Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 8

Neutral Perspective
Ive removed the term "Land of Israel" which was used in describing Jewish immigration to Palestine. The term has a very unscholarly and pro-Jewish conatation in the context of the paragraph.

67.150.2.241 09:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Marcus, May 23rd, 2007

```` There are more thnigs in the article that make it not neutral, there is a false representation of the migration into great palestine, it says arabs migrated later because of the good economy, in fact many jewish migrated to (then) Palestine, into and near arab communities and the Brits saw violence and terror by jewish groups.

- this is not neutral at all.

Two historical points that need to be made clear. 1 Terrorism began with the Arabs and the Fedeyin. 2 "Land of Israel" is a term that predates Palestine to describe the same land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariels123 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review Request
I've just requested a peer review for Operation Wrath of God, which was a campaign directed by the Mossad to kill those responsible for the 1972 Munich Massacre. Obviously this was a major event in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions. Thanks.--Joshdboz 11:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this article only reflects the Israeli point of view regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. So is not authentic at all.

Useless article
This article is truly useless. I think we can see how useless it is when you look at the infobox down the bottom of the page. In it there are 31 seperate conflicts, 29 peace proposals and diplomatic missions, along with 49 individuals. Ten governments are listed along with 8 current organisations, and 6 former organisations!

As an example of Summary style it stinks. It hardly tells me anything in a short form. It appears that in our desire to restrict conflicting edits we have pared this article down to a ridiculously short article, which doesn't inform anyone what is going on. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the TOC for this talk page?
Seems to be missing... We really badly need it. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

i thouroughly believe that JEWS CAN defeat the a-rabs in a street fight anytime anywhere. especially with our jew staffs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.132.39 (talk • contribs).

Cleanup Tag
I've added WP:CU; the block of text that constitutes the Reasons for the conflict section is virtually unreadable. Could someone who's more familiar with the topic try and bring this up to Wikipedia standards? JulianDalloway 18:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Israel-Lebanon conflict to Arab-Israeli conflict
''This merger was propsed by User:Tewfik but discussion was ongoing there, not here. All conversations moved here with timestamps intact. -- Kendrick7 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)''

While this is a good compilation of information, I think it would be more appropriate in the main Arab-Israeli conflict than as a stand-alone, as there wasn't really a separate conflict between Israel and Lebanon, but rather these are episodes in a the greater narrative. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 02:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While it is an episode, it is a well-defined one, and with potential to grow. In wikipedia big articles are split into separate topics, not vice versa. Arab-Israeli conflict is a huge topic, and it must contain only summary of the history, with details in separate articles.`'mikka (t) 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why we have the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict series of articles. This posits a unique conflict between Israel and Lebanon, while most of it was in fact just part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 05:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

We have quite a few articles about relations between two countries, such as Belarusian-American relations. Which brings me to the idea that the article must be renamed into Israel-Lebanon relations and expanded respectively. And the title wil be more neutral, too. `'mikka (t) 05:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but this is, as the title accurately suggests, more a survey of the military conflicts involving the two countries. All I am saying is that this is redundant to the greater Arab-Israeli conflict, and that it may present the misconception that the hostilities between Israel and Lebanon were unique from the established concept of the greater Arab-Israeli conflict. If there isn't already an article covering the broader relations (peace agreements, informal diplomatic positions, unofficial trade, Good Fence, SLA years), then we should by all means have one. Perhaps some of the more specific information here should be merged into such an article. I'm extremely open to discussion on this whole article, it just seems somewhat artificial as it stands. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 06:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, you need to put the discussion where the merge discussion link points to. If there is no discussion at the proper spot, I'll remove the merge request. -- Kendrick7 06:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC) All set -- Kendrick7 03:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wherever the discussion is put, I think this should be a standalone article. It's got far more detail than the Arab-Israeli conflict, and if that article were to have as much detial as it should have, it would be too long. Keep here. Iorek85 11:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of trying to suck down the Israel-Lebanon article into the disgraceful OR/POV abomination that is the Arab-Israeli conflict article, you may also spend some time editing it. I am neither Arab nor Muslim, but reading the "Reasons for the conflict" section, I had a good laugh anyway. Kosmopolis 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Operation Litani in Lebanon and the 1982 War are not quite related to the conflicts with Hezbollah. So that the article has no sense. Begin a vote to make it easier.--TheFEARgod 20:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

mikka and Tewfik have good ideas about reorganizing the article. Any Israel-Lebanon relations article would have to start from 1948 and include not just the numerous conflicts, but also as Tewfik stated, the ceasefire agreements, peace proposals, informal diplomatic positions (including Israeli-Phalangist relations most likely), unofficial trade, the Good Fence, the Security Zone and the SLA and Hezbollah. What is now Israel-Lebanon conflict could probably either redirect to the expanded article or to a specific section of the article dealing with the conflicts (assuming the article is organized with "conflict" as a sub-topic). There should probably also be an Israeli-Palestinian relations article since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually just a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Also the interaction between Israel and the Palestinians is not just about conflict, there is also trade, peace proposals and other aspects to Israeli-Palestinian relations that are little known about because a lot of focus is on the conflict. Other articles could also be created including Israel-Egypt relations, Israel-Jordan relations and Israel-Syria relations with the first two having a lot more to detail than just conflict, e.g. tourism between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel, cooperation between Jordan and Israel with regards to the Dead Sea, trade, former peace proposals, current peace treaties, diplomacy etc.208.131.191.252 16:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute...
I hate to barge in but there is a fundamental problem. I have read about ten lines of the article and have found a problem! This conflict did not start recently... not even AD, read the story of Isaac and Ishmael, and as both Jews and Muslims believe this was the beginnings of this conflict it would be decent of us all to put in what THEY believe and have consensus on... it must be right as they don't have consensus on much else....... '''** Good comment, and one we've heard before. However, technically, your analysis is not correct. Since the vast majority of the Zionists are actually Ashkenazi Jews, if you check your bible (Genesis 10), you will see that Ashkenaz was not a descendent of Shem. Therefore, the Zionists running Israel today who call themselves Jews are actually non-semitic, i.e. they are not descendents of Shem. Actually, they are converts to Judaism from the Khazars of the 8th century. You may also want to look up Rev. 2:9 and Rev. 3:9. Also, Isaac was not Jewish: he was a Hebrew. The word Jew is not mentioned in the Bible until 2 Kings.%%%% ''' Sorry, wrong button 71.132.205.244 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. One must also see the resemblence between the words "Palestine," modern enemies of the Jews, and "Philistine," enemies of the Jews since as early as Exodus. Same people. The Romans gave the Philistines the Jewish land out of rage and spite (giving land to one's enemies). Nowadays, mainly because of this, we can't have a Coke on our flight! Talk about the war of milennia. What has it been, 4000 years now? DavidS888 22:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this guy- the cassus belli here is the expulsion of Hagar from Abraham's camp, in biblical lore... or, if you'd like on we could all agree on, the Quran's command that none but Muslims-(Ishmaelites)- shall hold the middle east. 75.183.149.139 03:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you wait a minute... AS TO YOUR SECOND POINT, read below... cut and pasted from the "khazar" section of wikipedia... I wonder what purpose you have for believing the conspiracy theory of Ashkenazic jews descending from the khazars strictly... hmmm.. there are a few reasons stated below, take your pick... and if you really knew what you were talking about, "ashkenaz" is merely the "ethnic-group" of Jews that left the land after the destruction of the Second Temple and went to the European lands to settle, rather than settling in the Arab lands (who are called "mizrahi" jews) or Spain/Portugal ("Sephardic" jews). It has nothing to do with being descended from some guy named Ashkenaz, that is ridiculous, where did you come up with that? Next issue - "Jewish" is merely the semantic used for the descendants of the israelites or hebrews... by this line of thinking, because Jesus' real name was Yehoshua, any mention of the Greek, anglicized translation as "Jesus" has no credibility... so it seems all your facts are just semantical and don't have any evidence behind it, you don't have clue about the history of the region or the people. Lastly, Issac was a Jew/Hebrew/chosen one whatever you want to use... You obviously have an agenda, because all your comments are pseudo-bibilical on the anti-Israel slant.

"Khazar Section of Wikipedia" "Some have speculated that Ashkenazic Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars, but no genealogical records exist of Khazar ancestry to today’s Jews. Since Ashkenazi Jews make up the majority of world Jewry, such speculation is often held in conjunction with the belief that modern day Jews are not the true descendants of the Ancient Israelites, and that contemporary Jewry has no rightful claim to the land of the State of Israel. This thesis began to gain popularity among the Holocaust denial movement during the 20th century, especially after the establishment of Israel in 1948. It is also popular among groups such as the Black Hebrews, British Israelitists and others who claim Israelite descent and seek to downplay the connection between the Jewish people and their Israelite ancestors."

Geneology of Ashkenazi A study was recently published by genetic researchers that showed that more than 80% of Ashkenazi males have a direct ancestry to Ancient Israelites and that they have a common genetic heritage with Sephardic Jews. Also, genetics show that many Ashkenazi jews who claim they are descended from the Jewish priests of Israel share a genetic heritage that goes back more than 3,000 years. The Khazar thing is anti-Israel propaganda with no evidence to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.10.7.112 (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving to talk
The history of conflict between the Israelis and Arabs is not as ancient as frequently believed. The Jewish people were conquered by the Romans and ceased to exist as an independent Jewish state long before the advent of Islam and the Arab conquest of the Middle East in the seventh century. After Islam emerged as a political and religious force in seventh century Medina (now part of Saudi Arabia), the Muslim and Jewish people did come into conflict in the Arabian Penninsula. However, the nexus, if any, between that early conflict and the present Arab-Israeli conflict is remote at best.

Both groups have much in common. Both believe that they are descendants of Abraham and they are both monotheistic people. Many Arabs presently live comfortably as citizens of the State of Israel with few restrictions. In fact, at least on the surface, it is part of what the two sides have in common that lies at the heart of the current conflict. Both sides have long-term, historical ties to the disputed land that neither side is willing to relinquish. Simply put, the present conflict between the two groups revolves around a claimed right to the Holy Land and control of Jerusalem.

Jews and Arabs consider Jerusalem to be a sacred site. In the seventh century, Arabs built sacred sites on top of the ruins of the most sacred Jewish site in Jerusalem. Competing claims to Jerusalem may well prove to be the impossible to resolve aspect of the conflict as the underlying land dispute, as discussed below, was wholly unnecessary.

Because of the importance of Jerusalem to both sides, under the original United Nations mandate seeking to peacefully partition the land, Jerusalem was designated as an international city administered by the UN. That partition attempt by the United Nations was rejected by several Arab states and they attacked the nascent Jewish state of Israel in an expressly stated attempt to destroy it.

Israel prevailed, but its existence has been vehemently opposed by many in the Arab and Islamic World with the result that several subsequent wars and violent skirmishes have ensued. These continued conflicts further deepened the dispute and added additional territory to the original land dispute. The underlying root cause of the conflict, other than the obvious territorial dispute, like so many issues related to the conflict, is highly contested. There are many theories as to the root cause and little consensus.

For example, some believe that the root of the conflict is a direct result of Imperialism. Adherents to that view contend that after the British took control of the land following a mandate from the League of Nations to administer the land, that they mismanaged the competing claims to the land. They point out that the British used a small force to keep the peace without working to create a national government to administer the region and give the people a voice in deciding their own future.

Without strong central authority and a viable plan to transfer control to the inhabitants and to peacefully resolve their differences, if possible, factions emerged both to protect and organize their respective groups into a cohesive community. Each side wanted, at a minimum, autonomy and was displeased with British governance. Arabs complained to the British about Jewish immigration and sought to curtail that immigration as much as possible. The Jews complained to the British about the limits placed on Jewish immigration and that the British were not only not defending them from Arab violence, but were hindering their ability to protect themselves from Arab aggression. Both sides contended that the British were biased against them and had broken promises to give them control of the land. No one disputed that Palestine, the Roman name for the land, was also the Promised Land. But to whom was it promised? "The Jew, who came first? Or the Arab, who was there last?" (Quoted from Lightning Out of Israel referenced below) It was an impossible problem for the British or anyone else to resolve considering that there had been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years, much longer than the Arab presence; yet, the Arabs were the majority population. Both sides were willing to fight for the land and members of both sides attacked British soldiers or each other. Britain eventually came to understandably realize that it could not resolve the conflict and decided to withdraw from its mandate. The United Nations had to attempt to resolve the problem and legitimately attempted to do so.

The eventual two state solution was not a mediated solution between the affected inhabitants; however, it was decided by the United Nations after considerable analysis and debate and a mediated resolution was impossible to obtain. The Arab nations were unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of Israel and sought to supplant Israel with some type of Arab or Palestinian state. Many disagree with the allegation that the root of the conflict arises from Imperialism and attribute the root cause of the problem to Islamic anti-Semitism with its origins dating back to the rise of Islam in the seventh century. Several verses from the Koran, such as chapter 2, verses 61 and 65; chapter 3, verse 71; chapter 4, verse 46; chapter 5, verses 60-65, and 78-82; and chapter 7, verse 166 assign negative attributes to Jews.

In addition, the type of institutionalized discrimination mandated by the Pact of Umar applied to Jews throughout the Islamic World to one degree or the other over the centuries inevitably led to deeply ingrained feelings of a natural right to Muslim authority over any Jews living in the Middle East or North Africa. Muslims also developed an abiding belief in the supremacy of Islam as a result of its early conquests and centuries long position as a dominant religious and political force in the Middle East and beyond. The relative decline of Islam as a dominant military and political force has ultimately engendered in the Islamic World a deep seated desire to regain Islam's past glory. The presence of Israel, a Jewish state and democracy, in the heart of the Islamic World is very difficult for Muslims to accept. It is very difficult for Muslims to reconcile Israel's presence and its regional military supremacy with the prevalent Muslim view that, as recipients of Allah's final revelation, that no Muslims should be subject to the political supremacy of a Jewish state. It followed that, regardless of the small size of Israel and the vastly larger land mass of the surrounding Arab lands, from the Muslim perspective, Israel's existence was a cancer in the heart of the Islamic World. Because the source of the conflict may well be deeply ingrained in the centuries old religious and political experience of the Islamic World, full resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict has defied all attempts.

Many analysts, including Henry Kissinger, have concluded that the Arab-Israeli conflict is incapable of any foreseeable, permanent resolution and that all that can be achieved is some degree of crisis management. The attribution of Imperialism as the alleged source of the Israeli-Arab conflict also fails to account for the fact that the United Nations had thoroughly investigated the conflict prior to voting to recognize Israel and partition that portion of Palestine not already assigned to Jordan, an Arab state and monarchy, into separate Jewish and Palestinian homelands. Such diverse countries as the United States and U.S.S.R., bitter cold war opponents at the time with divergent interests, both voted for the partition and to recognize Israel as a nation which suggests that the partition was as objectively fair as learned minds could determine.

Proponents of the view that the root cause of the conflict stems from deep-seated animosities point out that, at the time hostilities commenced, the land was far from its historic high population levels and the existing high population level today. There was, therefore, no legitimate reason for the fervent Arab opposition to continued Jewish immigration. They further point out that the Jewish immigrants toiled hard to reclaim lost agricultural land and develop the land and their efforts were raising the standard of living of both Jews and Muslims, as well as health standards and life expectancies. Jewish efforts were benefitting all of Palestine's inhabitants. They also point out that Israel's fair treatment of its Arab citizens proves that Arabs had no reason to fear Jewish immigration and statehood.

Whatever the original origins of the conflict may be, it is clear that the conflict seems to be gaining in intensity for many reasons. There are Palestinians who were displaced during the conflict and their desire to return to their former property within the borders of modern day Israel has certainly contributed to the conflict. Similarly, the conflict resulted in the voluntary and involuntary expulsion of Jews throughout the Islamic World and the ingathering of many of them to Israel. That population infusion of displaced Jews into Israel, the Arab states' considerable reluctance to reciprocate and accept large numbers of Palestinians as welcome fellow Arabs and citizens, as well as Israel's demand that any right of return granted to Palestinians must involve a comprehensive, permanent peace, has also contributed to the ongoing nature and exacerbation of the dispute.

A fundamentalist Islamic awakening or revival has added additional religious fervor to the conflict. Some Jews and Christians also believe that God promised the land to the Jews and that Israel's borders should be expanded to their ancient boundaries, or at least to include Judea and Sumeria (commonly referred to as the West Bank), further adding to the conflict. Palestinians also become enraged when Jewish settlers take up residence in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It is anticipated that rising population density in the region will add further demands to the limited land space and already strained water supplies and potentially deeply exacerbate the conflict.

The above was added as ==Reasons for the conflict== and stayed there for too long. This essay is unencyclopedic, unreferenced, and WP:OR. Also, it doesn't really address its intended subject. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

 

arab-israeli wars make no sense, nor crusades. here is proof: by definition, the koran and new testaments form portions of the talmud, if the talmud is defined as the sum of the spoken words of the greatest rabbis one could define the greatest rabbis to be the men who use the torah to influence the world most greatly because mohammed and jesus followed moses' teachings, we are all one likewise, hinduism is analagous to judaism, and confucianism and buddhism derived from it

the above was in the polish wikipedia, but they deleted it because it wasn't polish

Military History Peer Review comments
The folks over there made some good suggestions on how to repair this article: WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/2006 -- Kendrick7 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge from History article?
My feeling is that the Arab-Israeli conflict is nothing more or less than the History of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Would anybody object if I added a merge request asking for the information in the History section to be under the simple name of "Arab-Israeli conflict?" --GHcool 05:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[Not hugely strong feelings ahead]... It seems to me that this merge only creates a longer article, while replacing a passable summary with quite a bit of reading. It's also possible, even likely that other sections could emerge in the main article, such as Superpower Involvement, Popular Portrayals, Refugees, Relation to Other Conflicts, and the so-called satellite states: Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia. Once anyone of those issues were added, we've have a too long article and have to split again: with the best way being to abstract history into its own page. --Carwil 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. --GHcool 03:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Lines like "The influx of Jews alarmed Arab inhabitants in the region, who tried to stop it by terrorizing the Jewish communities and the British" aren't NPOV. I would edit but I've already edited this article 3 times today.

PStrait 11:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sudan is not Arab
Sudan is not a "Arab" country as marked on the map. Its Islamic but currently the Arab government in the North is waging a genocidal campaign against the Muslim black African population in the south. One driving force of this is the possibility of oil in the south. 131.107.0.105 22:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sudan is a member of the Arab League. See archives why it is relevant. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think most of the countries marked as "Arab" has nothing to do with this conflict --Nielswik(talk) 09:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, Nielswik. Israel and practically all of these Arab countries have declared their mutual hostilities. I m dude2002 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
anyone read this recently? it's like a child just edited it ('Muslim religious leaders helped to foment hatred for the stupid inhabitants which led to periodic violence.') sort of amusing in a juvenile manner. editing

Thank you, I just saw it and have reverted (though botched the edit summary a little) to a few-days-old version that seems unbroken yet. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what?
This article has been deleted, along with the logs, leaving behind this talk page. The only AfD I see is an April Fool's joke. Am I missing something or do we need to find an admin to fix things? --Rindis 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From the deletion log: 13:50, 15 November 2006 Gamaliel (Talk | contribs) deleted "Arab-Israeli conflict" (clearing personal attacks from edit history) Picaroon9288 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And? he wiped out also whole article and forgot about it? what is those 4 lines supposed to mean? Is that a new pov on arab-israeli conflict? --132.73.80.117 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for this. I was deleting large scale vandalism (personal attacks, etc.) in dozens of articles unrelated to the content of those articles. That combined with a couple database maintenance locks and I either missed this article or it didn't get restored due to a conflict with a database lock. I've restored the article now. Thank you to the editor who brought this to my attention on my talk page. Gamaliel 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, many thanks! I was a bit befuddled about it all.... --Rindis 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Change main Image
Would it be possible to change the current image in the infobox Image:Arab-Israeli_Map1.GIF with Image:Africa-Middle East Conflict.png? It needs labeling but this one conforms with WikiProject Maps, is in PNG format and is transparent. --TheTall One 21:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is inadequate: it does not show Israel. Perhaps a better candidate may be found in Maps of Israel? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It does show Isreal but in a light tan colour. I could change it. Also, the two images suggested are Gif/ poor quality. --TheTall One 16:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) New version uploaded - refresh browser to update it


 * I appreciate your effort. Unfortunately that image still has major problems:
 * Why Lebanon is the same color as the West Bank?
 * I understand that this is just an outline, but you are proposing to switch from a better quality map to a _much_ worse one. E.g. compare the maps of Jordan, Israel, West Bank and their outlines on your map. The Gaza Strip is missing entirely.
 * The conflict has nothing to do with Africa. It is the Arab League states vs. Israel. IMHO, the difference in color between the Arab states that have warred and that have not should not be significant, because they are not the third side in the conflict. They were/are still in conflict, just by other means. (see Image talk:Arab-Israeli Map1.GIF and archives of this talk page where this has been discussed in lentgh)
 * Also, a couple of minor notes: an inset with the location on the world map would be nice. The status of W. Sahara needs to be verified. And green is a poor choice for Israel, as it is the commonly accepted color of Islam. Blue would be more preferred. Perhaps converting this map GIF→PNG would be easier. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to upload an image which focuses on just Israel and recent conflicts? I could use BlankMap-World6.svg instead (it shows the Gaza Strip and West Bank and I need to remove the circles.) ::::Also, a simple conversion from GIF to PNG will not change quality - it will simply change the file name. If suggestion to what area the map should focus on, I can create the map. --TheTall One 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, this is not about Gaza Strip and West Bank. This conflict is between the Arab League states and Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, should it focus only on Egypt and the Middle East, highlighting the areas of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen with Israel highlighted in another colour (Gaza Strip and West Bank also highlighted on top)? --TheTall One 19:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you believe the image needs to be replaced at all. The current one seems quite good for the subject of this article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Several things have been brought up:
 * The image is gif - I should preferably be png or svg.
 * The image is very messy. Several spots of colour can be seen where there shouldn't be, especially at the top of the image.
 * It would be nice if the image had smoother borders and the sea transparent - something which is better to have in png format, rather than gif (which although does not have lossy compression, is limited in colour).--TheTall One 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to really look hard to see any of the "spots of colour" even in the high resolution version, in the smaller version in the article you cannot see any. I really cannot understand why you have a problem with the current border as its not as if it makes it hard to read or anything. Furthermore, the image you attempted to replace it with was obviously inferior in many ways. So I really must state that your issues with the image really confuses me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk


 * I have taken on Humus_sapien's comments and have decided to create a map focused on the regios specified above. He said:
 * The conflict has nothing to do with Africa. It is the Arab League states vs. Israel. 
 * Therefore I have, based on what he said, decided to create another map which directly focuses on the conflict area, rather than the Arab Leagues. If you think it would be best for me to cease producing this second image then say so.--TheTall One 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will once again point out that there is nothing wrong with the present image so I don't understand why you would want to replace it, if your new image is genuinely better I will support it, but judging by the merits of your last attempt I am somewhat dubious thta I will have to.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We are dealing with sensitive issues here, so let me suggest something. TheTallOne, if there is a problem with GIF format, feel free to use another graphics format (PNG, SVG) as you deem appropriate. Please do not change the content: copy it as precisely as possible, from its scope to its colors. You may drop the legend though. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've created two more images, scaling them up to a less of a degree (the borders get chunkier). Coloured them identically to the GIF, and added a rounded world with black 'area' locator. No labels as of yet (is it necessary?) First one Image:Arab Israeli Conflict 1.png does not contain Comoros. Second one Image:Arab Israeli Conflict 2.png does. --TheTall One 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Much better! Could you show another small rectangle on the world map for Comoros, so the readers will see where it is located. Also I could live without the labels but AFAIR, there were requests to have country names. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. See here. --TheTall One 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looks good. Expect requests for country names so let's think of preparing another version with that. Also, is there a reason to store it uncompressed? I tried to squeeze it and it went down to 74.6 kB. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Resetting ident (i'm getting sick of coloning) - Compressed to 113kB here, will start working on place names - any particular font? Calibri? It's Microsoft's clear type font. --TheTall One 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Up to you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, see here. I'm sorry it took a while - I was doing other things... --TheTall One 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the replacement syntax:

{{Infobox Military Conflict  {{legend|#99CC33|Arab Nations}} {{legend|#99CCFF|Israel}}  {{legend|#669933|Have been in war with Israel}} {{legend|#CC0000|Gaza Strip and West Bank}}
 * conflict=Arab-Israeli conflict
 * image=[[Image:Arab Israeli Conflict 5.png|300px|]]
 * caption=Israel and members of the Arab League

Iran?
Iran has participated much more than many of the countries in the map, is it because it is technically not an Arab country, rather a Persian one?


 * I agree that the Israel-Iran conflict is absolutely worth mentioning. However, this is the Arab-Israeli conflict article, and therefore not the forum for that particular conflict. I m dude2002 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources? Neutrality of language?
[explanation of updated tags] There are no sources provided for material added to the Arab-Israeli conflict; this article needs to provide verifiable reliable sources for the material in it. E.g., what are the sources for all this?

<<"At the end of World War II the conflict became a major international issue. Great Britain, the United Nations along with the United States, and the USSR were determined to initiate a two-state solution. The UN mandated partition was put into effect in 1948, but was rejected by the Arab states and was the beginning of the first major Arab-Israeli War. Israel was able to achieve a decisive victory. Today many parts play major roles in the conflict among those are the Quartet on the Middle East. The conflict included a great number of major wars including the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1956 Suez War, 1967 Six Day War, 1970 War of Attrition, 1973 Yom Kippur War, 1982 Lebanon War, as well as a number of lesser conflicts. In the late spring of 1967, Gamal Abdel Nasser pushed tensions to the brink again until, responding to the mounting threat, the Israelis unleashed a devastating preemptive air attack. Superb intelligence, planning, and execution resulted in the swift destruction of the air forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, accompanied by equally successful blitzkriegs on the ground. The 'Six-Day War' ended with Israel in possession of the West Bank and Golan Heights in addition to the Sinai. Arab-Israeli combat was now sophisticated enough for the world to pay attention to its military lessons, and observers noted how tanks and planes still dominated modern warfare. In the aftermath of the 1967 disaster, Nasser took a different tack, harassing the Israelis with raids and artillery strikes in what became known as the War of Attrition. Arab revenge of a sort came in 1973, when Egypt and Syria struck in unison on Yom Kippur. Strategic and tactical surprise, combined with an overwhelming ratio of forces, led to initial Arab victories in both theaters. Nevertheless, Israeli counterthrusts regained the lost ground and more, and the war stopped when the superpowers intervened to prevent further Arab losses. Once again the world learned military lessons, this time about how surface-to-air missiles and antitank weapons could humble even Israeli planes and armor. In the course of these conflicts, many Arabs were displaced from what is now Israel, and many Jews were displaced from what is now Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, the Palestinian Territories, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen.">> Whose narrative is that entire passage? What source(s) provide all that information?

I have also placed in bold print in the above passage some questionable language that appears to take POV (evaluative language). See Neutral point of view and NOR.

This article needs much more cleaning up: editors must supply sources for what is contained throughout it. Editors need to cite sources both for what is already in this version and for what they add to it subsequently. Whose points of view are being reflected in this article? Without sources, it appears that there are some points of view being taken from sources and put into this article (plagiarism from sources) or possible "original research" (prohibited in Wikipedia): See Reliable sources, WP:Cite, Verifiability and WP:NOR.

N.B.: The main articles that are cross-referenced in this article are often also missing sources in their development. People who have edited this article merely compound that problem by moving unsourced statements to this article (as in this section). The editing history provided by another editor recently just says that the person added "new lines" and "edit": that is not an adequate explanation of those edits (e.g., Why were these "new lines" added?, and the editor(s) did not provide his or her sources for what he/she added.

I think that the passage cited above needs much more work if it is to remain in this article. Other parts of the article need similar scrutiny and editing. I agree w/ a comment above: "This essay is unencyclopedic, unreferenced, and WP:OR. . . . ←Humus sapiens". --NYScholar 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Collusion?
In reference to this passage- "The UN mandated partition was put into effect in 1948, but was rejected by the Palestinians in collusion with newly formed Muslim neighbor states of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. These countries, in collusion with the Palestinians, and with a view to enlarge their land holdings, attacked the newly formed Israeli state with far superior numbers and equipment. "- I was just wondering if anyone thinks the word "COLLUSION" is a little bit biased when placed in this context. Although I am not a professional historian, 3 or more sources that support this might be sufficient.Thanks ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.91.45 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Corner8 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)corner8

It's not an Islam-Judaism conflict
Why is there so much emphasis about the religious aspect of the conflict in the lead? As far as I know, the origins of the wars had nothing to do with the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, nor the fact that Arab states are majoritarly muslims. It wasn't either a consequence of an Islam-Judaism conflict. So I'll remove these terms from the lead since they are not relevant to the subject. CG 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right. There is too much mention of Judaism and Islam. Some mention should remain, however, since it is key to understanding the conflict. I m dude2002 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As a reader who is (admittedly) not as familiar with the history and depth of the conflict, I feel that it is important to have a small section about the extent of various factors, such as a religion, culture, ethnicity, oil, money, etc. A series of bullet points (with links obviously) would be appropriate. This article is short--A VERY GOOD THING--so let's make sure what is added is short.Denn333 07:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism by whom ?
The influx of Jews alarmed Palestinian leadership, and Muslim religious leaders helped to foment hatred which led to periodic violence:

"As long as the terrorist activity was directed only at Jewish targets, the Mufti, as well as the British administration saw nothing wrong with this. On the contrary, it fell in line with prevalent anti-Jewish policy of the time; the Mufti encouraged it and apparently extended financial aid to al-Qassam and his organization."

Actually,

the Jews and Muslims were for the most part, living peacefully together. even to the extent that they would watch each other's children when they would go worship. Then the Zionists showed up and began a campaign of terror, which all three major religions in the area had a problem with. As a matter of fact, real Jews wanted nothing to do with the Zionists. It wasn't until Hitler started his holocaust that the Zionists were able to capitalize and get desperate fleeing Jews to finally hijack ALL RESIDENTS OF PALESTINE and create a 'Jewish' state. (which was actually a zionist state, since the Jews originally wanted nothing to do with it.)

Hman0217 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Hany


 * There have certainly been acts of terror on the part of Israeli Jews over the years. That cannot be denied. However, when one compares the Israeli community with the Arab community, it is clear to see that Arabs are the ones who most often resort to terrorism in pursuing their aims. Whether this is justified or not is a different issue, but it is clear that there have been more Palestinian, Lebanese, Egyptian, Saudi and Jordanian terrorists than Israeli ones (per capita... overal.. or whichever way you want to look at it).

Right, the King David Hotel bombing was either Palestinian Lebanese Egyptian Saudi or Jordanian terrorists. Not Israeli terrorists trying to found their state, like Palestinian terrorists are trying to found their state today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hman, I understand that you object to some of the things that the article mentions. But the reality of the situation is that Israel and Israelis are much more self-restrained in their response than their Arab counterparts. It isn't POV to state reality. I m dude2002 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I m dude2002, thank you for your respectful rebuttal to my statement. However, I have to strongly disagree with you. If one were to draw a conclusion based solely on the popular media, then surely, what you say is true and the arabs are the biggest terrorists in the world. But the reality is that settlers have been terrorizing Palestinians the entire twentieth century. There is alot of written media and filmed footage which can be obtained if one digs a little deeper than FOX news or CNN. When three Israelis are killed in a suicide bombing, then it is plastered as breaking news on all media outlets. When a band of settlers violently terrorizes a Palestinian village until they pack up and leave and go live in tents in the desert, you may be lucky to read about it on page 40. So, this results in skewed views such as yours. I don't mean this as an insult. I'm just pointing it out and encouraging you to look beyond the monopolized American and British media sources. It isn't POV to state reality ? Let's first define reality. hman0217 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "popular media" is a part of the conflict and therefore the coverage based on that would be distorted. Good encyclopedias are based on reliable sources and factual scholarly evidence. Please review WP:NOT and WP:TPG before you proceed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the guidelines. In response, I had to delete 'muslim leaders fomenting hatred' because no reliable sources were quoted. The whole paragraph about the first war is quoted as being from the Opinion column of the LA times. Is that scholarly evidence ? Regards. hman0217 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You said somthing about LA times but removed something else, leaving LA quote. This is not going to work. Please don't remove sourced material simply because it contradicts your POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, no I modified LA Quote by removing the 'with a view to enlagre land holdings' portion because I don't believe the opinion section of a newspaper to be a scholarly source. I have hade several attempts to add material that I have referenced be removed from the post. So this time I am leaving the biased but referenced quote about muftis but I am adding my own which s also referenced. If I am not to remove referenced material, I expect the same courtesy to be extended to mine. It works both ways.hman0217 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Palestineremembered.com is not a reliable source, and please don't add quotes from secondary sources, pretending you have found them in primary sources. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, that is not exactly where I found the quote but, out of respect for the encyclopedia I will only quote from primary sources. In the meantime, you continue to negate my removal of 'and with a view to enlarge their land holdings' in the next paragraph. This is supposedly sourced from the opinion column of the LA Times, which is hardly a scholarly credible source. Furthermore, I went to the source and this statement is not even included. My edits should not be the only ones singled out for scrutiny. Then again, that is par for the course with this entire conflict. I will be back. hman0217 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly where you found the quote. You quoted it word for word, including the insertions in square brackets, ellipses, everything. Jayjg (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You may not realize this, but sometimes the same exact thing can be located on two different places on the world wide web. I do not challenge your integrity. Please respect mine. User:hman0217:hman0217 21:09, 21 February 2007 (utc)
 * O.K., where did you find it, then? Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, even if it were 'exactly' where I found it, this still begs the question of why my unreliable source is no good but the LA Times opinion column is ok. I said I would honor the encyclopedia's request to use only primary sources so these statements are unnecessary. hman0217 21:18, 21 February2007 (utc)
 * hman0217, look, you are a new user. You came here with a strong POV and already have made some controversial claims. One cannot expect to jump into one of the most explosive articles and be able to rewrite it as he wishes.
 * Regarding the source: per WP:CITE: "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the thoughtful response.They are all strong POVs. I don't understand why every time I delete the state 'with a view to enlagre land holdings', which does not exist when one goes to the link of the source(which happens to be an opinion column), this gets placed back in. Is this claim not controversial ? I will quote from primary sources and say where I got them. It is my expectation however, that with solid backing for my statements (saying where I got it), my additions will enjoy equal weight with the opinion column of the LA Times as well as a book written by a highly biased pro-Israel author. hman0217 7:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I would be more than happy, rather than each other continually editing this article, to have all parties Humus sapiens, Jayjg, myself, etc..., collude on how to make this article become more balanced. It is clearly coming only from one side, and I think it is fine to let these viewpoints stay if other viewpoints are presented as well. Thoughts on this ? hman0217 7:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Concensus
This article needs a major face lift. But it's clear there's an editting war in progress, of which I feel that I have been guilty. Perhaps it might be best of all the editors involved in this article discussed what they wanted the article to look like before they editted it.

There's a reason this article is crappy in spite of the fact that there is very much good information to be had about it.

Perhaps the conflict should be broked down by time period, with each period receiving its own mention of acts of aggression (and calls for peace) on both the Arab side and Israeli side.

I think a good breakdown would be Beginning-1948, 1949-1967, 1968-1973, 1974-2000, 2000-.

If you think this is a good idea and would like to help in improving this article, please insert suggestions under the appropriate tagline.

Beginning-1948
I think the following paragraph should be placed in the article:


 * An influx of Jewish immigrants into the Palestine, at this time a British mandate, created tensions between the Jewish population, most of which had long been exiled from the area, and the Arab population, which had resided in what is now Israel for over a thousand years.
 * These tensions became increasingly great as Jewish militia groups fought for independence from the United Kingdom. Leaders in the Jewish community in Israel, feeling that armed conflict was the innevitable consequence of such tensions, began preparing for imminent war with Israel's Arab neighbors. As David Ben Gurion assumed command of the defense portfolio in the first postbellum Zionist Conference in 1946, he discovered that the Hagana was unprepared to fight such a war, and thus began to organize manpower, and a plan to import heavy weapons so as to repel a possible Arab assault. (source) LimerickLimerickson 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Israel declared its independence from the United Kingdom on May 14, 1948. Yet war interrupted the celebrations; Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq declared war on the infant nation. The Israeli War of Independence lasted into early 1949. By its conclusion, Israel had greately expanded its borders, and signed ceasefire agreements (though not peace accords) with all its Arab neighbors, although no formal truce was ever signed with Iraq, which has no common border with Israel.

1949-June 11, 1967
I think the following information is relevant:


 * In 1954, Egypt discovered an Israeli spy ring intending to sabotage American interests within their borders, in order to augment the international image of the Egyptian government. That year, Egypt began a blockade in the Straits of Tiran, in effect closing all shipping to the Israeli city of Eilat. On July 26, 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, and closed the canal to Israeli shipping. In September, Egypt and Czechoslovakia commenced an arms deal. All of these factors alarmed the Israeli government, and on October 29, 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula with British and French support. During the Suez Canal Crisis, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula, although the United States and the United Nations pressured it into a ceasefire, which mandated complete withdrawal from Sinai and the Gaza Strip.
 * Egypt opened the Straits of Tiran, and lifted its blockade, and Israel withdrew completely from the Egyptian territory. In order to maintain the recently established peace, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was deployed in the Sinai Peninsula, with the purpose of overseeing its demilitarization. However, Israel and Egypt did not commence peace talks to solve underlying causes of the conflict.

I will gladly add a segment about the 1967 War. However, I just spent the last hour and a half or so looking for credible sources on this matter. I need a break. I will get back to work sometime this week. Hope this is NPOV enough for all editors. I m dude2002 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just tried out the source links and they don't work. If you want to see the sources, check them out by pressing the "edit" link. I m dude2002 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In 1965, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon commenced construction which would divert the course of multiple rivers so that they would not flow into Israel. Israeli attacks against these facilities prevented the plan from coming to fruition, but further helped sow the seeds of animosity between itself and its Arab neighbors.
 * On May 19, 1967, Egypt expelled UNEF observers, and emassed 100,000 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula. The Nasser government closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. This catapulted the region back to the pre-1956 status quo, much to Israel's concern.
 * On May 30, 1967, Jordan entered into the mutual defense pact between Egypt and Syria. President Nasser declared: "Our basic objective is the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

Of course... this is just the events leading up the war. I'll write up the actual summary of the war as soon as I can. I m dude2002 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On June 5 of that year, Israel sent almost all of its planes on a secret and preemptive mission in Egypt, in order to respond to what Israel perceived as continued acts of aggression by its largest Arab neighbor. The Israeli Air Force (AIF) dealt a heavy blow to the Egyptian airforce while its planes were still grounded, but in doing so essentially declared war against the Egypt and its allies--Syria and Jordan. When Jordan declared that it had officially joined the war, in spite of Israeli calls for neutrality, the IAF turned eastward and destroyed much of the Jordanian Air Force, in whose fate the Syrian airforce and Iraqi airforce (which aided the tripartate alliance) followed soon thereafter. Before the end of the first day of this war, Arab air capabilities were all but destroyed.
 * This left the Arab Republic at a dramatic disadvantage in a war whose primary staple was the tank, which could be easily targetted from the sky. With little in the way of an airforce opposing it, Israel handily repelled Egypt behind the Suez Canal, Jordan behind the Jordan River, and Syria out of most of the Golan Heights, conquering an area many times its prewar size in a matter of six days.

And that should cover it for this time period. :-) I m dude2002 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is excellent. Absolutely top-notch. I superindented this line so no one whould think it would be part of the article. :-) LimerickLimerickson 13:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]

I cut this part a little bit. I think that it covers the gist of it.

THE DISPLACEMENT OF JEWS FROM ARAB COUNTRIES
It has been argued that as a result of Israel's creation under United Nations Resolution 181 and the ensuing conflict that hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries were displaced and that the influx of these displaced Jews and their descendants now constitute 55% of the present day Israel population if Thomas Friedman is correct. Such a demographic shift and its causes would surely impact the political/cultural makeup of Israel and should be noted.Davidg (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

June 12, 1967-1973
I made a small edit to the below paragraph. I hope that's okay. I m dude2002 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this:


 * In the summer of 1967, as a direct response to the unexpected defeat of Arab forces in the Six-Day War, Arab leaders met in Khartoum to discuss the Arab position toward Israel. They reached concensus that there should be:
 * No peace with Israel.
 * No recognition of the State of Israel.
 * No negotiations with Israel. (source)
 * On October 21, 1967, an Egyptian torpedo boat sank The Eilat, and in June of the following year, Egypt began bombarding Israeli positions on the east side of the Suez Canal. Thus commenced the War of Attrition between Israel and Egypt. Egypt's stated goal in this war was to compel Israel, which did not have manpower reserves, to surrender and return the Sinai Peninsula by inflicting heavy casualties on its military. (source 1, 2 and 3)
 * In August, 1970, American Secretary of State Willian Rogers formulated the Rogers Plan for a ceasefire. Israel, Egypt and Jordan agreed a ceasefire under its terms. Egypt and its Soviet allies violated its terms almost immediately by moving their missiles near the Suez Canal, and constructing the largest anti-aircraft system in history (up until that point).
 * Meantime, in Jordan, King Hussein's agreement to the Rogers Plan constituted a recognition of Israel, in violation of the Khartoum Resolution. This angered the PLO, which then began fighting the Jordanian government, and initiated a campaign of terrorist attacks against Israel. Syria aided the PLO against Hussein's government. But Israel positioned troops along the Jordan River in what appeared to preempt a Syrian incursion into Jordan. It is believed by some that this may have prevented direct Syrian involvement in the conflict. (sources 1, 2, 3, and 4)LimerickLimerickson 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To continue:
 * Following President Nasser's death by a heart attack in 1970, Anwar al-Sadat assumed the Egyptian Presidency. Under his leadership, the War of Attrition ended, but Egypt began preparations for another war with Israel.
 * On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt, eager to retake the lands which they had lost in the 1967 Six-Day War, commenced an attack against Israel. This attack deliberately coincided with Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, when most Israelis were praying and fasting. The Arab armies overpowered the surprised Israeli army, and advanced into the Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula. The Israeli government quickly drafted a battle plan, and began to turn the tide of the conflict.
 * This clearly became an East vs. West conflict, in which the United States supplied Israel, and the Soviet Union supported the Arab armies. So long as the tide of war favored the Arabs, neither power found it necessary to declare a ceasefire. However, when Israel crossed the Suez Canal, and, having conquered new Syrian territory, began to shell Damascus, the USSR threatened military intervention. The United States, wary of nuclear war, secured a ceasefire on October 25.

I m dude2002 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * After a cursory read, looks OK, but this feels like a dejavu because an entire article, History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, was spun off from here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow... that's a nice article. Perhaps we should make the mother-article that nice. LimerickLimerickson 13:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The current History section is a WP:SUMMARY, as it should be. I don't think it is a good idea to go into history deeper than that here, but feel free to merge your content with History of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please note that this article already has been through a lot of edit wars, and that content has been spun off. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Perhaps the article should remain as much of a summary as it is now, but cover a broader span of the conflict. It seems to cover the very beginning in great depth, and the very end in great depth, but not a lot in the middle. I m dude2002 01:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Egypt

 * Following the Camp David Accords of the late 1970s, Israel and Egypt signed a peace agreement in March, 1979. This was the fist permanent peace agreement between Israel and an Arab state. Under its terms, the Sinai Peninsula would return to Egyptian hands, and the Gaza Strip would remain under Israel control, to be included in a future Palestinian state. The two countries established diplomatic relations in 1980, and Israel completed its withdrawal from the Sinai in 1982.

Jordan

 * In October, 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement, under whose terms both parties agreed to mutual cooperation, an end of hostilities, and a resolution of unsorted issues, such as the division of land and water resources between them.

Iraq

 * In June, 1981, Iraq finished construction of new nuclear facilities. Israel grew concerned with the prospect that an enemy state would have nuclear capabilities. Therefore, in June of that year, the IAF successfully attacked and destroyed these facilities.
 * During the Gulf War, Iraq fired a large number of missiles into Israel, in the hopes of uniting the Arab world against the coalition which sought to liberate Kuwait. At the behest of the United States, Israel did not respond to this attack in order to prevent a greater outbreak of war.

Lebanon

 * In 1970, following an extended civil war, King Hussein of Jordan expelled the PLO from his country. The PLO resettled in Lebanon, and in 1976 allied itself with Syria and Lebanese Muslims. From Lebanon, the PLO staged raids into Israel. In 1981, Syria positioned missiles in Lebanon, which threatened much of the Galilee. And so, in June, 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon. Within two months, the PLO agreed to withdraw from Lebanon.
 * In March, 1983, Israel and Lebanon signed a ceasefire agreement. However, Syria pressured President Amin Gemayel into nullifying the truce in March, 1984. In 1985, Israeli forces had mostly withdrawn from Lebanon, although a small force did remain in the South to secure the border.
 * Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon in May, 2000, leaving a power vaccum which Syria and Hezbollah were eager to fill..

Palestine

 * In 1987, the Intifada began. This was a widespread and almost spontaneous protest in Gaza and the West Bank in response to ongoing Israeli occupation and settlement in Palestinian territories. The PLO was excluded from negotiations until it agreed to recognize Israel and renounce terrorism. Having done this the following year, Yasser Arafat gained the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of the PLO.
 * In 1993, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accords, and their Declaration of Principles, which have been loosely used as the guidline for Israeli-Palestinian relations since.

2000-

 * Because suicide bombers continued to infiltrate Israeli territory from Gaza and the West Bank, and kill Israeli civilians, Israeli raided alleged terrorist facilities in major urban centers in the West Bank in 2002, in an attempt to secure order. Violence again swept through the region.
 * In 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon began a policy of unilateral withdrawal and dismantling of settlements in the Gaza Strip, in hopes of restarting the peace process. This policy was fully implement by August, 2005.
 * In July, 2006, Hezbollah fighters attacked an Israeli convy, successfully kidnapping two soldiers and killing several others. In this way, the organization began the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict, a 34-day-long bloody conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Thousands of Hezbollah rockets caused serious damage within Israel. Although Israel maintained it had no desire for conflict against the Lebanese government or the Lebanese people, much of Lebanon's infrastructure was severely damaged during this conflict.
 * On August 14, 2006, a UN-sponsored ceasefire went into effect, ending the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict.

I m dude2002 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of new history

 * Since no one seemed objected to the content of this discussion, I will go ahead and include it in the article. Any cuts in the text which do not detract from its content are more than welcome. LimerickLimerickson 21:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Objections to the expansion of this WP:SUMMARY were raised above in the section . I thought we had a consensus. The current text needs a major cleanup and if stays, I would fully expect it to grow into a duplicate (or worse, a POV fork) of History of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the spirit of good faith, let's revert this expansion. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I am mistaken, the only objection you previously raised was as to the length of this summary. While I agree that it is somewhat long, the entire Arab-Israeli Conflict article is shorter than the History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Article... so this section must certainly be shorter. What's more, it's possible to cut the new version, rather than delete it altogether.
 * Please tell me, so that I can correct the problem, what do you think was POV in the history summary? I will continue to cut it in the hopes that it fulfills your vision of what this article should look like. This way we can all be happy. I m dude2002 02:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being reasonable, it is a rare quality here. Look, I do not WP:OWN this article. All I am saying is we need to edit in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. I think the proposed content goes into way too much details and (being around for a little while) I can predict that users will improve it by adding more details, which will result in duplication/WP:POVFORK of History article. That said, I am not against improving the quality of the current summary, but I don't think that the improved section should be much longer than it is now. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. I cut the history by a lot. I know it looks much longer than the version which it replaced. Bear in mind, however, that that version was three solid blocks of text, whereas this consists of many small paragraphs. I therefore estimate that this is somewhere close to twice the length of the previous version, which is not immensely beyond what you suggested. If something in this version seems unecessary or POV to you, please feel free to discuss it (or, if you feel an urgent need, remove it, and we can discuss it ex-post-facto). But please don't delete this altogether, as it takes a long time to reconstruct. I m dude2002 23:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I made some edits which I hope are not too controversial. Sorry I am on the run now. I still think it is too long, and we'll have to watch so it does not get larger. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's looking better by the day. I named the sources and added information about each. There sure are a lot of them...I m dude2002 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits
Some (if not most) of this article's content is the result of protracted and heated disputes and painful compromises. I do not doubt that the latest edits by User:HelaBxtn were done in good faith, but here are just a few of contentious points: Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Various sources claim various reasons for the onset and the ongoing conflict. We should not take sides.
 * 2) The conflict "required international involvement to seek and promote a peaceful resolution" - This sounds as if it got already resolved. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, that the international involvement actually made this conflict worse.
 * 3) Balfour Declaration ... imposed the creation of Israel on the Palestinian land - this is severe POV backed by a partisan source, plz. see WP:NPOV.
 * 4) Why are we turning this article into a clone of Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
 * 5) The BBC's URL is malformed


 * Quick question: why does the Mufti link to Mohammad Amin al-Husayni rather than to Mufti? --BozMo talk 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess because the quote talks about Amin al-Husayni, not just some or other Mufti.←Humus sapiens ну? 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Humus, I agree with some of your points. But as for the first one, I think the question of why the conflict is going on is crucial to the article. Yes... it's important that we objectively look at reliable historical sources. But if we don't evaluate the causes behind the Arab-Israeli Conflict, this article is of little use to readers who want to know the causes behind it. Of course, there are two sides to this: what causes the Israelis to feel threatened and what causes the Arabs to feel threatened may or may not be legitimate concerns, but they are crucial to understanding the conflict. I m dude2002 02:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be nice, but it's another big and contentious topic. The Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict attempts to cover it. BTW, there was some effort to improve it at Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict/temp... IMHO, this article should contain WP:SUMMARY of the views, as well as of the history. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead picture is misleading
The Arab-Israeli conflict is not limited to Arabs and Israelis. Can we have a map of the whole world, and their stances? This way, Iran, the United States, Britain, and other nation's roles can't be marginalized.--Kirby♥time 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the Arabs and the Israelis who are doing all the fighting. It's the Arab League that has led the charge against Israel for six decades now. It's not "World War III", it's the Arab-Israeli conflict. The lead picture is accurate. Jayjg (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is not about Arab-Israeli fighting, this is talking about the conflict. Many nationalities besides Israeli and Arab have taken stances in the conflict. For instance, the Soviet Union (not in the picture) has contributed to the conflict much more than Morocco (in the picture). Also, please mind WP:SOAP.--Kirby♥time 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the USSR contributed a lot to the conflict. First, it supported the creation of Israel, and then kept sending waves of the Soviet Jews there. After 1948 the USSR strongly supported the Arab side against Israel. So what color would that be?
 * The US was quite cold towards Israel until 1973, e.g. in 1956 it practically forced it out of Sinai. The stance has changed since then, but even today many Arab armies like Saudi, Egypt, etc. receive modern US weapons. Pick a color.
 * Iran was a strong ally of Israel until 1979. Pick a color.
 * If you can come up with a representation of the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli conflict better than the Arab League, please do. BTW, see talk archives, this has been discussed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For that matter, Egypt has been at peace with Israel for almost thirty years, so why are they still portrayed as green? Gatoclass 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The US was not quite cold towards Israel until 1973. They were in full support of the 1947 United Nations partition plan; even going so far as into blackmailing countries into voting in favour of the partition plan. (Prizby 18:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC))


 * At the beginning of the Cold War, both the US and the USSR were highly inconsistent and readjusted their foreign policies a few times. Perhaps we could have a good article about this one day. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is about the Arab-Israeli conflict, not just fighting between Arabs and Israelis. Are you suggesting a rescope of the article, humus?--Kirby♥time 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The conflict is much more than open hostilities. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The map does appear to be an attempt to exaggerate the disparity between the two sides (tiny little Israel on the one hand and an extended gang of Arab protagonists on the other).


 * Might I suggest that a suitable compromise (and a more sensible approach) would be to limit the map to Israel and the countries which have actually been at war with it, rather than all the members of the Arab league. Gatoclass 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your problem seems to be not with the map but with historical facts. The conflict is much more than simply wars. The Arab League acts as a block in the UN, see also Arab boycott of Israel, etc. If you are able to present a better official representation of the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli conflict than the Arab League, let's see it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly frank, I don't really have much of a problem with the map as it is. I was simply suggesting a possible compromise between Kirby's position and yours. And now that I've done so, I'm not sure I want to waste any more of my time on this subject. Perhaps I'll leave it to you and Kirby to sort it out from here. Gatoclass 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

1949 to 1967 section
The first paragraph in this section goes as follows:

''In 1954, Egypt began a blockade in the Straits of Tiran, closing all shipping to Eilat. On July 26, 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, and closed the canal to Israeli shipping.''

Both the chronology and the claims in this section are completely wrong. This is apparently due to someone misinterpreting some sketchy accounts of the war that they found at a couple of web pages.

The Straits of Tiran were not blocked in "1954", they were blocked back in 1949, almost immediately after the war of independence, and remained that way until after the 1956 war. Likewise, the Suez Canal was not blocked to Israeli shipping in "July 1956", it was blocked from February 1950.

Apart from any other factor, the chronology alone clearly demonstrates that these blockades had little to do with the 1956 war. The war was fought because Britain, France and Israel were all terrified that Nasser might unite the Arab world and threaten their interests in the region. Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal was both a catalyst for these fears and a handy pretext for doing something about them. (Unfortunately for the coalition of course, the US intervened and Nasser survived).

Anyhow, I have completely overhauled this section to provide an accurate summary, and provided copious refs to support the edit. If you have an issue with the changes, please don't go reverting without first discussing it here. Thanks. Gatoclass 06:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, let's keep it a WP:SUMMARY. There are articles Suez Crisis and History of the Arab-Israeli conflict. If a year needs fixing, let's do that (I did that) and added Sachar as a ref. IMO, much more reliable than Shlaim. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your "WP:SUMMARY" is scarcely any shorter than mine. Although it's slightly better than the trash that was there before, it's still inaccurate.


 * This whole page reads like a precis from jewishvirtuallibrary.com. It's completely one sided and filled with factual errors.


 * I have to say that given the contentious nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I really don't think a WP:SUMMARY is viable for this subject. There are just too many competing viewpoints. I think I may move to have this page deleted.


 * In the meantime, I think I will take my edits over to the "history of" page. I'm inclined to agree with you that they'd be more appropriate there. Gatoclass 11:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Nasser closed the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping in 1956" Time Magazine
 * "Forty-six years ago, when Nasser closed the Suez Canal..." (written forty-six years after 1956) Atomic Insights
 * "Tony was actually a member of the party of engineers which officially closed the Suez Canal during the crisis of 1956." British Governmental Website
 * I think it's clear that Nasser closed the canal in 1956. I am not here to judge whether Israel was or was not the aggressor in this conflict, but Nasser certainly closed the canal in 1956. That is not propaganda. Screen stalker 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of second half of article
Something really needs to be done about this one-sided, heavily POV, and generally inadequate article. I've been messing around trying to come up with the briefest possible intro which also touches upon all the main issues, and here's what I've got so far. I've tried as much as possible to avoid laying blame on either side, I don't think that would really be appropriate for an article which is after all only intended as an introductory piece. Naturally I welcome comments and suggestions.

If I don't get any substantial objections to this piece, I will probably post it to the article in a week or so. Gatoclass 11:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not implying that the current content is perfect, but sorry, IMHO your text is worse. It is strongly titled towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which this article is not), and is full of one-sided POV editorializing, such as picking a single factor that "would do much to shape the course of the conflict in future years" and ignoring others. The Khartoum resolution is conveniently omitted. You paint big bad Israel dangerous to its neighbors, so "the old ban" and "Palestinian demonstrations" seem to be justified. As for "the demonstrations only finally came to an end with the signing of the Oslo accords between Israel and the PLO in 1993" - this is simply wrong because that is when the suicide bombings started en masse - is that what you covered as "various obstacles"? I could go on, but it's not worth it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, I find it kind of amusing that you would defend the current version, which is utterly one-sided, with my proposed alternative. However, I'm certainly open to discussion about how the above proposal might be improved.


 * one-sided POV editorializing, such as picking a single factor that "would do much to shape the course of the conflict in future years"


 * There is nothing whatever POV or one-sided about that! It's a simple statement of fact. Surely you are not going to deny that the disputes over status of the occupied territories are not the major source of conflict since 1967, both historically and in the present situation? It should be self-evident to you, or anyone, that that is the case, and I'm suprised and disappointed that you would seek to challenge even so basic a point as that.


 * The Khartoum resolution is conveniently omitted


 * Not at all, I carefully considered whether or not I should refer to the resolution, but as you yourself have pointed out to me before, this article is meant to be a WP:SUMMARY and is not designed to cover the minutiae of the conflict.


 * The problem with mentioning the Khartoum resolution is that if one refers to it, one must also refer to the opposite side of the debate, which is (for one thing) that Israel's stated resolve to retain Jerusalem and other parts of the occupied territories fed into the decision at Khartoum. Even your buddy Howard Sachar makes that point. And then, many historians have pointed out that Khartoum was not in reality the uncompromisingly rejectionist position it appears to be - the Arabs were willing to hold indirect negotiations, and indeed did so as the Jarring mission demonstrates.


 * The end result, therefore, of including both sides of debate for the sake of NPOV is that the two arguments effectively cancel each other out. So no purpose is served by mentioning either Khartoum or the correlating arguments in opposition to it. The various views of Khartoum are better handled at a page more suited for such details, such as History of the Arab-Israeli conflict.


 * "the old ban" and "Palestinian demonstrations" seem to be justified.


 * There's nothing in the text to suggest "the old ban" was justified. It simply says the Egyptian actions were in response to "frequent military clashes" on the Israel-Syria border. It doesn't say anything about who was responsible for those clashes.


 * As for Palestinian demonstrations, they are obviously justified according to the Palestinians themselves. What do you expect me to do, just mention the demonstrations without reference to the reasons for them? That is what would be POV. I would also point out that I've been at pains to mention the means by which Palestinians (at least some of them) have chosen to protest, the reader can make up his own mind whether the offence (occupation) justifies the response (terrorism).


 * As I've said though, I'm amenable to including more info if you or someone else thinks it necessary, but we do have to bear in mind that this article is meant to provide the briefest possible summary of the conflict and not be a detailed account.


 * As for "the demonstrations only finally came to an end with the signing of the Oslo accords between Israel and the PLO in 1993" - this is simply wrong because that is when the suicide bombings started en masse


 * The demonstrations did come to an end with the signing of Oslo. Some terrorism still continued, but the intifada itself was over. I guess we could mention ongoing terrorism if you think it necessary, but I reiterate that my object in composing this text was to provide the briefest possible summary and leave out all but the most essential details. Terrorism did in fact eventually decline dramatically during the Oslo years, as the record shows. Gatoclass 01:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I'm inclined to agree with you though that something more probably needs to be said about the failure to achieve peace after the '67 war. Without a more detailed account, the subsequent accounts of the War of Attrition, Yom Kippur etc. arguably read as nothing more than reasonable responses on the part of the Arabs to unjustified Israeli territorial expanionism - which is certainly one POV, but not the only one.


 * Perhaps I should explain that I began this proposed edit with a much longer and more detailed account. I then worked hard at shaving it down to about the same length as the current piece, it was quite difficult to do and a lot of things were left out that I would have preferred to leave in. I think the moral of this story, as I've pointed out before on this page, is that one simply cannot deal with this conflict even in the briefest manner without lengthening the existing content somewhat. I'm quite happy to do that, but I think the point needs to be acknowledged. Gatoclass 02:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Some points:
 * the "old ban" should have some context (condition for 56 withdrawal, UN forces etc.)
 * 2006 Lebanon War needs to in as succinct way as possible preface with the casus
 * Recent rumours that current Israeli PM Ehud Olmert may be interested in a territory-for-peace deal remain unconfirmed. I don;t think that that belongs in a long-term summary
 * replace began to allow transfer of Jewish settlers with allowed Israeli settlers to move to
 * expropriatons of land for Jewish settlements, not a cause of the First Intifada as far as I know
 * per Humus, while the stone throwing & knifing period drew to a close, mention should be made of the Hamas suicide-bombing campaign, which was perhaps "the" factor that stopped Oslo (ie Netanyahu)
 * how central to the AIC are "apartheid wall" allegations?
 * I would condense the last two & 1/2 paragraphs at minimum
 *  Tewfik Talk 02:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm amenable to most of those suggestions. The "apartheid wall" bit seemed a natural extension at the time, but I guess there's no overwhelming reason to include it in a summary article is there?

Not sure about the suggestion to condense the last couple of paragraphs, it seemed to me appropriate to give a little added weight to recent developments. An alternative though, might be to have an added section simply called "Recent developments", which can be maintained as appropriate, what do you think? Gatoclass 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed in principle, but Israeli-Palestinian conflict deprecates any utility that might have added.  Tewfik Talk 03:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to think there's a good argument for including a very brief summation of recent developments in this article too, for the sake of completion. And I hardly think a couple of additional sentences is going to compromise the overall intent of the page. However, I think we can leave this issue aside for the time being.


 * I might also mention that I'm not entirely reconciled to the idea of excluding the "expropriation of territory" bit either, although perhaps an alternative phrase might be in order. Seems to me that such expropriations are a major source of friction that can scarcely be ignored. Perhaps, as a counterweight, something could be said about Israeli historical claims to the territories?


 * As for your other suggestions though, they seem reasonable enough to me and I'll have a go at integrating them into the existing text as soon as I can find the time. Gatoclass 04:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can leave discussion of the recent developments for later, as that isn't crucial. As for the "expropriation of territory", I didn't point that out as an NPOV issue, but as what I think is a factual issues. That is, AFAIK it was not one of the causes of the First Intifada, and it isn't mentioned in that entry. I believe it rose to prominence in the last decade with the controversy surrounding the Israeli West Bank barrier, or alternatively in the 70s regarding Arab citizens of Israel. I'll also take a look when I get a chance.  Tewfik Talk 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a ref for the "peaceful" years 1993-2000. But let's try to avoid turning this article into a copy of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and concentrate more on the Arab-Israeli track. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

John Z has suggested to me that this article should really be about providing the reader with a shortcut to all the various links dealing with important aspects of the conflict. I think he is probably right that that's what a WP:SUMMARY article should be focused upon, so now I'm thinking of making some changes to the proposed text in order to emphasize such links. This is going to require a bit more effort and research on my part, so along with the other suggested changes, it's obviously going to take a little longer to finalize this proposal than I anticipated. My apologies for the further delay. Regards, Gatoclass 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass asked me to say something about the causes of the First Intifada. Here are some quotes from (Gen.) Aryeh Shalev's The Intifada: Causes and Effects. (Hebrew 1989, updated English version 1991) ( (I edited parenthetical remarks)  p.14 : Underlying Causes:  "The primary motivation was national: the fierce desire of the Palestinians to divest themselves of Israeli rule.  By the time of the uprising, Israeli control had extended more than 20 years, and during most if not all this period Israel had implemented a policy of 'creeping annexation.'   That policy, particularly after 1977, when Jewish settlement was markedly expanded and the number of Jewish settlers increased dramatically, was perceived in the most negative manner by the Palestinians, as a direct challenge to their status."  p. 28 "In an effort to convince the Israeli public (and perhaps themselves) that the government's settlement policy was beneficial, the settlers maintained that a state of coexistence was emerging in which the local Arabs accepted the establishment of settlements, the accompanying land expropriations, and so forth.  This tunnel vision heightened the illusion of a stable situation ..."John Z 18:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That would seem to confirm that "expropriation of territory" was indeed a significant factor in the outbreak of the intifada. Although I would have thought that was pretty self evident in any case. Thanks John. Gatoclass 00:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That confirms only one POV out of many. It would be easy to present an evidence that the conflict is ongoing because of intransigence on the part of Arab leadership, or propaganda of hatred, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet-Russian role during Arab-Israeli Conflict
I thank Russia with all my heart,that she is the only country in the World that helped the arabs,during this Conflict,they never tricked the arab like Britain and Czechoslovakia. So we can consider it as part of the Cold War,and the jews controls US :(((. so US is a toy between their hands,and so she will continue to support Israel,whether if the christians of Israel is being prescuted or not. :((((. but this Conflict must come to an end,it's not because of Religion it's just because of Greedy people,of the people who don't hear the word of God. Thanks to Russia and to the Soviet Union for their Military aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwarmackhoul (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

are you high? or just incredibly stupid? the US is controlled by Americans. if those Americans are Jewish, it is merely coincidental. and (although i dont check very often) at a glance there appears to be a proportional amount of Jews in American government as there are in American life (a small percent) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

POV template
This article is hopelessly POV, so many issues it needs to be totally rewritten. It is also practically indistinguishable from the History of the Arab-Israeli conflict article (at least the last time I looked), and thus is not serving any clear purpose. This article should really be providing nothing more than a WP:SUMMARY, a succession of useful links connected together by an absolute minimum of text. So the whole thing needs to be redone from scratch. Unfortunately, that will require considerable work that I don't have time for right now, so the POV notice will have to suffice until then. Gatoclass 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Background for the conflict
The background for the conflict was the massive Jewish immigration to Palestine after first World War and their aspiration to create a Jewish state. Without this immigration, there would not have been a conflict between jews and arabs in Palestine. It's as simple as that--Ezzex 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but I support Hertz's deletion of the section. It added nothing to the article. Emmanuelm 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ezzex: You are attempting to oversimplify a highly complex situation. It is always tempting to ascribe complex outcomes to single causes, whereas multiple factors are more likely to be in play. Your saying "It's as simple as that" doesn't make it so; you are only expressing an opinion, and hardly a balanced one. Wiki requires reliable sourcing, and unsourced personal views such as yours are frequently contrary to the neutral point of view policy.  The conflict did not suddenly begin 90 years ago.  Arab hostility to Jews goes back much further, and that can be documented.  As pointed out and documented in the History section that follows, the rise in Jewish immigration to the area led to a large increase in Arab immigration. These are just two out of many considerations to weigh if we were to attempt rewriting your edit in a more objective way.  However, I'm not sure I see a need for this new section at all, and in pushing it you are taking on a very complex editorial challenge.  I suggest we just leave things as they are, without a "Background" section.  We have already seen support from others for doing that. Hertz1888 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are a source: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 by Benny Morris. --Ezzex (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * yes the conflict is complex, but there is no complex situasion about the background for the conflict. If there have not been a massive jewish immigration to Palestine after 1ww, there would not have been a conflict between jews and arabs in Palestine. No one can argue agaist that.--Ezzex 23:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * you wrote "the rise in Jewish immigration to the area led to a large increase in Arab immigration". There where no large arab immigration. The population in 1880 of Palestine west of the Jordan River was estimated at under 590,000, of whom 96 percent were Arabs (Muslim or Christian); roughly 4 percent of the population was Jewish. As of 1947 the population was reported as 1,845,000, consisting of 608,000 Jews and 1,237,000 Arabs and others. The arab population have doubled from the year 1880 to 1947, while the jewish population had doubled ten times (from ca 40.000 til 600.000).--Ezzex 00:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ezzex: You started out talking about immigration after WWI and are now giving population figures for post-WWII vs. 1880 (a much wider time frame). I don't see that as resolving the issue, as numbers don't tell the whole story.  Population shifts can take place without conflict being inevitable.  The logic of your original statement may be self-evident to you, but not to me.  It remains unsourced, and there are other factors, left unmentioned.  If I were to say, "without Arab enmity to a large Jewish presence and to Jewish sovereignty over any portion of the area, there would be no conflict", that might be just as valid, but I expect you would object to it as incomplete and one-sided opinion.  If I were quoting a reliable source, though, that might make the statement admissible.  At any rate, there appears to be no support at this point for restoring your "Background" section to the article. I hope we will hear from a few other editors in the near term, and can then wrap this matter up. Hertz1888 04:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hertz seems to be correct in removing that. We cannot merely highlight one from a number of background issues, especially when that favours one historiographic narrative over others, which undermines our attempts at a neutral presentation.  Tewfik Talk 17:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * this have nothing to do with favouring one historiographic narrative over others. This is a correct description what happend and nothing more. The sentence says nothing about right or wrong, blameing og judging etc.--Ezzex (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's so simplistic, we're way better off without it. okedem (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Zionism is scrupulously absent, i.e. POV
I have rewritten the lead para, after a ctl-F of the article revealed only 2 instances of 'Zionism', both hidden in the notes/refs section; there are also only 2 secions within this discussion page that note the word. This is incomprehensible, really. Israel was created as a result of Zionism (anyone going to argue with that?), how can it be so absent in the text, unless it is part of a plan or accepted POV. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't flag, be bold, edit the text. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeking minor grammatical clarification
hello:

"By December of 1948, Israel controlled all of the mandate Palestine except Jordan, which included what is now called the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, controlled by Egypt."

Grammatically this is the correct understanding of the above statement: Jordan had been part of the mandate Palestine, but was currently not part of Israel;Jordan included the West Bank and the Gaza strip; Jordan (including the two included teritories) was controlled by Egypt.

I don't know the first thing about the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is why I read the article. I do know the English language and have to say that the above sentence is ambiguous and confusing. It leaves me unsure of the facts. Could this be clarified?

Many thanks

Amarillis 14/03/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarillis (talk • contribs) 12:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I agree that the statement was ambiguous and confusing.  I have rewritten the passage in question (the original sentence is now two) and trust you will find it sufficiently clarified. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's great; many thanks Amarillis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarillis (talk • contribs) 08:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Adjectives
The Israeli Air Force (IAF) destroyed most of the surprised Egyptian Air Force, then turned east to pulverize the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces.

we don't need to say pulverize now do we? might as well say "kick their butt" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is as neutral as such a topic can be, and as such the neutrality should no longer be in dispute. While the word "pulverize" is a loaded word and may show bias, the article also says the Arab forces "overwhelmed" the Israeli military, therefore equally strong statements are used to describe victories by both forces. To expect perfect neutrality to both sides in the description of a war is ridiculous, and while we should strive for perfection we must also realize it isn't going to happen. You could rewrite this article 100 times and each time there would be people objecting to the wording of parts of it. As such I believe the neutrality of this article is fine and should no longer be in dispute.Cwagmire (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a classic example of an excuse buy someone who is obviously biased, either way. In my opinion, some of the "sources" for statements in this article are suspiciously one sided at best, like this one http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict-2.asp#Clash ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (<sup style="color:purple;">Ταλκ ) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ about the neutrality of some of the sources (see the favicon? is a Israeli flag): http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict-2.asp#Clash ...I work with web development, so I could build a site in 30 minutes with my own opinions, and then cite that info in any Wikipedia article I want... what do you think? Is not the same when the web site has some reputation and neutral views, like a newspaper from a neutral country. Many people is worried about what this article says, because is far from being neutral! Conlag (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

New Article (on the "Belligerent" Comoros Islands)
Can we please have a new article to highlight the serious threat from the "belligerent" Comoros toward poor little Israel? 221.255.16.58 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Replacing this because in a way, this apparently ridiculous suggestion provides a perfect perspective on the POV-pushing in the article and thus is a relevant addition to this discussion. The David vs Goliath map used atop the article is wholly inappropriate and misleading. I ask editors -- who is more involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the United States or the Comoros Islands? By the way, the editor who removed 221's question is wrong, the article does list Comoros Islands as a "belligerent." Suggest adding the United States to the map. RomaC (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does the article mention the Comoros Islands. The only mention of it was added by the very same anon editor who commented about it above, an addition which was essentially vandalism, and I promptly removed it. Basically, he added a section about them, and then complained about it in the talk page.
 * Don't feed the trolls.
 * Regarding your point - the Arab league is officially in conflict with Israel, which is why Egypt was kicked out of the league after signing the peace treaty with Israel 1979. This is the policy they set, and so the map is appropriate. The US never fought in Israel's name, and US forces have never defended it against Arab attacks. By your logic, we also need to have the USSR/Russia highlighted in green, as the main arms supplier of the Arab world (the same part the US plays for Israel). By the way, Russian forces have fought on behalf of the Arab states, mainly Russian pilots assisting the Egyptian air force. okedem (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The POV David vs Goliath map and infobox very clearly present the "belligerents" as the "Arab Nations" on one side and "Israel" on the other. Click on "Arab Nations" and voila, the menacing Comoros Islands are listed. RomaC (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the meaning of the Arab League. They're all in conflict with Israel, by their own choice. okedem (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, okedem you say the Comoros are belligerents because they are in the Arab League and "That's the meaning of the Arab League." I didn't see that definition in the WP entry on the Arab League. Can you direct me to where I can find out about the Comoros as belligerent? Thanks.RomaC (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not, belligerency is not that meaning of the Arab league. But the league has passed many, many, resolutions against Israel. For instance, when Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel 1979, its membership of the league was suspended for it. As such, all members of the league are part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. okedem (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, the United Nations has also passed "many, many resolutions against Israel", so shall we list the entire world as belligerents? The map would look even more dramatic! RomaC (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the UN passed some resolutions which recommend Israel take some action, which Israel doesn't like, or condemn it for action it did take. The Arab league was and still is an active and willing participant in the conflict. See, for another example, the Arab League boycott of Israel (also ). Also, Arab League extends 'hand of peace' to Israel - "...extending "a hand of peace" on behalf of the Arab world." okedem (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to okedem: Egypt was suspended from the League in 1979, but they have long ago been restored as a member in good standing.  Jordan was never kicked out.  All this is clear from the very USA Today article you just provided us.  The Arab League has two members, Egypt and Jordan, which are widely recognized as being at peace with Israel.  Hence it is wrong to just treat every country in the Arab League as a "belligerent", membership in the League being sole qualtification.  RomaC is exactly right, the map misleads the reader and must go. Sanguinalis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sanguinalis, I strongly support your contention that the misleading map must go for the reasons you cite. RomaC (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree: the map should go. The Arab League is definitely not an entity at war with Israel. The map fails to show that there are several members of the League with full diplomatic relations with Israel, namely Jordan, Egypt and Mauritania, whereas Qatar has trade relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#Arab_states). In addition, several other members, even when they don't recognize Israel, are not belligerent: "In October 2000, Israeli diplomatic missions in Morocco, Tunisia and the Sultanate of Oman were closed as these countries suspended relations with Israel" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#Diplomatic_relations), that means they had certain friendly relations before. Morocco, for instance, has never advocated war against Israel and its king Mohammed VI (among many other gestures) met in Morocco with Acting Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami in Sept. 2000 (http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Archive/Current+Events/2000/09/Speeches419.htm). You don't do this when being at war. So I vote for the map to be thrown out, more so when it reads "Early 20th century-present". Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What's more: I just found a wikipedia entry which states clearly "According to Israeli law, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and Iran are considered "Enemy countries"" (see Israeli passport). So the rest are obviously not enemy countries, according to Israel, and shouldn't appear on the head of this page. Please remove. Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about the Arab-Israeli conflict since it's early days and not about the conflict as it is now-days. Please review the article and note the role of the Arab League in the conflict. The same league was quite active even recently, trying to suggest that Mubarak should be assassinated because he would not attack Israel together with Hezbollah.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, when did the Arab League recently call for Mubarak's assassination? I'm ready to be surprised, but it would be quite a big one. And actually of course, while you are right that this is an article about the conflict as a whole, equally there is a separate article for the history of the conflict. --Nickhh (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought the time-line for the declaration was clarified in my comment. However, upon further examination, it was the Arab Lawyers Union who made that call on Al-Jazeera (calling him al-Khana and suggesting he's fair game) and not the Arab League - my apologies for the error. I appreciate the link to the history article, btw, but it's existence doesn't mean that this article is narrowed down to the current status of the conflict - it is an article made so that we can keep this article from becoming too complicated and long (see: WP:LENGTH).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I've done exactly what Jaakobou asks me to do: "review the article and note the role of the Arab League in the conflict". There is my result: according to the article, the Arab League has exactly one intervention in the conflict, and it is by sending a letter to the UN in 1948 stating their opposition to the partition of Palestine. That's all I find here. So marking the Arab League on the map is definitely useless, I think. We should mark only the countries that have actually engaged in hostilities and then could use two colors to show those that are still - at least technically - at war, and those that have signed peace. What do you think? Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting the volume of hatred and incitement into context, I can agree to having a second map lower at the article that has some type of a rundown on the current situation of the "official" state of the conflict with countries like Jordan marked differently than Syria and other countries which joined the conflict (like Iran) added. I have to note that this is still a superficial issue since Egypt, for example, still makes ridiculous efforts to prove that they are still a part of the conflict. I'll be more available to further discuss how we should do this in a couple days.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd forgotten about this discussion, but now notice that the Comoros Islands are still listed as a "belligerent" in the Arab-Israeli conflict, despite the good points raised to show that this is as ridiculous as, say, including Arab League observer countries such as Brazil and India as belligerents in the conflict. So, again, suggest removal of this awfully misleading map. RomaC (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions on Wiki Style and this article
okedem, or someone, can you tell me, the following sentences -- are they ok?

"During the Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 missiles into Israel, in the hopes of uniting the Arab world against the coalition which sought to liberate Kuwait."

"In July, 2006, Hezbollah fighters crossed the border from Lebanon into Israel, attacked and killed eight Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped two others, setting off the 2006 Lebanon War which caused much destruction in Lebanon."

Cheers! RomaC (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No comments after a month, inclines me to believe that the involved editors here see no problems with these sentences. RomaC (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, due to increased work load I missed your comment.
 * The first sentence explains motives without attributing the claim to anyone. This is not okay. Though I remember reading that as the explanation, we're not in the position to offer commentary. Need an RS for that, or just drop the explanation, and leave the facts.
 * The second one is factual, so I have no problem with it. okedem (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just replaced 'kidnapped' by 'captured' as that is the term used in wikipedia at the Lebanon conflict page and also in the source, New York Times. As Israel and Lebanon countries are (legally) at war and the victims are soldiers, I think 'kidnapping' is not the right word. Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually kidnapped is used for civilians but it is valid also for soldiers in certain instances. I don't know what source you're referring to, but a kidnap operation usually has it's victims dubbed as "abducted hostages" (I've inserted this correction). Considering that this operation was declared as a hostage taking maneuver from the get go, that is the neutral descriptive to go by.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right there. The source I referred to, anyhow, is an article in the IHT that is used as a source in the main wikipedia article. Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes your note clearer as the IHT has an editorial policy of avoiding both 'abduction' and 'kidnapping' when a soldier is taken regardless of the situation (abduction/capturing). This article where Shalit is referred to as 'captured' and Alan Johnston is referred to as 'hostage' just goes to show this. However, the terminology is so clear-cut that not only do other mainstream sources use it but IHT sometimes have a "slip of a key" (or two) and use these words as well. I hope this clarifies the IHT working issue.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I won't fight too much over one word, but this last note of yours is just nonsense, I'm afraid. Except Israeli media and CNN, almost every major media outlet uses 'captured' instead of abducted or kidnapped. Washington Post does, New York Times does, BBC does. IHT uses 'hostage' in the article you refer to referring to the Hamas case, not the Lebanon case (and it doesn't use 'abducted'). So this is not a specific policy but the normal correct wording. After all, I'd think you should revert to 'captured' and add, if you think so, "held as hostages" Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it was nonsense also but this is what an IHT editor told me. Mainstream sources have used all the options but the most accurate word for describing a kidnapping with the intention of securing a goal is 'hostage' (look it up and compare with 'captured' on Merriam Webster). The BBC released once a notice as to why they use 'abducted' rather than 'kidnap' and the explanation was that they believe 'kidnap' refers to civilians. I think it's all nonsense, but it doesn't matter really so long as Hezbollah stated the goal of the operation to be kidnapping with the hopes of securing their demands. I'm not sure as to why you're even suggesting that 'captured' is the best fitting term here - imagine al-Qaeda using an operative to abduct a soldier from inside your country (killing them in the process) and having another person on Wikipedia insist that you should change the word used from 'abducted' into 'captured'. I would suggest a little more sensitivity and neutrality as well.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do I think it is the best fitting term? Because it is the (only) one widely used and because the event took place in a war situation, with Lebanon and Israel legally at war and with Hezbollah recognized by the Lebanese government as a legal combat group, even if not part of the official armed forces. What terms any of us would prefer when speaking about Al Qaeda is totally irrelevant here, as none of these conditions apply to Al Qaeda. Please don't mix up things. But maybe we should stop here and look for more important things to do. Ilyacadiz (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're making some exceptional claims and this needs some sources for validation. For starters, I'd appreciate a few mainstream sources that "Hezbollah [was] recognized by the Lebanese government as a legal combat group" at the time of the operation. This assertion seems to me like a false one, esp. considering some of the speeches I've witnessed by Nasrallah threatening to kill anyone who tried to take away their weapons (referring to Lebanese people). I'm aware that the situation on the ground changed recently after Nasrallah marched on Beirut, but this is a very recent development.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC) wikilink 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, 'legal' was the wrong word here, although Hezbollah was then and is again a legal party in the government. As a combat force it had no legal status, but it was clearly accepted by the Lebanese state, as AP AP states: "Hezbollah was the only militia allowed to keep its weapons after the end of the 1975-90 civil war, on the grounds it was fighting Israeli troops occupying part of Lebanon until 2000". That implied a de facto recognition, as expressed by the Lebanese President Émile Lahoud in an interview in 2006: "An army that is national, and the resistance [= Hezbollah] is national. You want the national army to disarm the national resistance, which is complementary to the army but without having the same operation room?"  and by the way also by Israel, as Olmert stated clearly. So you have both the Lebanese president and the Israeli prime minister considering the actions at the frontier as part of a war, not as crimes committed by civilians. Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ilyacadiz,
 * I thoroughly appreciate your efforts here, but Lebanon is a very complex country with factions playing political games that are far too complex for outsiders to follow. I would not want to dabble too deeply into what little I know but Émile Lahoud, for example, is considered a member of the pro-Syrian/Hezbollah alliance. Hezbollah is basically threatening everyone who dares challenge them (see the link I gave to the 2008 conflict) and a reporter or two saying some people support for them is neglecting that half the country is in the opposition.
 * I suggest you look up Hezbollah in news outlets like Ya Libnan and The Daily Star so see a little bit how a large chunk of the country views Hezbollah.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Jaakobou, let's stop the debate at this point as not to bore other wikipedia editors. I know Lebanon quite well and the percentage of people who agree or disagree with Hezbollah's actions is definitely not the issue here. I have nothing to add. Thanks anyhow. Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just edited the Lebanon-Israel section a little. Reasons: the given source After the cease-fire didn't support the claim that after Israel's withdrawal in 2000, "Hezbollah and Syria filled in the vacuum" (no Syrian troops were sent to the southern strip). I've added another source which gives context for the withdrawal. If the sentence referred to the 1985 withdrawal - and I wouldn't mix up both in one sentence - than the vacuum stayed 5 years longer: Syria took decisive power in Lebanon in 1990, not earlier. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Religious foundations of the conflict
I created this subsection in the "Scopes of the conflict" section. Regardless of your opinion, I (and Huckabee) think it is naive to start the article with the Ottomans. Until Jewish-Muslim war becomes a blue link again, this article is the only place where this (hugely important) concept can be described and discussed. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I started looking for more sources, and found plenty. I made heavy use of direct quotes (yes, it looks like a link farm) and selected academic texts to help me survive the inevitable criticisms. Strange how this abundantly published facet of a top international issue was completely left out of Wikipedia. One of my sources is tittled "The Elephant in the Room". Indeed.  Emmanuelm (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose the inclusion of the Huckabee comment in the section. Putting his (mildly said) vain comment in the section gives the impression that he might have some kind of authority or expertise to comment the subject whereas he is irrelevant regarding it. Random comments by random US governors should not be the centerpoint of international issues. Instead, more sources like the 2006 thesis and historical and political studies are needed, not populistic newspaper comments. --piksi (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't complain, be bold, replace it with a better source -- there a plenty to chose from. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to the title of the subsection "Religious foundations of the conflict". Nobody would deny that there is today a religious element to the conflict, but it is definitely not a foundation. The Zionist movement was overall agnostic and did not promote a "fight against muslims" but rather the colonisation of an -according to them- "land without people". In the same sense, the PLO was rather non-religious, included important Christian leaders (see George Habash and focussed on the de-colonisation debate. It is not until the eighties when Hamas adopts clearly religious positions. But until today, even the most outspoken, or fanatic, Muslim critics of Israel tend to use the word 'Zionist state', not 'Jewish state', as to distance themselves from a general Jew-hating vision. So I would replace 'foundations' with 'aspects' or 'elements' or something like that. Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why, of all places, did the Jews want Palestine? Emmanuelm (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They didn't, it was the non-religious Zionists who wanted it. It must be questionable they chose Palestine (over Uganda or Madagascar or South America) on anything except practical grounds, it was a much easier place to live. And closer - remember, almost half the early settlers returned, unable to survive even in a country with agriculture and tourists and a postal system. PRtalk 09:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Ilyacadiz, I'm not sure I'd agree with you considering the exploits of the Grand Mufti. Sure, the Christians were joining the Pan-Arab movement on a nationalistic level, but the Muslims were acting under Islamic interpretations of the conflict. Emmanuelm, the Jews wanted a national sanctuary in the historical homeland of Eretz Israel.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Emmanuelm, it is true that there is a religous foundation for zionism (considering Eretz Israel as the historical homeland for all jews whereever they are), but it is not exactly a foundation for the conflict, as the immigration per se could have led to other outcomes: in its earliest stages, some zionist and Arab leaders envisaged a strong alliance between "two semitic peoples". Could have been... Jaakobou, the hate speeches of the Grand Mufti are very much quoted, but I think they really didn't determine the subsequent wars. "The Muslims were acting under Islamic interpretations of the conflict" cannot be accurate (although a (small) minority of course would): among the 5 Arab armed forces that attacked Israel in 1948, Lebanon had a Christian president, neither in Iraq, Egypt nor Syria, specific Muslim views were held in goverment circles (all were nationalistic) and Jordan's troops, the strongest of this war, were even headed by a British officer. Much more so in 1967: Nasser was anti-religious, had a pact with communist Russia and used anti-colonialist, never islamic, rethoric, the powerful Syrian Defence Minister Hafez Assad was even Alawite (a Muslim orientation that refuses the normal Muslim interpretation and is strongly secular), and I can't find in the PLO's documents and speeches any reference to an 'Islamic interpretation'. That starts with Hamas in the eighties. If I missed something, glad to learn it. Ilyacadiz (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Several good points in there. Others a bit misleading - no Arab leader believed the Zionists would be allies (Faisal was being bribed to say it). Lebanon didn't attack Israel in 1948 - leading Ben-Gurion and Dayan thinking it would be possible to seize the south of that country (in the event they were too busy with Egypt). You're right about there being no Islamicism until relatively recently - so the "Mufti", an advisor to a Sharia court (and controlling the budget of teachers) wasn't rated very important by the British. Meanwhile 10% of the population were getting a representative council, their language made official and new roads linking their settlements. PRtalk 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Cheers,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "historical homeland" is not necessarily a religious concepts. While the bible tells stories of Jewish history in what the Romans later retitled "Syria-Palestina", certainly archeological findings complement it with non religious and more refined outlook of actual historical events.
 * 2) The Mufti, was the "grand mufti" with all the attached meanings of rulership in the Arab world. If you have a valid source saying otherwise, I'd be interested in giving it a look.
 * 3) I'm not following the changes you're interested in when you describe the Arab leadership as acting on ideology rather than religious inspiration (I'm not really contesting this). Please clarify the changes you're interested in so I can see where we're supposedly going with this.


 * Having this short section right at the top of the main part of the article is plain odd I'm afraid, however long we sit on the talk page and discuss our own views on the subject matter. The simple fact is that the two sources cited seem to be fairly minor academic papers. Added to that, the George Mason one for example is about incorporating religion into the peace making process rather than being a detailed analysis of the conflict's origins, and actually acknowledges that "the conflict is still seen mainly in terms of competing nationalist claims over land"; the other link doesn't work (and what can be seen, the title, does not refer to the origins of the conflict at all). At the very least this needs to be moved to the bottom of the article. But probably removed altogether as WP:SYNTH & WP:UNDUE. --Nickhh (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nickhh,
 * Please don't impose your personal opinion on the sources. It is a violation of WP:NPOV. Also, I would appreciate it if you stop following my edits - this has been an issue in the past and it seems to have come up yet again with this article as well as with Battle of Jenin.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, please stop accusing me of following you around. It's as tedious and wrong as it was the last time you claimed it about a year ago. If we both edit on I-P articles, we will come across each other from time to time. I have been involved in this article [corr - actually that was Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not this page, but the point still stands] frequently in the past, and at Battle of Jenin. I can't recall our paths crossing on any other pages recently. And of course my immediate point here is aimed at the edits which originally added this section, not at any of yours. Are you suggesting that because you happen to be active on a page, even in a minor way, I have to avoid it? Don't be ridiculous. And I'm sorry but the sources here are weak, especially given the voluminous literature on this subject matter from well known and respected historians and academics which don't really rate this idea, and especially since even these sources don't actually support the thesis that is being floated at the top of this article by one editor, without consensus (and are you anyway suggesting that editors cannot query sources and also point out that they don't actually say what they are being used to say? Again, ridiculous, and nothing whatsoever to do with any "violation of WP:NPOV"). This is a simple issue of due weight and balance, and being accurate to what sources actually say. I am surprised you are being so cavalier about these principles, and instead of actually responding to legitimate points, have chosen to make rather feeble knee-jerk accusations against me. I was in no way hostile to you, so please do me the courtesy of following WP:AGF (if we're going to be quoting wiki-rules at each other). Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nickhh,
 * History of following my contribution's page: You don't touch these pages for a couple months and immediately after I make a talk page comment you suddenly revive your activity. It is "clearly" ridiculous to find it whatsoever similar to past events when you followed me to 5 articles you never touched before (within a time-span of 10 days) and edit-warred on them. I request you take my request seriously (as it's not "ridiculous") and we'll leave it at that.
 * Content-wise: Please don't impose your personal opinion on the sources. It is a violation of WP:NPOV unless you can substantiate your claims by some valid reliable measures.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, I try and stay away from I-P pages most of the time because of all the cr#p that goes on in them. I'd actually rather avoid them - and, if I am to be honest - you altogether. Occasionally, when I have spare time, I scan a few of them for the more egregious errors and bias that turn up in them, and correct those problems or comment on them. You'll notice from my edits yesterday that I started this on several obscure I-P pages (where you were nowhere to be seen) before coming here. When I did come here I commented on Emmanuel's additions to the main article, not on anything you had said or done. You were not even editing this article itself, although you did happen to be here on the talk page. Again, there is no rule that requires me to avoid any page you are floating around. You are not only being ridiculous, but paranoid. And I have no idea what you are talking about in respect of following you to five articles in the past and edit warring on them. If it makes you feel better I hereby give you my guarantee that I will continue this practice of not deliberately following you to pages.


 * Somewhat more on-topic, I am not "imposing my personal opinion" on sources, I am querying their relative notability, and the relevance of their content to the point being made. This is bog-standard talk page practice. You may recall that you engage in this practice yourself, for example in respect of Gideon Levy, The Guardian etc. I'm still waiting for someone to explain and justify this section, rather than just writing it relying on two marginal sources, and then asking other people to add more sources, even though most other editors here are disputing its relevance in the first place. --Nickhh (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * @Nickhh - you are entirely right, there is no basis whatsoever for claiming that this conflict is based on religion. The Jews of Palestine were strongly opposed both to Zionism and to the Zionists. Zionism didn't gain general support from the world Jewish Community until, probably, 1967. The Zionists bombed and terrorised the Jews of Palestine (particularly during WWI, and during/after WWI, when religious Jews were keen to live in peace under the Ottomans and the British). The Zionists assassinated Jacob de Haan the leader (and sole effective, multi-lingual spokesman?) of the religious Jews of Palestine in 1924.
 * Even the fact that Hamas (since mid 80s) and religious settlers (mid 90s?) are now prominent doesn't make it a religious conflict - think how the Christian god has been invoked in every war fought by Christians - including every war fought against other Christians! PRtalk 09:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The PalestineRemembered seal of approval (and soapboxing) was given so we can all go home now. No need to ratify claims of "minor academic papers" or use any relevant sources, for that matter, since PalestineRemembered found someone who was killed by Jews and this obviously proves all anti-Zionist theories and also that JewsAgainstZionism.com are a good reliable source. Not.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jews chose that land because it was the Land of Israel, the Holy land and the Promised land, three religious concepts. I added my short paragraph as a starting point, expecting it to be quickly edited. To my surprise, it was left untouched, like a loaded mousetrap. Stop arguing, be bold, expend and clarify it. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If I was to be bold here, I would just delete it I'm afraid. It's a contentious theory, which virtually every other editor here has contested, and which you have backed up using two marginal and obscure sources. It's not the responsibility of other editors to do your work for you and add proper sources to this section, and nor is that likely to happen anyway given the lack of support for its inclusion as things stand. --Nickhh (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Focusing on the content, what are the contested sources and what makes the assertion that they are marginal and obscure valid? Qualifications should be made in either direction to make a persuasive argument.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * These are the two sources currently cited, here and here. As I more or less said above, before it got ignored and then lost in the fog - the George Mason University one is about incorporating religion into the peace making process rather than being a detailed analysis of the conflict's origins, and actually acknowledges that "the conflict is still seen mainly in terms of competing nationalist claims over land". It is written by a Peter E Weinberger, who gets a grand total of two Google hits (I know this isn't definitive, but it must tell us something, surely). The other link, which now seems to connect after all even if only to the summary page, is to a Master's Thesis. This also appears, in any event, to be about current opposition to the "peace process" from religious extremists. I can't seriously believe we are talking about having a section called "Religious foundations of the conflict" at the top of the main part of the article based on these as sources. They are simply not notable opinions, and in any event don't support the thesis that is being pushed. Even if better ones can be found, it's still suggesting a highly contentious analysis of history, and posting it ahead of the historical details that follow. This is all wrong for an encyclopdia. --Nickhh (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I can see where your concerns are coming from. There is certainly room to improve the citations and tone down the definitive tone of the section. This perspective is not central to the historical perception of the conflict which focuses more on the Pan-Arab movement than it's Islamic roots and the Pan-Islamic movement and therefore this should be taken down a notch on top of adding better sources. I would suggest we start by merging the sources into a single sentence and connect the "Religious foundations" section into the main "Scope of the conflict" section. I'm afraid I believe this won't be appreciated by whoever opened up the section, but as a compromise offer - I suggest something that would not be appreciated by the "other" side, which is to keep the link to "Islam and antisemitism" as it certainly fits in regards to the "scope" of the conflict. I think this compromise suggestion is fair to both sides of this argument as well as a good way to deal with this issue on the encyclopedia. Agreed?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, although it took an inordinately long time tbh. I'm fine with the change. The religious elements (as myself and everyone else above acknowledged) are relevant, but "foundations" was way too strong a word and the issues such as they are can and should simply be referred to in the main overview and narrative where appropriate (as it already was to a certain extent). They did not need to be given their own quasi-essay/thesis section. --Nickhh (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the page is better now. Just for the record, as Jaakobou mentioned that the "The Mufti was the "grand mufti" with all the attached meanings of rulership in the Arab world", let me clarify that in the Arab world, the rulership attached to a Mufti, even a 'grand' one, is exactly zero. You may ask him for advice in religious subjects and you may or may not follow his advice, he can't do anything about it. Maybe the British gave him important attributions in Palestine, but normally in the Arab world - and under Ottoman rule, as far as I know -, a Mufti has no rulership at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyacadiz (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a bit of a difference between authoritarian rulership and control over the people, certainly. However, al-Amin was noted in historical records as the main Palestinian ruler of the region and unless I see some notes to the contrary, then I'm left to believe the sources I've read thus far.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, if you read wikipedias entry Mohammad Amin al-Husayni you'll see that he actually had a lot of powers, all of them bestowed on him by the British who created for him positions inexistant in Ottoman rule or Arab countries (where the non-religious Mukhtars would represent authority). Please note that I didn't question Amin's influence during the Mandate, what I referred to was your sentence "with all the attached meanings of rulership in the Arab world", which for a Mufti are zero, be it rulership, authority or control over people, that's the only point I wanted to clarify. In the British Mandate world, that was obviously different. Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I reintroduced the section title for clarity and clarified the argument. I'll try to find a source for the Muslim argument. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, did you notice the reams of debate above, that your edits are dragging everyone into, but which you seem to have set yourself above? Did you notice that no-one agrees with having this section here? Have you read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN? --Nickhh (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Easy there. Please review WP:COOL.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perfectly cool, just mildly irritated with yet another editor who prompts others to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining calmly and in some detail on a talk page why their slightly idiosyncratic edits are probably not for the best in a supposedly neutral, balanced and accurate online encyclopedia. But then just ignores all those comments and goes ahead and does what they want anyway. --Nickhh (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nickhh is right, we had a consens that 'Foundations' was not the right word here. By the way, we should replace source 5) as the interview with Wafa Sultan adds to the 'clash of civilisations' claim but does not support the idea that "religion is something new", which I agree it is, but it should be sourced. I'll be looking for a source. (Hi Jaakobou, love the sketch on your talkpage 'citation needed'. Just what I say) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyacadiz (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for subsection text
Here is my proposal for a short subsection called Religious foundations of the conflict: "Palestine, called the Land of Canaan or Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) in the Bible was, according to the Hebrew Bible, promised by God to the Israelites. In his 1896 manifesto The Jewish State Theodor Herzl repeatedly refers to the Biblical Promised land concept. The subsequent mass immigration of Jews to this land marked the beginning of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Several studies have argued that beyond the secular motivations, groups on both sides, including Hamas and Gush Emunim, also evoke religious arguments for their uncompromising positions. The Likud party is currently the most prominent party which includes the Biblical claim to the Land of Israel in its platform. Many currently argue that the Jews' claim to the Promised Land has been invalidated by subsequent holy messages, including the Christian doctrine of Replacement Theology. Anti-Zionist Jewish groups also evoke religious arguments."


 * I support the introduction of this subsection with the above text as a starting point for future edits. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal; although I contested 'foundations' instead of 'scope' or 'aspects' - - why not 'Arguments'? - - I think the proposed text offers valuable information about the ongoing - or strengthening - religious claims and allows to develop that further. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Object suggested version. I've no objection to mention of religion but the "promised land" issue is not THE reason for the heavy clashes of the early 1900s. Make a new suggestion, separate interpretations of why fighting began from this topic and we might have a deal.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ambivalent. As discussed I don't dispute the overall relevance of some of these points - the issue for me is the idea of having a separate main section devoted to this issue, all the more so if it uses the word "foundations" and is placed at the top of the main part of the article. That way it gives the impression that religion is the key and overriding issue in the conflict, and has been since the outset. Better solutions would be to insert this material simply as additional text into the "Scope .." section - without any header of its own - where it simply feeds into that mix rather than being highlighted as somehow more important than anything else; or to include each of the individual points in the relevant part of the chronology. The religious issues are in reality simply "elements of" or "aspects of" the conflict, among many others. --Nickhh (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ps: I failed to notice until now that the "Islam and anti-semitism" see also was returned with a recent edit. I'm sorry but this is really inflammatory and of dubious relevance. That link belongs here as much as a link to a "Zionism and Racism" article would. --Nickhh (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This was the compromise we agreed upon. If you give the compromise note another look you'll notice a mention that antisemitism is certainly a part of the scope of the conflict.
 * p.s. please try to tone down pointy analogies as it is unnecessarily provocative.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But that's what I'm saying, I didn't notice that this link had also been returned when I said "I agree" to the broad rewording of the substantive text. And the comparison to Zionism & Racism is a very precise analogy. You say it's provocative, and I kind of agree (or at least agree that it would be, were it to be included) - that's exactly why I'm comparing it to the "Islam and anti-semitism", it's the mirror image of that claim and just as relevant (or irrelevant, depending on how one views these things). --Nickhh (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You really want to start arguing about the value and effects of the "Zionism is racism" allegations vs. the "Antisemitism in the Islamic world" on the conflict and it's scope? I suggested a compromise that demanded a compromise from both sides - not just one side. Please review my compromise suggestion again and let me know if I have to explain the false nature of the analogy you raised here.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I have no wish whatsoever to start that argument. It is neither appropriate nor relevant for this talk page, even if it might be mildly diverting to see you trying to explain the "false nature of my analogy", and how wrong I am. As for the supposed "compromise" -
 * As I have said, I was not aware that you were planning to reinsert this link, when I agreed (note - I misread your comments about this at the time, and took them as you saying that Emmanuel would want this link back, ie implicitly that it had not been put back - when of course it had. I would never have agreed to this if I had read what you were suggesting properly)
 * Who set you up as the person to "demand a compromise" and adjudicate on what it should consist of?
 * Where exactly anyway is the compromise in having a link which highlights the (widely held but debatable) viewpoint that Islamic anti-semitism is a major factor, but does not refer to the (equally widely held but equally debatable) proposition that the political philosophy known as Zionism has racist elements, intended or otherwise?
 * Compromise means meeting in the middle, not one point of view prevailing while stamping on its mirror image. --Nickhh (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is simply no correlation what-so-ever between the claims that "Zionism is racism" (Arab Knesset members, acceptance of all colors, and support for the enemy's population suggests otherwise) and clear propagation of antisemitic narratives in the Arab world (Sample: ). The first one is not "widely held" while the latter is not a narrative but rather a notable reality. If my compromise suggestion doesn't please you, you are free to come up with one of your own but please avoid from making WP:POINTy analogies.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As noted, this debate about the substantive merit (or otherwise) of either issue/allegation is neither relevant or appropriate. It should not have been started, and will not be continued. --Nickhh (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Object - the statement "The subsequent mass immigration of Jews to this land marked the beginning of the Israeli-Arab conflict" is partisan, an attempt to link religion to ideology in a way that is not justified by the evidence. Zionism was (always, I think,) secular. The religious, far from being welcome, were discriminated against for immigration. Lots of evidence that the immigrants alarmed the Jews of Palestine and even attacked them. PRtalk 15:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PR, why did the Jews go to Palestine, not Madagascar? And why do they keep calling it "Israel"? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nickhh is right: To link 'antisemitism' in this article as suggesting that that is part of the conflict is exactly mirroring what would be a link to 'zionism and racism' (note he didn't say 'zionism IS racism'). Note that zionism was considered officially racist from 1975 to 1991 by the United Nations, I state that no to say that it is, but just to say it's a claim which was held at some moment by quite a lot of people and/or states. There is (still) no Wikipedia entry for that subject, but there is one called Zionist political violence. Maybe we should link at least this, as nobody would deny that Zionism is indeed what triggered the 'Arab Israeli conflict' (well, there would be no Israel without Zionism) and that some Zionist groups used political violence at some moment. Hope I don't hurt anybody by stating this. (Or else we delete both links).--Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I reintroduced the subsection with some of the modifications suggested above. It is now open for editing. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it's too much content for this article and should be considerably reduced and given a link to a main article that has a more fitting WP:TOPIC.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @Emmanuelm - the discussion is not finished. The objectionable part (high-lighting the insignifcant contribution of Judaism to the political ideology) is still there and there is another serious problem. Nobody believes that The statement "The conflict started as a political conflict over territorial ambitions" is ahistorical. everyone considers The movement to Palestine started as a colonialist venture, one obvious source is Jabotinsky: "Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through with playing at colonialization" (1923). Herzl very similar - he didn't expect conflict with the natives atall, it was just a matter of doing the "expropriation and the removal ... discretely and circumspectly" (1895). PRtalk 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou & PR, I understood from the discussion above that there is enough support for the introduction of this subsection. Its purpose is to explain i) why Palestine, not elsewhere? and ii) why some groups refuse peace? Both facts are in topic. Both are incomprehensible if you ignore religion. As for its content and size, I did my part, it's yours now. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole religion thing is so misleading as to be effectively false. Palestine was first selected by antisemitic Christians (Prof Sand's new book says as much, but lots of other sources). The project proceeded as colonization (pretty clear in Morris, on top of Jabotinsky and Herzl, above) by the non-religious (lots of references). Its impossible to prove a negative, but if Herzl didn't know the project had started 13 years before he invented the concept, then it effectively can't have been religious. The "Father of Zionism" intended South America or Africa, he was over-ruled - but by facts on the ground, not religion.
 * Two of the most significant current parties are indeed very religious, and that needs detailing, but that started no earlier than the 80s, 100 years after the beginning (correct me if I'm wrong). Do we have to go by what they say for themselves? Well, no, actually, we don't. Let's look further, I very much doubt if the RS say that the aims of Hamas, Hezbollah or Gush Emunim are set by religion.
 * Incidentally, there is just one tiny clue that the Lehi might have been driven by religion, but consensus is that it shouldn't appear in their article. (No religious aims known atall for Irgun, Haganah etc). If the founders of modern Israel weren't driven by religion either, then it can only have played some very small part in the whole enterprise. PRtalk 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PR, you are the kind that goes to the sea and finds no water. Stop reading your books, look out the window instead. Israel is a Jewish state. On the promised land. And is fought by guys with the Qur'an written on their flags. The Torah and the Qur'an say there cannot be peace, and there is not. There is a zillion book saying that religion has nothing to do with this, but no one read them; there is one that says that God wants it this way, and everyone read it.
 * This subsection is short enough, sourced enough. Please leave it. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You sound convincing in this boldness... but please note that there were no flags with the Quran (or anything similar) written on it until 1985 (excepting Saudi Arabia, which has never been too much of an enemy to Israel). 1985 is the official founding of Hezbollah, 1987 is the founding of Hamas. Before, you won't find any religious sentence on any flag of any guys or states fighting against Israel. The Quran may say what it wants, it was not used as a (ideological) weapon by Arafat's and Habash's fedayin. Nor by Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq. Let's keep that clear. On the Israeli side, the thing is somewhat more intricated, I concede, as even the secular zionists relied on the Torah in at least one point: assuming that all Jews constituted "one people" (i.e. ethnic group, instead of one religion).--Ilyacadiz (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ilyacadiz. Indeed, religion played an indirect role only. Consequently, the subsection is short, in keeping with the WP:UNDUE policy. But to ban religion from the article would amount to a POV. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When you're prepared to edit to the RS we can get on and produce an article compliant with policy. The conflict has been going on for 116 years, religion could only have been a factor for a little over 25 years (and the evidence for that is weak indeed). The section in question is not even regular POV Hasbara - not even pro-Israel blogs are the claims you're doing.
 * The only way we can let this stand is if we start accepting Muslim sources, such as this from 2 days ago (story not reported anywhere in the RS): "Al-Ahram (EGYPT): Jewish Settlers Storm Al-Aqsa Mosque for Second Time – For the second time in a week, some 550 extremist Jewish settlers stormed al-Aqsa Mosque, pretending to be foreign pilgrims and under the protection of dozens of Israeli policemen. This coincided with the extremists opening a Jewish temple just a few meters from al-Aqsa, in an attempt to change and Judaize the religious and historic nature of occupied Jerusalem." Are you prepared to allow Arab sources into this article? PRtalk 08:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PR, religion could only have been a factor for a little over 25 years??? Read what the 1947 UNSCOP report says about religion and the status of Jerusalem. Here is what it says about previous reconciliation efforts:
 * "5. No agreement could, however, be reached in the Council of the League of Nations on the constitution of the proposed special commission. Objections raised by religious authorities or by Powers represented on the Council of the League frustrated every effort to effect a compromise. That failure provides an additional proof of the difficulty of the problem of religious interests in Palestine. Any new procedure raises suspicions and objections."
 * I'm not asking you to believe, I'm asking you to acknowledge that beliefs matter in the Holy Land. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, that's not a bad source. On the other hand, this short sentence does surely not raise the same image as does nowadays a speech by Hamas or by David Wilder. I think, nobody seriously denies that religious arguments about some points (first of all, authority over or partition of Jerusalem) have been made from the first day onwards by some people, the question is how much weight they had when compared to other (non-religious) arguments and, accordingly, how much weight should we give them at WP.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
I have reinserted the POV tag on this article, I don't know when it was removed, but there are still clearly major issues with this article. I will try to fix some of it in the next day or two, but if I don't get back to it feel free to remind me. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please list down a couple of your concerns so that fellow editors know several of the issues this tag is supposed to address?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a few of them and I don't want to get into a discussion about it now because I'm about to log off. I'm afraid it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Try not to go more than 3-4 issues every 3 days so not to overload. Also keep the references in mind :)  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was hoping to get this done quickly but when I started earlier today I realized it's going to be a much bigger job than I anticipated. I really don't want to spend too much time on this though, so I'll try to throw something together over the next couple of days.


 * Re that little correction - apologies for the failure to ref - I was sure the estimate was wrong, but I was hoping to track down a more definitive reference. Until I find one, I have just added the reference from the Jewish exodus from Arab lands article.


 * The original estimate of 750,000 refugees from Arab lands between '48 and '52 is definitely wrong. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands from 1948 to '52 was about 280,000. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We need a couple references for the 280K number since right now we have an RS saying 750K. I corrected the paragraph a bit in accordance to the information that we have listed in the sources. Cheers on the efforts to improve the article (not sure the totaly disputed tag is neccessary though).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a ref for the 280k estimate. I deleted the other ref which claims 750,000 emigrated from Arab lands between 1948 and 1952, it's clearly wrong, that number exceeds the total emigration figure for the same period, and more than half of those came from Europe (see the ref I added to the article). Gatoclass (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble with the PDF reference from your recent edit. Can you please clarify the source somehow or possibly replace it?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) You mean it wouldn't load, or you couldn't find the figure? FYI, the figures come from a note at the bottom of page 10, which I will reproduce here:

The figures of immigrants (followed by their percentage in parentheses), by country of origin, between May 1948 and the end of 1952 are the following: Eastern Europe: Poland - 106,727 (18 ). Rumania - 121, 535 (17.6), Bulgaria - 37,703 (5.5) Czechoslovakia - 18, 811 (2.71), Hungary - 14, 517 (2.1) Yugoslavia - 7,737 (1.14 ), other East European countries - 6,171 (0.7); Central and Western Europe: Germany - 8,350 (1.2), France - 3,120 (0.5), Austria- 2,671 (0.4), Italy - 1,321 (0.2), The Netherlands - 1,163 (0.2); Asia: Yemen - 45,127 (6.7), Turkey - 34,647 (5), Iraq - 124,225 (18), Iran - 25,971 (3.8), Syria and Lebanon - 3,162 (0.5), Eden - 3,320 (0.5); Africa: Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria - 52,565 (7.7), Libya - 32,130 (4.6) (Keren-Hayesod, 1953).''

Add up the figures for Jewish immigrants from Arab countries and you get about 283,000. Gatoclass (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On the face of it, it looks like a better source than the other (750,000) one but I can't get the PDF to load which is a problem - I would be far happier if we can get a working (or another) source for this. Another minor issue, is that according to my personal count - I reached 321,147. Maybe we should clarify the count on the reference notes with a small chart or something.
 * Sorry for being a stickler on the details :)
 * -  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Took it upon myself to look for a few sources and found the following: Cheers,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Jewish+History/Zionist+History/Zionist+Aliyot/1940s.htm
 * 1948-1952 Massive immigration [648,000] to Israel by the Jewish populations of Arab countries and Europe. During the first four years of statehood, the country had to struggle for its existence, while simultaneously absorbing over 700,000 immigrants.
 * Note: I'm aware the source is talking about Europe as well, but it might be worth mentioning in the same paragraph right before the smaller number for immigranst from Arab countries.
 * http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/1/6/9/8/p116982_index.html
 * Seems like a good source with a bit of extra input.
 * http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=219872
 * Is this a link to the original discussed paper? Looks like it.


 * Yes, the third url contains a link to the same article I used as a reference.


 * Re the 321,000 figure - I believe that includes the 34,000+ immigrants from Turkey, which is not an Arab country nor has been accused of persecuting Jews to force them to leave as far as I am aware. Wikipedia itself is actually a good source of immigration figures - see the table at the bottom of the Aliyah article.


 * Finally, I see no reason to include overall Jewish immigration figures or tables in this particular article. The section in question is about the "Jewish exodus from Arab lands", not Jewish immigration as a whole. This article is supposed to be the briefest possible account of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the topic of Jewish immigration in general would only represent a digression here. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick note of the larger number would help alleviate errors like the one we had in the beginning where there is a misunderstanding if the number is around 285,000 or around 700,000. I think a mini-mention of this would help maintain the article text long term.
 * Example: from the XXX refugees who came to Israel between 1948-1952, about YYY were from the ZZZ who left Arab countries.
 * Extra note: I'm not entirely sure on how I feel with the Turkey issue. I'll think about it to see if I have any suggestions/input of value. As of now, I have no objection to writing 285K despite the higher count. Would be good to possibly note within the chart/count thing I suggested (on the ref notes) to mention that Turkey doesn't count.
 * Cheers,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading a bit of Jewish history in Turkey, I see some room for debate on whether or not to add the number into the mix somewhere. Being that the text is focused on Arab countries, it might be worth an encyclopedic mention as a minor footnote that 30K also left Turkey (with a link to Jewish history in Turkey) following a tax which focused on non-Muslims. I'll wait to hear your thoughts on it but, for now, I'll assume that at least my "XXX refugees" suggestion was uncontested and add it.
 * Cheers,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and made the edit, there might be room for a bit of a rephrase, but I think it's an improvement.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick fix with the with Israeli Air Force
When the Israeli Air Force launched a that preemptive mission against Egypt on May 30th, 1967 they did not destroy most of the Egyptian Air Force. They destroyed most of the Egyptian Runways. There would be no way for the Israeli Air Force to destroy most of the hangars and planes that Egpyt had. They destroyed the runways, because you can't launch planes without runways. (I don't have tildes on my laptop) - - - - 11/16/08 - - - - ketterc7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketterc7 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assertions are baseless -- there would be no way for the Israeli Air Force to destroy most of the hangars and planes that Egypt had -- why?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Main image
File:Arab Israeli Conflict 6.png really needs to be pared down to show the belligerent parties in the conflict, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. Including Morocco as "Arabs who have not fought Israel" is..."silly" to be polite. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish purchase, or theft, of Arab Land (Pre WWI)
It is known that the zionist movement began immigration to 'palestine' by the end of the 19th century, and from what I have seen all such immigration had been legitimate purchases of land. This seems to be the case through the 1930's and 1940's. However, every single arab person I talk to insists that the jews stole the land. Does anybody have factual data, sources, on this subject? 137.112.152.65 (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but don't forget that the arabs you would have spoken to do have a bit of a biased point of view, since they relate so closely to the issue. I'm not trying to be offensive, so if I sound it I do apologise, I'm just making the statement... Cybersteel8 (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I've read, the land was legally purchased, and the zionist agencies collected money all over the world for this purchases. But in 1945, three years before the UN's partition plan was implemented (or forced into implementation by the Haganah, after being rejected by the Arab states), only between 14% and 38% of the territory which today forms the State of Israel was effectively owned by Jewish (Zionist) settlers (i.e. had been purchased) (see here . The privately owned land (47% to 87%) was subsequently taken over by Israel, of course without paying anything, as these lands were partly (only partly!) assigned to them by the United Nations plan; if you don't accept that plan, you would consider them of course "robbed"; if you accept the plan, it was a legal takeover. But even then, you could still consider "robbed" that part of territory which was assigned to the Palestinian State by the United Nations and forms today part of the state of Israel, which is quite a big chunk north of Nazareth (see here: . Could be an interesting point, if you want to work something like that into the article.


 * Even the legal purchases before 1948 might have brought hardship to Palestinian peasants, if the landowners were rich people living far away and the peasant families worked since generations on what was legally another man's land and paying an established annual tribute (this situation has been quite common all over Europe and the Middle East until our days and can still be found in Portugal, for example). So, when Jewish settlers paid the legal owner a correct price, peasants might just have been expelled from lands they lived on since generations without receiving anything and it's hard to blame them for ill feelings, although you can't blame the settlers either for paying only the legal owner...--Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The percentage of privately owned land was much lower than the one you indicated. In many areas most of the land was actually government owned (like in Beersheba district).
 * One can easily make the claim that had the Arabs accepted the plan, things would have been different, but as they chose to reject the plan and fight, the Jews had no real hope to defend a country with the partition plan's borders or land division, and had to take more land, to create a viable state.
 * Your last comment is very much to the point, as some land was indeed owned by Turk landlords with Arab tenants (paying the landlord). Land would sometimes exchange hands between these landlords, but the Arab peasants would usually not be affected (just pay a different landlord). However, Jews bought the land not for tribute, but for settlement, which meant the Arab peasant could no longer work it. However, many local Arabs sold vast swaths of land to Jews as well. Throughout the mandate some local Arabs tried to pressure the British into forbidding land-sales to Jews, as they could not convince their Arab brethren to do so. Also remember that this was a time of urbanization, with serious population movement into cities and towns, with land being sold as a consequence. Jews certainly had no ability to "steal" land at any time during the mandate, facing a large, at times hostile, Arab population, and an antagonistic British administration, which turned away from the Jews and tended to turn a blind eye to Arab attacks on Jews. The British administration also worked against the very mandate, by limiting and then forbidding Jewish immigration into Palestine (just to illustrate their position). Some of the Arabs' current claims stem from the landlord-peasant point, but a lot of it is simply sellers-remorse, and lies. okedem (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "the Jews had no real hope to defend a country with the partition plan's borders or land division, and had to take more land, to create a viable state." Okay, very good. Any robber can claim he has to take away your wallet in order to survive because he's given no job - the affected person may as well consider it a robbery. And fact still is, that around half of the land allocated to a future Palestinian state was incorporated into nowadays Israel by force. If you call it a necessary military conquest or a robbery is only a semantic choice - this land was not legally purchased, which was the question asked by User 137.112.152.65 nor allocated by any internationally recognized body (see:, but it is recognized nowadays as Israeli territory by all States that recognize Israel, including the Palestinian Authority.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The anon discussed land purchases long before the state (Pre WWI), so whatever happened in 1948 is irrelevant to that point. Since you brought it up, I presented an alternate opinion. As Arabs refused to accept the partition plan, the supposed future Arab State had no real bearing on this anymore. The plan was based on both sides accepting it and living peacefully, and when the Arab rejected it, its borders became irrelevant. And your robber analogy is also irrelevant - in this case there is no "robber" and "victim", but two sides fighting over land, with a suggested plan for settling the argument, to which one side responds with force and violence. The arbitration plan cannot stand forever, even for those who rejected it. By refusing the partition plan, Arabs decided to settle the conflict by violence, leading to the known result. But enough about that. It has nothing to do with the original discussion, nor is it directly related to the article. okedem (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another way of seeing it. If people once owned land, but didn't sell it and didn't get paid for it, and now don't have it, then they may rightfully claim they were 'robbed'. When one becomes aware of the robbery really doesn't matter. If people worked on land, but didn't own it and lost their livelihood to another when the land was sold, then he lost his livelihood/home. However, if that sale and the employment of others was part of a plan, one might see it as robbery of a different sort, collusion or 3rd-party theft. The discussion above doesn't yet include the (later) refugees who fled rather than fought, but were later not allowed to return. That is being robbed also, but just learning it another way, later. Keep things appropriate for the period being discussed. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your first point. What are you referring to?
 * Your second point - if you don't own the land, you can't claim it was stolen from you. This is like a person renting an apartment, with a new owner refusing to renew their lease. If you don't own it, it's not yours, and whatever wrong you feel you might have incurred has nothing to do with the new owner (who purchased land to live on), but with the old owner, who knew he had tenants there, and knew the purpose of the Jewish land purchases (none of this was kept secret. The Jews didn't buy land to become land-owners, and the settlement of Jews on these lands was a well-known, on-going affair). Your claim that this being part of a plan makes this wrong, somehow, is illogical. If this was a spontaneous decision (to remove the tenants), would it make any difference?
 * When you purchase land, you are free to do with it whatever you wish, including coming to live on it, and working the land.
 * And I say again - much of the land was sold by the local Arabs, who moved into the cities. Many of the grandparents of the people complaining today actually sold the land for good money.
 * Also, of course, I can also claim that the land was the Jews' to begin with, with all Arabs being foreign invaders, even if the conquest took place a long time ago. okedem (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people carry keys to remember their land and homes; that seems somewhat logical and understandable. Others get their keys from an old book, and forget others' intervening history; that seems less logical and harder to understand.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily making the biblical argument, just reminding that others can have weaker arguments based on history or feelings, disregarding legal facts - these lands (pre 1947-8) were paid for, with their owners' full consent. Some may have been hurt by this change of hands, but that is not the Jews' fault (having paid the owner, with clear and unhidden intentions). The people now complaining were either not the owners, or got the money, only to regret it later. While one can mourn the mistakes of their ancestors, or their misfortune of being mere tenants, claiming that Jews "stole the land" or "robbed them" is simply untruthful, and unacceptable. okedem (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Jews" didn't steal anything. The Zionist settlers between 1890 and 1947 purchased a big deal of land legally from their owners and took another big deal of land by military force. I said that the first action (purchasing legally the land) cannot be called robbery, but that the second action - taking land by military force - is not a legal purchase; there is a intermediate stage which is the taking, without paying anything, of land which was assigned to the Zionist settlers by the League of Nations, not taking into account the opinion of people who lived on it or owned it (there was no referendum to ask Palestinians and settlers what they thought about the partition). The chunk of land taken with no pay, and not provided for by a League of Nations decision, is equally big as the one today -theorically- assigned to a future Palestinian state. To claim it was "necessary" or "promised by God" or "historically owned" or "if your grandfather didn't accept an agreement which he thought unfair, you have no right to claim anything" or "I happen to know somehow that the people who complain actually got money" is no valid legal argument. There are hundreds of thousands of people who didn't get any money when their villages were shelled in 1948. There was a war. But it happens that one side considers this war as a legal method to acquire land and the other calls it a "robbery". You make your semantic choice. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you are mixing two very different issues. The original asker, 137.112.152.65, talked about land purchases before WWI (1914), and through the 1930s-1940s, and how it is regarded by some Arabs as "theft" or "robbery". About this I said the points about sellers-remorse etc. on the side of some Arabs. All those lands were paid for in full.
 * Regarding lands taken hold of in 1947-8, I make no claim that this was a "legal purchase". Of course it isn't. No one is making that claim. It was land taken by force. I am saying it was considered necessary by the Jews of Palestine, and explained the rationale, but I can certainly understand the Palestinians' view of these events as "robbery" (worth mentioning is the fact the Jews were expelled from their own land in some areas of Palestine, notably Gush Etzion - villages close to Jerusalem and Hebron, and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem; and that many Arabs remained in Israel). It was civil war, fought between two communities, and later with several other states attacking, and is another, very complicated, matter.
 * Please, differentiate between these issues, and don't ascribe my comments regarding one to the other. okedem (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)