the real legal issue, but on other issues (such as the settlements) the government can still claim that 4GC doesn't apply. This is a very important part of the legal administration of the OT and one way or another it has to go into this article (and maybe one or two others). --Zero 12:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The real issue, be it the legality of the settlements or the legality of Israel presence in the wesy bank are political issues that are not part of the barrier issue. The ICJ has taken a position on it, a political one not a legal one and we covered their poistion in the article. We covered the relevant aspects of the supreme court rulling as well. Have we missed anything of relevance to this article ? Zeq 14:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Effects on Israeli Security

"Opponents of the barrier claim that the barrier will not improve Israeli security in the long run..." paragraph modified and appended:

it is an overgeneralization, and possibly original research, to lump "opponents of the barrier" with "people who believe it will not improve Israeli security in the long run". Many people are opponents of the barrier for humanitarian/legal reasons still believe it will improve Israeli security in the long-run -- it's just not the best way to do this.
added position, with citation, that long-term security will improve in addition to position that long-term security will not improve.
changed verbs (for both sides) to "speculate" because it is important to recognize that things about the future are not known. It's hard enough to write an encyclopedic article about real things that have already occurred (!) so let's emphasize that future things which have not yet occured are speculation. Still, the speculation is interesting and relevant.

-SeattliteTungsten 2006-01-13

Effects and Consequences

reverted "long-term effects are not clear" to "future effects are not known". Certainly, we can all stipulate that the future is not known and then offer different speculations about how the future will be. This is more accurate than "not clear".
moved recent additions about changing demography and asset prices into new subsection "Effects on Demography and Asset Values" since these points are not about Israeli Security and seemed out of place in "Effects on Israeli Security" header.

-SeattliteTungsten 2006-01-13

Changes to Introduction

detailed text about exact route and deviations moved to "Route" section -- no need for such detail in introduction
similar word counts devoted to brief summary of supporters (50 words) and opponents (75 words); previously was 3x words for opponents which did not seem NPOV.
flow seems good now and brief: what it is, by who, constructed how, picture/map, acknowledge controversy, brief summary of supporters, brief summary of opponents, reference to similar Gaza barrier. -SeattliteTungsten 2006-01-13

Article Too Long?

This article is long: it's been over 59Kb for a while. Any ideas for splitting it up? One idea would be to put Israel Supreme Court, UN, ICJ text into an article like "Israeli West Bank Barrier, Legal Issues and Rulings" or something like this. If there were about five sentences in the main article with a link to the new article, I feel this could be an adequate summary and people could follow the link for the current level of detail. Other suggestions? -SeattliteTungsten 2006-01-15

Route and Route Timeline

Zeq, thanks for the edits and new info looks good. I moved the "681 km" fact to the "Feb 2005" section. I also replaced "Current Status" with "As of January 2006," because this retains the same format as the other timeline pieces. The label "Current Status" will become out of date but "As of January 2006," will continue to be correct and when there are worthwhile changes to post, e.g., in June, we can add a paragraph, "As of June 2006," -SeattliteTungsten 21:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

GDP Timeline

Why does a chart of the West Bank GDP Growth using numbers from the CIA World Factbook violate WP:NOR? I have read this policy and do not understand why this would be a problem because there is no original number, date, fact, etc. Maybe there is something I don't understand about images. What about having a numerical table that said, "2000: x, 2001: y, 2002:, z" etc. with "source: CIA World Factbook"? The original research seemed to be the existing "the barrier has resulted in significant economic losses for the Palestinian economy" which was both uncited and unsupported, e.g., who said this? what were the losses, when did they occur, how significant were they, etc. I tried to get the numbers for these questions. -SeattliteTungsten 16:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically you had introduced arrows on the chart pointing to barrier construction dates and correlating them with GDP, which is something you did on your own. If another reputable source had done it first, you could cite these numbers correlating the two (and maybe insert that figure if it was not copyrighted). But since it looks like your own deductions (regardless of their being correct), it would be original research since you took two existing facts but correlated them to each other in a novel manner. While we are on this topic, there are some other small problems with your entry:

"The PNA Ministry of Finance reports that a cause of this economic decline is the construction of the separation wall". No, it is a number of Israeli measures, (including curfews, closures, and the wall). It is not just the wall as you claim. Your source does not support your claim that "wall=economic loss", it says that the wall was one of many factors.
The economic loss factor is cited in Palestinian publications as well as UN Human Rights reports. The latest from last March states "Where the Barrier has been constructed, Palestinians face economic hardship from being restricted from or not being able to reach their land to harvest crops, graze animals or earn a living." [8]
"However, the CIA World Factbook reports that GDP growth in the West Bank during the period 2000-2004 declined before major construction of the barrier began" Again you have based this on a misinterpretation, i.e. you are using original research (the graph) to refute a claim that was never made in the first place. The claim is that a number of factors, including but not limited to the barrier, caused severe economic decline. The actual decline began before the barrier, but was perpetuated by it, according to the sources cited.
Your numbers cite gross GDP, whereas per capita GDP actually declined over the past year I believe.
Could you please provide a citation for your CIA Factbook figures?

Clearly this section needs further expansion, so if you find out more that would be useful that would be good. I'll probably take a look at it myself in the next couple of days as time permits. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me for not understanding this, but why is reporting existing facts on a sequenced timeline chart "original" whereas reporting existing facts sequenced as sentences in a paragraph okay? You are correct that I "did this on my own" but it is not research. It is reformatting and summarizing existing data just like the rest of Wikipedia. I assume it would be okay to say in a text paragraph, "In the West Bank, in 1999 GDP growth was 4.6%. In 2000, GDP growth was -7.5% and the Al-Aqsa Intifada began in September. In 2001, GDP growth was -35%. In 2002, GDP growth was -22% and the first parts of the barrier were completed in the fall. In 2003,..." with citations.

"It is not just the wall as you claim." I do/did not claim it was just the wall. I summarized it as "a cause" which seems valid. Since this is a section about economic effects in an article about the barrier, it makes sense to summarize by stating the points that related to the topic/section.
"economic loss factor is cited in Palestinian publications". It sounds relevant to add this fact and source.
"[t]he actual decline began before the barrier, but was perpetuated by it" The data (modest positive GDP growth in 2003 and 2004) suggests that "decline" is not an accurate way to describe the economy after the barrier was started. However, this is a digression. The article should just state the facts and people can draw whatever conclusion they want. If we're talking about the economy of the West Bank, the GDP growth facts 1999:4.6%, 2000:-7.5%, 2001:-35.0%, 2002:-22.0%, 2003:6.0%, 2004:6.2% seem pretty relevant and I would like to add these back either in a table or chart format.
"gross GDP" vs "per capita GDP": gross GDP is more common. We could cite both which would be better than simply removing the GDP statistics as you have done. Unless the population is growing faster than 6%, per capita GDP growth would be positive, too.
"provide a citation for your CIA Factbook figures": the citation is "CIA Factbook". On the web, I have not found them all on the same place at once, but you should be able to gather most of them using www.archive.org on the CIA Factbook. Among other places they appear to be here, http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=we&v=66. I could get the page numbers from the hardbound copy.

Definitely, we need to add back the 1999:4.6%, 2000:-7.5%, 2001:-35.0%, 2002:-22.0%, 2003:6.0%, 2004:6.2% figures you removed. Would it be okay to include this in a bar chart or is text-only the only format that won't be accused of being "original research"? Thanks. SeattliteTungsten 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that I am merely following policy as I interpret it. There are sources that claim that the barrier either 1-damaged the economy of the areas where it was built, or 2- was a factor in the decline of the entire economy. There are separate sources that tell us the dates when the barrier was built. My disagreement with you is that you have taken these two separate facts, and produced an original concept or idea that "the barrier can not be blamed for a decline in the Palestinian economy". This is an example of "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas" as taken from the no original research policy page. Creating a novel figure to illustrate a sourced fact in and of itself is questionable under this policy (I'd welcome other comments). However, creating this figure and combining two separately sourced facts into a single image in order to arrive at a conclusion (whatever it may be) is original research as I interpret it. However, I am happy to defer to the opinions of others whose opinions you may want to consult. If you would like other administrators of varied personal opinions on the topic of the wall, I recommend Zero, Ian, Jayjg, and Tomer, although you are obviously welcome to ask whoever you choose.

My second gripe is still with your intent: If you now agree that the Palestinian source you cited does not claim that the bad economy is exclusively the fault of the barrier, then what is the purpose of the figure/CIA figures in the first place? Again, since nobody has exclusively tied the entire Palestinian economy to the wall per se, but to a series of Israeli measures that include the wall, your numbers seem to be addressing a non-issue, but maybe I'm mistaken. Perhaps the best course of action would be, as you suggest, expand the section and call it "Status of the Palestinian economy before and after the construction of the barrier" or something of the sort. As for the CIA worldbook, it would be much better to provide a citation (even if it is a page number), footnotes would probably be the best way to go about that. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is "Israel West Bank Barrier" and the section is "Economic Losses" so it makes sense that third-party data about the timeline of the IWWB and the economic losses should be included together in this section. This is not original research. The specific format, i.e., whether it is included together as a timeline or an English paragraph, seems immaterial. I think you are reading "conclusions" into the figure where none exist. The figure only says "here are the dates of GDP growth data, here are the dates of events". There is no conclusion. We should present the data, in the clearest format (sometimes "a picture is worth 1000 words"), and let the reader decide. Some readers, like you seem to, might conclude "the barrier cannot be blamed for a decline in the West Bank economy"; others might conclude "the barrier has a negative impact on the West Bank economy for the other reasons cited and GDP would have been even more positive in 2003 and 2004 had the barrier not been built." I don't know. The idea is... present all the facts and don't selectively delete them.

Two questions:

Would it be okay to present the timeline GDP data in a table?
Would it be okay to present the timeline GDP data in a bar chart without timeline data of the barrier construction?

Thanks. SeattliteTungsten 22:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You and I are not in much of a disagreement. If you believe the economic condition of the West Bank as a whole during the Aqsa intifada years are relevant to this article, then go ahead and do the best you can as far as inserting text that is relevant. Alternatively, you can try to rely on sources that deal with the economy as directly affected by the IWWB, of which the UN link above has a number of case studies, and leave overall economy to other articles like Al-Aqsa Intifada. I repeat, my only concern with the above is the way you originally phrased your argument: You stated that the Palestinian Ministry of Finance considers the wall 'a' factor in the bad economy (mind that you used the words 'declining economy' whereas the MOF merely states that 'Economic activity in Palestine continued to suffer'), then you continue stating "However, the CIA World Factbook reports that GDP growth in the West Bank during the period 2000-2004 declined before major construction of the barrier began" which I believe you recognize now was inappropriate since, as I tried to explain above, using a word such as "however" indicated that you are refuting a claim that was actually never made (i.e. that the wall was the only reason for the bad economy, which was why I said it was OR), plus you included a chart to that effect. But you have since fixed the language. Three other point:

As far as your questions above, as long as you are aware of what is and is not OR, it is up to you. I believe it is 'safer' to just present a table as opposed to creating an excel graph insofar as being accused of original research by others.
If your goal is to clearly present the economic situation, then as a scientist (but admittedly not a statistician), I would much prefer to see actual GDP values per year as opposed to percentage changes. As I expected, Zeq has just edited the heading of this section to read "economic loss and gain" not realizing that the increased GDP percentage is a slight reversal of an otherwise bad GDP when compared to pre-wall/intifada levels. To paint a clear picture, actual values would be much more appreciated. According to the most recent press release by the PCBS, GDP actually declined in Q4 2005, although it was up overall for '05. The actual values are $1.015B (2003), $1.051B (2004), and $1.150B (2005). These numbers would need to be compared to 1999-2000 (before the intifada) and 2002-2003 (while the wall was going up, and it still is of course). Does the CIA factbook have these numbers? Furthermore, the World Bank and other organizations have published numerous studies on the economic suffering as well as the poverty rate, which has continued to decline significantly, and if GDP is relevant, then poverty rates etc would be relevant too. In any case, percentages don't necessarily tell the whole story, since somebody like Zeq will look at the chart you made and believe that the economy is gaining in '04 and '05. Which brings up one last point: What is the baseline? (the percentages would be in regard to what year? If it was 1999, then all the bars in your chart would be below the X axis, if I'm understanding it correctly). If annual GDP gain or loss is measured as a percentage against the preceding year, then a bar graph is not appropriate since it does not specify a baseline and a glance at the chart would make it look like 2004 and 2005 were more prosperous years than 1999-2000. However, a bar graph would be appropriate for GDP whole amounts.
I meant what I said about getting others' opinions, not because I'm challenging you (which I hope is not how you took it although your tone suggests that you might have), but to make sure that there is consensus about adding so much economic detail in this article as opposed to a more appropriate one. This way it will be harder to get reverted a month from now by an editor who stumbles across your entries and decides they are irrelevant.

Ramallite ^(talk) 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, we are not in much disagreement and the common ground seems to be "present the facts, ensure citation, omit editorial words/phrases" which is the Wikipedia way. To address some of your points,

relevance of "economic condition of the West Bank as a whole during the Aqsa intifada years": to present the relationship between one thing X ("the West Bank economy") and another thing Y ("barrier construction") it is relevant to contrast "X before Y" with "X after Y". There could be a long term trend up, down, or neutral so it is relevant to show whatever the trend was before, and then show what the trend was after. If you think it is POV to describe the West Bank economy before the security barrier (2000-2002) as "the Aqsa Intifada years", this could be left out and 2000-2002 could be described simply as "the years immediately preceding the barrier". (However, it's like having an elephant in the room and not talking about it. It would be like talking about the GDP of Zimbabwe over the last ten years and not mentioning HIV or talking about U.S. debt during the 1940s and not mentioning WWII.)

I don't think I made any reference to describing the West Bank economy before the segregation wall as "the Aqsa Intifada years" as being POV. I'm only concerned about the relevance of the economy of the West Bank during all the Intifada years to this article, which deals with a specific Israeli measure, as opposed to a more general article about the conflict (such as the Aqsa Intifada article). That's all. Ramallite ^(talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Alternatively, you can try to rely on sources that deal with the economy as directly affected by the IWWB": the GDP data is really the best way of measuring the total effect on the whole economy. The other anecdotal points are good to include, too.

The GDP data is indeed the best way of measuring total effect on the whole economy. However, there are no sources that describe GDP decline being attributed solely to the wall. In other words, most sources describe the overall economy decline as being attributed to a series of Israeli restrictions. There is no data (as far as I know) that indicate GDP changes attributed only to the wall by itself (e.g. GDP decline in 200X was xx%, but if the barrier had not been constructed it would have been yy% instead). As an aside, most of the GDP data also include the Gaza Strip, which significantly skews the outcome. This is my reasoning for this comment ("Alternatively, you can try....."), which is that as far as the wall itself goes, it may be more proper to cite sources that describe the economic impact as directly affected by the wall but would not include GDP for the reasons I just stated. These are just concerns, not arguments against your edits. Ramallite ^(talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"'a' factor": I replaced the original wording "a cause" with "one cause". This is accurate. It never said "the only cause" or "the cause". It never said it was exclusive.
I will change "economic decline" to "low economic activity" which more accurately summarizes the MoF memo.
I will include the bar graph timeline of GDP without any other overlays; graphing six numbers from an authoritative source is not Original Research.
"Real GDP Annual Growth" is the most common way GDP data is presented to show how an economy is changing at the macro level. This is year-over-year and adjusted for inflation. The dollar values are not typically used for two reasons. First, for presenting the change in the economy, the change (as a percent) is the relevant number. (If I said the French economy was $1.6tr would this be good or bad? Good if it was up 10% from the prior year but bad if it was down 10%.) Second, the dollar figures can be confusing if they are not adjusted for inflation. "Real Annual Growth" is always adjusted for inflation and is year-to-year. For example, take a look at the CIA Factbook page for France, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html. They report "GDP - real growth rate". This means year-to-year and adjusted for inflation. You could report "GDP - Real Growth Per Capita" but most populations grow between 0.5% and 3.0% and it doesn't change must from one year to another in a particular country so you can just subtract it out. "Real GDP Growth" is more common than "Real GDP Growth Per Capita".
"somebody like Zeq will look at the chart you made and believe that the economy is gaining in '04 and '05": the economy was gaining in '04 and '05. This is a correct statement.

I mistyped. I meant "believe that the economy had recovered in '04 and '05. It certainly had not recovered (to pre-intifada levels, that is). Ramallite ^(talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"what is the baseline?" It is year-to-year and adjusted for inflation. I will make sure it says "Annual Real". "Annual" means year-to-year and "real" means after inflation.
a bar graph of growth is still an appropriate way of displaying this information. It does not mean that 2004 and 2005 are more prosperous than 1999 and 2000... this would be misreading the graph. The graph does not say this.

My concern with the bar graph (which I agree is not inappropriate) is that, to an untrained eye, looking at a bar graph that shows a negative bar for '01, '02, and '03, but a positive bar for '04 and '05 may be confusing and misleading. I would think that an XY scatter would be much more appropriate. Don't you? Ramallite ^(talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"getting others' opinions": if you think you would like to get other opinions, feel free. I welcome this. In the meantime, it would be better not to delete my cited additions, outright. If you think the tone is not right, change it but don't delete the information. If you want to add more information, great!

Sorry, I usually don't like to delete outright - that one time was because of reasons I already described. My apologies. Ramallite ^(talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

SeattliteTungsten 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

SeattliteTungsten Changes, 22 Jan 2006

I changed "Reduced ability to launch attacks in Israel" to "Change In Chosen Political Tactics and Strategy" to emphasize that "reduced attacks" is the effect on Israelis but "change in political strategy" is the effect on Palestinians (in this paragraph). It is a subtle point but I believe it more accurately conveys the change conveyed here.
reverted "suicide attacks" to "terrorist attacks" to include non-suicide bombs and snipers. Sniper deaths were a large fraction of the deaths that were lowered after the barrier was constructed. It's not only suicide bombers.
added Real GDP Growth image back in more simplified form per SeattliteTungsten/Ramallite discussions above.

SeattliteTungsten 09:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confused: Where is there evidence that the wall led to "change in chosen political strategy"? As I commented in the article itself (hidden text), the citation you provided by Daniel Ayalon does not actually state this. Other sources may exist, but I'm not sure any of them attribute "political strategy" to the barrier. It is mostly attributed to Abu Mazen's negotiations with all factions in early 2005 to convince them all to run.
"Sniper deaths were a large fraction of the deaths that were lowered after the barrier was constructed." Not a big point, but most sniper attacks occurred against settlers and soldiers inside the West Bank, and not from the West Bank into Israel. Plus your sources mostly refer to suicide bombings.
You didn't respond to my question of whether an XY scatter graph is more appropriate than a bar graph. I think it is and that's how I've seen it presented in other publications.

Ramallite ^(talk) 14:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The article by the ambassador discusses this in the paragraph "it can save the political process..." If you want to change "electoral process" to "political process" to match the words exactly, that would be okay. This got moved around a bit between your edits and my edits. I think it's okay as it stands but maybe could be expanded.

Yes, the ambassador seemed to be saying that reducing violence would enable restarting the political process. It is very difficult to see how "it has been suggested that the participation of Hamas in the electoral process is a result of their reduced ability to conduct terrorist attacks" can be deducted from his words. In fact, he probably meant that putting down Hamas would enable the process to resume. Actual evidence suggests that this whole section may be OR, because we don't know if Hamas 'chose' to stop attacks or was merely 'unable to' - certainly those who want to have been able to do so. Hamas committed to a 'quiet period' in 2005, before which it hadn't really stopped attacking, so their 'choice' to participate in elections was actually (according to sources) because of discussions in Cairo with Abbas following the latter's summit with Sharon. There is absolutely nothing I can find that ties the wall to Hamas' decision to participate in elections, and definitely not Ayalon's words.

Snipers: the cited source refers to snipers and has a picture of how the wall prevents this. The most general statement is that the wall prevents many types of attacks against civilians, including suicide bombings, snipers, bombs, etc. It is less accurate to refer to these as only "suicide bombings" when this is only one type of attack. "Terrorist attacks" includes all types of attacks.
XY Scatter: I'm not sure what you mean. Is it this? (See image.) A line graph and bar graph are pretty similar. Time series data that was XY scatter would typically be connected by a line. Maybe it's just me (I have a graduate degree with a focus in finance) but I think it's pretty clear representation. You seem to think it's unclear but, forgive me if I'm wrong, maybe this is because data of GDP growth (increasing GDP) after the barrier is contrary to what you expected. The bar graph for annual real GDP growth is pretty standard, in my experience. If you think this is still a problem, please provide more detail about what is problematic and how it should be solved. (It could be me- I just don't understand.)

I realize now that this is how GDP growth is presented. From a scientist's perspective, I can't look at a graph without knowing the control, which instinctively would be a reference point. If the hypothesis is that economic output was higher before the intifada, then the data would show output 'after' compared to output 'before' (the control) and a graph would look like a downhill slope below the x axis (negative y) then a slight upturn but still a negative y. I still think that there is some OR pushing here, unless there is sourced evidence to suggest a correlation between the slight upturn in GDP and the wall. The phrase "it increased annually by 6.0% and 6.2%, respectively, in 2003 and 2004 (see Figure 1) when significant portions of the barrier were completed" implies direct linkage and causation that has not been made elsewhere that I can find.

A problem with the GDP figures you added (and I changed from 2003 to 2002) is that it is not clear whether the dollar amounts are nominal/current or inflation adjusted. This is one of the problems with using these numbers. (By contrast, "real annual GDP growth" is always year-on-year and real/adjusted-for-inflation not nominal/current.) Inflation in dollars was approximately 3%/year then so the comparison could be off by 9% depending on whether they are inflation-adjusted or not.

Furthermore, I fail to understand why you changed the most recent numbers (2003) to 2002, pretty random unless you are trying to push the position in the point above. Thanks for the clarification about using actual numbers, I will add a footnote to that effect.

Thanks for editing out the POV stuff added by Zeq. There could be one point in there like "the barrier has created alliances between Palestinians who oppose the barrier and settlers who oppose the barrier" but it would need more support, e.g., what alliances, which groups of Palestinians/settlers, how, when, etc.

SeattliteTungsten 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So I have made a few changes based on my comments, see what you think. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, I'd say we are nearly there.

I changed the Ayalon quote to more closely reflect what he said (same words, phrases, etc.)
including PS MFA text about things not related to the barrier and the economy is out of context in this article; I deleted this; it can go on another page where it would be appropriate information; (Ramallite, you seem to feel strongly that "one reason" has a different meaning from "one reason among many" so you can add back "among many" if you want.)
if the real GDP growth diagram is staying, no need to include data again in the text. (Perhaps, the exact numbers could be included in the Figure caption)
too bad you took out the "Hamas participates in election" clause following the quote about "political process" by Ayalon. I think an "election" is the quintessential embodiment of "political process" but maybe that's just my POV so I will only add it back if I find a reference explicitly linking these.

SeattliteTungsten 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be insisting on linkage: "declined substantially in 2000, 2001, and 2002, before the barrier was started, real GDP growth increased modestly in 2003 and 2004 (see Figure 1) after about a third of the barrier had been completed. " I thought my wording was more neutral because there was not 'after' or any other linking word, didn't you? Where are you getting this linkage from (source)? And more importantly, how is it possible to say that "about a third of the barrier had been completed in 2003 and 2004" unless that third was actually done by the end of 2002? Is this just a language disagreement we are having or are you insisting on insinuating linkage that is unsourced and trying to refute an argument that nobody is making? This is just making less sense to me. The GDP/economy and all of that is a much much bigger issue than just the effect of the barrier; the barrier was actually last on the list of reasons of that press release you quoted, yet this is the only article on Wikipedia to have a graph of the Palestinian GDP and a direct linkage between GDP and barrier construction, when linkage between economy and curfews, closures, and inability to travel are much more important factors than the barrier itself (according to all sources, except of course for those whose farmlands are cut off). That is why I added those other factors, because if all this text about GDP and economy was staying based on the contents of a press release, then I felt the context was misleading. Could you please readdress my concern that you insist on creating a linkage between GDP and the barrier. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I don't object to the Hamas quote in and of itself, but there is absolutely no evidence that I can find that ties Hamas' decision to participate in elections and the construction of the barrier. That statement had less place in this article than the "curfews, closures, etc" words that you took out.... Ramallite ^(talk) 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the sentence to state just the facts. It is OR, in my opinion, to try to attribute GDP decline to the lack of a wall, and then GDP improvement to the building of the wall, as the words 'before' and 'after' implied. This is true especially as nobody had made the argument that the wall was solely responsible for a decline in the economy. You were citing a statement that talks about "curfews, closures, incursions, and the wall", so a response would be a timeline of all four factors, not just one of them (and the economically least significant of them at that). That goes back to my original concerns above, that all this talk of citing GDP may be beyond the scope of this article. Furthermore, strictly on a language basis, it doesn't make sense to say a third of the barrier "had been completed" in 2003 and 2004. A third of the barrier was not yet in existence in 2003 and 2004, but finally was in early 2005 (in which, incidentally, GDP is projected to have declined again I think). Ramallite ^(talk) 21:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ramallite,

I think your changes to the "economic effects" sections are good and make sense;

Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"about a third" was your addition so I am not prepared to address this point;

It was taken from elsewhere in the same article "As of January 2006, approximately 31% has been constructed;" and I actually just realized it is 2006 not 2005 [9]. I thought this was better than "significant portions" because what constitutes a "significant portion"? Stating the facts without editorializing on their 'significance' is better, I thought. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

the linkage between the economy and the barrier is introduced by the PNA MoF;

Right, but along with closures, curfews, and incursions. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

one of my intentions is to make sure that any implication or statements that the barrier either "damaged the economy" or "was a factor in the decline of the entire economy" (your words) is addressed by providing GDP growth numbers so that people can see another POV about whether the economy was "damaged" or was in "decline". In my opinion, it is difficult (although possible) to call positive GDP growth "damaged" and completely unrealistic to call it a "decline" but that's just my POV.

Two things here. First, if a stabbing victim also has a mosquito bite, it's a bit far-fetched to treat the mosquito bite and then state that his condition is improved as a result. It's perfectly possible and reasonable to have positive GDP growth in a certain quarter or year, but to have the overall economy far below levels that it was at 5 years ago (as is the case here) and/or far below it's potential (as is also the case here). Citing YTY GDP growth de novo, out of context, is a misleading way to evaluate overall economy. Second, and bringing me back to my original argument again: the PNA MoF cited 4 factors as reasons for the suppressed economy. You took one of those four and tried to argue that it may have had the opposite effect. From both a scientific POV and a common sense POV, this logic would be flawed because the other three reasons are not factored in to the graph you made. In other words, how do we know that the positive growth in 2004 was not due to lessened curfews (as was the case?) Could it be that closures were eased in 2004 (which was also the case in many areas)? When the PNA talked about a suppressed economy, was it just GDP? They didn't say "GDP growth" but "suffering economy", which would also include things like unemployment, inflation, per capita GDP, poverty rate, etc. I understand and appreciate your attempt to show the opposing POV here, but an opposing POV to "four factors together are responsible for a suppressed economy" is not to take one factor only and then use an out-of-context GDP growth chart (when actual GDP amount is a fraction of the previous years). I'm not arguing for any changes in that section, it's fine, but I'm just responding to your comments here. I know that as a scientist, you can appreciate what I'm trying to convey here. Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. SeattliteTungsten 02:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ramallite. I'm not quite following you but "real GDP growth" is certainly in the context of "economic effects [of the barrier]" and "economic activity in 2004". If you don't think it's in context, maybe you could add some more context you feel is better. If you are no longer arguing for any changes in this section, seems like we're all set. SeattliteTungsten 17:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we've beaten this topic up enough, I was just feeling bad because I felt you seemed to disagree with the final version in your points above, although I don't think anybody stated that 'economic activity in 2004 was declining'; what was stated is that 'the economy continued to suffer' (which is true compared to pre-intifada levels). Anyhow, it's okay as far as I'm concerned :) My next gripe with this article (not with the section) is the recent Halevy quotation, which is extremely POV (although yes I understand it is an opinion) but now I have to balance it with another quotation which I have ready but am reluctant because I don't like to be one of those editors that promote destructive POVs (as I recently wrote to another editor) and wouldn't want WP to be a 'racist quotation' contest. But I don't like to remove sourced material either where it is otherwise acceptable (i.e. relevant and verifiable). So anyway, that's it for now I guess. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yossi Klein Halevy

The interesting thing about the YKH quote/article is that he is a well known Jewish/Israeli writer admitting, "yes, it is a land grab". At least it is a refreshing change from the "Israeli: it's just about security; sorry about the land" versus "Arab: it's just about the land and you use security as an excuse" stalemate. I'm not sure why you feel it needs to be balanced with another quotation. I find the YKH quotation to be somewhat pro-Palestinian in that he confirms their allegations instead of denying them. SeattliteTungsten 17:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, he just happens to be talking about human beings, yet his wording may just as well apply to a chicken farm. Your opinion above may hold some truth if you take for granted statements like "they've rejected compromise", "If Palestinians don't stop terrorism and forfeit their dream of destroying Israel", "Palestine isn't being restored but invented" which are strongly POV, at best, and (for reasons impossible to explain to anybody not from Palestine so I won't) racist, in implication. There are opposing POVs, such as (I paraphrase): 'compromise was what the Oslo process was about, except Israel doubled it's settlers and increased land confiscation' (many NGOs and the UN); 'the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist and modified its charter a few years later' (a number of PLO officials and supporting Palestinian opinion polls), and 'Israel has systematically attempted to erase the Palestinian national identity altogether, not just deny their independence' (Saeb Erekat, Hanan Ashrawi). So Halevy is expressing a POV (as is his right) but basing it on what others consider to be a bunch of canards. The barrier probably does not grab any more land than the rate of grabs that occurred during the Oslo years. Anyway, it is not okay from a Palestinian perspective to talk about us and our human rights as if they are a 'privilege' and a 'favor' when human rights are supposed to be universal for every human being. He confirms Palestinian allegations, as you say, from what I consider a very racist and supremacist perspective ("We're doing you bunch of Neanderthals a favor, so behave", so to speak). That's what needs to be balanced in my opinion. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, I think you are confusing racial with political. "Racist" has a particular meaning and YKH doesn't say anything about race. As for the chicken farm, the verbs and actions he associates with Palestinians are very human: (1) negotiation and the ability to accept or reject compromise; (2) committing or stopping terrorism; and (3) having dreams and goals. You might disagree about whether these positions are correct but I do not see anything in this writing which is racist -- only political.

Since we are on the IWBB page, all of this just makes his point, even with your interpretation, about the barrier all that much stronger if you can say rightly or wrongly, "see, even a racist and supremacist like YKH openly admits that the barrier is a way to grab (or solidify previous grabs) of land and perhaps all this talk about 'security' is just a smoke screen!" SeattliteTungsten 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)