Talk:Israel and the United Nations/Archive 1

This is a distinct stub, done by a newbie to writing new pages. Help editing it and expanding it would be appreciated. There are many issues, so I figured the subject could use a page. However, I'm unsure how to expand this. -Penta 01:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Don't worry so much about formatting or completeness. Even brief statements on the various issues (so long as they aren't blatantly offensive or point-of-view) are helpful, because they inspire people to add more. I completely agree, it's a subject deserving of its own article. - Seth Ilys 01:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Penta hates you all

 * I hate you all right now. I just wandered back to this article, and saw the hell it's undergone. Though nobody's bothered to use the Talk page, I've readded the TotallyDisputed tag. Why I readded it: This article is fairly obviously the object of partisan squabbles. Bound to happen, but still. Right now, it looks somewhat scarred.

What I see as the issues to deal with here, though I don't have the info or the time to do the research:


 * 1) Israeli position in the UN
 * 2) Someone try to get data: How much has Israel paid (and how much was it supposed to pay) in UN dues? Try to get both general budget dues and peacekeeping dues; They're separate bills each member state has to pay, and work off of different formulae, I think.
 * 3) Israeli public opinion on UN - anybody able to get polling info?
 * 4) Membership actions - has anybody seriously threatened suspension/expulsion? Has there ever been serious thought in Israel to withdrawal?
 * 5) Chronology of, ah, incidents.

--Penta 04:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You say that "This article is fairly obviously the object of partisan squabbles." I cannot find any such squabbles. I agree that the article could benefit from your proposals, but all of those relate to factual accuracy, not neutrality. You have made no specific or even semi-specific allegations about the neutrality of the article. I would ask that you either make such allegations, or remove the NPOV dispute.

Furthermore, as for your objections to the article's factual accuracy, I don't think that a lack of evidence should be enough to dispute the factual accuracy of a page. If you followed that standard, you'd literally have to factually dispute 95% of Wikipedia articles. If you have evidence that appears to contradict what the article states, then it would be fair to change it; and if someone else disputes your evidence, the factual basis of the article could be said to be disputed.

I'll leave the tag for now, but I may remove it if you don't respond within a few days. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 20:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Without spending a lot of time on research, I can say nothing at the moment concerning factual accuracy. However, neutrality is by default an difficult thing to "appear" having on this subject. Given, the long, well-documented history of anti-semitism inside the UN (and the partisanry attached to either topic independantly), it is pretty near impossible for anything written about it to be considered neutral. Sweetfreek 20:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV Tag
I agree with Simetrical. These perpetual POV tags in virtually every article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict are unreasonable. If anyone has an issue with neutrality, then do an edit and/or discuss the issue in Talk and allow consensus building to go forward. Simply complaining about neutrality without offering concrete ways to fix it is neither fair nor practical.--A. S. A. 09:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Facts and opinions
In italics:
 * "Palestinian Jews constituted a majority in the areas designated to the Jewish state by the partition and desired self-determination." - This is an undisputed fact, not Israeli partisans claim  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The point of contention is that in the partition plan awarded more land to the Jewish state then the Arab one, even though the Arabs had a greater population. This is legitimate and must be included. Also notice you say "Palestinian Jews" when in fact a great many of them we not indigenous Palestinian but European immigrants.--A. S. A. 11:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, a fact is a fact. Your (or anyone else's) opinion is just that, POV. The Arab leaders refused to even negotiate, so don't blame the Jews. Had they accepted the Peel Commission's plan of 1937, the Palestinian state would be much much bigger and 68 years old today.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish you could hear yourself speak. This is not the manner in which neutrality is promoted. Blame it on the Jews? This is an encyclopedia, no blame is placed here. Your ideas of imposing what facts are facts is blatantly POV, my idea is to say "Israelis/Jews claim this" and "Palestinians/Arabs claim that," that's BOTH points of view.--A. S. A. 21:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Stop the intimidation. 2) Please learn the difference between facts and opinions. "Jews constituted a majority in the areas designated to the Jewish state by the partition" is a fact not an opinion as you are trying to present it. A majority is a majority, you can not discard math as an opinion. Whoever may claim whatever but a fact is a fact.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Palestinian Arabs dispute this, and claim that heavy immigration in the years immediately preceding the Partition unfairly tipped the scales in many areas, and that the total territory assigned to the Jewish State exceeded proportionally the land alloted to the Arabs. - it was a UN Plan, the Arabs refused to even negotiate. The largest part of Jewish territory was Negev desert. As for immigration, I guess we all should thank Nazi Mufti & Co.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was a UN Plan, and the bitter Arab opposition to it, is neither disputed nor relevant to this discussion. I have no idea what your "Nazi Mufti" comment is about, but I suspect it is deliberately incendiary as per your recent edit summaries, so I shall not engage in them.--A. S. A. 11:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course the UN plan is relevant to this article. What is irrelevant though, is unsubstantiated POV. See above.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? I said not relevant to this discussion, not the article.--A. S. A. 21:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, personal attacks won't help, unsubstantiated POV is irrelevant to both this discussion and this article.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It is noteworthy that no Muslim country holds a permanent seat on the powerful Security Council, and the vast majority of Muslim nations are poor third world countries, and this influence is disputed. Nevertheless, in terms of sheer voting strength in the largely symbolic General Assembly, this block represents about 1/4 of the delegates. - Sorry, I'm tired of this silliness. Show me any country that was as many times condemned as Israel. How does their alleged (see oil) poverty relevant to their voting strentgh?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What silliness? Of course Israel is the most often condemned nation in the UN. Conquering and systematically oppressing an entire race of people, and preventing their refugees form returning, along with the other long list of abuses, does rather tend to upset the world, you know. Now, as for the oil, note that in your POV insert you did not say ARABS but MUSLIMS. Even in the Arab world, the vast majority of Arabs live in third world countries. What's more, for neutrality, I specifically made a distinction in my reply to your POV insert between influence and voting strength which I clearly stated was some 25% and substantial. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that voting strength in the GA is all symbolic, and "influence" is relative. Also, please take care not to word subsections here in order to attack me personally. The phrasing "facts vs Aladdin's opinions" is unacceptable.--A. S. A. 11:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention that those outrageous vile Jews also mix Christian (is it Muslim nowadays?) blood into matzos and poison wells. Before choosing such predictable and convenient target as Jews, please show similar outrage with Darfur conflict, Syria's and Saudi Arabia's human rights violations, Pakistan's slavery, etc. Where are the UN or the Arab League? Where were they during the Rwandan genocide? It is too easy to blame huge and powerful Israel that encircled Arab/Muslim world. Or is it the entire world?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I would again strongly urge you to step back an examine your bitterness here and your choice of words. Anyone reading these responses can have little doubt of your POV biases and predisposition to impute charges of anti-semitism to anyone who disputed your version of the truth. Please refrain from incendiary words and comments [i.e. "outrageous vile Jews"]. As for your comment about mixing Christian and Muslim blood and whatnot, I have no idea what you are talking about but I suspect it is more of the same... deliberately provocative and highly irrelevant to our discussion here. Tragedies around the world are no excuse for the continued tragedy in any one place. Your blind reverts to the legitimate NPOVing of the UN voting strength edits is not acceptable and will not stand.--A. S. A. 21:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Arab League and Muslim block were allowed to hijack the UN in their quest to delegitimize and destroy the State of Israel. They can hide their attacks under the "poverty" figleaf, or being the "third world countries", or the lack of "a permanent seat on the powerful Security Council" (where Israel is not allowed to hold even a temporary seat!!) but the evidence is clear: the number of Arab/Muslim block-sponsored anti-Israel resolutions is disproportional, especially taking into account real genocides and human rights violations, such as Darfur. "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." (Thomas Friedman) As for the "continued tragedy" of the Palestinian refugees, I and many Jews and non-Jews feel sorry for them and would love to help. Their tragedy cannot be a reason to destroy Israel, however. Perhaps it is time to analyze the reasons behind it?

("deliberately provocative and highly irrelevant" paragraph follows) In 1948, 6 Arab armies chose (as Israel didn't threaten them) to invade - admittedly to wage genocidal war against the Jews. If they would have chosen peaceful coexistence, this year we could celebrate the 58th anniversary of the Palestinian state. Irresponsible leaders, such as Nazi mufti Amin al-Husayni and those who attacked the Jewish state with genocidal goals, and those who kept and still keeps Palestinians in misery and indoctrinates them with hatred (remember Arafat's "millions of shahids?"), should be held responsible. I invite you to work together towards tolerance, peace, prosperity and responsibility. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Your partisan rant only proves your deep-seeded bias. You refuse any NPOV balance, and offer as discussion this bitter laundry list of complaints that has little or nothing to do with the disputed edits. Nothing is being hidden under any figleaf. The Israeli viewpoint is made, and the Arab one along with it. You have blindly reverted despite my clear attempts to reach consensus and neutrality. You cannot just exclude points of view that are not sympathetic to Israel. The article will show some balance.--A. S. A. 06:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I invite you to discuss the issues, not personalities. "Balancing" documented facts with opinions perhaps is OK for a blog, but does not work for an encyclopedia. Viewpoints are covered in Arab-Israeli conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Doublecheck the title of this article. Relevant historical facts only.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your invitation is paradoxical considering your previous Talk. What you fail to comprehend is that you are branding your POVs as facts. For example, to say that "during the course of the Cold War it unequivocally supported Arabs against Israel" is a fact. However, to preface it with "By 1948, the Soviet leadership realized that Israel had chosen the Western option" is a POV implying the Soviets supported the Arabs for purely Cold War reasons, as if the Arab cause was without merit. For Neutrality, I added, at the beginning of the sentence, "Many Israelis and their supporters claim" which you have reverted several times. This is clear POV pushing. Likewise, to present only the Israeli view of the UN and the associated perceptions of influence, etc, is POV. For neutrality, I mentioned important facts about the relative powers of the GA and SC, and how most Arab and Muslim nations are third world countries. This is a vital distinction, but you want no mention of this at all. With the Partition Plan and the opposing views, I have compromised and included your mention of the Negev desert, but no, you want only the Israeli view without mentioning palestinian reservations. My edits present both, side by side. You would have only one side, claiming it is undisputed fact. That's not going to happen. I've gone into these issues of POV and balance, specifically relating to the disputed edits, many times. You have replied with rants about other tragedies around the word and charges of vicious anti-semitism and in short anything and everything to avoid accepting the inclusion of both points of view.--A. S. A. 09:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems you don't even read my responses. Your points, 1 by 1:

At the same time, he turned against Soviet Jews and destroyed Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and launched campaign against "rootless cosmopolitans". (If you think this is unrelated, remember what happened after the collapse of the USSR: a million of Soviet Jews emigrated to Israel.) The USSR support to various Arab regimes was both political & military, and many Arabs were educated in the SU, BTW Abu Mazen is one of them. Arafat (known in Soviet circles as Uncle Yasha) was a dear guest. Of course the best proof is, Israeli military museums are full with Arab Soviet-made weaponry. And again, your ad hom attacks are duly noted. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "during the course of the Cold War it unequivocally supported Arabs against Israel" - this is not simply what "Many Israelis and their supporters claim", it's a fact. I happen to know a lot about this. By the end of 1948, Stalin switched Czechoslovakia's sale of WW2 arms from Israel to its Arab adversaries - both in violation to the arms embargo - but the Cold War was already raging and the world split into 2 camps. (Check out for example Benny Morris' Righteous Victims or Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews or any serious source on the subject. Perhaps this can help: )
 * "relative powers of the GA and SC", or "most Arab and Muslim nations are third world " - explain why does it matter here? Are you trying to say they are weak? As if they were unable to push (or to attempt) enough resolution against Israel.
 * the Partition plan: the "reservations" started appearing when Jews prevailed in the war waged against them. Before that, there was only "yitbah al-yahud" with no reservations. BTW, where was the UN and all the "reservations" when Jordan illegally occupied and annexed WB and EJ, and Egypt took Gaza? We need to cover that.


 * This is becoming most tiresome and repetitive. You are the one not reading my responses.


 * I specifically said, above, that the statement "during the course of the Cold War it [USSR] unequivocally supported Arabs against Israel" is a fact. It is the preface to that statement, that this was purely a reaction to "Israel chose the western option" that is a POV. Extensive Soviet support to Arab countries is not at all in dispute. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.
 * I have repeatedly explained the importance of the relative strength of the Muslim countries in the UN. Voting strength (more than 50 nations) is important, but not the only measure of influence, moreover this voting strength is in the GA which is much less powerful than the SC. Also, other measures of influence must take into consideration that these Muslim countries in the UN are overwhelmingly poor and third world, another "check" on influence. If you cannot understand this, I am not the one to explain it to you.
 * I have noted and preserved the complete Arab opposition to, and refusal to negotiate, the UN partition plan. Nevertheless, it is vital to include Palestinian viewpoints of what they perceive as injustices in the Plan. The reservations did not appear only after the Jews defeated Arab armies, they were there since the Balfour Declaration and before. You keep referring to "the Jews won this" and "the Jews defeated so and so" as if because they won militarily, might makes right. As for Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Palestinian territories, you can certainly "cover that" if you wish, without prejudice to Palestinian objections to Israeli occupation. You must also remember that the UN is not as likely to take such strong issue with Egyptian and Jordanian occupation, since Palestinian opposition to the military presence of other Arabs which got there as a result of a war with Israel, is not nearly as strong or violent to Palestinian opposition to the hated Israeli occupation.
 * Your weak references to ad homenen arguments are frivolous, baseless, and not worth a reply. --A. S. A. 11:34, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your compromise and in return have removed the piece about the Western option. Regarding "partisan rant" and "deep-seeded bias" on one side vs. "viewpoint... vital to include" on another: I hope our future collaboration will be more productive and less inflammatory. Let's make WP better.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The main divisiveness has been overcome, I think. A lot can be accomplished when one compartmentalizes the editing process on an issue to issue basis. You are obviously very passionate about Israel, and in my opinion that has caused you to interject generalized ideals that are irrelevant to specific editorial disputes. Nevertheless, I also appreciate the compromises reached here, and as for curtailing inflammatory comments, I have repeatedly extolled this, and I will let the above record speak for itself. I did have one or two small edits which I wanted to add, but user Mustafaa has preempted me and done a better job then I had been contemplating. A well referenced job, I might add.--AladdinSE 02:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Anne_Bayefsky
Read her Biography - she has in fact been awarded a Fellowship at the Hebrew Uni of Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Bayefsky


 * That was last in 2004; she's not a fellow there any more. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * See the article - "In her June 21, 2004 speech" - so exactly when she prepared that report and gave that speech then. It's a piece about Israel for heavens sake - if it's not relevant that she was an employee of an Israeli Uni at the time then what is? Do you want to change it to "at the time of the preparation of her report ....."?


 * Overall though there is a LOT of coverage of "anti Israeli" bias on this page. There is a whole bunch of opinion here in the UK that the UK has a _pro_ Israeli bias. Why is that not covered in the article?


 * She is all sorts of things; please review poisoning the well. And if you revert again you may well be blocked for violating the Three revert rule. Jayjg (talk)  23:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much an abuse of your power as an admin in projecting YOUR POV. I'm going to call "Disputed NPOV" on this article then.


 * The three revert rule is not POV. As well, you have no idea what the Fellowship means, and when it ended, and when she wrote that report in relationship to it.  Furthermore, you left out all sorts of relevant information about her expertise in international law and the U.N.  You're very choosy about exactly how you want to poison the well. I've included all the relevant information now. Jayjg (talk)  23:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So - approximately as selective as you then. She looks like a serious scolar - for anyone who's motivated to read the whole lot then they can make their own mind up.

Do you really not think her being an employee of the Israeli Govt when she wrote her report is relevant? I have to say I find that surprising.

So - what about the line of thought that the UN has a Pro Israeli bais? Separate section?
 * What on earth makes you believe that being a Fellow at Hebrew University makes her an "employee of the Israeli Government"? Is that how Fellowships work? Is that how Universities work? Jayjg (talk)  23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's how Universities work here in the UK. Is it not the same in Israel? If it isn't then I agree it's of marginal relevance. In the UK "Fellow" of a Uni means you get money from that Uni either as a stipend or research grant.

Is the Hebrew Uni not state funded? My real point here is that it's a bit naughty to cite as an authority on a dispute someone who is getting money from one or other interested parties without explicitly disclosing that. I hope you would agree with this? I dont see that as "poisoning the well" at all - it is making a legitemate disclosure of a potential conflict of interest.

On the topic of full disclosure I note that she is an active member of UN Watch - research on their site reveals that they are the Geneva based lobbying arm of the American Jewish Committee (see http://www.ajc.org/Israel/IsraelAndTheUN.asp) - who have a very definite a priori view on UN treatment of Israel (see link) - does this not also call into question her impartiality?

Far from being a dispassionate accademic she seem to belong to at least one lobby organisation and be funded by a party to the controversity on which she is commenting. While this definitely does not invalidate her opinions (indeed having informed opinion is a positive thing) this really should be made clear in the article if we are going to cite her as an authority. (posted by User:BigYak)


 * Hi BigYak, university fellows in the UK are not employees of the British government, and it's the same in Israel. Also, it would be helpful if you would sign your posts. If you type four tildes after your posts, like this ~, that will automatically produce your name, time and date. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:50, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * They are not direct employees (indeed no one is - if you are eg a Tax Inspector then you will oficialy be employed by the Inland Revenue not HM Govt) but they are employed by a body that is diectly and proximally funded by the state. What is your opinion on the point on disclosure though? For me that's a close enough relationship that it is material to her credability. BigYak 08:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You'd therefore have to argue that academics in countries where there is state funding of universities are unable to produce independent reports, whereas governments often look to academics precisely to produce such things; in the UK, which you mentioned, I've never heard of the independence of its academics being seriously questioned by the mainstream media, and there's no reason to believe things are any different in Israel. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would make a few points about this. 1. You are so used to seeing (hearing) Professor XXX of the University of YYY as part of the buy line for quotations that one filters it out (have a browse through the BBC website and see how common it is) - this is an unusual case of the person moving between the report having been produced and us citing her now 2. It's very common parlance to hear "Prof XXX of the right (left) wing Think Tank XXX" - so they even editorialise on the persons politics - especially common if the report is critical to one party politcal side or another - since the Hebrew University was set up with a specifically zionist agenda (see the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) this would seem like an entierly fair disclosure 3. During eg (citing this as the most recent example) the lead up to the Iran Iraq war you _always_ saw non UK academics who were commenting on the situation cited as eg. "leading French academic" or "professor of politics and international from the uni of Nebrasca".

I certainly do not say that her work is baised - I am not familiar enough with the entire corpus of it to know - but I definitely think that some disclosure of affiliation is appropriate here. BigYak 09:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's try an analogy that takes us away from the middle east - if this were an article on birth control and one of the people being cited as giving an "independant opinion" was "Former Mother Teresa Fellow of the Pontifical Catholic University of the Vatican" - would you see that as relevant when citing the report? Answer has to be "yes" surely. BigYak 09:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Guys, while you thrash this out, please clean up the paragraphs dealing with Bayefsky, it's a grammatical and organizational fallout zone right now. My opinion on her in the context of this article is this: I think her CV is impressive. I believe describing her as preeminent or at least prominent human rights activist or something along those lines would not be out of line. Listing all her accomplishments and affiliations like an honor role is a bit absurd though, and rather digressive. Her wiki linked bio will take care of most of her CV. That she is Israeli should be mentioned, but her one time fellowship to Hebrew university I think we can live without (in this article), because that is not any sort of an indictment against her impartiality, unless the university in question is some kind of private right wing nut house, which I don't think it is? One thing is certain, the report she presented is very relevant to this article. It is not described in any way as the last word on the issue, and there are some rebuttal points. It seems NPOV to me. --AladdinSE 09:53, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont have any objection to the report which seems to present a good overview of the case for anti israeli bias. Is she Israeli? - if so should be mentioned. She is clearly a pro-Israeli lobbyist (look at her list of publications linked to ther bio page) - this doesn't invalidate her work but is relevant to reraders weighting the comments. I could live with a revert to the original article and changing her description to prominent pro-Israeli human rights activist and dropping her other qualifications (which seem selectively quoted to me - it doesn't mention that she is a prof at Touro College for example). But will that too be described as poisoning the well? I'm also not so happy that it it entirely unclear which part of this section come from the UN Watch report and which come from her Blog / other sources - some of which are entirely less prestigious. The article makes it look like they are from the one report - you see to have thought this - however they definitely are not.


 * The Hebrew Uni does very well in international academic rankings and seems to be a good way off being a "nut house".


 * You dont agree with my analogy about "birth control"? BigYak 10:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very valid points. I wish I had time to research it myself. As it is this week I have barely enough time to work on Talk sections and minor edits. Yes the analogy is valid also, and like I said in one of my edit summaries and in this Talk, her affiliations as far as possible bias or conflict of interest should be stated briefly. Her CV should not be read out like an honor role. --AladdinSE 11:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * She is not Israeli (I believe she is Canadian), and she is not a "pro-Israeli lobbyist". She is a respected scholar and academic who writes extensively on human rights issues.  Fellowships are something Universities provide to allow individuals to do detailed research on a topic; it has nothing to do with governments, and Fellows do not promote government policy.  One might as well claim that Harvard Fellows are forced to write papers supporting the policies of George Bush and the Republican party.  She held the fellowship while holding several other position; she is currently a fellow at an American institution.  Moreover, it is not clear that the she wrote the paper while a Fellow at Hebrew University; her position there may have ended months before she presented this paper.  Cherry-picking a resume in order to present items which one believes detract from a person's credibility (and in this case, BigYak's misconceptions clearly indicate this was his purpose), is poisoning the well. Jayjg (talk)  02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If she's not a lobbyist then why is she a member of a UN focused pressure group affiliated to the American Jewish Council? Frankly I do not believe that she is impartial - and the article, by omitting mention of this and citing that one of her bits of work was sponsored by a wing of the UN, does exactly the kind of cherry picking that you accuse me of. There was a whole lot of background info there which makes her look impartial - she may or may not be - but there is certainly doubt.


 * I'd like to include the phrase "who has written extensively on UN Israeli bias" to show that she is active in this area and is not just some "good citizen" who happened to notice this whilst working in general on UN issues.


 * if this were an article on birth control and one of the people being cited as giving an "independant opinion" was "Former Mother Teresa Fellow of the Pontifical Catholic University of the Vatican" - would you see that as relevant when citing the report?


 * How do you deal with my analogy above? BigYak 07:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * A "lobbyist" is someone who is paid to advocate for a specific cause; being a Fellow at a University allows one to conduct independent research, which is almost the diametric opposite of being a lobbyist. Which "UN focused pressure group affiliated to the American Jewish Council" are you referring to? As for your analogy, I think it's extremely weak; univerisities in democracies are not arms of the government, or promoters of government policy, and academic freedom reigns at Hebrew U as much as it does at any major American university. Jayjg (talk)  08:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said above:


 * On the topic of full disclosure I note that she is an active member of UN Watch - research on their site reveals that they are the Geneva based lobbying arm of the American Jewish Committee (see http://www.ajc.org/Israel/IsraelAndTheUN.asp) - who have a very definite a priori view on UN treatment of Israel (see link) - does this not also call into question her impartiality?


 * AladdinSE seems to think my analogy is relevant. I just dont see her as being a disinterested party. If we're going to cite her this should be made plain.


 * "lobbyist" - A group of persons engaged in trying to influence legislators or other public officials in favor of a specific cause: the banking lobby; the labor lobby. see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lobbyist no mention of money there. BigYak 08:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Research indicates that UNWatch is a Geneva based affiliate of the AJC, not a "lobbying arm". UN Watch itself seem to take the UN to task for all sorts of things, has been complimented by Kofi Annan.  As for Bayefsky's relationship with it, it's not amazingly clear, but she doesn't appear to be on their board, or a lobbyist for them. Jayjg (talk)  16:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Read here wikipedia biography and you will find Currently, she is a member [...], on the Governing Board of UN Watch, an ECOSOC NGO based in Geneva, [...].


 * The AJC have this to say about their affiliate: [...] or agenda item condemning Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, holding Israel to a different standard than all other countries. AJC, and its Geneva-based affiliate UN Watch, will continue to struggle to end this unfair treatment. 


 * So it's a body which struggles aganist unfair treatment of Israel by the UN and she is a board member.


 * If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; its a duck. She's a lobbyist. BigYak 17:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, she's apparently on the governing board of a UN Watch group, which comments on many different issues, and which has been lauded by the UN Secretary General. What the AJC claims for UNWatch is not what UNWatch claims for itself, she is clearly not "lobbying" in any normal sense of the word. Jayjg (talk)  20:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well the lesson from this is clearly - choose who you decide to be an affiliate body of then. UN Watch clearly signal that affiliation on their site.


 * Clearly she is lobbying in the accepted English meaning of the word as quoted above. Just because you are not a single issue group does not prevent you from lobbying. If you want to go for a different definition then good luck with Websters - but here is not the place to do that is it? BigYak 23:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your definition is so broad that it could include anything; if I call my representative on city counsel and complain about garbage pickup, I could be described as a "lobbyist on the garbage pickup issue". In any event, monitor groups are not "lobbbyists" under any accepted usage of the word.  They monitor, and issue reports.  They don't "lobby" the U.N. to do anything. Jayjg (talk)  00:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * They don't "lobby" the U.N. to do anything Gosh - I thought they gave speeches at UN conferences urging change and reform. Exactly like the ones quoted in the article.


 * And yes if you had the same record of publication and high profile article writing over a number of years (look at her online Blog - she has very many articles about this issue), gave speeches at the council offices on the subject, were a member of "Council Watch" an affiliate of "Clean Dumpsters USA" then YES you would be a lobbyist. QED - thanks for a wonderfull analogy. BigYak 06:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, someone who makes public speeches on a topic of concern to them is not a "lobbyist"; by that measure every single politician, business leader, and leader of a major organization is also a "lobbyist". Are all board members of NGOs typically referred to as "lobbyists"? The answer, of course, is no.  Your attempts to artificially widen the definition of "lobbyist" to include Bayefsky lets in millions of other people who no-one would consider to be lobbyists. Jayjg (talk)  14:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No - despite your accusation I stand by the dictionary definition: "lobbyist" - A group of persons engaged in trying to influence legislators or other public officials in favor of a specific cause: the banking lobby; the labor lobby.


 * She clearly is doing this. In your example the people either are public officials or performing a one off activity. One speach does not make you a lobbyist. Membership of a "watch group" (whose affiliates say "continue[s] to struggle" for a cause), being a member of a neocon think tank dedicated to "shaping the future of the middle east" (Hudson Institute), writing multiple polemic articles on the same subject for publication and speaking at conferences held by a legislative body to present a specific point does.


 * I'm starting to wonder, short of having a tattoo on your face saying "I am a lobbyist", what would make you say someone qualifies for that description? 62.255.32.13 18:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) forgot to login earlier - this was me BigYak 19:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Think-tanks are not lobby groups, nor are NGOs. You could equally claim that Noam Chomsky is a "lobbyist", but you'd never manage to get that desription into any Wikipedia article.   Lobbyist has a specific meaning and usage, and Bayefsky simply doesn't meet it.  In any event, if you can find a reputable source that refers to her as a lobbyist, then we can continue this dicussion.  If not, it's just your own opinion, and not citable. Jayjg (talk)  18:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course Chomsky is a lobbist! He fits the description perfectly. So you're basically sayting that unless one can find a "reputable" (who defines reputable btw?) source using a description then it is invalid to apply the ordinary dictionary definition? How very strange. You have just invalidated any sort of deduction from observable facts.


 * NGO's are very clearly some of the most powerful lobby groups out ther. Oxfam, Cafod, Amnesty International - all huge NGO's - all huge lobby groups. BigYak 19:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I see. Your definition of "lobbyist" is idiosyncratic; you will not find these people or groups described this way in the press or on Wikipedia. As for my having "invalidated any sort of deduction from observable facts", it's not me, it's policy; please read No original research. Jayjg (talk)  19:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No - my definition of "lobbyist" is that found in the dictionary - the one I have now quoted to you twice. You seem to mistunbderstand the term - hence your incorrect statement about NGO's and lobbying.


 * There are not two forms of english "Dictionary English" and "Wikipedia English". I use the dictionary definition - pure and simple.


 * You often see this definition used by the press - and very often by people wishing to describe the actions of those wtih whom they disagree (I suspect this is the heart of your dislike of its use here).


 * Applying a definition is not "research" I look at the sky - I see it is "blue" - I dont have to look it up somewhere to confirm that before I use that description. I see a lobbyist - I call it a lobbyist - no "research" - so please do not refer me to irrelevant "policy". BigYak 19:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You have misunderstood and misapplied the definition. As for Bayefsky, she does not refer to herself as a "lobbyist".  Her various titles are not "lobbyist", and no-one else (besides you) refers to her as a "lobbyist".  You are proposing a novel argument, that Bayefsky is biased in her claims because she is a "lobbyist", even though no-one refers to her that way, but instead use many other more appropriate descriptors.  No original research notes that something is original research if "it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article"; your argument that she is a "lobbyist" and therefore "biased" is entirely novel.  If it's not novel, then you should have no trouble finding a reputable source that also makes that claim.  Please let me know when you do; until then, I think this discussion has run its course. Jayjg (talk)  20:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No - I think you're making a specious arguement here. Would you object to me describing her as "female"? Yet neither of us could find a reputable source which says "Anne Bayefsky is female" - it is however obvious from mere observation.


 * For the record I dont think I ever advocated using the word "lobbyist" in the actual article. I proposed describing her as a "pro-israeli activist" - a phrase I would still like to insert - but my main contention was that we should use the entirely provable description "Fellow of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem" which you seemed to object to - prefering to selectively describe her as a "human rights activist", omitting details of her other political actiuvity and affiliations which are entirely relevant to evaluating her comments on this topic.


 * If after our discussion you seriously still contend that she can possibly be described as impartial then you are right the discussion is over. And the neutral status of the section remains, and shall remain, challenged.


 * It is as shame you have jumped through linguistic hoops here to avoid a compromise. BigYak 21:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the specious "lobbyist is as obvious as female" argument, the article never claimed she was "impartial"; rather, it cited her views, and gave you the link to her so you could find out more. The various descriptions of her were (unlike "lobbyist") ones that others have used of her, and could thus be cited.  And it astonishes me that you imagine that anyone is truly "impartial" on this subject. Jayjg (talk)  21:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My description of her "Fellow of the Hebrew University of Jersualem" has been used of her elsewhere. And was no more nor less selective than the one given.


 * Please dont pretend that every description on wikipedia is a verbatim quote of one used elsewhere - it's an obviously false arguement.


 * I agree with you that no one is really neutral - except the young. This is why I like to see suspicion of bais solidly telegraphed.


 * I am happier with no description than a selective one (which we will never agree on I suspect) - are you happy with this?


 * I do feel the text needs sorting out to separate which parts are from her speech and which from her Blog / other writing. I propose to do this next week when we have both slept on this issue - would you help me by critiqueing this?


 * In the UK at least there is some pretty robust condemntaion of the UN (and in particular the military action it sanctions) as being pro-Israeli and exhibiting a double standard. I would like to put a balancing paragraph in here on that also - we should discuss first I think.


 * As an aside our discussion on "lobbyist" started reminding me of "Yes Minister's" irregular verbs: http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minister_episode_quotes.htm


 * "Irregular verbs:

I have an independent mind You are an eccentric He is round the twist"

maps nicely onto:

"I have a point of view You are an activist He is a lobbyist"


 * So much of how we use words depends on our viewpoint. Thank you for an interesting arguement.

BigYak 21:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

npov tag
i'm sick of seeing random npov tags everywhere just because someone doesn't like what something says. to me the "current situation" section looks reasonably neutral given the obvious controversy of the topic. furthermore, NPOV tags need *specific* complaints associated with them, and i don't see any such here; in addition, there is no discussion for over 3 months about this. so i deleted it; before adding it again, *give reasons why*.

Benwing 8 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

Bias
Yes, this article is indeed biased.

Where is the section on the current situation?
What happened to that section? I don't see any talks on its disappearance. Restoring... Also, I think this is a good time to archive old discussions. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the Israeli bombing of a U.N. observation post in Lebanon deserve some mention? 66.41.59.162 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who knows about the war in Lebanon would realize that that Israel made sure that as many civilians as possible were safe. In fact, in no other war, whether American or British or another country, were citizens of another country so well protected. Israel sent down letters telling citizens where they were attacking. Churchhill did not do this before carpet bombing Dresden in WW11, nor did Bush in the War in Iraq. Please avoid being Anti-Semetic in the future and try not to slander Israel (the only democratic country in the Middle East)

Removal of External links section
Unbehagen repeatedly removes the extlinks section but is unwilling or unable to discuss it. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just as in all other articles, the links are necessary to illustrate the subject. We did not even comment them. Here is how the pattern works: first the links are removed because certain someone doesn't like them, and then the text is changed because, you see, there is no evidence. It is not the addition of relevant ext links that needs to be defended but their removal. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

merge
merge this in with main israel article, &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mossadian (talk • contribs).

Dead link
http://www.unwatch.org/pbworks/UNA-UK_Report.pdf is now bad. I was pottering around on http://www.una-uk.org/, and couldn't find an obvious new location. AnonMoos 02:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Israel's Breaking of UN Resolutions
The article is bias, it talks of bias in the UN but not of Israels intransigent 'iron wall' position and it's persistent disregard the the opinion of the Security Council members. Israel has broken countless UN resolutions.

I agree completely.

The fact is that the Article provides an effective point of the UN's relation with Israel if and only if the UN were bias towards Israel. It makes no mention of why the UN had to draw up so many resalutions concerning Israel; the fact that Israel has yet to obey resolutions from twenty-nine years ago, namely resolution 242 and 446. Also, though the information does not belong in the article of Israel's relationship with the UN the question can be asked why should the UN not draw continuous resolutions against a country in constant violation of the Geneva conventions, namely the fourth Geneva convention; Article 49. The void of a decenting voice from the perspective of the UN is largly effective in making this an obvious (pro) Israeli article. Heck, if the article was going to criticize the UN for drawing various resolutions against Israel, it should at least link to an article showing how many resolutions were veto-ed by its largest weight pulling ally the United States of America. Lets not forget the real reason Israel recieves so much attantion. It is the only real western ally in the worlds richest oil region. It is still maintaing the longest military dictatorship in history and can somehow still be "praised*" by the UN for withdrawing from a country it illigaly invaded even after leaving a "million bomlets**" of un-exploded cluster bombs in the country it withdrew from. it has always been a PR strategy of Israel to point the finger at the negative attention its gotten. This article only reaffirms such a beiefe.
 * Sunday, 1 October 2006 (BBC News Article: UN hails Israel's Lebanon pullout)
 * Tuesday, 26 September 2006(BBC News Article: 'Million bomblets' in S Lebanon)

Please explain how the invasion was illegal. The way I understand international laws is that if a country make a cross boarder attack, a country is allowed to defend itself. --יהושועEric 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Counter: Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventionprohibits "individual or mass forcible transfers" of people, which is not the case in Israel. Also, the occupier of a land is not allowed to "deport or transfer parts of its civilian population," the wording of which indicates the prohibition of forced relocation. The article does not prohibit voluntary settlement by Israelis. In addition, the territories now being used for Israeli settlements were captured in a defensive war wih Egypt and Jordan. Those countries had illegally occupied them since 1948.

It is also interesting to find in the Fourth Geneva Convention, in Art. 3 and elsewhere, prohibitions of murder, violence to life and person, and other acts that are commonly employed by Palestinian Arabs against innocent Israeli civilians. To date no one in the international community has made a formal protest against these Palestinian Arab tactics.

Clearly, anybody who has read Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions can see that the charge against Israel is baseless and a desperate attempt by murderers do discredit a democracy. Visit http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_4thgeneva.php for more detail

Bias
This is Biased and should not used as reference material for academic purposes. Although it is an excellent example of how facts can be used as propaganda.

Bias
This article is extremely biased. The UN resolutions critical of the state Israel are explained as if they are only caused by some crazy arab states ignoring the fact that they are only a small portion of the total UN member body--62.251.90.73 11:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * are you sure that they a small portion? -- tasc talkdeeds 11:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there are only about 20 Arab states while there 191 UN members. Arab states: Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lybia, Morocco, Oman, Palestina, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunesia, UAE and Yemen.--62.251.90.73 11:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * UN biased. You can check last news to find examples. -- tasc talkdeeds 11:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've heard a lot of good things about this US "Fox News" channel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.94.50.136 (talk • contribs) 03:54, July 17, 2006  (UTC)

Even if the UN was biased then the 'crazy arab states' still are not a sufficient explanation for the UN resolutions against Israël since there are way more states needed to pass these resolutions. --62.251.90.73 11:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * crazy arab states - it's your label. don't make me prove your words. If it's biased, it's biased. and all those resolution worth nothing. -- tasc talkdeeds 11:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why the UN are biased in the article. --62.251.90.73 11:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me why you decided to separate Arabs: e.g. Iran, Pakistan or Indonesia routinely vote against Israel. We do not engage in original research. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that's my point, the user tasc with who i was discussing above disputed my argument that the arab states are such a small portion of the UN member body that that alone can never acount for all the UN resolutions against Israël.
 * My problem with this article is that The UN resolutions critical of the state Israel are explained as if they are only caused by some crazy arab states ignoring the fact that they are only a small portion of the total UN member body exactly like you say, there must also be a lot of other states that have voted for these resolutions, but about their reasons for doing so is hardly anything mentioned in this article. The arab states are mentioned constantly.
 * And I really have no idea where your OR comment is coming from?! --62.251.90.73 20:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to Arab countries, the Communist bloc was openly anti-Semitic and voted against Israel at every turn, even declaring Zionism as a form of racism in 1975. European countries voted against Israel also and continue to do so today; much of the world harbors misguided sympath for the Arab refugees and terrorists. The fact is, it is truly Israel and the U.S. against the world in many cases.


 * You ever get the sense that it might be the US and Israel that are biased since the entire world is apparently critical of you?Pokeraddict 14:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Iran isn't Arab, they are Persian, Arabs generally refer to an ethnic group from the Arabian Penisula, who speak arabic. (However just because one speaks Arabic, doesn't make them Arab, anymore then speaking English makes you English. (Iran speaks Persian btw!, although similiar to Arabic and arabic does have a presence - as do arabs) ANYWAYS - its states with high muslim populations, espcially Islamic states (States with Islam as the official state religion) that generally "anti Israel" - Which includes Most of North Africa, Middle east, and some of South, and South East asia, of course its more complicated than that but at least get terminologies correct! (Madrone 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Requires wholesale changes
Hugely biased agitprop, unsuitable for a reference work. This article should be revised asap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niallmulligan (talk • contribs) 09:40, July 14, 2006  (UTC)

Staggering Bias
Was this written by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Wikipedia normally offers a generally accurate, impartial background to issues such as these, but this article is a clear exception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.91.49 (talk • contribs) 02:47, July 30, 2006   (UTC)


 * Would those editors dropping by and proffering concerns about bias please kindly offer suggestions for improvement? Ronabop 04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Annan's statement
While I have rewritten the statement to be more NPOV, it is a sourced example of apparent anti-Israel bias of the UN and its leader, and as such needs to remian in that section of the article. -- Avi 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No - it a reference to a single editorial. As such it is OPINION not fact and so unencyclopedic. Pl;ease stop pushing POV. Thansk. 86.27.55.184 21:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, there are four citations, including from General Lewis Mackenzie, who was Chief of Staff for the United Nations Protection Force or UNPROFOR in Yugoslavia in 1992. this is not a POV, this is a well-documented phenomenon, much more so than Annan's off-the-cuff statement without benefit of any military experience or data. Read Mackenzie's article, you may find it interesting. -- Avi 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but editorialising by appologists for the Israeli position is not sufficient justification for this to be included. We could easily drag up opinion about any of the Israeli statesmen involved in the dispute calling them "murderers" and "child killers" - would you back us putting "Many claim XXX to be a child killer" on any article mentioning them? I suspect not. Your addition is clearly POV editorialising and so NPOV. 86.27.55.184 10:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but they are no les opinions than Annan's own statement, they show how Annan demonstrates anti-Israel bias, and at least they include the statements of military personnel. You are trying to push a POV by keeping them out of the article, and, you have violated 3RR to boot. -- Avi 13:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I note with interest that you choose not to point out your own violation of the 3RR rule. One rule for you and another for me?? 86.27.55.184 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Very simple, I did not violate 3RR. I have three reverts in 24 hours, which is allowed. You have four which is not, which is explained in the links in the warning I posted on your page. -- Avi 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the rule exspecially the section about "gaming the system" and abiding by the spirit. Waiting untill JUST after 24 hours then reverting (as you did) to avoid the letter of the rule is clearly prohibited. Why are you POV edit warring on this article?86.27.55.184 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you study the edit history, I have not reverted your deletion, so there is no gaming of the system. That was an issue with Israel vs. Palestine, to which I now concur with User:FayssalF that using Palestine is more historically accurate in the context of that sentence. Your accusations are not only unfounded and false, they are indicative of WP:NPA and a lack of WP:AGF. The only POV warring here is your own. I suggest you look below at User:FayssalF's comments, which you solicited I might add, and see that he believes (at first glance) that the addition is fair in the context. -- Avi 16:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No - you took a simple assertion of fact and tried to spin it into an POV comment showing up some percieved bais against Israel. Not on I'm afraid. Please dont accuse me of acting in bad faith - you're in danger of breaching WP:NPA yourself - you say of me "The only POV warring here is your own." - again one rule for me and one rule for you? 86.27.55.184 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative. I took well-documented and reliable sources demonstrating another example of anti-Israel bias, and you are doing your best to keep it out of the article. Annan made a statement, a statement that many (documented) feel unambiguously demonstrate his true feelings. There is no reason that does not belong in the article. Moving the section back out from under anti-Israel bias is yet another example of gaming the system, since I cannot re-add the (improperly) deleted sources, there no longer shows a direct link to the bias. It's rather simple actually. -- Avi 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have demonstrated a number of times why it is inappropriate to include this - you have yet to address thaqt arguement in any way other than saying "there was bias" (your POV) and asserting "it is appropriate". If you would like to do so we can debate. 86.27.55.184 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You have two major complaints. One that it was a single entry; I brought three more. Two, thatit was an opinion; no more than Annan's own STATEMENT was his opinion. Why is Annan's statement of opinion any more special than Mackenzie's? You are logically inconsistent, as I have shown above. -- Avi 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the current phrasing, Annan had no evidence that the attacks against the UN camp was deliberate. However, his opinon was certainly not pulled out of a hat. According to Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict: "The site of the observation post was well known, and both sides in the conflict had the coordinates of the compound. Ireland's Foreign Ministry said a senior Irish soldier working for the UN forces was in contact with the Israelis six times to warn them that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff." Further, according to numerous news sources (see e.g. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/26/147212) the UN has been attacked by Israel for years. PJ 11:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and accurate edits
I've just did a few changes to the following:
 * ...the 1947 UN Partition Plan supported an aim of Zionism: the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in Land of Israel. - Changed Land of Israel to Palestine as the UN Partition Plan states Palestine instead.


 * OK, that is a fair point, thank you. -- Avi 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Szvest 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Anti-Israel bias section title changed to Allegations of Anti-Israel bias. For POV issues' reasons.


 * What is your opinion about the multiple allegations that the anon user is determined to remove? -- Avi 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've checked this ...Without any futher evidence for this, many describe Annan's statement as another example of the UN's anti-Israel bias seems fair as it is a commentary and a POV of some media organizations which deserves to be mentioned. No problem w/ that. However, i still have to read the entire article to see what is considered POV.-- Szvest 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the epitome of WP:WEASEL. Editorial pages are hardly a credible source of NPOV. Tarc 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have completely misunderstood WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. As WP:NPOV states The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed New Anti-Semitism see also as it suggests that Israel is a victim of that which is POV. -- Szvest 14:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™


 * I have not analyzed that as of yet. -- Avi 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I restored it, since there is a section in that article that deals directly with this topic. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

UNA-UK Report
I think it would be appropriate to cite the relevant pages for each principle finding. PJ 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Annan's bias take 2
The fact that Annan's statements indicate his bias is just as relevant as the statement itself. Annan stated an opinion, and exposed his beliefs. Removing properly sourced material from wikipedia is vandalism. -- Avi 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate agitprop
The whole section on "allegations of anti-israeli bias" is completely unsuitable as a piece of reference work. The fundamental problem cannot be resolved by the tit-for-tat arguments that can be read on this page about minutiae such as what Annan said or didn't say on a particular day. The key thing is to get away from the narrow minds of the pro-Israeli lobby (and the other side for that matter) which insist on treating Israel as some weird entity not like the rest of the world. Is there any reason that relations between the state of Israel and the UN should be analysed any differently than any other state? I suggest not. Guess what you would find in a page written about Myanmar by supporters of the junta? Their section on anti-Myanmar(Burmese?) bias would probably look pretty much the one here on israel. Remove Myanmar and insert apartheid South Africa, pre-1960s southern states of the US, Soviet russia, or Northern Ireland pre-civil rights ... it's all boringly predictable. People don't like being unpopular and the natural reaction is to shoot the messenger. The impartial reviewer should not take these normal petty reactions as gospel and repeat them without some sceptical analysis. Adding numerous citations repeating the same agitprop adds nothing. Adding 'balance' by including the odd counter-argument is just as phoney.

The article would be enormously improved if this section was eliminated entirely. Alternatively (to keep on board those who measure a thesis by weight) leave in a one-liner stating the tediously obvious fact that supporters of Israel constantly complain that the UN is biased against Israel. Think of all the reader time saved to be spent on the really good stuff in wikipedia.


 * I must say that I agree with most of the above. I think it would be much better to either shorten this section drastically, as it just seems to condemn the UN more than anything. Or, alternatively, include an extra section explaining why Israel is so often the subject of UN resolutions - for example numerous (alleged) transgressions against international humanitarian law. At the moment there is no indication of why Israel receives this treatment, other than a (perceived) unjustified bias among member states. It ought to be up to the reader to form their own opinion; at the moment it reads as though the UN is only concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people as a means to bash Israel. There are enough reports by international NGOs (e.g. Amnesty International) that condemn Israeli action - surely a testimony to the fact that there is no smoke without fire. There is no section that details any "sensible" resolutions passed condemning Israel, just a list of rather farcical examples of political bickering. Whilst they may well have their place, they currently do this article no service by ignoring those resolutions that are/were "reasonable". Where is the info on the situation of the settlements on occupied land (illegal according to international law), for example? If you read this article with no further background knowledge on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, you would be led to believe that Israel is a shining example that, for some unknown reason, is picked on by a certain proportion of the countries in the world. To me the article undermines its own credibility by going out of its way to portray Israel in the role of a victim - and thus, at least to me, is quite POV.


 * You could probably write exactly the same article from a Palestinian point of view, listing the number of resolutions that were vetoed by the US, and, given the right selective quotations make it appear that the UN has no concern for the Palestinians and is nothing more than a puppet of the US. Both articles would be equally out of place on wiki. It's one of the infuriating things about the conflict - it's practically impossible to hold a decent discussion with either a Palestinian or an Israeli on the subject of the middle east conflict, as they immediately resort to saying "but they did this to us!", as if that is any kind of justification for anything. Hopefully most of us here grew out of that phase shortly after kindergarten...


 * For that reason, I find that the tit for tat (Re: Palestinians) nature of some of the statements are missing the point - that Israel, as a state, and member of the United Nations is subject to certain international laws. That suicide bombers are criminals ought to be self-evident to all but the most extreme amongst us. However, the article neglects the important fact that "Palestine" is not a country, and as such not a member of the United Nations. It is thus neither bound by the UN charter, nor does it have any real clout in the UN. As such, Palestinian aggression is (unfortunately) in something of a legal limbo.


 * Furthermore, the entire "Lack of criticism of Arab mistreatment of Palestinians and vice-versa" section has nothing to do with Israel's relation with the UN at all - it's an obvious attempt at POV. Again, this belongs in an article dealing with the Palestinian relationship with the UN. It has nothing to do with Israel at all. Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy! I'd advocate removing this section immediately or moving it to a more appropriate article.


 * n.b. I think they're all mad, and wish they'd just get on with living together. It's not like they have a choice... ;) Steevm 06:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the "Lack of criticism of Arab mistreatment of Palestinians and vice-versa" sub-section as it is WP:OR. When you talk about UN anti-Israel bias and you say the US ambassador John Bolton criticized the UN for promoting anti-Israel agenda, i agree that it is not OR because it is sourced and referenced, maybe we can add more specific referenced quotes. But, but when you say The United Nations has not made resolutions against or has virtually ignored Palestinian violence on fellow Arab states such as.. and bring no single ref except POV editorializing than the section must be removed. I also read Furthermore, the number of Palestinians killed in Arab states exceeds the number of Palestinians killed in Israel during the First Intifada and Second Intifada combined by far. This is obvious WP:POINT. -- Szvest 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. It is a list of violence that the UN has failed to criticize or recognize. You say: "I also read Furthermore, the number of Palestinians killed in Arab states exceeds the number of Palestinians killed in Israel during the First Intifada and Second Intifada combined by far. This is obvious WP:POINT." Actually, no it isn't. Many people are surprised to read that fact. Besides that, it shows how Arab countries have been cut slack for their mistreatment while Israel is stuck with a mess to clean up. Simple is that. --Shamir1 17:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But what does poor treatment of Palestinians (as is the case in most countries; no one really wants several million unemployed refugees in their country) acutally have to do with Israel's relation with the UN? And what does a lack of criticism of Arab mistreatment have to do with Israel's relationship with the UN? Wrong article as far as I can tell. The entire section doesn't mention Israel at all! You're confusing two separate issues here. Steevm 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Shamir, your last phrase on your comment above may be a fact (personally i believe it is somehow true) but it remains a POV. We are not allowed to editorialize or to introduce self-made analysis which are not backed by statements; i mean references to quotes in which X accuses Y of a specific bias. In our case, it should be a notable body (i.e. Govt of Israel, an Israeli politician, a notable critic of the field, etc...) who would accuse the UN; especially not not you, not me, not Wikipedia. I hope it is clear. While waiting for your comment, i'll not remove the content for now. -- Szvest 22:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the article would make much more sense if it was called Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I created this page and redirected it here, but I think it should be the other way around. This change would address some of the criticisms in this thread. Emmanuelm 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel or Israeli?
This might seem a daft question to ask, but shouldn't it be "Anti-Israeli", not "Anti-Israel"?

As a comparison, wouldn't you say "Anti-American", for example, as opposed to "Anti-America"?

At least that's what the BBC and Washington Times use here: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060718-083425-5733r.htm and here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1915507.stm

It just reads wrong to me as it currently is, but I'm not 100% certain I'm right :) Steevm 02:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe either is incorrect. In this situation, most of the bias is against the country and government, not the individual people.  Hence anti-Israel. --יהושועEric 03:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So would you say "A has an Anti-America bias" or "B has an anti-American bias"? The first one sounds completely wrong to my ears, you see. Steevm 03:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Either one is correct. --יהושועEric 15:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, it must be one of those language things where you just get used to whatever you hear most. Thanks :)

Ben Gurion's Opposition to the 1947 Partition Plan
I saw they cite the BBC website. But this is just wrong. Ben Gurion was an avid supporter of this plan and did his best to try to convince other Zionist leaders (especially right-wing leaders) to support it. 83.130.188.226 13:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tag
I removed the tag. -- HIZKIAH (User  Talk) 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article
Why isn't this a featured article yet? Or candidte for that matter? Colonel Marksman 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? This article is real junk.  --Zerotalk 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag on "Allegations of Anti-Israel bias" section
This section is entirely devoted to an attack on the UN without any effort at balance. Many of the sources are standard pro-Israeli outlets. Where are the citations of independent analysts, or the arguments in the other direction? --Zerotalk 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you find reliable sources that bring an alternative opinion, then please do so. -- Avi 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is Jewish Law, Gentile Law, and International Law. The three will never agree ! The Middle East conflick will last forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.100.170 (talk) 01:32, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Announcing new page with complete re-write of article
Please go see the new page called Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I wrote it with the intention to replace this page. Please vote on this replacement here. Emmanuelm 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC) N.B. fixed link for the working draft. HG | Talk 14:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Emmanuelm, I should have mentioned this before. WP Policy asks that you not put drafts into the main article space. Instead, I suggest you create a subpage, e.g. of your user page, while working on the draft. The draft page can then be deleted (you can ask for a speedy delete). Better to do this yourself than let the mere existence of the draft become an issue. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * HG, thanks for the suggestion, I did not know about subpages. But I still do not understand your comment: I did not put a draft into the main article space, I created a new article, then expressed the hope that the two will eventually become one. The way things are going so far, my new article is unacceptable and needs to be rewritten completely. So I do not intend to touch the original article for a long while, while I digest NPOV and NOR policies. Emmanuelm 13:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Hi again. Your new page is a "complete re-write" of an existing article, so it covers basically the same subject matter. If you're unfamiliar w/WP policies, then it's charitable to call your page a draft, otherwise it would probably be classified as a POV fork (pls read), which should be deleted from the mainspace. Also, if the new article needs to be rewritten completely, it also doesn't sound like it belongs yet as an article. Finally, if you don't mind my saying so, it appears that you feel some sense of ownership over the new page. However, in Wikipedia, we are encouraged to avoid acting as if we own the article (pls read, too). For instance, you wrote an edit summary today: "Undid JohnZ edit; this page is not ready for external edits yet" which sounds as if you're deciding who gets to edit the page. I'm not trying here to judge either your work on the existing article, only trying to impress upon you the importance of certain key policies about article creation and redrafting. I strongly recommend that you read subpage, which explains how you can move your page to your user area. Take care. HG | Talk 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My new article is now at User:Emmanuelm/Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. Thanks for the comments.Emmanuelm 14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Israel, Palestine and the United Nations is currently deleted, will be recreated later. Emmanuelm 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting of lead section
I rewrote the lead section of the article. I tried to stick as much as possible to the Lead section guidelines. I hope you like it. Emmanuelm 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of History section
I rewrote the history section of the article, emphasizing events directly involving the United Nations. When editing, please do the same; for a general history of this conflict, see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope you like it. Emmanuelm 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Article moved
I moved this article to Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I feel this title reflect better the content of the article, which contains as many references to Palestinian as to Israeli issues. I think the two subjects are inseparable. I think that the creation of a separate Palestine and the United Nations would be counterproductive (I created it and redirected it). As for the use of the word Palestine to designate a people and an as yet non-existent country, I used it for the sake of brevity. Any other phrasing would have rendered the title painfully long. Emmanuelm 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Move request II
Can somebody move this page to Talk:Israel, Palestine and the United Nations? For some reason it wasn't moved along with the article itself. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Malik, as you can read immmediately below this, I requested this move, which apparently can be done only by an editor (why?). It will apparently take a few days. Emmanuelm 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)