Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 18

Mufti call for killing jews
Dlv99, your recent edit has altered the language away from one that was supported by reliable sources, 1,23. and can easily be supported through additional sources if you are still unsatisfied. Your edit is not consensual and you have not discussed it at all in the Talk Page. As such it is a disruptive edit. Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ank, please compare my edit, the previous edit and the cited RS:-


 * 1) cited source :  "a January 9 Fatah rally during which Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammed Hussein, read out a well-known text (Hadith) attributed to Muhammad saying that the killing of Jews will speed up the redemption."
 * 2) Previous text of article : "This had come shortly after the official Palestinian Authority Mufti in Jerusalem publicly called for the murder of Jews"
 * 3) My edit: "Thi had come shortly after the official Palestinian Authority Mufti in Jerusalem publicly read out an Islamic hadith that says killing Jews will speed up the redemption"

It seems fairly uncontroversial to me which is a more accurate reflection of the RS. The other sources you have brought the table are a you tube video1, and a second Jpost article 3, which is clearly reporting Netanyahu's comments on the issue and cannot be used without proper attribution ("The PA television program, he said, portrayed the terrorists as martyrs and heroes, just days after the PA’s mufti in Jerusalem quoted from a Muslim text calling for the murder of Jews"). The new Ynet source says "Mufti Mohammed Hussein cited a hadith (saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) claiming that the Earth's end of days will not happen until Muslims kill Jews in a religious battle". I am sorry that you think my edit was disruptive, but I can assure you I am only trying to honestly reflect the cited RS. I think an examination of my edit and the RS clearly shows this. The talk pages of this article are becoming clogged with interminable long winded and largely pointless debate. I have every intention of working with consensus, but I felt in this instance a bold edit in line with the cited RS would be a productive way to move things forward. I would appreciate if further discussion is restricted to the merits of the edits and the cited RS. Dlv999 (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to gently but firmly pluck your ostrich head from its sandpit and direct it towards the sources for a closer inspection. "Palestinian Authority Mufti...says Muslims will kill Jews","the Jerusalem mufti for reciting a passage from Muslim scripture calling for the death of Jews", "who quoted a religious text that includes passages about killing Jews." Would you accept a compromised version of "official Palestinian Authority Mufti in Jerusalem publicly recited religious texts calling for the death of Jews"? Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That paragraph consists of little more than a WP:SYNTHish collection of events of negligible historic importance, obviously cherry picked for their offensiveness. The paragraph is WP:UNDUE and POV and should be deleted. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Gatoclass,
 * Are you interested in removing the whole section, including the part about Israeli settlement growth being condemned or just the paragraph about Palestinian incitement to violence being condemned?
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed this article since making that post, I think the article as a whole has numerous problems that can't be quickly or easily addressed. So I don't see much point right now in discussing the issues in one particular paragraph. However, if other users want to try and move forward with some improvements, I will probably support that. Gatoclass (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

More page numbers?
There seem to be too few. I've just done a run-through for trivial formatting, linking, etc, and noticed this. If someone has the refs and a spare hour, that would really improve the authority of the article. Thanks. Tony  (talk)  10:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template
I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap  ☏  03:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Great Article
Just wanted to say that I learned a lot from reading this article and I think it deserves another look at as a "Social sciences and society good article" nominee. For such a contentious subject, it's really well done I think. Ikilled007 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For those having charged themselves with such monumental a task, I'm certain editing this article must be the most daunting of any beginning with www.wikipedia.org/. The simple fact that this article doesn't start with a POV or Neutrality tag is a testament to the patience and emotional control of those working on it. I would shrug even the suggestion of such appointment as I know it would ultimately coast me my title as wikipedian. Kudos to the editors. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I've worked very hard on this article and your praise means much to me.  With a couple of minor exceptions, I agree it is a great article and one I am very proud of.  --GHcool (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit about statements by Netanyahu
This recent edit has made the sentence grammatically ambiguous and the latter change is unnecessary. While the change to "said" is appropriate, the addition of "he accused..." is not. By introducing the sentence with "Netanyahu said", it is already covering the required NPOV. It is superfluous to add that he accused. 74.198.87.103 (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The change makes it clear that the charge of incitement is being leveled. It's not up to us to judge the truth of this charge. Hcobb (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you missed my point. I am not saying it is up to us to judge the truth of this charge. I'm saying that the "he accused..." addition is superfluous. By introducing the sentence with "Netanyahu said", it makes it clear that the charge of incitement is being leveled. I have basically just repeated exactly what I said above, so if you still don't understand my point, I hope somebody else will. 74.198.87.103 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try something else. Imagine a shorter example with the same syntax: "The teacher said that while Jane aced the test, he accused her of cheating." Superfluous. 74.198.87.103 (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought of one more way of explaining it :) By using the new wording, we are suggesting that Netanyahu said "I accuse the PA of incitement". That's the message put across by the awkward wording "He said... he accused". But he did not say "I accuse the PA of incitement". He said "The PA is inciting". So we should just be reporting what he said, and by saying "he said", it is understood that it is an accusation. 74.198.87.103 (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Dalai lama ding dong (particularly re: refugees)
The user Dalai lama ding dong has been making unilateral edits to this article without discussing them on the talk page, and I think they are highly inappropriate. Particularly, the recent change from "legalities concerning refugees" to "Palestinian right of return" makes a change that excludes the consideration of Jewish refugees in the solution. The wording in that sentence is something that has been discussed many times before on this talk page (see the archives), and I think that change should be reverted because it changes the meaning completely and has not been discussed here. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

why not just add in a reference to Jewish refugees, as long as you can find an RS that supports the claim that this is an outstanding issue in the conflict. That is better than weasel words would mean nothing to a reader.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you include a source that called the "Palestinian right of return" one of the remaining key issues? No, and you don't have to, because that is the WP:LEDE and doesn't require a source because it is just a summary of the article. However, your edit changed the meaning of the sentence and the long established consensus, so I would request that you undo it. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ROR does not need a source, because no one would challenge that it is a remaining key issue.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I challenge it. It is "legalities concerning refugees" that is a remaining key issue, not ROR.  ROR is just one of many solutions to the "legalities concerning refugees" (the worst one, in the opinion of most analysts).  --GHcool (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point as well. I agree 99.237.236.218 (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "legalities concerning refugees" is wrong. It is not merely an issue of legalities. It is an issue of resolving the issue of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees still living in refugee camps. That is not a legal question it is a practical question that has certain legal aspects. I would suggest something like "a resolution of the refugee question" - which is inclusive of the practical and the legal aspects to the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i would accept Div999's proposal. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian incitement
This edit is innaccurate as the incitement has been reported by the media and criticised by a number of figures including the UK minister for the Middle East and many US senators. ' Ankh '. Morpork  11:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * what is your proposed revwording? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My view is that the previous wording was not NPOV and the new wording is a significant improvement. Dlv999 (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the phrasing of "The Palestinians have had their continuing incitement to violence against Jews and Israel..." presented it as an unattributed statement of fact using Wikipedia's voice. Contrast that with the more carefully worded "Israeli incitement" section above it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

91% vs 92% vs 95%
The exact % is reported differently in different sources. We should not be edit warring between them, rather stating something along the lines of "between 92% and 95%" and providing a source for that. Here's one that mentions up to 95% 99.237.236.218 (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasonable enough.' Ankh '. Morpork  23:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shlomo Ben Ami says 91% in his book and he was Israel's chief negotiator at the Camp David Summit. From Gcool's edit it seems Karsh is saying 92%. Where is the 95% figure coming from? Unless we have an appropriate RS claiming 95% it should be removed from the article. Dlv999 (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit is not good is not good as it seems to falsify sources.Source quite clearly says 92% if there are sources that say 91% then we can say range and bring source for each number.--Shrike (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a source that says 95%-97% --Shrike (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That source is not discussing the proposals at Camp David. It clearly states that "President Clinton's December proposals constituted much more than was offered to Arafat at Camp David; Israel's withdrawelfrom 95% to 97% of the West Bank...." You can't use that to claim that 95% to 97 % was on the table at Camp David in July. Dlv999 (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The source added in this edit says that later "Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank". All the sources refer to these proposals that stemmed from Camp David, and I do not understand why this information was ommitted.' Ankh '. Morpork  11:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AK, you earlier accepted 92 to 95 per cent. What are you saying now? Are you asking for 95 per cent again? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These proposals were not a part of Camp David, they were made the following December 6 months after the failure to reach an agreement at Camp David. To say they were on the table at Camp David and Arafat rejected them is outright falsification of sources. Dlv999 (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, the Camp David summit was a specific event that occurred in one particular space and time (July 2000, Camp David). The proposals that were made at Camp David were the ones made at Camp David in July 2000. The following December further proposals were made, which led to the Taba Summit in January 2001. These further proposals leading to Taba are certainly relevant to the article, but they cannot be presented as if they were made at Camp David in July 2000, that would be a blatant falsification and misuse of sources. Dlv999 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Guys, Myths&Facts is a rubbish source. Zerotalk 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally (this is original research so don't read it), the difference between 91% and 92% might depend on whether one regards East Jerusalem to be included in "West Bank". The metro part of EJ is approximately the right size to make that difference. Zerotalk 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, having looked into it, I think the discrepancy revolves around the 1% land swap that was part of the deal. Ben Ami (2005), pp 260 writes "The Camp David proposals as formulated by Clinton in his meetings with the different negotiating teams – a Palestinian state in the entire Gaza Strip and 91 per cent of the West Bank in exchange for 1 per cent land swap in addition to a safe passage that would link Gaza with the West Bank, a division of Jerusalem that was not perhaps clear-cut, but included nevertheless a division of the Old City into two equal parts, a Palestinian ‘sovereign custodianship’ on the Temple Mount and no right of return for the refugees" Jeremy Pressman (2003) writes "At the summit, Israel offered to establish a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the Gaza Strip, 92 percent of the West Bank, and some parts of Arab East Jerusalem.5 In return, it proposed the annexation of Jewish neighborhoods (settlements) in East Jerusalem. Israel also asked for several security measures, including early warning stations in the West Bank and an Israeli presence at Palestinian border crossings. In addition, it would accept no more than a token return of Palestinian refugees under a family reunification program.", but the footnote to that statement clarifies "5. Israel offered the Palestinians 91 percent of theWest Bank plus the equivalent of 1 percent of the West Bank in land from pre-1967 Israel.". I think for the purposes of this article it is suitable to summarize as 92% of the West Bank as multiple RS have done. Dlv999 (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have an issue removing the 95% claim which is cited to a transcript of a PBS debate in which one of the participants mentions 94.5%. This is not suitable for souring facts especially when Gcool has provided us with some excellent sources. Dlv999 (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i agree to this change. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Myths&Facts
hmmm, it's used in a number of articles. Removing all the non-article instances you are left with this. I guess they probably need looking at.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I didn't realise it had come back so bad after a purge of a few years ago.  M&F is a standard propaganda tract from an unreliable place.  Life's work is never done. Zerotalk 16:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While tagging the myths and facts references I also noticed that a certain Alan Dershowitz is being used as a reference on numerous occasions. Dlv999 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Its written by Doctor in political science i.e expert in his field if you have some doubts go to WP:RSN--Shrike (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In matters relating to Israel Palestine Dershowitz is an activist and he has been proven to be inaccurate on numerous occasions. Also he is a professor of law, not a "doctor of political science". Dlv999 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike is probably talking about Bard. If there are reasonable doubts about reliability, editors can remove the sources and the person who wants to use them needs to go to RSN. I will be removing some of these and I will not be going to RSN.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 21:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are consensus for removal of course anyhow I don't see any valid reasons for it.--Shrike (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But you have removed Pappe as a source from multiple articles (e.g. ) despite him being a current Professor of History and Director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies, which seems to be at odds with the justification you have used to defend Baird. Dlv999 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sean, you have recently added the the United Jerusalem Foundation views and this dubious source to an article. Can you explain how these sources differ in reliabilty? ' Ankh '. Morpork  23:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already explained it to you. You can keep asking but the answer will remain the same. I reverted an edit by a sockpuppet per Ban. The presumption in ambiguous cases when it is not an obviously helpful edit is to revert, so I reverted. I will keep reverting edits by sockpuppets that match the criteria because that is what policy requires. You have restored edits by sockpuppets several times now. You need to stop.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a lie. You did not revert another sockpuppet, you reverted my edit which had previously been executed and explained on the talk page long before any sockpuppet's involvement. This excuse is a complete red herring in addition to being a falsehood. You saw fit to add crap sources into an encyclopedic article and I would like a proper explanation.' Ankh '. Morpork  18:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a lie or an excuse. You have been provided with a proper explanation twice now, here and on my talk page (which you are now banned from because your trolling is tiresome and counterproductive). Take it or leave it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Another lie! I have asked you several times why you added these substandard sources, the first time you replied "Stop trolling...Haven't you got some articles about ethnic groups that need to be demonized...", you removed my next query, and now here you have reverted once again to the "stop trolling" mantra. This is not the first time that you have ignored serious questions about your conduct and have resorted to the ad hominem to avoid discussion.

You stated: "I reverted an edit by a sockpuppet per Ban". This is demonstrably false, you reverted me, and the edit in question had been discussed long before any sockpuppet involvement so how can it be described as on behalf of a banned editor? Thank you for deigning to provide this "proper explanation" which I find very revealing. ' Ankh '. Morpork  19:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Please understand that I have no desire to 'troll' but am attempting to assuage my misgivings about your conduct. Recently, this has been quite difficult and I have found your edits sloppy. Examples include you reverting an edit, bizarrely extending the scope of the Second intifada to 2008, which you then spectacularly failed to explain. You reverted again at Operation Sharp and Smooth and inserted the United Jerusalem Foundation and an equally dubious source. Such actions are highly inconsistent with your strident demands for high quality sourcing and your piss-poor attempts at justifying this is alarming. You expressly stated in February 2012 that you would "not comment at AE reports anymore unless I file them or they are filed against me" after being warned about your battleground behaviour. Since then you have aggressivley commented at AE's involving Oncenawhile, Nishidani and Dalai Lama Ding Dong, always defending a particular POV with this edit epitomizing your combative style. This recurrent disregard of your previous comments was sophistically explained over here. In short, I have observed an unpleasant pattern and the the flag of neutrality and sensibility that you fiercely wave is increasingly become bedraggled and stained. I note that you have tended towards the invective when this has been pointed out in the past and I request that this time, you adequately consider these issues.' Ankh '. Morpork  14:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that the Jewish Virtual Library is propaganda? Because it is written by Jews? Isn't your blacklisting of it propaganda? You people seem like activists yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * M&F/JVL is one-sided, but nothing they put out is false or unreliable. It can be trusted at least as much as anything in the JPS.  --GHcool (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous JPS is a respected peer reviewed academic journal. Dlv999 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Return of bodies
This section is WP:UNDUE. There is far too much material in it, i propose to reduce it, to one or two lines.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually it should go altogether. It is a good example of WP:RECENTISM (to name the least of its faults). By this time next year, nobody will even remember it. It also has claims masquerading as facts, such as "to help revive the peace talks and reinstate direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians" and reads like an Israeli government press statement. This is an article about a long term issue and should only have historically significant developments. Zerotalk 15:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else have comments on this?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree the significance of this event to the overall Palestinian-Israeli conflict is negligible, it just happens to be in the news at the moment. Should be removed in full in my view. Dlv999 (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Something can be recent and significant too. Many sources describe this step in the peace talks. See France 24 which states "Israel on Thursday began handing over the bodies of 91 Palestinians killed over four decades of conflict in hopes of reviving moribund peace talks with the Palestinian Authority." This obviously is significant to the Present status of the Peace process. ' Ankh '. Morpork  23:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Gilad Shilat prisoner swap gets one sentence in the whole article. Despite receiving wall to wall coverage in the international media at the time, I think that is about right in the context of the overall arc of the Israel Palestine conflict. This return of bodies is a lot less significant than the prisoner swap and has received nowhere near that level of coverage. In the overall arc of the Israel-Palestine conflict the (the topic of this article) the episode is insignificant (Unless of course it does happen to lead to negotiations or some other development - but there is no indication at present that it has or will). Dlv999 (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This return of bodies was widely reported by many sources in the context of the peace process, and as such, it is relevant. Since despite all the previous negotiations, summits, accords etc, peace still seems an elusive chimera, arguably all these talks were 'not significant', nevertheless they detail the chronology of the peace process and this attempt at its revival should be included. ' Ankh '. Morpork  11:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They are important to the overall peace process because that is Reflected in RS. For instance there are copious academic journals that have published papers on Camp David and Taba, books have been written on the topic. This is obviously a different level of coverage than media reports of a recent (but overall insignificant) event in the conflict. In any case you are entitled to your opinion, but thus far you have been unable to persuade any other editors in the talk discussion to adopt your position. Until you are able to do so, you have to accept that on this issue consensus is against your proposed edit. Dlv999 (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you stating that "copious academic journals" and "books have been written on the topic" are required to render an event significant? You misleadingly insinuate that I am somehow proposing that this content is significant to the overall Israel Palestine conflict. I am not; instead I am stating that it is relevant to the current status of the peace negotiations.' Ankh '. Morpork  18:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Events like Camp David and Taba are still mentioned regularly in the press years later as well as continuing to be the subject of books and articles. I'll bet this transfer of bodies will hardly be mentioned at all by the end of this month. Zerotalk 13:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Polling Data
I have cut the second paragraph of polling data from the public opinion section as it is rather misrepresentative of the poll as a whole and cherry-picks results that fit with a certain POV. My initial response was to try to correct the errors and balance things a bit but once I had got as far as the text below it seemed clear the paragraph was spiralling out of control in terms of length. My suggestion would be to refer only to secondary sources that interpret the poll rather than the primary data in the poll itself as this is often contradictory and internally inconsistent (see, for instance, the various different levels of support for a two-state solution depending on which question is asked). Failing that (I'm currently looking for such sources) can we work out a framework as to which bits of data to include and how to include them?

This is how far I got before concluding that the project of drawing directly on the primary sources might be misguided ...
 * "A poll conducted in July 2011 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and fielded by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion in the West Bank and Gaza indicated a range of opinions on the peace process that varied according to the wording of the questions.  When asked if they "accept a two-state solution" 44% of respondents said yes and 52% said no.  However, when asked if they favoured or opposed a two-state solution in which "the border between Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually-agreed swaps of land to take account of realities on the ground so both sides can achieve a secure and just peace", 57% said yes and only 40% said no.  Between 52% and 66% of respondents indicated that they thought, “The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state”. According to the same poll, 65% preferred talks and 20% preferred violence. More than 70% of those polled believed a hadith, or saying, ascribed to Mohammed that is included as a clause of the Hamas Charter and states, “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews". The poll further reported that "72% of Palestinians endorsed the denial of Jewish history in Jerusalem, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage and 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools." .  At the same time, only 29% supported the killing of a settler family in Itamar and 22% supported rocket attacks on Israeli cities and civilians.  64% support seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state outside of the framework of negotiations with Israel and 85% believe that a settlement freeze should be a pre-requisite for continuing negotiations."
 * A secondary source was added which you removed, please explain.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  14:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A single secondary source was added in a way that left most of the key issues (esp. cherry-picked results) untouched. Perhaps you could engage in a discussion with me here about the best way of representing this data.  As it stands, the current paragraph is highly POV as it reports only those answers that portray Palestinians as intractable and opposed to peace.  For instance, the paragraph only reports the answer to one of the three questions concerning acceptance of a two-state solution and puts Palestinian support for this at 33%; it ignores the other two differently phrased questions on the same topic that put support for that solution at 44% and 57% respectively.  Equally, two different questions were asked about starting with two states and moving to one later on and only the answer with the highest percentage of support for this is reported (66% vs 52% for the unreported question).  Likewise, the answers that show a support for specific violent acts are reported whilst those that oppose such acts are left out.  In general, I am somewhat wary of using raw data from this particular poll given the variety of similar questions asked about the same fundamentals which provide a range of answers that are very hard to interpret.  The JP piece unfortunately doesn't provide any analysis and also cherry-picks answers without indicating that there were parallel questions (although it does so in a slightly more representative way than does our own current paragraph).  I have been unable to find any other media reports of this poll and no analyses so wonder whether it should really be considered notable?  Are there any guidelines for determining notability when it comes to polls?  Or guidelines relating to the use of data that has not been systematically analysed?
 * More generally, this poll is over a year old and there have been more recent polls from which we can take data if we want to be more up to date. What I think we need to work out first, though, is how to approach polling data in general and which questions to ask of it for the present article.  Should we really be reporting individual polls at all or would we be better off finding reports of broader polling trends?  The downside to that would be a lack of detail but on the upside we won't be trying to describe long-term public opinion by using snapshots from particular dates.  I'm fully open to persuasion on all these issues as it is not at all clear to me how best we should proceed; the only thing that seems plain is that the kind of approach taken in the previous text is not the way forward. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your initial reasoning was that it involved cherry-picking and "my suggestion would be to refer only to secondary sources that interpret the poll". I then provided a secondary source. Since you think the source is presenting a specific POV, what is your alternate proposal? I find that this source does provide some analysis. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  16:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Unfortunately you didn't provide a source that interpreted the results but, rather, one that simply reported the answers to selected questions and left out the answers to other questions (i.e. a source that cherry-picked the results).  Equally, I have been unable to find an interpretative analysis and actually can't find any reference to this poll anywhere other than the JPost article.  The Israel Project's own interpretation is rather less obviously POV than the previous version in the article or in the JPost piece as they cite the 44%/52% figure for and against the two-state solution rather than the 32%/62% figure but they also ignore the answer to their own question which found 57% support when specific details of the two states were included.  At the moment my personal preference re: this poll is to set it to one side as evidence on at least some of the questions (those that it provides multiple different answers for) unless we can find a scholarly interpretation that explains how to read these answers in the light of each other.  We could, I suppose, give all the results (which was my first thought) but I'm not sure this particular poll is notable enough to take up so much space when there seem to be plenty of other more recent data that is more or less in line with the figures given in the first paragraph.  Putting the support for the two-state solution aside, what are the elements in this poll that you  think need to be included, data for which can't be found in other polls or summaries of polling trends?
 * Some other recent poll results and trends that might be worth drawing on alongside or instead of this particular poll are reported at 1) http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=251311; 2) http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=270472; 3)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-sharnoff/palestinian-attitudes-toward-israel_b_1539840.html; 4) http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=257932; http://blogs.jpost.com/content/wishful-thinking-peace; 5) http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/239813#.T8zbV9UthVU; 6) http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=490378. JPost seems to be the goto source for poll results :-)  I'm not sure about the reliability of all the other sources but I suspect we could trace back the reported results to their origins.  Some of these also have the merits of reporting Israeli poll results, which are just as important as Palestinian views.  Basically, my view is that we should be looking to cobble something together from this sort of evidence rather than relying overmuch on single polls, especially when the results are difficult to interpret with clarity.  However, individual polls may be useful for specific questions. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, when I stopped using Google News search and just went back to the main Google I found quite a bit more on the particular poll at hand, including this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/palestinian-poll-disturbing-news-for-the-peace-process/2011/03/29/gIQAA0WeYI_blog.html, which is somewhat in-line with the JPost piece, although it makes more of an effort to emphasise the interpretative difficulties. I also found this, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/spinning-polls-demonization-Palestinians-5651?page=show, which is a pretty stinging critique of the poll and its interpretations.  He makes the important point that the design of the poll tends to channel certain answers.  Most of the question are not straightforward agree/disagree questions but, rather, choices between two sentences.  Pillar writes:
 * So what accounts for [these] results in the Greenberg poll ...? It is an artifact of how portions of the poll were constructed, especially in forcing people to choose between two different statements that, even if logical alternatives, are not alternatives in terms of the sentiment and emotion that drive their responses. For example, respondents were asked to choose between the statements “Israel has a permanent right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people” and “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state.” “All” the land? Does this mean the occupied territories seized by Israel in the 1967 war, which is the territorial issue that has been debated for many years and has been the subject of nearly every conversation about Palestinians getting land back, or does it mean something more than that? With or without that ambiguity, think about how the average Palestinian, facing the clipboard-wielding interviewer, will react when asked to identify with one or the other of two sentences, one of which speaks of someone else's national aspirations and the other of which speaks about his own people's national aspirations. Naturally most Palestinians will choose the latter, the one that talks about getting land back for a state of their own. This is a simple expression of sentiment and priorities, not some scheme about making a two-state solution a device for wiping out Israel. It is hard to think of a more tendentious way to construct a survey question to generate fodder for commentators trying to argue that Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist.
 * This is a particularly important point and should make us very wary about including only half the question (i.e. X% said they thought Y, instead of the accurate X% chose Y when given a choice between Y and Z). BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What specifically is POV, and not reported in secondary sources, and how would you like this rectified? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  11:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read what's written above the answers are there. However, to summarise the problems a) the results are cherry-picked in such a way as to present Palestinian public opinion in a certain negative light (I've noted above some of the information that is left out); b) the way the results are reported doesn't actually reflect the way the questions were asked in the poll; c) the poll itself is problematic in structure, not very amenable to interpretation and has had its neutrality questioned by at least one expert; d) the poll is not the most recent available so it is not clear why we should place so much weight on it in the article, especially as some of the cited results fall outside the trends depicted in other recent polls.  That'll do for starters.  On the basis of the level of your previous responses I won't waste my time by going into any more detail or by bringing up any further issues until you have meaningfully engaged with these points.  As to how to rectify the situation, I'm still trying to work out the best way to deal with poll results in general and would appreciate your response to some of the points I raised above. In the interim, given that the neutrality of this poll has been disputed, that it is a tricky poll to interpret due to the range and nature of questions, and that it is not the most recent, my current feeling is that it doesn't deserve a paragraph of its own here at all, that we should leave out the problematic general questions and perhaps use it only for the more direct detailed questions about approval of things such as kidnapping and rocket attacks that we may not have other recent data for. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The materiel is sourced. If you think adding more questions to address the issue of cherry-picking, or more explaining of the alternatives presented would improve the readers' understanding, do so. But don't remove sourced materiel. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not enough that the material be sourced. I have links to about a dozen opinion polls covering similar issues.  Shall I put them all in?  How about the poll that shows 30% of Israeli's feel hatred when they hear someone speaking Arabic?  There is clearly a discussion to be had about what results from what polls should be included and in what way.  Please feel free to engage in this discussion so we can work out the best way forward but let's not pretend that the simple fact of being sourced is the be-all and end-all. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia rule against the removal of sourced material. Being sourced is only one of many requirements that material must meet (including balance, weight, relevance, etc etc). Zerotalk 14:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a bit more info on the poll. First of all, the organisation that commissioned the poll is a pro-Israel advocacy group that has commissioned written guides for advocates of Israel to draw on in defending all Israeli government policies, including the settlements (see p. 60ff http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fmedia%2F70%2Ftip_report.pdf&date=2009-08-06). So, this is clearly a group with an agenda. With this in mind it is worth bearing in mind that the only media outlets to pick up on most of the poll results we currently mention are right-leaning operations. Indeed, CAMERA criticises the Guardian for not reporting these things (http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/07/guardian_cherry_picks_palestin.html with ref to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/16/palestine-authoirty-state-ramallah-un) and a blog piece on hotair.com (not an RS, I assume, but still confirmatory of the lack of search results turning up references to this poll in non-right-leaning organs) bemoans the fact that it was ignored by just about every news organisation outside Israel. Commentary Magazine also describes the poll as one “that you will not see covered in your daily paper” (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/15/new-poll-shows-real-cause-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/). The fact that the poll was not broadly covered in the media should provide us with some guidance as to how much weight and prominence to give to it.

Karl Vick, a correspondent for Time Magazine, provides a bit of further information in reporting the ‘muddled’ results of some aspects of the poll (http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/07/14/ex-clinton-pollster-finds-palestinians-disenchanted-with-hamas-iran-and-the-peace-process/), noting that the results for some of the questions, which we currently only give a cherry-picked inaccurate representation of, vary depending on the precise questions asked. He cites the designer of the poll as explaining the variety of answers by indicating that some of the questions probe what people ideally want while others probe what they would be willing to accept. This point is particularly important as it completely invalidates using any single answer to depict the Palestinian attitude towards the two-state solution. It also puts us in a position whereby it is questionable as to whether we can even use all three questions on this topic without a clear explanation of what each is meant to depict. I have been unable to find such an explanation as yet; the Time blog associates the low support number with ‘want’ and the medium support number with ‘will accept’ but doesn’t give any indication of how the highest support figure (57%) should be located on such a spectrum. This issue is sufficiently problematic that even JPost fluffs it, citing one figure in one article (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=229493) and then another in a (oddly duplicated) article a week later (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=230480).

Putting all these issues together with the fact that a) the methodology has been criticised by a notable scholar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pillar), and b) there are more recent polls to draw on, strongly suggests that we should skip this deeply problematic poll and just use something more accessible, straightforward and up-to-date. For the moment, though, I’m going to put in my fuller version of this poll’s results as the current version is so POV it is painful to see it there in the article. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your response is full of OR, irrelevant personal analysis of the questions and the results and makes inaccurate claims. Stan Greenberg is a well-recognised pollster and and this poll has been reported in RS. The poll was jointly commissioned with the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and not simply a pro-Israel advocacy group which you appear to be stating. The way to remedy a POV is to alter the language and supply content that was not included during the alleged "cherry- picking, instead you have opted to remove it entirely, make general POV assertions, and you still have not put forward an alternate version."<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  18:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OR applies to the article not the talk page. What you call my 'irrelevant personal analysis' is rooted in external sources (esp. Pillar's discussion).  The poll was not commissioned by PCPO but fielded by them (something different entirely - their guys asked the questions that were set by Greenberg and commissioned by TIP).  I note that you haven't responded to any of the issues I have raised with this poll.  You haven't responded to the appropriateness of using a poll that has had its neutrality questioned or given a reason why we should use this problematic poll rather than any other; rather you have chosen to repeatedly restore an unimproved POV text to the article itself.  Please try to respond to some of the specific points I raise about this particular poll and about the best way to present polling data here in general. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are constantly removing sources that discuss this poll. Stop it.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  18:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not true. I have provided a large number of such sources for discussion here.  Please respond to my points above. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is well known that the framing of the question in polls effects the result> That is true of every pool in every field, and if we were to use that argument as reason to exclude this poll, we'd have to go to thousands of articles and remove all mentions of all polls. Since it is true of ALL polls, it is hardly surprising that in this poll, variations of the question provided variations in the answers. What IS notable, IMO, is that no matter how the question was framed, a MAJORITY of the Palestinian respondents chose the (b) option, of a single state, and rejected by implication ANY formulation that would allow for 2 states. The only thing that changed was the margin by which the majority supported that option. That is what we should be noting.  You are trying to have it both ways, really - claiming on one hand that the poll results were not discussed in mainstream RSs , and at the same time point to exactly such discussions of the poll results in mainstream RSs in order to highlight criticism of its methodology. You really can't have it both ways. 98.79.94.25 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My own views on the best way to present polling data are evolving and I am looking for an interlocutor with whom to explore the best way forward. What we have here is just one poll among many and I would rather move beyond this single poll and talk about how we should approach polls in general so as to have a framework for writing a paragraph that is not representative of a single poll at all.  However, the previous presentation of this particular poll's data conveyed a blatant point of view.  I have no interest in replacing this POV with another one and I agree with you that the trends that can be established across the questions in this poll may well be worth including in some form.  However, I can't yet see an acceptable way to do that.  Giving all the details of the questions and answers makes the paragraph(s) far too long; giving only one figure amongst two or three lays the selection of the figure (whichever one it is) open to POV problems and frequently runs the risk of misrepresenting the rest of the poll (as does the selection of which figures to present).  A summary of the trends across the questions, such as the one you provide, is the most personally satisfying option but I'm pretty sure it will run afoul of SYNTH and OR policies (I would also note that I disagree with your analysis that majorities choosing the b. option implies a rejection of ANY formulation that would allow for two states - the respondents were only given the two options and did not have the chance to select from other possibilities and this needs to be taken alongside the answer that gave 57% support for a two-state solution when potential borders were described along the lines of the Clinton Parameters (page 30 if I remember correctly)).  What we really need is a professional or scholarly analysis but the only scholar I have found who discusses the poll questions its methodology.  So any lengthy treatment of this poll seems problematic.  I am all ears for ideas on how best to proceed with it, though.  Better, I think, is to put this aside for the moment and try to work out how best to integrate the large number of other polls we have access to and bring them all together with this one to show what the polling data looks like more broadly. If we do that then any problems with individual polls will be somewhat diluted by being included in a broader context.BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that other polls should be considered and indeed, should supplant existing content if they reflect changes in opinion. After all, this is the current status status section. However, I do not approve of personal analysis which seeks to disqualify the results of an accredited polling institute by making tenuous references to the commissioning party or embarking on a personal quest to invalidate the questions and methodology. Similarly, rendering something NPOV should not entail the removal of polling content or sources but should seek to contextualise the findings in a neutral way. As it stands, I shall seek to base this paragraph on how secondary sources report this poll.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  16:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ankh - Your most recent edit not only restores a POV cherry-picked representation of the poll that doesn't even match up precisely with the single secondary source you choose to draw on (see above discussion for all the others that you opt to ignore) but you have also chosen, unfathomably, to remove the data from a more recent and less problematic poll. Please stop this disruptive editing.  If you want to engage in a discussion then do so here but you have so far failed to engage with any of the points I have raised and nor have your edits addressed any of the issues discussed here. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You might also want to take into account this other report (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=230480) of the poll, also from the JPost, which I indicated above but you have so far ignored. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Current Issues

 * Attacks on diplomatic missions and Israelis abroad

The section is a list of attacks by Palestinian militants almost entirely between 1968 and 1986. There are two attacks on the list between 1986 and present - one in 1994 and one in 2002. I fail to see how this list is relevant to current issues in dispute. I think the list would be more appropriate in an article on the timeline to the conflict. Dlv999 (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I shall place them in a more suitable section such as "timeline of conflict" which you agree is appropriate.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  17:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a separate article Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, where this information would be suitable. You have added the list back to the "Current Issues" section, where you have agreed that it is unsuitable. This is 100% disruptive editing and I ask you to desist. Dlv999 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added content was sourced and relevant. No basis for its removal.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You want the discussion two sections up (8. Return of the Bodies). The material you just restored is not the material being discussed here. BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is the level of engagement with the talk page discussion editors are going to make prior to edit warring content, no wonder the topic area is in such a bad state. Dlv999 (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Did Arafat reject the offer?
The Camp David section states this. Arafat rejected this offer. However the source given Pressman, Jeremy (Fall 2003). "Visions in Collision - What Happened at Camp David and Taba". International Security 28 (2): 6.actually states the following, on Pg 15-16:

rejecting barak’s generous offer

The Israeli offer at Camp David, the Clinton plan, and the Israeli proposals at Taba all broke new ground for Israel and the United States. In each case, the Palestinian negotiators accepted some significant points and also broke new ground. They did not reject the Israeli/U.S. proposals in toto. At Camp David, the Israeli offer was unprecedented, but it was neither as generous nor as complete as Israel has since suggested. With the Clinton plan, Israeli and U.S. negotiators correctly noted that Palestinian officials had serious reservations about proposals for the West Bank, Palestinian refugees, and the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary. In explaining the failure of the diplomatic route, however, they did not highlight the significant Israeli reservations about the Clinton plan on many of the same issues. The Taba talks were serious, and important developments took place. The Palestinians did not reject another Israeli offer.

Therefore I have changed the above to Arafat did not accept this offer.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I provided a source that says rejected. --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * good work, i will add them both And we can record that some sources say reject, and some did not accept.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

didnt kissinger give a comment on the whole thing? any source we can use from him?77.53.83.107 (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 return of bodies
Any comments on this article (besides the fact that the name is extremely unhelpful to most readers). Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

-- [A question/suggestion] --

Add more information regarding Israeli assassination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations

Title is biased
The title "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is incredibly biased, as "conflict" implies some level of equality between the two sides, when in fact one is the ruling government and the other is a subject people (regardless of whether you think this arrangement is justified or not). The Palestinians have rocks, or hand-held rockets if they're lucky. Israel has tanks and fighter jets. "Israeli-Arab conflict" would be ok, as would "treatment of Palestinians by Israel" which is neutral, and doesn't necessarily imply such treatment is bad or unjustified. But the current title is like calling the Holocaust the "Nazi-Jewish conflict"!101.114.55.219 (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is unsound and your Holocaust analogy is ignorant bordering on racism. --GHcool (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You never made any counterargument to the reasoning why the title should be changed to improve the article. so it seems more like you are a jewish apologists and borders on racism of hatred towards non jews109.225.100.105 (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since both sides are shooting missiles at each other (missiles provided by the USA and Iran of course), there is clearly some element of conflict over there. And these allegations that Gaza is some sort of death camp overlook the care the Israelis took in calculating the required number of calories required to avoid starvation and then subtracting twelve percent. Hcobb (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a full moon or something? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, my bad.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/10/18/Israel-counted-calories-to-limit-Gaza-food/UPI-48451350543600/?spt=hs&or=tn If Israel were supplying all Gaza's food, the 2,575.5 tons for Gaza would require 170.4 truckloads a day, five days a week, the document said. But the document's authors deducted 68.6 truckloads to account for vegetables, fruit, milk and meat Gaza produced locally -- and deducted 13 truckloads to adjust for the "culture and experience" of Gazans' food consumption.


 * 13 divided by 170.4 is only eight percent below starvation and not twelve percent. I misremembered the (causally whitewashed from the article of course) figure. Sorry for the inconvenience. Hcobb (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's why so many of them died of starvation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank Allah the Hamas leaders were able to feed their troops by smuggling in some food in place of some of the Iranian/Sudanese missiles. Hcobb (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Stupid Israelis can't even starve people properly. By the way, Auschwitz also had one of the highest obesity levels in the world at the time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

They could starve jesus christ to death.Bearing false witness and shoting crucify him to the romans. And the people of ukraine in the Holodomor genocide of 1932. It litterly means forced starvation. So yes, some people the israelis could certainly starve to death.

This however is a sourced document about the whole event http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2012-10-17/gaza-siege-report-2279-calories-per-person-how-israel-made-sure-gaza-didnt-starve/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.186 (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"The drafters of the “red lines” document noted that the quantity of fruit and vegetables Gaza could produce for itself was expected to decline from 1,000 tons a day to 500 within a few months, due to the Israeli ban on bringing in seeds and other raw materials needed for agriculture, as well as the ban on exporting produce from the Strip. They predicted a similar fate for the poultry industry. But they didn’t propose any solution for this decline.

Robert Turner, UNRWA’s director of operations in the Gaza Strip, told Haaretz that he “read the draft with concern. If this reflects an authentic policy intended to cap food imports, this ‘red lines’ approach is contrary to humanitarian principles. If it is intended to prevent a humanitarian crisis by setting a minimum threshold, it has failed.”

A couple of statements from the source that I suggest we should add to the food crisis section debate109.225.103.114 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Link to 1956 Suez crisis
The link referring to the 1956 Suez crisis should instead link to the Suez crisis page, as the event is known as the latter, not the former. Cgyounk969 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's fixed. There is an automatic redirect from 1956 Suez Crisis to Suez Crisis. The reason 1956 Suez crisis appears as a red link is because the letter c is in lower rather than upper case. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased
The fact that the military occupation of Palestine by Israel is not mentioned in the lead is absolutely ridiculous.

Then quickly looking through the article there are titles like "Israeli security concerns" and "Palestinian violence outside of Israel" but no titles such as "Israeli violence outside of Palestine" or "Palestinian security concerns". Under these headings there is information on Palestinian rocket attacks - but no information on Israeli missile strikes, information on the percentage of Israelis who know someone injured in the conflict, but not the percentage of Palestinians who have lost someone, statements like "the motivations behind Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians are multiplex" but no statements questioning the reasons why Israeli settlers and military attack Palestinian civilians, etc,

"Palestinians claim at least the parts of the city which were not part of Israel prior to June 1967." (The city being Jerusalem) Such a sentence suggests that these parts are now part of Israel, this is not true, they are only now militarily occupied by Israel.

I hope someone can fix these obvious problems with the article. Sepsis II (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your criticisms of the article are valid and significant. If you would like to be successful in moving the article towards a neutral point of view, please familiarize yourself with our neutrality policy. Essentially our policy states that all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources on a topic should be represented in proportion to the prevalence of those views in RS. I think the issues you highlight are examples of the official Israeli perspective being given WP:UNDUE weight, ie it is overrepresented in the article when in sources it is actually the minority or extreme minority opinion in RS on many topics related to the IP conflict such as Jerusalem, settlements, borders of a proposed Palestinian state, legal status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, legal status of the separation barrier ect. Conversely the Palestinian perspective and that of the wider international community is often underrepresented when it contradicts that of the official Israeli position. Largely this is not a reflection of sources, but more a reflection of a systemic bias introduced because of opinions of editors (in my view). Dlv999 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made a few small edits to fix spelling and remove some blatant bias problems, though another editor has undone my work, apparently he likes bad English and biased articles?!? The bias I undone was a very common one in Israeli media, that Arabs are always attackers, while Jewish attacks are always in response.
 * While reading that section I was editing I also noticed some other problems, there is no mention of the why or when the British left Palestine and there is no information on the 44year and ongoing military occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel. I think both should be added, but I don't know myself how best to do so. Could someone also please help me start on fixing the problems I addressed in my first post? Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli recognition of Palestine?
What a fine article! I can only imagine the fighting that has gone on to reach some sort of balance. The chart of the number of killed on each side year is quite critical to understanding what is going on.

I am not clear on Israeli recognition of Palestine. Could someone add a short sentence to make clear whatever the Israeli postion is? I note the Arab League has twice offered to recognize Israel, (2002 and 2007 I think), perhaps that belongs here. --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your compliment. I added the statement you requested.  --GHcool (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

biased "statistics"
In the "Fatalities" section (which show "B'tselem" information - which is problematic since they were shown to be wrong/intentionally lie in almost any publishment they ever made) - the statistics shows number of deaths. This number ignores a huge issue - how many Israeli soldiers/Palestinian soldiers/Terrorists of each side died, and how many innocent civilians did. The surprising thing is that most of the Israeli killed are civilians, and most of the Palestinian killed are members of terror groups (and I include Hamas). I suggest either to add this information, or to remove these "statistics". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenro (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfair showing of causalities pictures between both sides.
The numbers of pictures showed are in favor of the Israeli side, under 1948 Palestinians causalities only one picture to represent compared to 4 in the Israeli section. You need to make sure displayed pictures of destruction,terrorism and killing are fair between both sides, if not in favor of the side who had more killings as per showed statistics ,which is the Palestinians.Thanks. (67.193.171.189 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Sorry for being direct, but the Arabs (which since 1967 calls themselves "Palestinians") are the more offensive side on this conflict and due to their violence and terror attacks there had been more Israeli injures than Palestinians. most of the attacks on this conflict were made at Israel's territory. whether by rockets or by terrorists. End of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.10.129 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "there had been more Israeli injures than Palestinians" and "most of the attacks on this conflict were made at Israel's territory" are factually inaccurate statements. If you would like to contribute to building an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, you will need to familiarize yourself with information published by reliable sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Camp David
I think this is an excellent page, managing to stay as neutral and balanced as is possible. I question the neutrality of this section, however:

'At Camp David, for example, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat an opportunity to establish an independent Palestinian State composed of 92% of the West Bank, Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem, and the entire Gaza Strip and dismantling of most settlements. Yasser Arafat rejected the proposal without providing a counter-offer. A subsequent settlement proposed by President Clinton offered Palestinian sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank but was similarly rejected.[139][140][141][142][unreliable source?][18]'

1) The sources are clearly not neutral, even if what is written is true 2) It should be made clear that there was never a concrete 'proposal' but rather take-it-or-leave it "bases" for further negotiation, rejected by Arafat 2) I think there needs to be a sentence on the possible justifications for rejecting the offers. 3) This is a very detailed article about the negotations that seems more reliable/neutral than the sources currently used: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/aug/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/?pagination=false

I'm hesitant to edit it myself on such a controversial issue and would be keen to see if others agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.107.219 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Using the words "terrorism", "terrorist" and "terror"
Careful using the words "terrorism", "terrorist" and "terror", these words tend to obscure the true motives and attributes of the attacker. Keep in mind that many Palestinian rebels see Israelis as criminal occupiers of stolen land. A terror attack implies that innocent people are being harmed, however Attackers do not normally recognize their victims as being innocent, and have some reason for killing them. Keep in mind that Palestinian fighters have less access to expensive, precision technology and strategies, and so could wind up killing more civilians unintentionally. For instance, describing the 9/11 Jet Airliner attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as a "terrorist attack" obscures the strategic value of attacking such targets, as well as obscures that the attackers may not have had access to expensive, precision technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miona152 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:LABEL is the guideline that governs the use of such terms. If you see instances that look inconsistent with that guidelines please fix them or raise the issue on the article talk page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Fighting age males
the article mentions that most of the casualties on the Palestinian side are FAM's anyone care to find out what that means for the Israeli army? as it varies by country and conflict greatly without more information this "addition" is useless a FAM can be from 8-80 or 18-35 a reference would be nice as this isn't supposed to be a place to speculate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.68.252 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

More sources needed
I've tagged the article as needing more references. The lack of sources is evident in the ″History″ section, but the entire page needs more referencing. I'll try to add more references in the future, time permitting.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the term "genocide"
It is often said that Israel commits or has committed genocide against the Palestinians. I noticed that the term "genocide" does not occur once in the article. I think the article should mention the debate surrounding the appropriateness of the term. I would like to make this edit in the future, if I get around to it. It would be my first major edit to a Wikipedia article and I know that this is a very high-profile article, so perhaps a more experienced editor could make the changes. macscam (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason genocide isn't mentioned is because no genocide is being committed and no reliable source says that it is. The Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines "genocide" as "the deliberate and systematic exterminization of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" (emphasis added). The term has been used inaccurately and with malicious intent to twist the facts about the reality of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This may burst the bubble of anti-Israel propagandists, but Israel does not implement forced labor of Arabs (as the Turks did to the Armenians and the Nazis did to Jews), send Arabs to concentration camps (as the Nazis did to the Jews), permit military roundups and execution of Arabs without due process of law (as the Nazis, Turks, and the Hutus of Rwanda did and the Janjaweed currently are doing in the Darfur region of Sudan), or any other action that could be described as the "systematic exterminization" of Arabs or Palestinians based solely on their "national, racial, political, or cultural" background.  --GHcool (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with GHcool that what happened and continues to happen is not genocide as described by him immediately above. If you look at Israel proper, it is probably more a systme of organised discrimination against the minority Arabs. On the other hand, if you take the view that the occupation in the West Bank has gone on for so long that for all intents and purposes it is now part of Isralel, then the situation is more than just discrimination; it is a system of apartheid. Israeli citizens are not allowed under Israeli law to go int Area A. There is a different system of law for Jews and Arabs. The Arabs living in Judea and Samaria (formerly known as the West Bank) do not vote in Israeli elections. One group of Jews of the diaspora take the view that both Gaza and the West bank are already part of Israel. The website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies in its section on the Geography of Israel has the following description of Israel's borders - http://www.nswjbd.org/Geography/default.aspx:-
 * Geography - Israel lies at the junction of three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe. It is bordered on the west by the Mediterranean Sea, by Lebanon and Syria to the north, Egypt to the south and Jordan to the east. The country is 470 km long, from north to south, and 135km wide at its widest point. It is about a third the size of Tasmania. No mention of either Gaza or the West Bank! Trahelliven (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't mean to start a debate here on the talk page about whether or not "genocide" or "apartheid" are or have occurred in Israel, even though "genocide" obviously hasn't, but I was really meaning to suggest that this debate should be addressed on the article page. I noticed that there is a page called Racism in the Palestinian territories that seems to address this style of anti-Israel discourse, although it omits discussion of the term genocide. Perhaps the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page should include some, if only brief, discussion about the debate regarding the merits of such terms. Or, if the Racism in the Palestinian territories is a more appropriate location for this information, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page should provide a more detailed introduction to the content of the Racism in the Palestinian territories page. However, I question whether the Racism in the Palestinian territories page is the best location for a discussion of anti-Israel terms such as "genocide" should be located because it is certainly not only Palestinians who use these terms. In general, I think it is important to make visible a discussion of the term "genocide" to show that it is not an appropriate term. I know it is obvious to anyone with a reasoned, fact-based perspective, but the truth is that such anti-Israel propaganda is very frequently used. I am very new to editing Wikipedia pages so please let me know if my naïvety shows. macscam (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "debate" over whether Israel is committing genocide is not included in this article because no such debate exists! --GHcool (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Refugees
Source:

The source covers the main issues of the Israel-Palestine conflict by using two academic specialists for each issue, one to cover the Israeli perspective and one to cover the Palestinian perspective. In the case of the refugee issue the academics are Joel Peters and Mohammed Dajani Daoudi.

Quoting from the section on the refugee issue:-
 * "In April 1993, Israel agreed that it would increase the annual quota of applications for the reunification of families displaced from the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 to 2000 per year, a fourfold increase on the previous figure." (Peters, pg 25)
 * "They also agreed to establish a mechanism for resolving the issue of those Palestinian refugees displaced from the West Bank and Gaza in the Six-Day War of 1967. Article XII [Of the 1993 Oslo Accords] stipulated that a Quadripartite Committee consisting of joint Palestinian–Jordanian–Egyptian–Israeli delegations would “decide by agreement on the modalities of admission of persons displaced form the West Bank and Gaza strip in 1967, together with the necessary measures to prevent disruption and disorder.”" (Peters, pg 26)
 * "Between 350,000 and 400,000 Palestinians were displaced during the 1967 Israeli–Arab war." (Dajani Daoudi, pg 37)
 * "Solutions for Palestinians displaced from the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 war were to be dealt with as a first step in the interim period [of the Oslo Accords]. For this purpose, the Declaration of Principles establishes a quadripartite continuing committee to decide on “the modalities of admission of persons displaced from the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.” Similar provisions for Palestinians who became refugees or displaced persons as a result of the 1967 occupation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza are found in the 1994 Gaza–Jericho Agreement and the 1995 Interim Agreement." (Dajani Daoudi, pg 43-44)

Therefore per published academic sources (and official agreements between the two parties such as the Oslo accords) the refugee issue as it relates to the Israel Palestine conflict includes refugees from the 1967 Six-Day War. Considering the amount of junk sources in the article and still being added to the article, it is disappointing to see high quality academic sources and related material removed without reference to policy/evidence, only an assertion of an editor's beliefs about the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Rights to Information on the following Issues - The 7.1 Bn Population on the Door
I've been following the Israel-Palestine conflict for a very long time, an international politics "classics"-issue, really. I have the following points for improving the article: The Airport Issue - Development, any/how much harassment issues? The Map Issue - Drawing the lines, no matter how much "swiss cheese", any (UN) jeep on ground for doing so soon? Development also... This is mostly for the Palestinian State... The West Bank - Gaza Communications - Status? Internet population? The Customs/Embargo Status - Status? The issues of freight: Allowing what freight? How much freight? Effectivity? Their healthy diet, fish, meat, milk and so on... The Beginning of the Political Status - Rather the 1977 with "The UNDPR, originally named Special Unit on Palestinian Rights in the United Nations Secretariat, was created by the UNGA Resolution 3240 of December 2, 1977: This for now. Cheers! (We are watching ;-) ) 109.189.66.216 (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Following the affirmation of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people and the establishment in 1975 of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the General Assembly recognized the need for creating an informed public opinion around the world in support of the achievement of those rights" in order "... to assist the Committee in its work and to prepare studies and publications on the issue and to promote maximum publicity for them." " rather than 1993 and NORWay...?

awurhortgwer;yagpirhpqwkbtralwrjthqp3ktrpawkrjgqegohjrbyaekoryjherjbesrjbperijbyerlkbjlyehylkejrhyeorituhrkylejtrjhlerjbyelrjyerithritweiutheorgyeriutgoieugtoiu4gterkblrekjthaglwiurthklwrjthlawiuthlaiwugyaelrkjthriutbaurta arhyawiurgtapweiugtpWIUGW;KEGR;AWIUTK;ERWJTBHGAWK;RJPWO EKH;ODEAfhsidtyesproiyhspeozrjg;slehyleirhnae'oriyjhs'etoihyj5oyjer'[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.188.106 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

to pluto: Peel recomendations accepted by the Jews. Why did you deleted it?
you say:Manipulation of sources. Benny Morris p.48 doesn't talk about secondary leaders. More, the synthax is not appropriate.

Concerning Benni Morris, which book? in his book "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" he says:
 * p. 11 "while the Zionist movement, after much agonising, accepted the principle of partition and the proposals as a basis for negotiation".
 * p. 49 "In the end, after bitter debate, the Congress equivocally approved –by a vote of 299 to 160 – the Peel recommendations as a basis for further negotiation."

Please be more specific concerning which portion of the content is supposedly wrong here. Ykantor (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of the Fatality Criticism Sub-Section
Problems: 1. No mention is made of Palestinian opinions of the subject. It is 100% Israeli opinions, which is obviously biased and unfair. The nationality of people- which would undoubtedly affect their opinion- is not given. In fact, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, which is referenced, is pro-Israeli according to its wiki page. There is absolutely no mention of this, a fact that could make people caution themselves against the obvious bias. 2. IDF is not identified- what does it stand for? Reference 240 says it means "Israel Defense Forces (IDF)." 3. The evidence and quotes given that the combatant/non-combatant ratios are false, and the male/female ratios are 'so high' (when they're only 1.3 and 3.2[1]) makes it seem that: 4. The article referenced, Elihu D. Richter and Yael Stein: Comments on B'Tselem's Civilian Casualty Estimates in Operation Cast Lead, has highly questionable language and attitudes in general. It continually states that the statistics reported by B’Tselem should have included notes that their statistics were reported by Palestine, with the heavy implication that they are false or questionable because of this. It is recommended that a moderator read this article carefully to determine if it is a valuable reference or if it is merely a biased article intent on discrediting B’Tselem.
 * The huge disproportion in deaths doesn't matter/disappears because they were combatants
 * The deaths can't be targeted (for example, police brutality that targets men would cause more male deaths)

[1] Scroll down here to the chart: http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=5980

Edit request on 15 September 2013
... Israel's role in the Christian-done Massacre of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps near Beirut on September 18th, 1982, ...

Larryzweig (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC) This is based on my own knowledge, but supported by

I find this avery important bit of information.

It would belong in the "History" section, 5th paragraph, 3 lines from the bottom, after "including" in the sentence:

"However, Israeli intervention in the civil war also led to unforeseen results, including small-scale conflict between Israel and Syria."

It would then read:

"However, Israeli intervention in the civil war also led to unforeseen results, including Israel's role in the Christian-done Massacre of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps near Beirut on September 18th, 1982,small-scale conflict between Israel and Syria.".

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. Wikipedia and you own knowledge are not reliable sources. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Add Peter Beinart source
141.218.36.199 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The American Jewish Cocoon September 26, 2013 New York Review of Books
 * This is an opinion piece by a political commentator. Could you explain where in the article you feel it should be used and for what purpose? GabrielF (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP is a blocked sock of a blocked editor. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I did find stranglehold on washington, which might be a reference to the jewish media control of congress by the Jewishlobby like other sources refer too Israeli Stranglehold Choking Washington It does describe Abraham foxman as a paranoid conspiratoricalist here in denial of it. or are you perhaps meaning the anti-non semites hating non jews trying to deny it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.219.2 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that gruesome photo needed?
Is that photo of the murder victim hanging upside down in front of Arafat's picture necessary? Surely, the point can be made with a less stomach-turning photo. I also wonder what happens if one of his family members sees it.

Cahpcc (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That guy appears to have all his organs intact so its relevantly not gruesome. A few months ago they killed suspected "collaborators" by dragging them alive on a motorcycle through the streets of Gaza. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested edits for casualties and losses
I've noticed that an article on my website war-memorial.net is quoted for the number on "casualties and losses" (footnote 1 - url: http://www.war-memorial.net/Israel-vs-Palestine-3.217) and would like to suggest some edits to the presentation of that data to make it more accurate. I apologize if I breach the code of conduct by suggesting an edit to an article that relates directly to my work. I certainly do not want to edit such information myself so I just leave the points below as a suggestion.


 * 1) I updated the number for fatalities in this conflict on Aug 15, 2013 to 16,697.
 * 2) The number represents fatalities and not casualties (which typically also includes those injured in battle).
 * 3) The number includes battle-related deaths and deaths because of onesided violence for the years 1948-2012. References to my sources can be found here: http://www.war-memorial.net/Israel-vs-Palestine-3.217#fn
 * 4) And there's a minor typo in the footnote itself: my name is Brunberg,Jon and not Brunberg,Joe.

Thanks! Brunberg (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiples Believing?
Refering to this edit can only individuals believe? Is group belief not what religion is? E.g Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah, whereas Jews believe that the messiah is yet to come. Are these not groups of people believing in one thing? Bojo1498 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You have to distinqish between the official teachings of an organisation and what the members of the organisation actually believe. Italy is overwhelmingly a Catholic? country, but it has one of the lowest birth reates in Europe. I do not believe that Italians have given sex away; rather the average Italian picks and chooses what official Catholic doctrine will be believed. and which he will not. If you asked some Italian boys or girl aged four or five whether they believed in artificial contraception, they would have no idea about what you are talking. Yet they are allegedly Catholics because they would have been baptised by a catholic priest, possibly a few weeks old.


 * How many Nazis actually believed Hitler's racial theories and how many joined the Party just to get on? Trahelliven (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that a better word would be "says" or similar, or maybe specify who in particular said that if it can be found. For your example, all Christians believe Jesus is the messiah, and if they don't, then they aren't Christian because that is basically the definition of being Christian. I'm sure some in the IDF don't agree in some way. It doesn't really matter though. All these words mean virtually the same thing. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Intro
It seems to me the intro is far too long - almost an article in itself. Surely it can be summarized in half or a third of the space? 90.221.113.241 (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

", including" vs "and"
Regarding this edit, as well as others, I think that ", including" makes more sense than "and". Any thoughts? Bojo1498 (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Israel claims East Jerusalem is part of Israel. The Palestinians claim otherwise. There is a dispute, thus the wording should be neutral. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ramaksoud2000 and would add that East Jerusalem was annexed, thus it is de jure and de facto part of Israel (at least as of this writing). --GHcool (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * East Jerusalem is seen as part of the West Bank by the overwhelming majority of global opinion. Israel take an opposing minority position that is almost universally rejected. Using "and" instead of "including" adopts the Israeli (minority) position over the global (majority) opinion and is thus inconsistent with out core neutrality policy. Dlv999 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a centralized discussion here by the way. I agree that an argument based on giving Israel's view the same weight as the view of the international community is not viable since it would produce a policy violation. Maybe a source survey is the way to go. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> Spotlight shines on Palestinian collaborators(Lihaas (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)).

Spoken Wikipedia article
Hello, all. I thought I'd introduce myself here since I'm recording an audio version of this article as part of the WP:SPEAK project. Another user requested it, and I agree that this article is an important one that deserves to be available to all people, including those who are visually impaired, have difficulty reading, or simply learn better by listening. English is the only language I know well, but I'm doing my best to research the pronunciation of unfamiliar names, places, etc. Please forgive and correct me if I mispronounce something. Advice and constructive criticism are more than welcome. Updates will come soon! Smilesplash (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you were to read through the talk page history, or just read the article, you will notice it to be highly bias and thus unworthly of a recording. I also still plan on doing major revisions to this very poor article soon. Sepsis II (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll try to keep an eye out for NPOV issues. I will be recording section by section, and can update my recordings whenever there are major changes to the article. Smilesplash (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Improving part of the Palestinian refugees section
This part was recently deleted because "none of those were arguments, just a list of statements about refugees." I don't think it should be completely deleted, and propose that we work together to distill it into a concise list of Israel's arguments, so that we can include it alongside the arguments in favor of the right of return. The article on Palestinian right of return has already developed sections for "Supporters' Viewpoints" and "Objectors' Viewpoints," which we can use as a model here, perhaps. Smilesplash (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It wasn't deleted, just shortened down to the only argument present. I read through the other article, it too seems to be filled with non-arguments just fallacies like "because Jews migrated to Israel, Palestinians have no right to return to Israel" or "because when the Palestinians fled the massacres, they chose to become refugees, therefore they have no right to return to their homes" or "because the countries the refugees fled to didn't make them citizens, they don't have the right to return", etc. Sepsis II (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the bullet point style is particularly useful. I think it should be written in paragraphs like the rest of the article. Dlv999 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ICT study
So we have an Israeli study reported on by an Israeli paper stating that "The study asserts that if there had been random, indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations and the distribution of the casualties' demographics was likewise as random, then there would be an even demographic split, with 50% of the casualties being men and 50% of the casualties being women. However, in actuality, 78% of those killed were men and only 22% were women." This of course results in our article stating "this suggests that large numbers of Palestinian men and teenaged boys made a choice to confront Israeli forces". Any mention that even the bias study points out that most "non-combatant" Israeli casualties were male as well? Of course not. I see no benefit to covering this bias reporting of a bias study, hence I'll delete it. Sepsis II (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Israeli incitement
As Nishidani points out having a section called Palestinian incitement without Israeli incitement is unbalanced. I have limited time to write, but I thought this was a great source. We should also include mention of those politicians and rabbis who preach violence and racism or praise Baruch Goldstein. Sepsis II (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV question
In the article, when speaking of peace negotiations, we currently only speak of what the Palestinians would have left and I find this very odd. When I read articles on historic wars the focus is on the land that changes hands, not on what the losing side was allowed to keep.
 * 1) )Israel offered Palestine X% of the West Bank, and autonomy over parts of East Jerusalem in exchange for peace.
 * 2) )Israel offered peace in exchange for Y% of the West Bank and soverignty over most of East Jerusalem.

I feel like 1) makes it seem like Israel is giving something when the opposite is true. 2) Simply states what the Israelis want in exchange for peace. Agree, disagree? Sepsis II (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Distinct bias in picture subjects
Palestinian deaths are between five and six times greater than Israeli deaths but there are pictures of two Israeli casualties and no pictures of Palestinian casualties.

There is a picture of the Shebab throwing stones at Bil'in but no picture anywhere of IDF violence against Palestinians.

There are vivid pictures of the results of suicide bombers and just one picture of a demolished Palestinian house (with no details e.g. who by? how much notice? how many people made homeless? why? who pays e.g. the victims.)

Why are there no pictures (for example) of a dismembered DIME bomb casualty or the blackened body of an infant burned by white phosphorus?

This cannot be called a neutral perspective on the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kombo the mzungu (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed the same thing a few days ago.
 * Not sure what the best way to deal with this is. What we need to avoid is some kind of competitive picture adding. I'll ask at one of the forums for advice.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do agree that the balance seems a bit off here (it doesn't appear to be 50:50, much less in proportion to the casualties). However, is this a function of the relative availability of creative commons-licensed images? - the Israeli Defence Force (and other government agencies?) has been issuing images under CC licenses and I'm not sure if equivalent images are available for Palestinian areas. What images are you both proposing to add/swap in? Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There are more than enough pictures at commons:Category:Casualties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including all its subpages) to balance out the photos in this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which ones exactly are you proposing to add/swap in? Talking about article images in the abstract is not very productive :) Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The article currently contains no photos of the Israeli checkpoints, towers, barriers, IDF harassment of Palestinians, armoured raids, naval raids, price tag attacks, or Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What photos of those topics in Commons do you propose to add/swap in? (please be precise). Does Commons even have photos of all those topics? - if not, your comment regarding them is not actionable. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a typo
"soveignty" should be "sovereignty" in "no soveignty over"

Daniel Fonseca (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Image Bias
Why aren't there any images of wounded or killed Palestinian civilians, even though there are two images of wounded Israeli civilians? The overall civ. casualty count for Palestianians is seven-fold higher than the Israelis? Are you deliberately trying to mislead the readers with these emotionally provocative photographs?JDiala (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you started this new thread rather than participating in the recent thread above? Also, what photos from Wikimedia Commons are you proposing to add/swap in to this article? (please be precise). Generic complaints aren't very helpful to improving articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, hence an image depicting a wounded palestinian child was added from Wikimedia Commons.Alperyasar (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Fatalities "on both sides"
"with a large number of fatalities in civilian population on both sides"

Sorry, but this reads just ridiculous, as if "both sides" had suffered a roughly equal number of casualties. Change it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.108.54 (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The conflict is treated as neutral, but there is more disturbing truth under the cover.
This conflict has been in Israel's favor from the beginning. The reason for Israel attacking the Egyptian Army was that they saw it as an opportunity, Egyptian army in Sinai was not prepared for war at all. Palestine did not & does not have an army which clearly sends a loud message as to the bombing by Israel. Palestinians in Israel are treated differently, the Israel Jews are more privileged than the Palestinians in Israel; this is something totally ignored in your article. Please refer to the book "General's Son" by Miko Peled to get the accurate picture from 1947 onwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.143.30 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, or vice versa
In the lead we say "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has formed the core part of the wider Arab–Israeli conflict." And in the info box we say "Part of the Arab–Israeli conflict".

However in the first paragraph of the main body we say "The collision between those two forces in southern Levant and the emergence of Palestinian nationalism in the 1920s eventually escalated into the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 1947, and expanded into the wider Arab-Israeli conflict later on".

So which is the "main article" and which is the "sub-article"? We should be clear to readers which is the "entry" article for this wide and complex topic.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this more, the whole structure we have with the two separate articles is very confusing to a new reader. Does anyone have any examples of WP:RS describing the topic in two separate sections like this? Most scholars I have read do not separate the two topics. For example:
 * The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories, Neil Caplan: "The conflict analyzed in these pages has been described variously as the “Jewish–Arab” conflict, the “Zionist–Arab” conflict, the “Arab–Israeli” conflict, and the “Israeli–Palestinian” conflict.... The “Arab–Israeli” conflict—perhaps the most commonly used of all these various titles—is in many ways an apt name for the territorial and political dispute since 1948 between the state of Israel, on the one hand, and the twenty or so states that consider themselves to be Arab, on the other.... [However,] it may lead to the erroneous notion that the conflict began in 1948 with the creation of Israel, ignoring at least half a century of a pre-existing Zionist–Arab and Zionist–Palestinian dispute. Also misleading is the notion that the Arab world is a single entity that displays uniform attitudes and policies vis-à-vis Jews, Zionism, and/or Israel... it is misleading to suggest that the Arabs, as a single unit, constitute one of the two antagonists in the Arab–Israeli conflict.... In this book we retain the latter two ways of naming the conflict, using the common and convenient Arab–Israeli conflict to denote and include its wider regional dimensions, while referring to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict when focusing on its core and its two main protagonists. This way of defining the conflict and its protagonists, it should be pointed out, is hotly challenged by some, especially right-wing Israelis and Zionists."
 * Israel/Palestine, Alan Dowty: "There is another problem with the label. Although the clash between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs is the core of the conflict, the involvement of neighboring Arab states after the emergence of Israel in 1948 expanded the confrontation into an "Arab-Israeli" conflict... The label "Arab-Israeli conflict" is still more common, even though Palestinians have reclaimed their previous position as Israel's major antagonists, and Arab states have to some extent disengaged (Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel). Given this re-emergence of the core conflict and the Palestinians as core actors, we will focus on "Israel/Palestine," while not overlooking the historical importance and current role of Arab nations."
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting points. I think the Arab-Israeli conflict consists of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, meaning the I/P conflict is indeed "Part of the Arab–Israeli conflict". That's because of simple logic: The I/P conflict is ultimately Israel's conflict with those who are today considered "Palestinians", and these Palestinians are of course Arabs. At the same time, the Arab-Israeli conflict is Israel's conflict with the Arab world and Arab people, and these two of course include Palestinians - Palestinians are Arabs/part of the Arab world and are on the same "side" as them, so the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is part of the larger Arab-Israeli conflict, not the opposite. Clashes between Jews and Arabs had begun before Israel came into existence (and before today's Palestinians were named as such), though I don't know if this is too relevant here. Anyway, is there any suggestion you'd like to make? Shalom11111 (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I summarise from your post above that you believe that "Arab-Israeli conflict" is the appropriate description for the top-level article on this overall subject. A reasonable view, which many scholars agree with (I have certain misgivings, along the lines of those described in the two quotes above, but let's ignore that for now). The issue is that the article Arab-Israeli conflict is not currently providing a full overview of the conflict, but rather it is primarily a narrow description of the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars.
 * My suggestion is that we desperately need an "Israel / Palestine 101" article, with whatever title we can agree. At the moment, a reader coming to wikipedia to get a high-level overview of "what's all the fighting in that area of the world about" has no obvious entry-level place to start. Maybe implicitly I am suggesting a merge of the two main articles, but i'm not sure we would be able to get consensus on what the combined name should be.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you summarized my point correctly. The article Arab-Israeli conflict does look like it's missing a short coverage of the I/P conflict, so yes some information could be added to it. I see what you mean by that "101 guide book" you think is "desperately" needed. It's a nice idea which I wouldn't have thought about, and since the actual two articles (I/P and A/I conflict) will obviously never be merged, an additional article that would cover important key points and events is possible. Just like other timelines, a timeline of the conflict of Jews/Israel-Arabs/Palestinians is not a bad option. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are already timelines - Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict etc, not including numerous articles on wars, insurgencies, operations and incidents. More timelines are entirely redundant and confusing.GreyShark (dibra) 16:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Shalom11111, i agree that definitely the IP conflict is a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the reason is not same as yours. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a conflict between State of Israel and the Palestinian entity (state of authority), which holds a seat in the Arab League. State of Israel has also been in general conflict with the whole Arab League (of which Palestine is part of) until Egypt signed peace in 1979 (for which it was temporarily excluded from the League), peace with PLO in 1993 and peace with Jordan in 1994. Correct for today, the Arab League (including Palestine) is in semi-peace with Israel. There is a Palestinian entity in Gaza under Hamas which doesn't hold the seat in Arab League, so Israel-Gaza conflict even though ongoing isn't exactly part of the Arab League conflict vs. Israel. Further, Syria is suspended from the Arab League since 2012, so technically if something develops between Israel and Syria+Hezbollah, this is not a part of Israel-Arab League conflict, but of Iran-Israel proxy conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 16:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Greyshark, can you provide any RS to support your point re the Arab League? I think this is factually incorrect. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Palestinian struggle is an integral part of the Arab League charter since its very inception in 1944, see and .GreyShark (dibra) 08:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see any references to 1944 or "charter" in those links. Can you provide a more specific source for your statement "State of Israel has also been in general conflict with the whole Arab League"? Otherwise this looks like OR. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles

Somehow, I missed this article over the years and had always refereed to the Arab-Israeli conflict article which seems to have more updated information. Considering the "talk" information above, I think the articles should be merged and a very brief section could explain the "naming" problem. Some sections, like the "Peace Process", could briefly outlined and details should be put into separate articles. 70.193.1.44 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Useful source of information for a version of this article that is less Israeli-biased.
This is a useful source of information that should be used to edit this article: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

It is useful because it is objective and moderate; it is critical of Zionism without being anti-semitic and it presents a view of the facts that is much fairer and more honest towards Palestinians despite the website being run (admittedly) by jewish writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.179.89 (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Casualties
Is there any reason why the casualty count for this conflict is given as a total of both sides?

Should it not show Israeli casualties on the left and Palestinian casualties on the right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.189.54 (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed every other conflict on Wikipedia lists casualties by side. Displaying the total number of casualties is (voluntarily?) misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ark Kive (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Per the discussion above at, I propose merging these two articles. As suggested by the IP, we can have a short section describing the problems with naming the conflict. The combined article will act as wikipedia's "parent article" or "entry article" for all sub-topics on the conflict. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not opining on which should be the parent article for now; if there is consensus to combine the articles we can agree what the combined name should be thereafter. An RFC is below. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and "Arab-Israeli conflict" be merged?
Should "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and "Arab-Israeli conflict" be merged to create a single entry-level article for the subject? Please do not comment (for now) on what the combined name should be. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * rather against. I think there is clear distinction between both conflicts. There Arab-Israeli conflict lasted from 1948 to 1973 with peace agreements in 1980 and 1994. It was mainly a inter-states conflicts. The war of 2006 with Lebanon was more a war between Israeli and Hizbollah. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict occured mainly in 1948 and shifted to a guerilla/terrorism conflict from 1965 to 1982 and then became very complex with both intifadas and then with the evacuation of Gaza and the different "confrontations" between Hamas and Tsahal. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My main observation is that sources outside wikipedia do not try to make this distinction. I did a quick googlebooks search for Arab-Israel conflict, and all the books I have found analyse the topic including both subjects, not just 48-73 (for example, see, , , ). Oncenawhile (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see this as using the consensus fallacy. What is of import is whether or not the mass of literature has a consensus that considers the two topics to be synonymous. Not related (e.g., topic and subtopic), not dependent, not similar, but synonymous. Nothing I can see says that even those authors make that argument, much less that there is a consensus about it in the literature. From what I can tell, those authors treat the topics as having a topic/subtopic relationship. I should also note that this is not a simple fact-finding exercise, such as determining WP:COMMONNAME; it requires much more in-depth analysis. Int21h (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I am not making my rationale very clear. Of course one can consider the Arab World side of the conflict separately to the local side of the conflict. But the core question is does it make any sense to do so? I therefore agree with you that this is not a question of WP:COMMONNAME.
 * So my thoughts on the question of whether it makes any sense to draw this division between wider region and local region, without any article bringing the two together, are:
 * 1. Do a meaningful number of WP:RS draw the same distinction in the way they approach explaining the conflict?
 * I have not seen any that do.
 * 2. Does it help a reader understand the conflict?
 * I think definitely no, as it is confusing to read two parallel articles when almost all readers just want a simple 101 description
 * 3. Are we as editors able to maintain this distinction in the articles?
 * I think we have failed to do so - if you read both articles it is clear that the dividing line between the two topics is blurred in many places
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am not very good at geography, but AFAIK the Arab world is not the same as Palestine. Quite the contrary, I believe it is much, much larger. There are plenty of topics specific to Palestine and Israel and plenty of topics general to all Arab countries and Israel. Subtopic, maybe, the same, no. Int21h (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Pluto2012. Both are related but both are distinct in geographic focus, nature of the conflict, and timeline. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lean Oppose My amateurish observation is that it's analogous to having an article for the Eastern Front spun off from World War II. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a big chunk of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has its own nuances and particulars that should perhaps warrant its own article. User:QiwXAatUnL
 * Hmm. To my mind the problem with that analogy is that our article defines the Arab-Israeli conflict as beginning in 1948. However the conflict started decades beforehand, as shown by a few examples of third party timelines: BBC News, Guardian, Council on Foreign Relations, Wall Street Journal. All of them begin around the beginning of the 20th century, c. 50 years before 1948. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A succinct summary is the first paragraph on this page starting "It has often been pointed out". Oncenawhile (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Each article is quite large enough to function on its own, and the change appears to be quite unnecessary. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose They are of different backgrounds, and for comprehensiveness' sake, separating them is better for the coverage of the two sagas, which are only remotely related.Forbidden User (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per earlier mentioned "Eastern Front" analogue. - Anonimski (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Palestinian conflict is distinctive enough in it's own right to stand on its own feet.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I am definitely against a merging by all the above good arguments. But the article seems to be dying out since the history section ends at 2012. Editing of this section by some sufficiently knowledgable person to cover the recent escalation of the conflict is highly desirable. Kai Neergård (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Map is incorrect -- Gaza has not been "occupied" by Israel since 2005.
The map states -- as if it were undisputed! -- that Gaza has been occupied by Israel since 1967. That's false. Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza in 2005. Please remove the words "occupied since 1967" from the map.
 * Agreed, and then please add "blockaded." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.148.213 (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is inaccurate. Most international institutions consider Israel to still be the occupying power, owing to the fact that it maintains effective control over the region via the borders, coastline and airspace. JDiala (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be added to the article.
[unsigned]


 * I did not post it, but I don't think it is warranted.Forbidden User (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been here since Sept. 2012, apparently a dead issue, and overdue to be archived away. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to use all this fancy Wiki editing stuff, but it's definitely warranted. The first source I checked was citation [140], which led me to

This article: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-palestinians-and-the-right-of-return/

By this author: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/pods-author/efraim-karsh/

Who is paid by this person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Hertog

Who is a multimillionaire who gives money and other support to a lot of causes, including a variety of pro-Israel, pro-Zionist groups and organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.110.254 (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Majority of Palestinians do not desire 2 state solution; poll
Majority of Palestinians desire a 1 state solution, or perhaps a "0 state solution."



There's a lot of partisan sources referencing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SisterFunny (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is part of the core of the Israel lobby in the United States, not a reliable source. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Casualties
The criticism of casualties section only gives voice to anti-Palestine groups and their disingenuous statements; will someone add the numerous actual reasons why so many male Palestinians are killed by Israelis. The reasons include; men being relied upon by their families to engage in risky activities such as gathering supplies and information and finding family members during sieges; men more likely to work as journalists, paramedics, politicians, police officers, fishers, etc., all regularly targeted for killing by Israelis; male children more likely to play outside during sieges such as the four boys blown apart by Israelis on a Gaza beach this summer; Israeli troops more likely to shoot men as being "possible militants",and that men are more likely to protest the military occupation, and whether peacefully by marching or by throwing symbolic rocks at armored tanks, they are more likely to be killed by Israelis. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015
س

27.107.176.100 (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 12:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits. This article is misleading.
"With the outcome of the First World War, the relations between Zionism and the Arab national movement seemed to be potentially friendly, and the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement created a framework for both aspirations to coexist on former Ottoman Empire's territories. However, with the defeat and dissolution of the Arab Kingdom of Syria in July 1920 following the Franco-Syrian War, a crisis fell upon the Damascus-based Arab national movement. The return of several hard-line Palestinian Arab nationalists, under the emerging leadership of Haj Amin al-Husseini, from Damascus to Mandatory Palestine marked the beginning of Palestinian Arab nationalist struggle towards establishment of a national home for Arabs of Palestine"

^^ Please edit this statement, it is misleading. The Arab movement was based on splitting away from the Ottoman Empire, not on simply "the establishment of a national home for arabs of Palestine". The Arab empire was to included all Arab lands (including today's Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine etc.) During WWI Britain promised the land to the Arab rebel leadership under the Belfort agreement in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, if they helped Britain to defeat the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Correspondence). However when the war was finished, Britain and France annexed the land and split it among themselves. This needs to be explained in this summary. It is misleading to pretend that arabs were simply violently revolting without explaining the context.

"In the early 1930s, the Arab national struggle in Palestine had drawn many Arab nationalist militants from across the Middle East, most notably Sheikh Izaddin al-Qassam from Syria, who established the Black Hand militant group and had prepared the grounds for the 1936 Arab revolt. Following, the death of al-Qassam at the hands of the British in late 1935, the tensions erupted in 1936 into the Arab general strike and general boycott. The strike soon deteriorated into violence and the bloody revolt against the British and the Jews.[20] In the first wave of organized violence, lasting until early 1937, much of the Arab gangs were defeated by the British and a forced expulsion of much of the Arab leadership was performed."

^ this violence was not targeted specifically towards jews, it was targeted towards Britain occupation. This is again misleading, Arab revolts since 1920 have been trying to take over lands which were promised to them and then annexed. Please clarify the history in this article.

http://www.merip.org/primer-palestine-israel-arab-israeli-conflict-new -- probably the best source you could use.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.31.211.146 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120309133428/http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/2011-07_PALESTINIAN_SURVEY_FQ.PDF to http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/2011-07_PALESTINIAN_SURVEY_FQ.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120924111038/http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391629&a=KArticle&aid=1079978882333 to http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391629&a=KArticle&aid=1079978882333

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 06:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Immidiate removal of the map used in the infobox is urgent.
This map doesn't show what it suggest and enlarge the lands of the PNA in a misleading way. The map needs to be removed and replaced ASAP. A better map would be this: --Bolter21 21:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)