Talk:Palestinian nationalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old version vs. new version

Here is why the older version is not as suitable - and others can comment on the recently revised version similarly. Incidentally, referring to my own ideological POV is irrelevant and uncalled for. If you are reverting solely on that basis, you have not abided by the assume good faith standard.

"several wars have been fought in the region as a means of ending Jewish influence in the region."

1- at least three wars didn't even involve Israel

2- "ending Jewish influence in the region" is strongly POV and also inaccurate, since the wars referred to were against a state.

"A key point of dispute is the percentage of the region that should be allotted to Arabs"

This is original research insofar as it is nonsense. A key point according to whom? There are many key points, but "percentages" isn't one of them.

"Some Arabs, as well as their allies and sympathizers, want 100% of the region to be Arabic, or at least Islamic. They do not believe in and refuse to tolerate a Jewish homeland in Palestine."

Source please?

"Other advocates, primarily Zionists and their allies and sympathizers, claim a Biblical mandate to re-establish the biblical Kingdom of Israel (although such a claim would seem far-fetched, consider that the biblical kingdom encompassed territory all the way to Damascus)."

Again, source please? (For both sentences, again the part in parentheses is blatant OR.

"During and after the establishment of Israel, many Arab refugees were left homeless. Some sold their real estate, while others had their property confiscated."

Very twisted POV. Left homeless? Like a hurricane came through? "Some sold"? Placing "sold" and "confiscated" on equal footing is a vile distortion of fact.

"These refugees remain largely near the Jordan River. On the east bank, they reside in Jordan, which has given them equal rights with other Jordanians. On the West Bank, tempers fume as various nationalist and terrorist groups clamor for the control of any future Palestinian state."

Wildly POV and erroneous. Most refugees are far away from the River. The "Tempers fume" sentence is a vile misrepresentation and again, unsourced original research.

"The proposals for a Palestinian state for this group nearly all dismiss the idea of the group's absorption into Jordan."

They also dismiss the idea of the "group's" absorption into Mongolia. Should we add that as well?

"And a majority of Israelis oppose their absorption into Israel, since such a measure would surely dilute the Jewish majority, while granting voting rights to a group that may seek to vote them out of existence."

This is neutral? Are you kidding me?

"As a compromise between permanent sovereignty and indefinite occupation, the PLO was allowed to establish the Palestinian Authority as a quasi-governmental administration in the West Bank."

BS - that is factually wrong.

Ramallite ^(talk) 14:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

One minor quibble: I don't particularly want anyone to think of this as "Palmiro's version"; it was a quick attempt to replace a very poor, historically inaccurate and POV article with something that could serve as a starting point for a historically rigorous approach to the topic. I feel no particular allegiance to what I wrote and hope that as much of it as possible will be changed, expanded and improved.... Palmiro | Talk 17:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think of it as "Palmiro's version", since you wrote it, and it was, in my view, just as POV as the previous version, if not moreso. "liberation of their lost lands" or even "liberation of Palestine"? Honestly. In the 50s and 60s they had no intention of "liberating" the Gaza Strip or West Bank - it was about replacing Israel with an Arab state. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Did I write "liberation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip"? Palmiro | Talk 22:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you did not, which is precisely why the exact term "Israel" is more appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there is no doubt that Palestine was used in the sense of the entirety of the British mandate in that period, and in talking about the political aspirations of Palestinian nationalists at the time is hardly subject to ambiguity. The use of the term "Palestine" to refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is extremely recent, as far as I know. "Israel", by contrast, refers only to the territory under Israeli control after 1949, and while this territory was undoubtedly the main focus of the Palestinian national movement, they thought of all Palestine as their homeland. Palmiro | Talk 16:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

But in fact, the use of "Palestine" by these movements was not intended to mean all of the British mandate, as I made clear - they had no intention of "liberating" the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but were perfectly happy to have them under Jordanian and Egyptian control. Rather, they intended to conquer Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

so the reason the article was useless uninformative and POV was Jayjg....how unusual...how strange for 1) Jayjg to edit an article that Jayjg knows nothing about...2) for an article that Jayjg edits to be absolutely useless 3) for an article that Jayjg edits to be POV...

1. some Palestinians were satisfied with Jordanian control (as half of the Jordanian Government were Palestinians, in effect Jordan was under Palestinian control), some were not it all depended on the greater Syria debate ..."happy under Egyptian control" wow that is a large leap from nothing into nothing...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Zionism v. Zionist colonisation

Zionism is an ideology, Zionist colonisation is what was happening in Palestine at the time in question (I don't think this is really disputed, whether you think it was a good thing or a bad is another question) and getting people worried. I think the difference between the two is a difference between an idea and a social process, not between POV and NPOV! That said, it is a very minor point and I'm certainly not particularly concerned about it. Palmiro | Talk 16:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is disputed, as the use of the term "colonization" assumes that the "colonizers" have no connection with the land. If the grandchildren of Palestinian refugees eventually returned to Israel, would they be "colonizing" it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. However, the sentiments of those involved are one thing; the real question is, how do we describe this objective process? It is, as far as I can see, the same phenomenon as occurred in Algeria, South Africa or Australia, and historians usually term it colonisation. Of course, it was distinct from these in the motives of those engaged in it and in their views as to their relationship with the place they were colonising. Nevertheless, we should remember that while "colonisation" is viewed as a "bad thing' these days, this wasn;t so when Zionism was first proposed and estanlished itself in Palestine. The fact that colonisation was widely seen as normal at the time in Europe was in fact the context for the acceptance of Zionism. I wonder did Zionist writers use the words "colony" or "colonise" or settler" or "settle", by the way?

I'm not sure that the word "colonisation" implies any particular view of the land being colonised on the part of the coloniser. And also, my impression, from what little I know of the subject, is that the Zionist settlers' romantic vision of the land was focused very much on the future rather than on the past. Palmiro | Talk 22:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think there are "objective" ways of describing these things? "Colonization" is a political term, with political implications. Jews did not return to Israel as "colonies" of their countries of birth, so from an "objective" standpoint it is unlike Algeria, South Africa, or Australia, where people who had no connection to a land settled there as representatives of the mother country. Again, if the Palestinians were ever able to implement their claimed "Right of Return", would those Palestinians be "colonizing" Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, how do you think it should be described? Were the Pilgrim Fathers in America colonists? I would think so, but they were hardly representatives of their mother country. Perhaps this is another case of a word having different connotations to different people (like proletariat, apparently). As far as Algeria etc are concerned, the objective phenomenon in terms of its effects on the country being colonised/settled/gone and lived in and its land bought up for use by the new immigrants was more or less of the same nature. Palmiro | Talk 01:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I asked you how those grandchildren (and great-grandchildren) of Palestinian refugees would be described. As for the Pilgim Fathers, they were given grants by their mother country, and were subjects of the crown, in the original 13 colonies. Of course they were colonists. This is not a word that has different connotations in English, this is a word which is being inappropriately applied. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question, if they were immigrating from outside Palestine and taking land occupied by native inhabitants with a view to exploiting it, yes, it might indeed be an appropriate term. You might like to take a look at colonization and see the distinction drawn there between that term and colonialism. Now that I have answered your question, perhpas you'd answer mine? Palmiro | Talk 11:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What is "a view to exploiting it"? I thought you claimed this was an objective thing that has nothing to do with "the sentiments of those involved". Everyone "exploits" the land they own, whether to hunt and fish, grow crops, use it for grazing, use it for parkland, mine it, build houses, build roads, etc. And in answer to your question, I'd characterize it as returning to their native land. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

'Everyone "exploits" the land they own, whether to hunt and fish, grow crops, use it for grazing, use it for parkland, mine it, build houses, build roads, etc.' Well, there's a difference, I think, between living on a piece of land, which is hardly exploiting it, and using it for agriculture or whatever, which is, and the term is hardly subjective. But surely you can do better than "return to their native land"? That's purely ideology. What was the social process involved? Palmiro | Talk 11:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Both "colonists" and "natives" use land for the same purposes, so your distinctions don't make much sense to me. When you talk about "pure ideology" and a "social process involved" about "return to their native land", are you referring to the claim of a "Right of Return" by the great-grandchildren of people who left Palestine in 1948, and whose great-grandparents may themselves have been immigrants to Palestine, or the children or grandchildren of immigrants? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Where did I say they used it for different purposes?! Sometimes I think we don't speak the same language at all! My question was what you call the social process of establishing Zionist settlements, particularly agricultural settlements, in Palestine, if that helps make it clearer. Palmiro | Talk 17:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(de-indenting) You first, since you've still refused to answer this question directly; if it ever occured, what would you call the "social process" of the settlement of modern day Israel by great-grandchildren of Arabs who left Palestine in 1948, and whose great-grandparents may themselves have been immigrants to Palestine, or the children or grandchildren of immigrants? Please be very explicit in your use of words, so I can understand exactly what you are saying. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

1. a return
2. people who set up plantations and have a completely different and foreign culture than the indigenous population are called colonisers...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the first paragraph

The first paragraph:

The growing weakness of the Ottoman Empire in the last years of the nineteenth century and the years prior to the World War I was accompanied by an increasing sense of Arab identity in the Empire's Arab provinces, most notably Syria, then considered to include both Palestine and Lebanon. While Arab nationalism, at least in an early form, and Syrian nationalism were the dominant tendencies along with continuing loyalty to the Ottoman state, Palestinian politics was marked by certain specificities, largely due to Zionism which was increasingly identified as a threat by Palestinian leaders and the concrete results of which were having a direct impact on Palestinian peasants in particular.

doesn't appear to mean anything, particularly the second sentence. Can someone explain it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought this was a blandly standard explanation of the rise of nationalism in the early C20 in the region. I'll try and flesh it out with more specific info and sources later today, if I get the time. Palmiro | Talk 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

maps and facts

I erased the "maps and facts" section that was added on March 29, 2007. It was a disorganized and biased section in an otherwise quality article. The section does not cite its sources and is rife with factual inaccuracies and agenda-filled historical revisionism. Furthermore, I erased, rather than edited this section, because it did not relate to the rest of the article. With considerable cleanup, this section belongs in the "History of Palestine" or "Palestinian History" article, but it has no place in "Palestinian Nationalism." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.184.224 (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

this "quality article" was a bag of sh*t that would damage the health and mental well-being of any reader...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1936-39 great uprising

This needs to be developed to respect NPoV and accuracy. Alithien 07:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

why develop something that has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism...Oh yes I see you want to POV the article up to Israeli standards...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up to meet wikipedia standards... Especially the portion of Early history which has several irrelevant sentences mashed together in the same paragraphs, lacks flow entirely, and makes essentially no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.32.53 (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I would downgrade its quality for this section

unrelated content

A very large section titled Palestinian leadership Ties with Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers during World War II has been copied into this article and in another related article. The problem with this content, besides its size, is that it not in any way related to the topic of this article. Nothing in it addresses Palestinian nationalism. Could somebody please explain why this unrelated material belongs in this article? That is of course besides the usual reason of saying "Palestinians=Nazis!!!" as loud and as often as possible? nableezy - 22:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that perhaps the section is too big. but to say "is that it not in any way related to the topic of this article" is almost ridiculous.

being the most prominent national leader of Palestine arabs, amin al husseini is an essential part of Palestinian national movement. without understanding it, it's impossible to understand any of the events that are taking place from 1948 war until now.

what's really strange is in all the article there is almost no word about the main arab Palestinian leader at that time :Hajj Amīn al-Husayni, and his acts, except a short line about his removal from office.: "In 1948, after Jordan had occupied Jerusalem, King Abdullah of Jordan removed Hajj Amīn al-Husayni from the post of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and banned him from entering Jerusalem." that's really starng. it's like writing an article about Microsoft windows without mentioning bill gates. if someone want to propose a shorter edit, then it's ok with me. if not , I will need to put it beck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs) 08:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC) --Jonathango 08:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

Nothing in the section discusses any Palestinian national movement. Not even one word in it. You are simply copying and pasting the same content from one article into many, regardless of whether or not it is related. What exactly does al-Husayni meeting Ribbentrop have to do with Palestinian nationalism? Give me three sentences in that entire section that discusses Palestinian nationalism. nableezy - 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

hello! see example: Haj Amin Al-Husayni, arrived in Rome on October 11, 1941, and immediately contacted Italian Military Intelligence (Servizio Informazioni Militari, or SIM). He claimed to be head of a secret Arab nationalist organization with offices in all Arab countries. On condition that the Axis powers "recognize in principle the unity, independence, and sovereignty, of an Arab state, including Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Transjordan", he offered support in the war against Britain and stated his willingness to discuss the issues of "the Holy Places, Lebanon, the Suez Canal, and Aqaba".

this part reveal a mindset of "Naserist-Pan-Arabic" National Identity, contradictory to Palestinian controversial claims that, at that time already was established separate Palestinian national identity. this fact is even more emphasised by the fact that el-husseiny was the Arab-Palestinian national leader of that time. there are much more examples.--Jonathango 19:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Two comments on this user:

• (1) The user is running the same spurious argument on Talk:Palestinian people
• (2) The user's account is new and appears to have been used for this single debate.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

this account was opened few months ago. and your argument is not true. --Jonathango 10:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the section that has repeatedly been copied into this article discusses the topic of this article. If your argument is that this section "reveals" the "controversial claims" of the Palestinians and is thus needed then your argument does not reflect the policies of this website. You need sources explicitly tying the content you are attempting to include to the topic of this article, not a thesis that you wish to prove by using whatever material you can find. nableezy - 18:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

you mean that the section is not in line with the false assumptions and political propaganda of this article? --Jonathango 10:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. What I do know is you have, again, violated the 1RR. And that you have again restored material completely unrelated to the topic of this article. Ill wait till the former issue is sorted out before dealing with the latter. nableezy - 12:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jonathango, to spell out the concerns here in a way you might understand better: this addition seems to raise issue of WP:COATRACK by using a particular issue as a place to hang a political argument (in this case Nazi-baiting Pan Arabism) on an article that is only obliquely related to this issue.

On Wikipedia, we cover the documented work by reliable sources about the topic at hand, which in this case is Palestinian nationalism. If you want to go find reliable sources discussing the relative importance of al-Husseini's opinions and connections to Palestinian nationalism as a whole and present them with appropriate weight compared to other issues in this article, you are welcome to do so. However, merely copying content from one article (to which it is central) to another article peripherally related is inappropriate.--Carwil (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

to carwil

1. why you are not posing similar demands for other material in this article, like the hilarious primordailism section?

2. as you can see in the article itself: popularity among the Palestinian Arabs

"Haj Amin's popularity among the Palestinian Arabs and within the Arab states actually increased more than ever during his period with the Nazis. When he returned to the Middle East from Europe, Arab leaders hurried to greet him, and the masses welcomed him enthusiastically. It was only after the defeat of 1948 that the need arose for someone to blame. To a certain extent, Haj Amin was chosen as the scapegoat."

Al-Husayni was elected to the presidency of the National Palestinian Council in 1948 even though he was a wanted war criminal at the time. Indeed, Professor Edward Said corroborates al-Husayni's popularity by stating:

This committee [the Arab Higher Committee], chaired by Palestine’s national leader, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, represented the Palestinian Arab national consensus, had the backing of the Palestinian political parties that functioned in Palestine, and was recognized in some form by Arab governments as the voice of the Palestinian people.

3. what more than that will make the material relevant in your eyes? 4. I am afraid wikipedia is turning into just another Palywood. promoting Palastenian activists fiction industry.

--Jonathango 19:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

Hi Jonathango

1. I've watchlisted this page and was trying to help resolve a conflict. I'm not the Palestinian nationalism handyman, just an interested editor.

2. The point is not whether Hajj Amin al-Husseini is relevant to Palestinian nationalism, but rather what material about him is relevant to an article on Palestinian nationalism.

3. An attempt to provide a balanced assessment of the role of al-Husseini in Palestinian nationalism over the course of his life. Interested readers may follow the wikilink to find out more about him (before, during, and after World War II) at Hajj Amin al-Husseini. One suggested starting point: Philip Mattar's Encyclopedia of the Palestinians whose entry on him runs on 213-216.

4. This spurious statement might be countered by assuming my good faith.--Carwil (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

to Carwill: I don't know you, and therefore I couldn't imply anything about your good faith. you need to understand that Al husseiny was the arab Palestinian leader in the first half of 20th century. lacking any information about him in this article, means - it's just a political bulletin. if you will not find a fair way to resolve this issue , I will need to revert again.--Jonathango 19:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

References

semi-anachronisms

This article doesn't make it very clear that before the 1960's, distinctive Palestinian Arab nationalism (as opposed to Pan-Arab nationalism, Pan-Islamic nationalism, Greater Syria nationalism, etc.) was mainly the domain of some theoretical intellectuals and some personally ambitious careerist politicians (who hoped for powerful positions in an Arab state created out of the British Mandate). In early 1948, a very significant number of Arabs in the British Palestine mandate assumed that Palestine would naturally be annexed to whichever Arab country turned out to play the leading role in destroying Israel and expelling the Jews, and many of them weren't too upset by the idea (since they regarded it as a step on the road to Arab unification). AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Primordialism fictitious section

this whole section is based on nothing but fiction. all sources has no credibility wht so ever, or not connected to the topic. further more - I suspect that the purpose of this section is the denial of well established Jewish heritage and reinventing history, according to best of pallywood methods. I suggest to delete. --Jonathango 18:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

Jonathan, there are three sources. Which are not credible or connected to the topic? It seems unlikely that a scholarly book with Palestinian nationalism in the title (Khalidi) qualifies as either.--Carwil (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Some nationalists like to ignore highly-inconvenient historical facts (such as that before 135 A.D. the word Παλαιστινη/Palaestina generally referred only to the southern coastal plain or "Philistia"; that Jund Filastin did not include the Galilee; that during most of the Ottoman period the word Filastin in Arabic was somewhat of an antiquarian or semi-foreign term, used mainly to refer back to the early Caliphates period, or by a few Christians who were influenced by European usages; etc. etc.). However, if the books in which they ignore highly-inconvenient historical facts attain some degree of prominence, then there's no reason why such books can't be mentioned on Wikipedia (though their claims should not be accepted uncritically). AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong sourced, academic material from Israeli Professor Haim Gerber of Hebrew University of Jerusalem added in the form of citing Professor Gerber's academic article " 'Palestine' And Other Territorial Concepts In The 17th Century" link here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/164341. Professor Haim Gerber notes the work of 17th century Islamic scholar Khayr al-Din al-RamliKhayr_al-Din_al-Ramli and mostly crucially the section Khayr_al-Din_al-Ramli#Legacy. This is strong evidence and proof that a primordial section is both real and needed and any claims to the opposite are spurious and likely just extreme propaganda of Zionist individuals as evidenced by individuals like user "Jonathango" using terms like "pallywood". --Historylover4 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty thin as it appears in the Wikipedia article, and doesn't really contradict what I said above. That he didn't bother to explain the casually-used term Filastin to his fellow scholars is a long way away from remotely proving that anything like a significant Palestinian self-identity existed at that time (which is historically extremely unlikely). Based on behavior observed well into the 20th century, if you had asked people in Khayr al-Din al-Ramli's time "What are you?", then likely far and away the number one answer would have been "Muslim" or "Christian", followed by the name of their clan or lineage, and the name of their immediate small local district. A semi-antiquated term like Filastin, which was not the name of any Ottoman administrative unit, would have been well down the list... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding more info on specific groups?

I see that Pro-Palestinian and Palestinian cause probably will be redirected here. As I wrote on the redirection discussion page: Would the information about the different Palestinian groups and the groups in solidarity be allowed in that article, or would it be banished as it has been when people try to write articles about either all such groups or nonviolent groups. (Since obviously articles about violent groups exist, aka Palestinian political violence, List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist, etc. And what about different campaigns like Boycotts of Israel or 2011 Israeli border demonstrations. Wish I had expertise and time to put something in about them, or even put together an article that wouldn't get deleted (as also was List of Palestinian solidarity organizations). Just some encouragement for others. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if boycotts of Israel are part of "Palestinian nationalism." As far as I know the Palestinian Authority does not boycott the Israeli economy aside from an informal ban on settlement construction but that really didn't change Palestinians from working in them. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That might be more relevant to solidarity groups supporting Palestinian nationalism, which O thnk would be relevant to this article. But someone's got to do it and I'm overloaded myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing lead

Why is the lead a description of Nationalism: " It also can more generally be compared to the modern idea of "nationalism" which most academics believe had its origins in late 18th century Europe. As "In Europe, before the development of nationalism, people were generally loyal to a city or to a particular leader rather than to their nation. Encyclopaedia Britannica identifies the movement's genesis with the late-18th century American Revolution and French Revolution; other historians point specifically to the ultra-nationalist party in France during the French Revolution. The term nationalism was coined by Johann Gottfried Herder (nationalismus) during the late 1770s. Precisely where and when nationalism emerged is difficult to determine, but its development is closely related to that of the modern state and the push for popular sovereignty that surfaced with the French Revolution and the American Revolution in the late 18th century and culminated with the ethnic/national revolutions of Europe, for instance the Greek War of Independence."

For a second I thought Palestinian nationalism began in the 18th century, but no - that's just the original philosophy of nationalism origins. I don't think it would look nice to remove the whole paragraph but it seems very misplaced. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC) _{Subscript text}

Well it seems to me that Palestinian nationalism is largely concerned with the aspirations of Palestinian Arabs to establish for themselves an identify as the Palestinian people, with a Palestinian state of their own (same as any other people). If no one objects, I'd like to make that the lede sentence. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The word Palestinian, in current usage, is specific to Palestinian Arabs. Your proposed sentence has no sources, and presents a spin on the word Palestinian people that is at odds with the common usage of the term. nableezy - 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll leave it alone. But did you know that Palestinian is a disambiguation page? Depending on context the term Palestinian can also refer to Palestinian Christians or Palestinian Jews. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did. Palestinian Christians are, like Palestinian Muslims, Arabs (at least mostly). Palestinian Jews is a term rarely used, except by a small segment of the Jewish population of Israel and the Palestinian territories. The term is most often used by non-Zionist Jews like Uri Davis. nableezy - 19:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you know so much, maybe you can help me identify the various modern inhabitants of Palestine (see also Palestinian identity).

I'm aware of various categories, such as nationality, religion and ethnicity:

1. Religion:
   • Palestinian Jews, including Yishuv
   • Palestinian Christians
   • Category:Palestinian Muslims
2. Ethnicity/Nationality:
   • Palestinian Arabs => the Palestinian people - not sure if this should include immigrants to Palestine from surrounding Arab countries since 1948 (see Palestinian immigration (Israel)
   • Palestinian Israelis (incorrect term?) or Israeli Arabs

It can get a bit confusing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Under the British, everybody in Palestine was a Palestinian. After the founding of the modern state of Israel, the term Palestinian Jew lost its dominant status in normal discourse, being replaced by Israeli Jew. The people that continue to use the term often do so as a way of claiming themselves separate from Israel or even the idea of Zionism. I was unaware of the existence of Palestinian immigration (Israel), thanks for letting me know about that. It is badly mistitled, the Palestinian immigrants to Israel were, prior to the passage of some recent legislation in the last decade or so, Palestinian from either occupied territories, or refugees from surrounding countries, marrying Palestinian citizens of Israel and gaining either residency or citizenship that way. Other than that, Israel does not allow any Palestinian immigration. As far as Israel's Arab citizens, the terminology used is controversial. Israeli Arabs has been preferred by the state, Palestinians of 48 (فلسطينيي ال 48), inside Arabs (عرب الداخل) and a few others have been preferred by the people themselves (or among Palestinians in the occupied territories to refer to the ones within Israel), and recent academic works have been calling them such things as Israeli Palestinians and Palestinians of Israel. Our article title makes a compromise by using Arab citizens of Israel. nableezy - 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, I think you are either very smart and informed, or a blowhard. It is so hard to tell! But I agree with the man, wikifan, who said the lead should talk less about Nationalism in general. It is about Palestinian Nationalism. What is this thing, nationalism, is well known. We put a wikilink in the first sentence, if they dont. If they do, we describe the specifics of the Palestinian and his nationalism. Jamussy (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No statements about criticism of Palestinian nationalism?

Why is it that Zionism (which is just another name for Jewish nationalism) has criticism in it's article, yet Palestinian nationalism doesn't have any? Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The legitimacy of both Palestinian nationalism and Zionism have been equally questioned over the years. I'd say such a section is warranted. Charles Essie (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian nationalism is defensive it is about a recovery. Zionism is aggressive it is about seizing and building to ensure a defensible Jewish homeland. Taking from others is far more controversial than complaining about what has been taken. 2A00:23C6:BD80:B900:41E1:B555:2037:AFB8 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Pan Arabism

"in opposition of pan-Arabism" is troubling. The claim is not sourced. Also, why is it impossible for someone to call for a pan-Arab state while live in their long-established hometown?? Remove for now. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Evidence seen in the Jericho Conference, where Palestinian delegates supported a union between Transjordan and Palestine as a step towards full Arab unity source. Doesn't mean that they were willing to give up their place of origin and go live somewhere far away. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Palestinian nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926220821/http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2001/israel/june/10/0106061229.html to http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2001/israel/june/10/0106061229.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5kvWKLyKq?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588322_2/Arab-Israeli_Conflict.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588322_2/arab-israeli_conflict.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531214717/http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal10.htm to http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150504194404/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/36917473237100E285257028006C0BC5 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/36917473237100e285257028006c0bc5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2019

In the third paragraph of the "After 1948–1964" section, it says Fatah was founded in 1954. Fatah was founded in 1959. 141.226.122.115 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits requested in the interests of objectivity and securing compliance with WP:NPOV

Further to my recent discussion with User:C.Fred on the Talk:Free Palestine Movement page of the Free Palestine Movement article, and pursuant to the suggestion made to me by other Wikipedia editors (including User:C.Fred) in that discussion to request edits to this article, I would like to request a number of edits to this article to make it more objective. I am prevented from making the edits myself due to WP:A/I/PIA, which I believe is a discriminatory policy because it excludes the vast majority of editors on grounds which are irrelevant to their suitability to comment on articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and is in conflict with WP:NPOV, which requires all view points on a particular issue to be taken into account as far as possible (how can you take on board all views if the vast majority of them are excluded from being expressed?) I believe that certain key facts in the history of the Palestinian liberation/nationalism movement are omitted from this article and should be incorporated in order to properly inform Wikipedia's readership, maintain objectivity and secure greater compliance with WP:NPOV. I have summarised the edits I suggest are made below. If any of these edits are objected to, I would appreciate a clear explanation of why they are not agreed to, and what changes you require to be made to them in order for them to be published and why:

1. Definition: Add the following text after the first sentence ending '...the national movement of the Palestinian people for self-determination in and sovereignty over Palestine': ', aimed at ending colonialism in Palestine. In the 20th century, one of the movement’s early aims was opposition to British colonial rule and imperial objectives during World War I. The British government, which issued the Balfour Declaration, undertook to grant the Palestinians independence after the War, while simultaneously promising to establish a Zionist state in Palestine. The establishment of the State of Israel, referred to by many Palestinians and supporters of the movement as the Nakba (catastrophe), and the resulting dispossession, killing and forcible displacement of Palestinians, gave the movement a new focus post 1948, namely ending Zionist and Israeli occupation and colonial oppression in Palestine. The movement’s supporters include political parties, NGOs, trade unions and solidarity groups both within Palestine and internationally.'
2. Origins and starting points: Under 1. 'Origins and starting points,' add the following paragraph at the start of this section: 'The history of the Palestinian liberation movement takes root at the time of the Ottoman Empire and then during the British Mandate, through the organisation of Palestinian civilians, farmers and notables against the expropriation of their land and property and threats against their cultural identity as Arabs to the benefit of Jewish immigrants. At the time of the Russian pogroms in 1880 and the first waves of Jewish immigration (First Aliyah– 1882-1903) into Palestine, the number of Jewish residents of Palestine was estimated at 25,000. In the 1890s, the nature of Jewish immigration to Palestine started to change from older, religious Jews to younger migrants who were funded to settle in Palestine by expropriating land from Arab farmers.'
3. Ottoman period: Under 2 'Late Ottoman context,' add the following paragraph(s) at the start of this section: 'In 1890, notables of Jerusalem addressed complaints to Constantinople against the Mutassarif of the City Rashad Pasha’s favouritism towards the Jews. In June 1891, a petition was presented to the Vizier asking him to prohibit the migration of Russian Jews to Palestine and the selling of land to them. This demand was repeated during subsequent protests against Jewish immigration to Palestine which broke out that same year. Zionist literature was not unknown to local civil servants – Muslims as well as Christians – who were particularly worried about the evolution of the situation after the Fifth Zionist Congress, which resolved to create the Jewish National Fund which was responsible for buying and developing land in Palestine for Jewish settlement . These worries were also shared by Arab intellectuals and journalists. The first three decades of the 20^th century were marked by a series of riots, strikes and boycott campaigns against “foreign” goods coming from Jewish settlements. During the final years of the Ottoman Empire (1908-1916), opposition to Zionist plans came firstly from farmers who fought to have their land returned to them. It was also voiced by two Palestinian newspapers Al-Asma’i and Al-Karmil whose editor-in-chief Najib Al Khuri Nassar played a prominent role.'
4. British Mandate period: Under 3 'British Mandate Period' create a new sub-section 3.1 (preserving existing subsections) entitled 'Summary' and insert the following text into it (if some of the subject matter overlaps with existing sub-sections, omitted content can be added to the relevant sub-sections): 'The First World War placed Palestine under British military occupation from 1917 to 1920, during which the British Government made an explicit stand in favour of Zionist plans by issuing the Balfour Declaration. The mandates for Palestine and the Levant, drafted in 1919-1922 at the Foreign Office in London and at the Quai d’Orsay in Paris, were prepared in close collaboration with members from the Zionist Organisation. In the aftermath of the San Remo conference of 1920, rioting broke out between Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem. A British military commission of inquiry asked to look into the causes of the disturbances concluded that the Zionists were largely responsible for the violence “by their impatience, indiscretion and attempts to force the hands of the Administration” in seeking to establish Jewish settlements in Palestine. Other riots occurred throughout Palestine in 1928-1929. Against such threats to Palestinians and the Arab identity of Palestine in 1931,Haj Amin al-Husseini, head of the Supreme Muslim Council, organised an international gathering of Muslims from around the world in Jerusalem, with the aim of securing the protection of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Islamic Holy Sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. In 1936, Al-Husseini and the Arab Higher Committee called on a general strike and six weeks of rioting followed, directed at the British Government. Widely observed, the strike froze all commercial and economic activities in the Palestinian sector and was followed by the Great Arab Revolt or Great Palestinian Rebellion from 1936 to 1939. Sporadic and later increasingly organised armed groups throughout Palestine, joined by a small number of Arab volunteers from outside Palestine, targeted the British and the Zionists. The Revolt was massively crushed by the British military by the end of summer 1939 and, as the Second World War broke out, in which many Palestinians fought for Britain against the Nazis alongside Jewish volunteers, Jewish immigration into Palestine continued (Aliyah Bet). From 1939 to 1947, Jewish militant organisations the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi, concerned that their aims of establishing a Jewish state covering the entirety of British Mandatory Palestine would be scuppered, challenged Britain’s rule over Palestine, including by means of direct attacks such as the assassination of Lord Moyne, the King David hotel bombing and other acts of Zionist political violence.'
5. UN Partition Plan: Create new sub-section entitled 'UN Partition Plan' (omitted from current content) as follows: '(Main article: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine)

The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was formed in April 1947 during a special session of the United Nations General Assembly and developed a partition plan for Palestine. The majority of the 11-member committee recommended the partitioning of Palestine into an Arab State and a Jewish State. Jerusalem would receive international status with special oversight by administrative authority of the United Nations (UN).

At a second UN General Assembly meeting, a Plan of Partition with Economic Union was approved. The Plan largely represented the UNSCOP’s proposal with minor changes. It called for the following actions:

• To create the separate Arab and Jewish States by the 1st of October 1948
• To divide Palestine into 8 parts as follows:
  • Three sections distributed to the Arab State
  • Three sections distributed to the Jewish State
  • One section, Jaffa, to include an Arab enclave within the Jewish territory
  • One section, the international regime for Jerusalem, to be administered by the UN Trusteeship Council

The Jewish Agency accepted the Plan with reservations regarding emigration by Jews from Europe and imposed territorial limits on the proposed Jewish State. The Palestinian Arabs and Arab States did not accept the plan on the basis that it did not follow the UN Charter which gives people the right to determine their own destiny.

The Plan was adopted by way of UN Resolution 181(II), resulting in outbreaks of violence in Palestine. The UN Security Council stepped in to assist, calling for a halt in military and paramilitary activities in Palestine. On 23 April 1948, a Truce Commission was formed in order to help with the ceasefire. In place of the UNSCOP, which the United Nations General Assembly released of its responsibilities, a UN Mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was appointed to assist in bringing peace. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 while carrying out his official duties by Zionist paramilitaries, which perceived him and the UN as anti-Jewish and a barrier to the achievement of Zionist objectives.'

1. Nakba: Delete title of current section 4 'The 1947-1948 war' and replace with 'The Nakba, establishment of the State of Israel and the War of 1948.' Add the following content at the start of this section, preserving existing content: '(Main article: 1948 Palestinian exodus)

In the lead up to the British withdrawal from Palestine, Zionist paramilitary groups, funded by the Jewish Agency, members’ own funds, Jews in the United States and with some secret backing from the Soviet Union, increased attacks on both British and Palestinian targets and the Haganah proceeded to implement Plan Dalet. As it became clear that the British would withdraw from Palestine in 1948, violence flared up between Palestinians, who were not well equipped to defend their land, and Jews in 1947, setting the stage for the Nakba. The Nakba featured the confiscation of Palestinian land, the expulsion from Palestine and mass killing of Palestinians, including the Deir Yassin Massacre, in which Zionist paramilitaries killed over 100 Palestinian villagers. On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom ended its control over Palestine, withdrew its troops and, on that same day, the State of Israel was declared. Violence intensified between the Palestinian and Jewish populations as a result of this declaration, as did the forcible displacement of Palestinians. Despite efforts to reach a truce by the UN Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO) and the UN Mediator, fighting continued throughout the coming year. One day after Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948, Arab countries, including Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan, attacked the new state and were defeated (main article: 1948 Arab-Israeli War). As a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jerusalem was also divided: the western half of the City became part of the new State of Israel while the eastern half, including the Old City, was occupied by Jordan.

The establishment of the State of Israel, to which the Palestinians refer as the Nakba (catastrophe), and the period preceding and immediately following it, resulted in:

• at least 13,000 Palestinians being killed or going missing and presumed dead
• the forcible displacement of an estimated 750,000 – 1 million Palestinians, who became refugees
• the destruction or repopulation with Jews of over 400 Palestinian towns and cities
• at least 24 massacres of Palestinian civilians by Zionist and Israeli forces
• approximately 4,244,776 acres of Palestinian land being appropriated by Israel
• according to the UN Conciliation Commission, total monetary losses to Palestinians by way of land confiscation and property damage estimated in current US dollars at US$ 209 billion
• approximately 150,000 Palestinians, often referred to as Israeli Arabs, remaining in Israel

Many Israelis and their supporters, including the Israeli government, dispute the Nakba, refer to it as Israel’s War of Independence and have engaged in concerted efforts to document both the events it entailed and Israeli history more broadly in a manner that presents Israel in a more favourable light, including by means of systematically modifying online content.'

1. Six Day War: Add a new section between 'The PLO until the First Intifada' and 'The First Intifada' entitled 'The Six Day War of 1967', including the following text in the new section: '(Main article: Six-Day War)

The Six-Day War was fought between 5 and 10 June 1967 between Israel and the neighbouring Arab states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Israel not only defeated invading Arab armies but also seized control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt; the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan; and the Golan Heights from Syria. The War was the result of escalating tensions between Israel and Arab countries, particularly Egypt. Egypt brought Jordan into the War when the then Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, banned shipping from the Straits of Tiran, which connected the Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba. Israel responded by initiating an air strike and, soon after, took control of air space in the region. A critical point during this period was Jordan’s attack on Jerusalem, which prompted a response from Israel by attacking East Jerusalem and the West Bank. On June 7, 1967, Israel captured Jerusalem. The final move, before a UN brokered cease-fire took place, was Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. The cease-fire took effect on June 10, 1967 after an estimated 20,000 Arabs and 800 Israelis perished. This defeat of the Arabs propelled the PLO into becoming an entity that would focus on an armed struggle against Israel.'

1. 1967-1993 post-1967 and pre-Oslo Accords Palestinian resistance: Add a new section after 'The Six Day War of 1967' and before 'The First Intifada’ called '1967-1993 post-1967 and pre-Oslo Accords Palestinian resistance'. Use the following content (sub-sections should be shown as separate entries in the contents page):

1967-1993 post-1967 and pre-Oslo Accords Palestinian resistance

The total defeat of the combined Arab armies in June 1967 humiliated the Arab regimes to the point that they allowed Palestinian semi-independent political resistance groups to operate within their borders. Capitalizing on this, various such groups started to openly organize not only the Palestinians within host state refugee camps but also citizens of the host Arab states. A War of Attrition erupted between Israel and Jordan, Egypt, the PLO and their various supporters, spearheaded by the various semi-autonomous Palestinian resistance groups, culminating in the Battle of Karameh where a joint effort of Palestinian forces with a significant number of Jordanian soldiers while defying orders repulsed a large Israeli force. Ahmad Shukeiri, first Chairman and founder of the PLO, who advocated pan-Arab unity as a means of furthering the cause of the Palestinian resistance movement, was pressured by enemies and detractors into resigning his position as PLO Chairman following the Six-Day War, and was briefly succeeded by Yahya Hammuda in 1967, but ultimately Yasser Arafat took over the helm of the organization in 1969.

Palestinian resistance in Jordan post 1967

The increasing influence of the Palestinian resistance movement was perceived as problematic by the Jordanian government and resulted in growing tensions between it and the PLO. These tensions continued to escalate and eventually resulted in an armed confrontation between the Jordanian government and PLO, known as Black September. Jordanian government forces repelled all PLO forces from Amman in April 1971 , culminating in the Battle of Ajlun in 1971. The Jordanian government, with significantly stronger military capability and after months of bloodshed, including at least 3,400 Palestinian dead, 537 Jordanian dead and 600 Syrian dead, signed a ceasefire agreement with the PLO on 27 September 1970 and the final remnants of the PLO left Jordan in July 1971.

In 1970, the PLO relocated its headquarters to Lebanon, which became its primary operations base. The unique political structure of Lebanon and its sectarian society both enabled the PLO to flourish and became its bane as it was dragged into the Lebanese Civil War.

International Palestinian resistance attacks post 1970

After 1970, the Palestinian resistance movement carried out a number of ‘external operations’ (attacks on a number of foreign targets in Europe and the Middle East), aimed at targeting perceived enemies of, and drawing international attention to, the Palestinian cause. These included attacks by the Black September Organization, formed in 1970, which carried out the 1972 Munich Olympic Attack. These attacks were counterproductive to the Palestinian resistance movement from a public relations perspective. Israel responded with air raids on Palestinian refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon in 1972, resulting in many civilian casualties, launched attacks in Southern Lebanon, killing 140, of which 80 were civilians, and Operation Wrath of God, which involved the targeted killing by Mossad of several Palestinians and other Arabs, in Europe and the Middle East, also including the killing in Norway of a Moroccan mistaken for a Palestinian terrorist. Palestinians have claimed that many of those killed by Israel as part of Operation Wrath of God were not part of the Black September Organization but were rather advocates of dialogue with Israel.

1973 Arab-Israeli War

(main article: 1973 Arab-Israeli War)

While the PLO did not play a significant part in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, which was primarily aimed at Egypt and Syria reclaiming territories occupied by Israel, PLO forces were part of the spearhead that lead the charge in the Golan Heights, and fought in the Sinai with the Egyptian army. PLO contributions were limited by their technical ability and numbers. Egypt tried to pursue the recapture of Sinai diplomatically prior to the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, but these diplomatic efforts were rebuffed by Israel.

What the PLO participation in the war effort lacked on the ground it was able to gain politically in the 1974 Arab League Summit that followed the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, gaining recognition by Arab League member states as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This political momentum paved the way for the PLO’s gaining observer status as a “non-member entity” of the UN on 22 November 1974 and membership of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1976.

Egypt peace initiative with Israel

(main article: Egypt-Israel relations)

Prior to the conclusion of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, both Egypt and Syria demanded the involvement of the PLO in UN Security Council debates, but these attempts were met with resistance from both Israel and the US, which vetoed initiatives to have the PLO recognised as the formal representative of Palestinians in peace talks held as part of the Geneva Conference.

Egypt pursued a political settlement following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, culminating in the Israel-Egypt Disengagement Treaty of 1974, the Sinai Interim Agreement of 1975, Anwar Sadat’s visit to Israel of 19 November 1977 and ultimately the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 26 March 1979, establishing diplomatic relations between the two countries. Sadat’s peace initiatives with and visit to Israel were met with widespread criticism from across the Arab world.

Lebanese Civil War

(main article: Lebanese Civil War)

The Lebanese Civil War erupted in 1975. With its ever-shifting alliances, the civil war was about the redistribution of power in a more democratic manner. The Lebanese Civil War caused extensive casualties (144,000 killed, 184,000 injured), widespread destruction (estimated at $25 billion), and overall damaged the interests of most participants in it, including Palestinian resistance groups in Lebanon. As the civil war escalated, a number of political parties and participants in the war, including some sections of the PLO, became embroiled in armed conflict and criminal activities . The 1976 Syrian invasion of Lebanon was as much an attempt to extend its influence as a measure to prevent an Israeli invasion and secure a strategic upper hand in the region. It was also intended to suppress the Palestinian resistance movement and its leftist Lebanese allies, protect Lebanese Christian militias and avoid the domestic instability that could draw Syria into a war with Israel. Israel nevertheless invaded South Lebanon in 1978, referred to by the Israelis as Operation Litani, which paved the way for the creation by Israel of the South Lebanon Army, intended to further Israel’s objectives in South Lebanon.

Background to Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon

Between May and July 1981, the Israel-Lebanon border was the scene of the most severe battles between the PLO and Israel since Israel’s 1978 invasion of South Lebanon. July 1981 was particularly violent, and saw the Israelis bomb PLO headquarters in Beirut, killing at least 123 and injuring 550. In response, the PLO launched rocket attacks against northern Israel, killing three and wounding dozens. This resulted in American mediation intervention and the first ever negotiated ceasefire between the PLO and Israel .

Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon

(main article: 1982 Lebanon War)

However, skirmishes between Israel and the PLO continued, tensions continued to escalate and on 6 June 1982, with minimal objections from the US government and US naval vessels stationed nearby in the Mediterranean Sea , Israel invaded Lebanon with roughly 60,000 troops and more than 800 tanks, heavily supported by aircraft, attack helicopters, artillery, and missile boats. The purported trigger-point for the invasion was the attempted assassination on 3 June 1982 by Arab militants loyal to Abu Nidal of Shlomo Argov, Israel’s ambassador to the UK, who was opposed to an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Abu Nidal, who in October 1974 had attempted to assassinate Yassar Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, had also been responsible for assassinating PLO official Said Hammami in 1978 and later PLO official Issam Sartawi in 1983, was alleged to have been a US spy and described by his own biographer, Patrick Seale, as having worked for Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.

One of the first battles of the invasion was the Battle of the Beaufort, which took place at Beaufort Castle and resulted in casualties on both sides. Fierce fighting ensued around Sidon, in Palestinian refugee camps and along the route to Beirut, culminating in the Siege of Beirut by Israeli forces on 14 June 1982. Beirut saw by far the greatest number of casualties of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, with estimates by international doctors in Lebanon putting the proportion of civilian dead at 80%. According to Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar, the three month period following the Israeli invasion (6 June – 25 August 1982) resulted in 17,825 killed and 30,103 wounded in Lebanon (including Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians), while Israeli Ministry of Defence figures put the number of Israeli dead at 657, with 3,887 wounded. These figures do not include the number of predominantly Palestinian refugees and Lebanese Shiites killed in the Sabra and Shatila massacre in September 1982, which are estimated at a further 3,000-3,500.

Aftermath of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon

PLO defeat and US-brokered PLO evacuation

Although the PLO and its supporters put up fierce resistance against Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the Israeli army had vastly superior financial resources, numbers, armament, training, mobility, organisation, logistics and technology. The invasion resulted in the defeat of the PLO and a US-brokered deal to evacuate PLO command (including Yasser Arafat) and PLO fighters from Lebanon, supervised by the Multinational Force. Thousands of PLO members and combatants left Beirut in August 1982 for Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, both North and South Yemen, Greece and Tunisia—the latter of which became the new PLO headquarters. Senator Philip Habib, Ronald Reagan's envoy to Lebanon, brokered the evacuation and provided a solemn guarantee to the PLO, as part of the deal, that the Palestinian civilians who continued to reside in refugee camps in Lebanon would not be harmed – despite this guarantee, the Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred the following month.

The vacuum created by the PLO’s departure, the heavy casualties suffered by Lebanon as a result of the Israeli invasion of 1982, adding complexity to an already costly civil war, the creation and continued rise of nascent Lebanese political party the Amal Movement and militant group Hezbollah as the dominant militant organisation in South Lebanon, as well as Israel’s propaganda efforts to foment divisions between the Palestinians in Lebanon and the local Lebanese population, all ensured that PLO presence in Lebanon was and would remain severely weakened.

PLO divisions during Lebanese civil war

Chasms had begun to emerge within the PLO over whether to pursue a policy of negotiation with or continued armed resistance against Israel. PLO groups emerged in Lebanon loyal to the Syrians on the one hand and the mainstream PLO on the other, as Syria encouraged both PLO dissidents and the Amal Movement in a battle for control over the Palestinian movement in pursuit of its wider regional objectives. These chasms proved to be the reason why, in late 1983, Arafat and 4,000 of his loyalists were forced out of Lebanon a second time, having returned in a bid to maintain influence as principal representative of the Palestinian people and avoid the potential marginalisation associated with exile to Tunisia, some distance from threats to Palestinians in both Palestine and Lebanon. Growing divisions between the PLO and Lebanese militant groups also lead to attacks by the Syrian-backed Amal Movement on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon in the mid-late 80s in which thousands of Palestinians were killed, as part of the War of the Camps.

Early Israeli-PLO diplomatic efforts

Although some dialogue had been conducted between the PLO and the Israelis as early as the 1970s, most notably by the PLO’s London representative Said Hammami (assassinated in 1978 aged 36 by Abu Nidal), secret official talks between the PLO and Israel gained momentum in 1984, although officials on both sides initially denied that they were taking place. These talks proved an early precursor to the Oslo Accords and Israeli-Palestinian peace process. However, it was not until the First Intifada (Palestinian popular uprising) of December 1987 that Israel would start to consider the possibility of a role for the PLO in administering the occupied territories.'

1. First Intifada: Add the following content at the start of the current 'First Intifada' section (preserving existing content): '(main article: First Intifada)

By the late 1980s, Palestinian frustration in the Occupied Territories had increased due to Israel’s colonial repression of Palestinians through beatings, shootings, killings, house demolitions, uprooting of trees, deportations, extended imprisonments, and detentions without trial. This frustration, coupled with the expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories and the trigger events of an Israeli settler killing a Palestinian schoolgirl and seven Palestinian workers being killed in a collision with an Israeli army truck, resulted in the outbreak of the First Intifada (uprising) on 9 December 1987.

The First Intifada included non-violent protests by Palestinians, violent clashes between Palestinians and the Israeli army, with the Israeli army often exhibiting brutality against unarmed or stone-throwing Palestinians, Palestinian labour strikes and Palestinian boycott initiatives against Israel. Politically, coordination and mobilisation initiatives associated with the First Intifada included the participation of Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Palestinian Communist Party, all to a greater or lesser extent participants in the work of the PLO. There was a wide disparity in the military capability of the Israeli army, which controlled the Occupied Territories, and the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, and a similarly wide disparity in the number of casualties.

Impact of First Intifada

The First Intifada caused casualties on both sides and shifted the focus of the Palestinian resistance movement from ‘outside’ to ‘inside’ Palestine, increased international sympathy for the Palestinian cause and laid the groundwork for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, while also giving birth to the Islamic resistance movement, Hamas. In December 1988, the US agreed to hold direct discussions with the PLO in respect of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process , reversing a ban that had been in place since 1975, citing that the PLO had met the three conditions for the commencement of negotiations (recognising Israel, accepting UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, effectively reducing the scope of its claim to re-establish a Palestinian state to pre-1967 borders (22% of historical Palestine), leaving aside the thorny issue of Jerusalem, and renouncing terrorism). On 13 December 1988, Arafat addressed the UN General Assembly and called on Israel to join him in a negotiation for peace, which was rejected by Israel. The US announced the opening of a ‘diplomatic dialogue’ with the PLO on the following day but talks were suspended by the US in 1990, which cited the PLO’s failure to condemn a 30 May 1990 attempted attack on a Nitzanim beach .'

1. Gulf War 1990-1991: Create new section after 'First Intifada' entitled 'Gulf War 1990-1991' with the following content: '(main article: Gulf War)

The 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq changed the political landscape once again, contributing to further instability in the Middle East, embroiling the United States and allies in the conflict and ultimately increasing impetus to focus on finding a peaceful solution to the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, constituting the majority of the foreign labour force in Kuwait at the time, many of whom had resided in Kuwait for decades, were expelled from Kuwait and prevented from returning in 1990-1991 as a result of the PLO allying itself with Saddam Hussein and being perceived by the Kuwaiti Government as enemies of the state, despite the majority of Palestinian residents of Kuwait being against the Iraqi invasion. These Palestinian residents, many of whom had been made refugees in 1948 as a result of the Nakba and again in 1967 as a result of Israel’s annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, found themselves forcibly on the road again. After the conclusion of the Gulf War, the US announced its intention to increase its focus on peaceful solutions to Middle East conflicts and brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Secret talks between the PLO and Israel commenced, paving the way for the Madrid Conference and the subsequent Oslo Accords.'

1. The Oslo Accords - from transition to PNA rule to stagnation of the Peace Process: Create new section after 'Gulf War 1990-1991' entitled 'The Oslo Accords - from transition to PNA rule to stagnation of the Peace Process' with the following content (the content of current section 7.3 'The Peace Process' can be amalgamated into the new section due to overlapping content - this deserves its own section, rather than being a subsection of 'The First Intifada'): '(Main article: Oslo Accords)

The Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the PLO in 1993 were aimed at achieving a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians, ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and at fulfilling the ‘Palestinian right to self-determination,’ with the ultimate objective of creating a Palestinian state. Then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat shook hands on the Whitehouse lawn on 13 September 1993 in a widely televised ceremony marking the conclusion of the Accords. The Accords created the Palestinian Authority, which was given limited self-governance in the West Bank and Gaza and made the PLO Israel’s partner in the negotiation of outstanding issues in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Accords resulted in 1994 in Israel’s withdrawal from Jericho and most of the Gaza Strip, as well as other parts of the Palestinian territories, the first elections of the Palestinian Authority, which took place on 20 January 1996, and the creation of the Palestinian Legislative Council and Palestinian Civil Police Force.

While the Oslo Accords had, and continue to have, critics on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , during the period immediately following the conclusion of the Oslo Accords, there was also widespread optimism on both sides that they would result in positive change. However, subsequent events transpired which contributed to a deterioration in relations between Israel and the Palestinians and the ongoing stagnation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, including but not limited to:

• The assassination on 4 November 1995 by a right wing Israeli student of Yitzhak Rabin, then Israeli Prime Minister, who shook hands with Yasser Arafat on the White House Lawn on 13 September 1993 marking the conclusion of the Oslo Accords and was a member of Israel’s Oslo Accords negotiating team;
• Policies and concerted efforts of subsequent Israeli governments;
• The Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre and other acts of violence by both sides to the conflict against the other, with statistics showing a wide disparity between the number of Palestinian and Israeli casualties ;
• Israel reneging on its obligations under the Oslo Accords as part of a deliberate policy to avoid advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process ;
• The Palestinians threatening to depart from the Oslo Accords in response to Israel reneging on its obligations under them, and some Israelis welcoming the resulting stalemate;
• The failure of the 2000 Camp David summit between Israel and the Palestinians, which aimed to revive the stagnating Israeli-Palestinian peace process and end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with each side blaming the other;
• Then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s visit to the disputed Temple Mount in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, which many Palestinians viewed as provocative and resulted in an outbreak of protests and clashes ;
• The consequent outbreak of the Second Intifada and associated casualties;
• Continued Israeli control of the Palestinian territories, a feature of the Oslo Accords, and ongoing and worsening restrictions by Israel of Palestinians’ freedom of movement ;
• The expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and increase of settler populations in the Palestinian territories, with the population of Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank numbering over 620,000 and continuing to increase since the Oslo Accords ; and
• Israel’s construction of the Separation Barrier, a large wall between Israelis and Palestinians which encroaches into the West Bank, restricts Palestinians’ freedom of movement and isolates them from their land and territory illegally occupied by Israel in 1967.'

1. Second Intifada: Add new section after 'Palestinian National Authority (1993)' entitled 'Second Intifada' with the following content: '(main article: Second Intifada)

In late September 2000, the collapse of the Camp David summit, Palestinian frustration at the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, together with Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to the Haram Al Sharif, resulted in the outbreak of the Second Intifada (Palestinian uprising). Israel imposed progressively harsher border closures and movement restrictions on Palestinians within the Occupied Territories and, beginning in late 2001, widespread sieges on Palestinian population centres resulting in virtual “town arrest” for most people in the West Bank. This served further to dampen economic activity, employment and income, resulting in a radical spike in the Palestinian poverty rate. Beginning in spring 2002, Israeli forces reoccupied the main cities, towns and some villages in the West Bank and imposed twenty-four-hour curfews on their populations.

Again, there was a wide disparity between the number of Israeli and Palestinian casualties. Apart from the detrimental impact on the Palestinian economy, which became very reliant on the international community (a trend which has continued), the Second Intifada also had a detrimental impact on the healthcare system and banking sector in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While the First Intifada ultimately had a positive effect on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in paving the way for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the same could not be said of the Second Intifada, and a number of events occurred as a result of or during the Second Intifada which adversely impacted the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, such as Israel’s construction of the Separation Barrier, the Gaza Wars, the election of Hamas to the Palestinian Legislative Council and divisions between Hamas and Fatah, added to by Israeli economic pressure . Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, although it retains control of access to and from it. In 2014, when as part of the [reconciliation process], Hamas and Fatah signed an [reconciliation deal] (followed by a further reconciliation deal in 2017), Israel reacted by suspending peace talks with the Palestinians and calling for a boycott of the Palestinian Authority.'

1. Palestinian National Authority (1993): Add to this section a link to the main Wikipedia article as follows: '(Main article: Palestinian National Authority)'
2. Present: Add new section after 'Competing national, political and religious loyalties' entitled 'Present' with the following content:

'Peace Process

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process remains stagnant and has been for a number of years, amid what the United Nations terms a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Despite this, a majority of people on both sides of the conflict based on recent polls appear to support a peaceful solution.

Palestinian statehood

The prospect of imminent Palestinian statehood remains similarly remote, although a majority of world states have recognised Palestine as a state (see main article: International Recognition of the State of Palestine), in some cases basing their intention to recognise a Palestinian state on the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has stalled.

Continuing Israeli occupation

Israel continues to occupy the Occupied Territories. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, as a result of Israel’s policies, Palestinians continue to experience human rights violations, restricted freedom of movement, restrictions to their healthcare sector, high unemployment (70% in the Gaza Strip), unlawful killings, detentions without charge, house demolitions, discriminatory practices and high rates of poverty - the situation in the Gaza Strip is considered particularly grave .

2018-2019 Gaza border protests

In 2018-2019, the Gaza border protests have been taking place, consisting of largely peaceful demonstrations by Palestinian residents at conditions in the Gaza Strip, on occasion resulting in clashes with Israeli forces and a number of casualties on both sides, with the number of Palestinian casualties being predominantly civilian and far outnumbering the number of Israeli casualties.

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, started in 2005, seeks to exert academic, cultural and economic boycott pressure on Israel to push for an Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, removal of the Separation Barrier, equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel and a right of return for Palestinian refugees. The movement has gained increased traction since its inception, with a number of celebrity singers and musical artists (such as Shakira, Lauryn Hill, Snoop Dogg, Lana Del Rey, John Lydon of the Sex Pistols and Lorde) recently cancelling or indefinitely postponing concerts in Israel as a response to the BDS movement. The BDS movement has proven controversial to many in Israel and their supporters.

US foreign policy

The US approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been perceived in many circles as unbalanced and unlikely to yield results . Recent US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular has been documented by a number of analysts to be polarised and divisive, including:

• US withdrawal of financial aid to the Palestinian Authority in 2019;
• US closure in September 2018 of the Palestine diplomatic mission in Washington, DC.
• US President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on 6 December 2017 and relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on 14 May 2018, resulting in clashes in the Occupied Territories and a number of Palestinian casualties;
• The US modifying its designation of the Israeli occupied Golan Heights from “Israeli-occupied” to “Israeli-controlled” in March 2019
• The US cutting funding to the UNRWA in 2018;
• In June 2019, the US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, claimed that Israel had a right to annex parts of the illegally occupied West Bank ; and
• The US proposal of a so-called ‘Deal of the Century’ as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which avoids reference to Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Territories and does not envision the establishment of a Palestinian state. The basic premise is the payment of US$50 billion predominantly to Palestinians, effectively in return for their relinquishment of their claim: (1) to statehood; (2) to an Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories; and (3) of a right of return for Palestinian refugees. The ‘Deal of the Century’ has been rejected by the Palestinians and Lebanon, who boycotted a conference held to discuss it , widely criticised by a number of global commentators as unviable and has received very limited support .

Israel’s 2018 Nation State Law

In 2018, Israel passed the Nation State Law, which describes Israel as ‘the nation state of the Jewish People’ (making it the only state in the world which officially defines itself based on exclusive ethnoreligious grounds), relegates Arabic from an official language to a language with ‘special status’ and recognises the right of self-determination as being unique to its Jewish population (effectively excluding both Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, numbering around 5 million, as well as Arab Israelis who are citizens of Israel and number around 21% of the Israeli population or around 1.89 million), seeks to affirm Israel’s right to own and occupy the Occupied Territories as part of a wider Jewish homeland and has been widely criticised as codifying and legitimising land annexation and discrimination against Palestinians, seeking to eliminate any prospect of Palestinian statehood as well as being counterproductive to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process . Statistics show that the Palestinian population in Israel and the Occupied Territories is increasing at a faster rate than the Jewish population, which is perceived in some Israeli circles as a demographic existential threat.

Apartheid comparisons

The treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories by Israel, and the Palestinian liberation movement responding to it, have drawn comparisons with apartheid and the struggle to overcome it in South Africa (main article: Israel and apartheid analogy), which, like Israel continues to do, maintained legislation and practices that were discriminatory against the indigenous population .

Public support

According to a number of opinion polls, international support for the Palestinian cause amongst the general public around the world remains considerable . Prominent members of the Palestinian diaspora, such as Edward Said, Joseph Massad, Amer Zahr, DJ Khaled, Gigi Hadid (see main article: List of Palestinian Americans) and Salma Karmi-Ayyoub have contributed to raising the profile of the Palestinian cause outside Palestine, as have Israeli journalists, academics and activists such as Gideon Levy, Ilan Pappé, Uri Avnery and Ronnie Barkan. A number of non-Palestinian celebrities, such as J.K. Rowling, Natalie Portman, Penelope Cruz, Selena Gomez, Emma Thompson, Stephen Hawking, Cristiano Ronaldo, Dwight Howard, Jon Stewart, Gary Lineker, Zayn Malik, Moeen Ali and Mohamed Aboutrika have also expressed support for Palestinians, often receiving criticism for doing so . US academic and linguist Noam Chomsky has repeatedly expressed support for the Palestinian cause, and in his 2015 book co-written with Ilan Pappé “On Palestine,” the situation facing Palestinians is summarised as follows: “The tale of Palestine from the beginning until today is a simple story of colonialism and dispossession, yet the world treats it as a multifaceted and complex story — hard to understand and even harder to solve”.'Jgraham1956 (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Palestinian Youth Movements

Palestinian youth activism contributes to the national movement of the Palestinian people. Palestinian youth activism typically takes places in various parts of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Israel, and even internationally. The political mobilization efforts of Palestinian youth has derived from three exacerbating forces: "the multigenerational dislocation they were born into, the global fragmentation of their community, and the political vacuum created by the slow disintegration of a Palestinian national movement with global reach.” Examples of Palestinian youth movements include youth participation in the First Intifada, the Palestinian Youth Movement transnational organization, and the Palestinian 15 March movement.Ahheredia (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

First off, thanks for including sources for your requested additions. As you can imagine there is a lot to unpack here but I will certainly try to go through this over the next few days. Beyond that, the purpose of the protection is that this topic-area has unfortunately seen levels of disruption not seen in other topics, and the thinking was that users should work on other topics so that they gain some experience in the content policies of Wikipedia before stepping in to what is arguably one of the most heated topics on Wikipedia. I hope you'll do just that and stick around. I'll go through your comments as time permits and I am sure others will be as well. Thanks again, nableezy - 17:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Nableezy: Thank you for your prompt response. I and others put a lot of time into researching this piece, and wanted to ensure we met Wikipedia standards around citations and sourcing. I understand the need to control things on this evocative subject, but I hope that this does not get in the way of Wikipedia maintaining compliance with WP:NPOV. I understand that there is a lot of material for you to digest, and am happy for you to take the time you need to do so. In the meantime, if you have any queries about any of the content, please do not hesitate to get in touch.Jgraham1956 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• @Nableezy: With a month having elapsed since the amendments I proposed and our exchange of messages, just wondering how you’re progressing with your review and when you expect to complete it.Jgraham1956 (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Im very sorry, life has gotten in the way a bit. Honestly, if I were you I would work on some other parts of Wikipedia until you get the required number of edits so that you may edit this topic area. Will help you gain a bit of experience in both the content policies and the technical bits of editing. I will try to get to this but cant promise when. nableezy - 13:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: I would be willing to edit the article on your behalf, a line (+ refs) at a time, if you want to, I can't manage what amounts to a virtual rewrite all at once. It might take a while, but it would get done eventually. If you want to try that for a while, then just post them here one at a time and I will ping/reply when each one is done, OK? This procedure would also allow other editors to join in, perhaps. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Nableezy: Thanks for clarifying that you are now actually unavailable to review the edits. Your suggestion that I wait until I accumulate 500 edits is neither helpful nor viable. I made these edit requests at the suggestion of one of your fellow editors precisely to get around the discriminatory and obstructive effect of the 500 edit requirement (this criterion is entirely irrelevant to an editors’ suitability to comment on the subject matter, excludes the vast majority of editors and favours institutionally-backed, pro editors with lots of time to edit Wikipedia pages.)@Selfstudier: Appreciate the offer of help but it’s not clear to me why you want me to repost the edits ‘a line (+refs) at a time’. All the edits are already posted, one edit at a time (+refs), in my original post above. Let me know if you have any difficulty understanding the edits requested.Jgraham1956 (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• @C.Fred: I hope you’re well. You will recall that we had a discussion on the Talk:Free Palestine Movement page. I tried to get an article about the Palestinian liberation movement published, had it rejected, complained about pro-Zionist bias in Wikipedia and was told about Wikipedia’s little publicised WP:A/I/PIA which requires editors to have a minimum of 500 edits before they can edit articles with Israel/Palestine content (effectively excluding the vast majority of Wikipedia editors on grounds which are not relevant to their suitability to comment on the issue). After extensive discussions, we eventually settled on: (a) creating a disambiguation page to distinguish inter alia Palestinian liberation from the little known and apparently recently created Syrian armed group (existing Free Palestine Movement page) in the interests of clarity, which you helped create; and (b) you suggested that I request edits to the Palestinian liberation page incorporating content from my article, in order to get around WP:A/I/PIA’s minimum 500 edit requirement. Well, back in August I did just that and was told by User:Nableezy that the edits will be looked at within a ‘few days.’ A month passed and nothing happened so I followed up and was told by User:Nableezy that he might not get time to look at the edits after all and suggested I go and edit other pages until I accumulate 500 edits (neither helpful nor viable.) User:Selfstudier offered to help make the edits but inexplicably asked me to repost the edits ‘one line at a time,’ even though I had already posted them, one edit at a time, on the talk page (see first post on this thread). The message appears to me to be somewhere between ‘go away’ and ‘we’re going to make life as difficult for you as possible.’ My conclusion that Wikipedia suffers from innate pro-Zionist bias is crystallising as a result of my experiences on here so far. Any ideas about how my edits can be made, as per your suggestion?Jgraham1956 (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: I'm going to be completely candid here and point you to the essay WP:TL;DR. The problem is that your edit request is such a massive wall of text that it is somewhere between impractical and impossible for most editors to dive into it. I'd suggest picking the one most critical edit of that list and requesting that edit. Suggest the edit, provide the sources, and explain why it would improve the article. Keep the edit requests small and manageable. Uncountable (literally, the numbering broke) one-line-at-a-time edits still make one giant request. IMHO, the easier you make it for other editors to grasp the change, the more likely they are to support it; conversely, walls of text will likely fall on deaf ears.

Additionally, stay on the content of the article. The accusations of "pro-Zionist bias" make it easier for editors to assume that you're here with an agenda to advance and discount your edits regardless of their merits. Instead, if you explain how the change improves the article, it helps your chances of getting support. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: Thank you for your message and constructive criticism. This is helpful and informative. I also appreciate the candour - I would rather that than very poorly disguised middle fingers which is what some of the messages I have received from other editors come across as. So when I accuse Wikipedia of pro-Zionist bias, this is not in pursuit of an agenda but backed up by evidence I have seen in Wikipedia content and approach to edits perceived as anti-Zionist. Just as I am open to constructive criticism (and doing something about it), Wikipedia should be too. I will follow your advice and be concise when requesting my edits, but I am not going to request one edit/line at a time. I plan to put forward at least 5 edits at a time. Why? Because: (a) I am sure a well intentioned Wikipedia editor with the requisite 500 edits can handle inputting 5 edits each time; (b) the 5 edits will remain concise enough to be on the right side of WP:TL;DR; and (c) if I were to limit each entry to one edit, I’d be looking at a 6.88 year lead time (assuming one edit per week and going by my 358 footnotes as a ball-park indicator of total edits), which is far too long to wait to edit a Wikipedia article. I will post the edits in a separate post. I would appreciate engagement, rather than further stalling, from Wikipedia. I will not tolerate being silenced under the guise of ‘editor inexperience’ or requests to be more concise. You profess to be an impartial information source (WP:NPOV requires you to be and to ensure that all views on a particular issue are represented as far as possible.) You talk the talk - time to walk the walk.Jgraham1956 (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• The reason I suggested one line at a time has nothing to do with pro Zionism, had you troubled to check my past editing you would see that description does not apply in my case. One problem with IP (Israel Palestine) editing is that even what appear to be innocent edits can often give rise to reams of discussion on the talk page and if one has to trawl back and forth to deal with that, it's a tiresome business. At the end of the day, you are asking editors to spend time on your edits rather than doing their own editing, isn't that the case? If two editors that are on your "side" are inviting you to go a line at a time, why not just go along with that? With respect, it's not we silencing you, it is you silencing yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Selfstudier: Please do not take my criticisms of Wikipedia personally and please do not accuse me of being responsible for not being able to edit this article. I was not necessarily referring to you specifically when referring to Wikipedia's innate Zionist bias, but the experiences I have had in trying to edit Wikipedia content since I signed up more broadly. In short, I have received threats, encountered closed doors and delays/stalling at virtually every turn and the impression I get is that other editors (with a few notable exceptions) want to make life difficult for me here. I do not want to be reliant on you to make edits to this article any more than you do - it is Wikipedia and more specifically WP:A/I/PIA which has given me no choice but to rely on others to edit this article due to the minimum 500 edit requirement, which I continue to object to as having the EFFECT (even if not the INTENTION) of favouring institutionally-backed pro-editors with plenty of time to edit Wikipedia and excluding the vast majority of Wikipedia editors on grounds which are entirely irrelevant to their suitability to comment on the subject of Israel-Palestine. In short, it operates as a rule which gags dissent and censors freedom of expression, and is in direct conflict with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia as enshrined in WP:NPOV - namely making sure that all points of view are represented. How can all points of view be represented if most of them are gagged? This is the main issue here - and it is one which neither you nor I are responsible for. Arbcom is responsible for this, and has a lot to answer for. To answer your question about why I do not wish to accept one edit at a time, and why this frustrates me, this is because: (a) my edits to this article could as a result take up to 7 years to make (see previous message on this) - if the tables were turned, would you be prepared to wait that long?; and (b) this is the equivalent of wanting to dig a crater and being given a teaspoon to do so. It is immensely frustrating, and maybe I have at times let that frustration get the better of me. Also, I appreciate you offering to help make the edits, but I do not view this as 'you' sacrificing time to input 'my' edits, because the intent with these edits is to increase objectivity in Wikipedia content and broaden the number of perspectives represented, all in pursuit of securing greater compliance with WP:NPOV. So if these edits go in, readers get a broader perspective, which is what Wikipedia is all about. These should be 'our' edits, not 'mine' or 'yours.' In that spirit, I have re-included below the first edit requested, including sources and adding justification beneath. If you are able to make the edit, that would be very much appreciated. If not, please also let me know so I can find another eligible editor to do so. If you object to the edits, please provide justification (just as I have with the edit requested.)

1. Definition: Add the following text after the first sentence ending '...the national movement of the Palestinian people for self-determination in and sovereignty over Palestine': ', aimed at ending colonialism in Palestine. In the 20th century, one of the movement’s early aims was opposition to British colonial rule and imperial objectives during World War I. The British government, which issued the Balfour Declaration, undertook to grant the Palestinians independence after the War, while simultaneously promising to establish a Zionist state in Palestine. The establishment of the State of Israel, referred to by many Palestinians and supporters of the movement as the Nakba (catastrophe), and the resulting dispossession, killing and forcible displacement of Palestinians, gave the movement a new focus post 1948, namely ending Zionist and Israeli occupation and colonial oppression in Palestine. The movement’s supporters include political parties, NGOs, trade unions and solidarity groups both within Palestine and internationally.'

Justification: Changing definition to note ending colonialism required as this is the basic premise of Palestinian nationalism and Palestinian liberation (which redirects to this article.) There would be no need for 'liberation' were it not for an occupying colonial power - it is a response to it. Remaining edits made to: (a) note the objectives of Palestinian nationalism in the 20th Century (opposition to British and Israeli colonial rule) - these are simply matters of fact; (b) reference the Nakba, a landmark event in the recent history of Palestinian nationalism (marking the point at which an Israeli state was declared and a Palestinian state was considered by the occupying force to no longer exist.) A major trigger point which changed the focus of the movement seeking Palestinian liberation; (c) note the forcible displacement, dispossession and killing of Palestinians associated with the Nakba (as a major trigger event affecting Palestinian nationalism) - these are all facts supported by sources; and (d) note the nature of the support base that the Palestinian nationalism movement has - again, statements of fact backed by sources.Jgraham1956 (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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

• "If not, please also let me know so I can find another eligible editor to do so." <- Good idea, count me out.Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Selfstudier: Thanks for revealing your true colours at least. @C.Fred: And then there were none. I tried. I put forward one edit as requested - still nothing. Pretty hard not to conclude that Wikipedia doesn't want me here.Jgraham1956 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: You made the request a scant five hours ago. I'm not surprised there's little reply—doubly since the request is burried at the bottom of a wall of text.

As for your latter point... Wikipedia wants editors who can maintain a neutral point of view and set aside biases or agendas while editing. Wikipedia does not want editors who are only here to advance an agenda. If you feel that "Wikipedia doesn't want me here", then maybe you should re-evaluate your behaviour and see what facets of it are causing you to get that response. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: All that sounds wonderful in theory but in practice much of Wikipedia’s policies, content and page structure on Israel-Palestine (including this article) demonstrates marked pro-Zionist bias. So you might have to amend that statement to read “Wikipedia wants editors who can maintain a neutral point of view and set aside biases or agendas ‘’’(unless they are Zionist biases or agendas.)’’’” Wikipedia holds itself out to be unbiased and agenda-free, but the underlying truth is rather different. As to my behaviour, just telling it like is as you did in your earlier comment. All I have done is propose improvements to this article (at your suggestion), been ignored, delayed and ultimately batted away under the pretext that I have an agenda. Wikipedia is clearly not self-aware or if it is it is uncomfortable talking about its underlying hypocrisy.Jgraham1956 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Claims about the usage of "from the river to the sea" by the PLO and Hamas are unsubstantiated by their supposed sources

This paragraph, from the "From the river to the sea" section, is effectively completely unsourced:

"Palestine from the river to the sea" was claimed as Palestine by the PLO[65] from its establishment in 1964 until the signing of the Oslo Accords.[82] The PLO claim was originally set on areas, controlled by the State of Israel prior to 1967 War, meaning the combined Coastal Plain, Galilee, Yizrael Valley, Arava Valley and Negev Desert, but excluding West Bank (controlled then by Jordan) and Gaza Strip (occupied between 1959 and 1967 by Egypt). In a slightly different fashion "Palestine from the river to the sea" is still claimed by Hamas,[83] referring to all areas of former Mandatory Palestine.

I note that the phrase "from the river to sea" is not used at all in either source 65 (http://www.mideastweb.org/plo1974.htm) nor in source 83 (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm). I have no idea whether the phrase was/is indeed used by the PLO or by Hamas, let alone the minutiae of what they meant it to imply if so, but the sources that are given here don't substantiate any particular interpretation nor even that the phrase was ever used by either group at all!

Unless somebody can back up the claims, this entire paragraph should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplodingCabbage (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Conservative Zionist source in first paragraph

This should be removed as it's contention that palestinian nationalism was birthed to combat Zionism is disproved in the following paragraph and it is unfair to allow one's enemies to characterise such a key part of their identity. 2A00:23C6:BD80:B900:41E1:B555:2037:AFB8 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If an RS says "X", you can't just remove it because you don't like it. What you can do is see whether that source reflects all available sources ie if you can show that a majority of RS does not agree with it, then that view becomes undue for the lead. Personally I don't think that Palestinian nationalism was formed solely because of Zionism although perhaps the speed of its growth after 1917 was at least in part due to Zionism. So go through the article and see if there is enough contrary sources to reach that or some other conclusion and if there aren't see if you can find some and then we could perhaps amend the article to reflect actual sources (rather than opinions).Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)