Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 4

Suggestions for rewrite of this page
IMHO, it is time for a rewrite of this page. It focuses too heavily on some events and is brief on some other. And it has grown too long. Maybe it can be restructured like the page Sweden where there is only a brief description for each topic and a "Main article: xxx" link? Whos with me?? BL 19:21, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why don't you put together a draft under a temporary name? I will help but I don't have time to take the lead. I think that it is necessary to get a new version more or less complete before replacing the current version. -- zero 15:23, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

True dat! I will do if someone else says its a good idea so I know that I wont waste my time? BL 08:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Recommend removal of the Armenian link
Here are a couple of Internet sources on the limited recent involvement of Armenian interests in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

In my opinion, the Armenian interest is small and has no significance for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alternatively, if the Armenian ethnic interest is significant, then the article should include at least a paragraph explaining the relevance of the Armenian ethinic interest in the conflict.

Accordingly, I suggest that the Armenian link should be removed from the Ethnicity section of the article. Rednblu 03:34, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's going to be really hard to have a useful article on a conflict between Israel or Israelis (on the one hand) and Palestine or Palestinians (on the other hand) -- without a clear definition of who the "Palestinians" are. Are Palestinians merely "Arab residents of Palestine who are neither Jordanian citizens nor Israeli citizens"? Are Palestinians a non-Arab ethnic group? Are they distinct from Arabs in the same way that the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey are distinct? Are Palestinians an Arab ethnic group? (Like the French are a western European people?)

I think the term Arab-Israeli conflict is unambiguous and makes for a neutral article title. I don't think the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" has a neutral title. --Uncle Ed 15:05, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree. There are way too many flamewars in various places on the web over whether the term "Palestinian" is even a valid one... It just makes more sense to have it as "Arab-Israeli". -James 11:46 PM CST, 1/20/04

The costs of excising the word 'palestinian' are greater than the benifits. While it is less controversial to say 'arab' (nobody disagrees that they are arabs) It seems very anti-palestinian to disenfranchise them in this way. The whole world pretty much recognizes that palestine was once a country and that the peoples of that now destroyed country are refugees. To say that there is no such thing as palestinians seems like denying anything is wrong. I could agree with some text clearly defining the word 'Palestinian' for the purposes of this article, if it wasn't too involved. I've heard alot of rhetoric to the tune of 'there's no such thing as palestine.' Now this is just me, but it seems like a very ugly attempt to play down their right to any land. Agreeing with this sentiment would do worlds more harm than good. Also, from a pragmatic point of view, we already hear about palestinians day in and day out. a person coming to wikipedia to read about this conflict is probably going to search for "israel palestine" or some such. it'd be nice to have them find the page ;) --fringD 02:00 PM (-7), 2/26/2004

Objectivity of this article
It may be impossible to produce an article that is wholly objective about this topic. It is certainly not possible to produce one that satisfies everyone. This article could be improved by giving references for some of the more dubious figures and by prioritizing the more important events and factors. Overall it is a reasonable article. An alternative summary that also attempts to be balanced is at http:/www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Ami Isseroff, MidEastWeb for Coexistence www.mideastweb.org

Why not delete?
It may be better not to have an article on the IvP conflict in particular. There's too much emotion, too much...heat. -Penta 09:28, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is amusing (though sad) to see some more interested in maintaining their views, then sharing them and examining them in the NPOV process. Thanks to all who have and contribute to this article. This, I hope, will create peace, tolerance, and understand. P.T. Waugh MA Clinical Psychology

discussion of Zionism in article.
One thing that has bothered me for a long time about this article is the limited discussion of the zionist movement, esp. the pre-state movement. The word "Zionism" doesn't come up until the see-also's. A reader could easily believe from this article that Balfour was the first person with the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Certainly, they'd have no idea what the Zionist movement was or is and it's role in the conflict. DanKeshet

The article "The Arab and Jewish refugee situation" is a piece of advocacy based on the unstated premise that Israel belongs to Jews and that all the other people who have lived there for centuries should go elsewhere.


 * with a growing Jewish minority (approaching 10%)

Not sure you can/should say that. Even if the Jewish minority grew in absolute numbers, it did, at that time afaik, shrink in relation to the total population. BL 03:47, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * The Jewish fraction went up and down but generally up, so the statement is ok I think. --Zero 04:39, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of Palestinian views of the peace process
Article and comments on this topic may be found here:
 * Palestinian views of the peace process''
 * Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process''

The Intro

 * While the refugee issue has always been a part of the conflict, the territories issue was introduced into it in 1967 after the Six day war. Other conflicts related to these two have also sprung up. It is those two issues that both parties agree must be solved before a just and lasting peace can be established.

Moved to Talk page.
 * 1) I've added the 3rd issue: "To a varying degree by Jews and Arabs, refusing the legitimacy of the other side."
 * 2) The para. above is factually inaccurate. Refugees were part of the conflict since the 1920s? (I am starting from Jerusalem, Jaffa & Hebron massacres. The article mentions 1880s, whis is another good place to start - BILU 1882, etc.)
 * 3) There's never been "Palestinian territories". They were under occupation before 1967 as well. So let's either acknowledge it is Jewish occupation that made all the difference or keep politically correct silence. Humus sapiens 11:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The 10 Dec 2003 edits
I switched "terrorism " by the Arabs back to the previous "acts of violence" because things like stone throwing and beatings are violent but not terrorist. Terrorism is not sufficiently inclusive. "Zionists and Palestinians" back to "Jews and Arabs". This was before partition and both Jews and Arabs were Palestinians at that time, so the wording I reverted implied that Zionists were fighting Jews as well as Arabs to a greater extent than happened (though it did happen to some degree, with the mainstream Jews opposing the Jewish terrorist groups). Jamesday 12:08, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * This article is not about throwing stones. Shame on you for saying so. This is about the entire israeli-Palestinian conflict; just read the title! Since when is mass murdering people in an airport terminal "throwing stones"?  Since when is lauching dozens of explosive rockets "throwing stones"?  Since when is blowing up a bus with dozens of civilians "throwing stones"?  Your hatred of Israelies must be relly intense to be so disingenuous. RK

Perhaps you might want to look at the edit I was referring to, in the paragraph about "During the years 1936-1939 there was an upsurge in militant Arab nationalism that later became known as the "Great Uprising"". Were mass murders in airport terminals or blowing up of busses containing dozens of civilians the majority of violent acts by Arabs during the period 1936 to 1939? Were there any acts (like throwing stones) which are not normally included in the meaning of the word terrorism but are included in "acts of violence"? "Acts of violence" includes everything from throwing stones through rockets and blowing up busses, airports and hotels. That's why I reverted from terrorism to the more inclusive term which was there before. Jamesday 04:21, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I removed the word terrorism as well, since it was put back. Terrorism is one of the two Words to avoid, although I doubt the partisans of Zionist occupation of the West Bank here care much about that. Considering that this was all set off by the 1967 Zionist occupation of the West Bank, with the latest intifada starting when Sharon went to the Temple Mount in a purposeful attempt to start a conflict, for which which multiple Palestinians have been killed for every Israeli, it is hard to believe that it is the occupied Palestinians being called the terrorists. -- Lancemurdoch 19:27, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Some stuff:

BL 22:10, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jerusalem is an issue. But since the part of Jerusalem (East Jerusalem) that is the issue is on the West Bank. Mentioning it twice becomes redundant. Unless WP is recognizing Israel's annexation of it, and we aren't, right?
 * Yes, you have to say "occupied territories" everytime you speak about the West Bank and Gaza (which btw was much larger 50 years ago). The Occupied Territories is the most commonly used name.
 * 1) "to at least some extent, whcih varies." <- What does that mean?


 * 1) Jerusalem is an independent issue because it was not allocated to either state by the partition, so even if Israel leaves the whole of the West Bank (as delineated by the partition plan, not the ceasefire line), Jerusalem remains an issue unless it's under international administration. We "recognise" the occupation of Jerusalem as a fact and we document the way "recognition" in a political sense is regarded. We don't bless or condemn it - just document it.
 * 2) Remember that the area south of Lebanon is also occupied territory, part of the land allocated to the Arab state, so it's not just a question of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Though the Arabs will probably have to give up that land for peace. However, Occupied Territories with capital letters probably has to be used to refer just to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, even though the borders of those terriotories have varied. Jamesday 02:55, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"to at least some extent, which varies" is typo meaning that the borders and the extent of occupation varies over time. Jaffa and the area south of Lebanon are occupied all the time, the Gaza Strip and West Bank, full time for parts of both, now claimed by Israel; at least part time for the rest, depending on what's happening that year. Jamesday 03:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Is the 1947 Partition Plan really the basis for any discussion? My understanding is that discussion is generally based around the 1949 Green Line.  I wasn't aware that the Palestinians even talked about the 1947 partition plan much.  My thought was that they either talked about the whole mandate of Palestine, or about the areas occupied by Jordan and Egypt after 1949, meaning that in that case, East Jerusalem counts as part of the West Bank. john 03:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The 1947 partition plan isn't the basis for the article (the whole conflict is) but there's still no peace settlement and the issue of territory occupied since partition hasn't been resolved, so it's still, I think, the basis for the official UN position on the territorial borders of Israel. The area matters mostly to the question of the right of return - while it's in Israel it's politically unacceptable to Israel to have lots of Arabs return there. It's also extremely unlikely that Israel will ever accept it being part of an Arab state, even if it was used as a single place to return to. So, document and wait for resolution is about the best we can do, until the Arabs formally give up that land as part of a peace deal, which seems inevitable, eventually. It looks as though a peace deal will eventually revolve around an Israel larger than the Jewish state of the partition plan and, IMO, probably larger also than the Green Line. It seems very unlikely to me that Jerusalem will be anywhere other than in Israel but that's also probably going to mean that there will be continued terrorism, because that's not an acceptable resolution to too many Arabs. International administration would invite a much greater chance of minimal terrorism... but I don't think that international administration will happen anyway, so any likely peace deal will leave continued terrorsm at some level. Jamesday 04:21, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Late reply to JamesDay: What you are talking about is an issue that in reality is resolved. Yes, the UN might not have recognized Israels green-mile borders (does the UN recognize any borders at all?) but it is not an issue that any of the parties discuss today. Ben-Gurion talked about creating "facts on the ground" and whether we like it or not, they did succeed. I have never heard anyone but you saying that the extra territory Israel conquered in the Palestine War is occupied territory. It's either all of Israel is an occupation (the fundamentalist viewpoint) or none of it is. And also that viewpoint also implicitly says that the UN partition plan was correct and not just a UN approved Zionist occupation (which some think). BL 18:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is the all or nothing split you describe. There seem to be at least some who accept partition Israel or some Israel larger than that but smaller than it is now. The US is one country which does - differs on Jerusalem at least, quite likely more. Not sure of the official US position is on the other bits of territory beyond the partition borders but smaller than Israel's current de-facto borders. Jamesday 23:37, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article states that there are two issues/causes to the conflict:


 * 1) The fate of the occupied Palestinian territories - the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
 * 2) The fate of the Palestinian refugees.

Based upon statements by area politicans there are additional issues that are not listed. Given that agreement one this point is remote, I recommend that we replace those sentances with something similar to "there are several outstanding issues." comments please.

The article starts with a statement that the conflict is based upon occupation and refugees. This is disputed. In the related talk page it is contended that the basis of the conflict pre-dates 1967 (occupation) and even pre-dates (1948). Indeed, the "cycle-o-violence" began no later than the riots and massacres of 1929 or even 1920. The Palestinian claim nationhood or peoplehood at those times if not from an earlier date. The statement should be removed till we agree on what the basis of the conflict is. OneVoice 22:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The above comment is remarkably incoherent -- OneVoice, what exactly are you trying to say? Who disputes the basis of conflict? You or someone else? I am reverting this edit; if we agree that this needs to be reformulated, then it should be changed. -- Viajero 10:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article claims two bases for the conflict: The conflict began not later than 1929 and perhaps no later than 1920. At that time there was neither occupation nor refugees. The bases of the conflict can not be events that would not take place for another 20 years.OneVoice 13:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) occupation
 * 2) refugess


 * READ THE TEXT, OneVoice. It says
 * The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians revolves today around these two issues:
 * note operative word today. It does not claim that these are the origins of the conflict. -- Viajero 13:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah....today...Lets make that more explicit! and include previous basis OneVoice 13:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * No, wrong. This article is about Israel. Israel didn't exist before 1948, hence the line following the two items is quite correct:
 * While the latter issue has always been a part of the conflict the aforementioned issue was introduced into it in 1967 during the Six day war. Other conflicts related to these two have also sprung up at a later stage. That is to say, the refugee problem has existed since the creation of Israel in 1948. Clear? -- Viajero 13:56, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are we to delete all material before 1948 because Israel did not exist? SHould we rename the article to include pre-1948 material Yishuv-Palestine Conflict? That may not help anyone understand....How can we word the definitional paragraph to include pre and post 1948? OneVoice 14:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Protected page
I have protected the page after a request by Viajero. I also saved to the version before the revert war (edited by anon). Please let me know when the conflict is resolved so that I can unprotect it (or someone else can do it). I have no idea what the conflict is about (didn't even look at the diffs), so that I am not partial to any version. Dori | Talk 15:03, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think both of those users (Viajero and OneVoice) should stop editing the page for a month or so. Branden 01:29, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * If they agree to this I'll unprotect it. However, there would be no point if another revert war were to ensue soon after unprotecting the page. Dori | Talk 02:10, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Still protected. Please either unprotect or add protection notification OneVoice 02:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

DEFINE STUFF
Defining stuff is the only way out of this mess.

History
I don't like the fact that the "History" section was removed from this article into a separate one. Actually, I believe that this article should focus on the history of the conflict (in other words, facts about the conflict) - while various suggestions for resolving it should go into separate articles (because they are, after all, just suggestions and ideas). -- uriber 20:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * agree with Uriber --Zero 23:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a current conflict, therefore it should not focus on the history of the conflict. The current aspects of the conflict take priority on this page (if you want to talk about the history of the conflict you should use the history page. Bensaccount 23:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is an ongoing conflict. And it is impossible to understand the current conflict without understanding the history. I agree with Uriber and Zero. john 23:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No it is not impossible. Conflicts can be defined in the pesent tense. Furthermore it makes more sense to define conflicts in the present tense, because it brings to light what the current situation is and not what has happened to get to get there. Bensaccount 00:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How can you hope to have any understanding of a conflict if you don't understand its history? john 02:12, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * A conflict is when two or more parties are perceived to have incompatible goals. Define these goals and define why they are incompatible. Bensaccount 02:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But this necessitates an understanding of how it came to that point. Somebody else help me out here. john 02:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Schoolchildren typically explain a conflict by its history: "He started it, no she started it." Bensaccount 02:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's not history, so much as name calling. And, in fact, you seem to be coming rather close to name-calling against me here, I think. A history of the children's dispute would explain that it began when little Billy pulled Suzie's braid, and escalated when such and such and such and such. Bla. Come on, sane people, anyone out there, or am I going to have to exchange increasingly lame one-liners with Bensaccount for the rest of the night? john 02:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * My arguments are "lame one liners"? And you say that I am namecalling? ;)Bensaccount 02:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I indicated that both of our arguments are lame one liners. (You see how lame this is getting?) john 02:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No. Bensaccount 02:47, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Full lameness achieved! john 02:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It appears we have a conflict. Do you want to examine the history of the conflict or do you want to define our goals and define why they are incompatible? Bensaccount 02:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See? This is completely ridiculous. Obviously, anyone can easily read this brilliant little colloquy we've been engaged in and see both the history and nature of our dispute. Further, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to explain the subject of the article. the purpose of a talk page is to come to an agreement and resolve a dispute. Thus, even if you are right that the way to resolve this dispute is to "define our goals and define why they are incompatible", that does not mean that this is an appropriate way to explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. john 03:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Resolving a conflict is often a side effect of defining it well. That doesn't mean one should not define the conflict for fear of resolving it. Bensaccount 03:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, the definition of the conflict that leads to a solutions is obviously the best definition. Bensaccount 03:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That is an assertion. A conflict may best be resolved by purposefully ignoring certain aspects of the conflict, if they are too uncomfortable to be resolved. Defining the conflict in such a way is not conducive to explaining it. Sigh. This is ridiculous. Is anybody else out there? john 05:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I count as "someone else", but for what it's worth, I'm with you on this. Wikipedia's mission is to provide information, not to achieve World peace (although that could be a nice side-effect). -- uriber 17:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The current article looks like a tiny bit of text (a list, actually), followed by a multitude of links. It doesn't look to me much like an encyclopedia article. Couldn't at least a little bit of explanatory background (ie, history) be included, to make it look somewhat encyclopediac? Sivamo 03:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The best way of defining a specific conflict
A conflict is defined as a disagreement or clash between ideas, principles, or people. To define a specific conflict it is therefore necessary to define the ideas, principles or people that are clashing and define the way they are clashing.

Is this method agreed upon? If not, what is a better method? Bensaccount 23:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Define the ideas, principles or people that are clashing... Mistake me if im wrong but doesn't that involve delving into their history? Crazy Lucifer-17:43, 11 Nov 2004 (EDST)

"define the ideas, principles or people that are clashing" well that would involve explaining the current state of affirs between the two, and the current state of affairs is based on the history behind them, so youd need to explain the history aswell. Craptree 07:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alternate page
Has anyone else noticed the alternate page: Arab-Israeli conflict? Bensaccount 00:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It is linked from the first sentence in this article. So anybody who had bothered to read the first sentence of this article would have noticed it. -- uriber 16:29, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well now that you added it you can say that. Bensaccount 18:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It is, by the way, rather terrible. I think it needs a serious reworking so that it focuses on the conflict between Israel and the Arab states, rather than Israeli-Palestinian issues, which ought to be dealt with here. john 17:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you want to clarify the difference betweeen the articles, you will have to do some defining of terms (their most current meanings). Bensaccount 18:22, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ethnicity
While very tempted to remove "Palestinian" as a separate ethnicity (especially given that it's a subset of "Arab", rather than independent from "Arab", I decided to post here first, given the long and controversial history of the page. Perhaps I'd make as a listing under ethnicity.  Advice/objections? Loweeel 12:59am, 10 July 2004 (EDT)
 * Arab (including Palestinan Arabs)


 * Very strongly object. Do we need this war (which is what will happen)? --Zero 05:31, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * My point is that Palestinian is a culture or nationality (like Lebanese, Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi Arabian, Qatari, all of which have various regional differences in accent and customs), as opposed to an ethnicity (a population with genetic similarities, like Arab). Palestinian is not an ethnicity, but a culture or (I'd even concede) a nationality.  I don't want to start a war either (which seems to be the essence of your objection, rather than a factual objection), but this should be factually correct, rather than smooshing 2 distinct categories (ethnicity and nationality) together under one rubric that doesn't fit either (like trying to make a square peg and a round peg both fit in a triangular hole). While this may result in difficulties we need to iron out, the article will be stronger because of distinguishing between ethnicities (Arab), nationalities (Palestinian). - Loweeel 06:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not sure what point you are making and I don't know why you are using this particular Talk page. The word "ethnicity" appears in this article only once, as an inconsequential subject heading.  If you want to discuss the nature of the set "Palestinians", you would be better off at Talk:Palestinian. --Zero 07:03, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If anything, I'd say, it's the other way around: Arab is a culture, Palestinian is an ethnicity. Arabness cannot reasonably be defined by common descent - most Arabs are descendants of their countries' original populations, rather than of Arabian immigrants - whereas Palestinians are much more genetically homogeneous.  (The Arab article addresses the issue of how you define "Arab".) However, I would also say that trying to draw the line between an ethnicity and a culture or nationality strikes me as an impossible task to begin with.  Kabyle is an ethnicity, and so is Berber; Falasha is an ethnicity, and so is Jewish; Hakka is an ethnicity, and so is Han...  But Zero's right, this may not be the place to discuss it. - 07:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The point I'm trying to make is that Arab and Palestinian are not BOTH ethnicities (by either Mustafaa's definitions or mine), but both are currently listed under "Ethnicity" in the article. Going by Mustafaa's definition of ethnicity, I think that replacing "Arab" with "Israeli Arab" under ethnicity would solve the factual problem without starting an edit-war on this contested topic.  (And please note that I'm discussing BEFORE editing, in deference to the page history). -- Loweeel 18:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Arab" is obviously an article relevant to the conflict; and "Ethnicity" seems like the most obvious place to link from it. If you don't like the semantics of that, why not replace the heading with, say, "Ethnicity, Nationality, and Culture" or some such thing? - Mustafaa 19:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apartheid Wall/Protection Fence
why is there no mention of the wall? can someone express that issue neutrally? I'm afraid I can't...Pedant 07:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Separation Barrier" seems like a neutral term, although I find Apartheid Wall much more POV, as it's getting dangerously close to Godwin's Law territory... - Loweeel 14:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * `Separation barrier' is much better than `apartheid wall' (POV) and `protection fence' (inaccurate if it really is a wall). However, all three might be acceptable, if used as proper names instead of descriptions. Tim Ivorson 15:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, objectively, "Protection Fence" is a more accurate description than "Apartheid Wall" because the overwhelming majority of the barrier is a fence, and only the small segments that cut through or next to highly populated urban areas are walls. So, "Wall" is not an accurate description for the vast majority of the barrier, and Apartheid is a much more loaded term than Protection is.  I'd say that Protection Fence is both more accurate and less loaded than Apartheid Wall, so I'd pick it out of the 2.  However, let's avoid all the problems by using separation barrier. - Loweeel 17:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ever hear the expression of Mending Fences ith ones's neighbors?--68.80.223.233 06:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, the phrase "Good fences make good neighbours" is quite commonly used in English. Jayjg 05:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

American views of the peace process
I made a section called "American views of the peace process". RK made some changes -- some of which I agree with, some I don't. Here are my problems with RK's version.
 * 1) RK changed "the United States gives a great deal of financial support to Israel" to "the United States gives financial support to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority". Both these sentences are true, but I think there are POV problems in both. The U.S. only started giving aid to the PA in 2003, and they gave only $20 million (compared to $3.7 billion given to Israel that year -- 185 times the PA amount.) There's no equivalency here. So I'd like to work out a compromise wording. I propose "the United States gives a financial support to Israel, and began giving aid to the Palestinian Authority (although much less) in 2003."


 * Fine by me. RK


 * Why not leave it but give the actual figures? - pir


 * 1) This sentence was removed: "The following quotes were made by U.S. government officials in regards to the conflict." Why? I think it's an important sentence to include.


 * The sentence is redundant? Each of the quotes you gave is obviously about this issue. You gave an into and then sources. Fine by me. We just don't need to further say "the following quotes have to do with what we are talking about." RK


 * 1) This sentence was added: "President Clinton also holds that the Israelis must trade land for peace, and that the Palestinians should eventually have their own democratic state." The exact same sentence, with the name changed, is included after each President quote. I think it would be better writing to include this as a sort of summary, instead of repeating.


 * This too is fine by me. I just don't want someone to think that these American politicians have views of this conflict that are the same as maximalists in Israel's Likud party, which until recently has not accepted the idea of Palestinian state and which was not willing to trade any significant amount of land. RK

(Other changes were made that I don't have a problem with.) I'm going to change the article based on what I've written here. Let's discuss, instead of reverting back and forth, please. Quadell (talk) 18:44, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Dispute <-> Occupation
I removed the "alternative name" because you cannot call a "disute" an "occupation". The occupation may be the cause of the dispute, but it is not synonymous with it. If you think the title reflects some POV, please list your reasons. Gadykozma 22:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess this matter should be resolved after the VfD on Occupation of Palestine, but I think the term ought to be mentioned somewhere in the article. The presence of active military forces in a place where they weren't before can be called a conflict or an occupation with equal validity. Gazpacho 22:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, put it anywhere in a sensible place. And BTW, thanks for the link to the Occupation page. What fun! I think I'll go to the math section to hide. Gadykozma 02:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Title and intro

 * The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a part of the greater Arab-Israeli conflict, is an ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

I have a problem with the accuracy of the title and the intro.

The article does not clarify who "the Palestinians" are. Are they:
 * all residents of the region historically known as "Palestine"?
 * Does this include Jordan?
 * any stateless Arab living in the region historically known as "Palestine"?
 * anyone who wants to live in a non-Jordanian Palestinian state?

The Arab-Israeli conflict article has a clear, unambiguous title. Everyone knows who the Arabs are, and definitions of "Israeli" are clear enough.

But this article presupposes and/or implies that a group called "Palestinians" exists, without defining this group.

I've tried to get around this terminological difficulty by writing definitions of Palestine, which has several different definitions, and linking the first appearance of Palestinians to it. But this is not sufficient.

It's not possible to understand the conflict the nation of Israel is having with peoples and nations without specifying precisely who those people and nations are. It's easy enough to list the nations that have expressed opinions, undertaken diplomatic initiatives (like negotiations and treaties or "peace plans"), but one delicate (tricky?) element remains undefined.

Who are "the Palestinians" in context of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict"? If I had to guess, it would be:
 * 1) stateless Arabs who want to establish a national homeland,
 * 2) somewhere in the region historically known as Palestine,
 * 3) preferably in West Bank and Gaza Strip, and
 * 4) if possible incorporating or obliterating Israel as well.

I suspect the reason writers both at Wikipedia and in the 'real world' have neglected to clarify this definition is that the definitions of Palestine and Palestinian are part and parcel of the arguments justifying their POV.

The Wikipedia should not do ANYTHING which justifies ane side's POV over another, in hotly disputed matters. This is not a "flat earth" controversy, in which there is virtually no modern support whatsoever for a non-sphere-shaped earth; we handle that quite easily with one short article and a few unobtrusive links.

This is one the BIGGEST CONTROVERSIES OF MODERN TIMES. Three wars were fought over it last century, and it lies simmering just below the boiling point ever yet.

We need an article SOMEWHERE in this encyclopedia which clarifies all definitions and all views on this topic. We cannot keep articles which gloss over problems of definition or which blithely employ ambiguous or circular definitions to promote one POV.

Please help me write such an article. --Uncle Ed 12:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ed, Wikipedia policy in this case is to use self-definition, that is Palestinians are those defining themselves as such. With this in mind, it becomes clear that the article neglects one important population and that is the portion of Israeli-Arabs defining themselves as Palestinians (how large is this portion? Interesting question. I know a lot that do and a lot that don't). Definitely the article should be improved in this respect. Do you have in mind any other aspects this page should be improved with respect to the definition of Palestinians?


 * Other issues maybe we should discuss on Talk:Definitions of Palestine, no? Gadykozma 13:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you following me around and dialoguing with me, and I can't thank you enough for your willingness to, er, let bygones be bygones on some hasty remarks I made to you personally. :-)


 * If a "Palestinian" is "anyone who considers himself to be a Palestinian" we'd still have to describe the 'population of people who call themselves Palestinians' in some meaningful way. It's not like a group of people decided to call themselves Bazorkians and suddenly demanded a Bazorkian homeland. Help me think of an example: how about some people in Estonia, Latvia & Lithunia start calling themselves "Baltics" and demand a "Baltic homeland"?


 * Is "I consider myself a Palestinian" the chief determiner that makes someone a 'Palestinian'? Is it even one of the biggest factors?


 * It's significant, because of their aspirations for a sovereign homeland and the moral issues this raises. We need a REALLY GOOD article on nationalism which explains how nations (i.e., "states") come into being, as well as how other states and populations feel about that. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not actively following you around, it just seems that you make changes to pages on my watchlist... Now, my comment was not towards the definitions page you envision, which, by the way, I think is a good idea. On the definitions page it would be appropriate to list every opinion including Golda Meir's ridiculous comment, and discuss. My comment was towards this page. I posit that unless there is a specific good reason, we should use self-definition, since it is neutral, easy to apply, and the formal policy. Gadykozma 15:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but thats crap. If a person reading this does not know what a Palestinian is they can look up the definition by clicking on the link, that is what it is there for.


 * Can I suggest that the easy definition of Palestinian is indegenous non Jewish Inhabitants of strip of land bordered by Lebanon, Sinai,The Med and the Jordan river. We have some problems here with the Druze,Bedu and Samarians but it probably covers it and prevents us having to include the Tel Aviv party people.

The Peace process
Should this section title be changed to "The Peace process since 1999" ? There is no information before that date in the article, that I see at first glance. Lance6Wins 14:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks like the history of the "Peace process" section starts in 1991 for some reason. To be accurate, the section should be titled, "Negotiations and Dialogue" because "Peace process" is giving it too much credit. Alberuni 14:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I want to move this section to Peace Process or some similar title. Its 2,100 words comprise the bulk of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually I'm noticing 3 things:
 * The bulk of the history and background is in History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
 * The bulk of the violence is in Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
 * The Refugees, settlements, bombers and other features have their own respective articles.

What's left in this article is basically two things: All about the peace process (but nothing else), and a comprehensive list of articles and other references about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To my mind, thats a clear sign how to handle it. Move the peace stuff out to an article "Peace Process in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (to match "Violence in the I.P.C." and "History of the I.P.C."), which leaves in this article the intro, links to the main subsidiary articles (such as the above), and other categorised links about the conflict, as a nice central starting article to look up the entire story.

Makes sense?

FT2 15:55, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, although that should then become links and summaries, not just links. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:23, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Excellent summary, and I think your idea with Jmabel's proviso is a great solution, as long as the summaries are brief. Unfortunately what tends to happen is that the longer the summaries, the more they tend to diverge from the source material over time. Jayjg 22:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine
Please see Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine and see if that article fits in with your general schema regarding this topic, I do not follow the area so I thought I should call some attention to it. - cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|&#9742;]] 08:50, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Partial revert 1
I have changed


 * Israeli security from Palestinian terrorism.
 * The question of creating a Palestinian state

to


 * Israeli security from Palestinian militant attacks.
 * Palestinian security from Israeli military attacks.

The other way has the strong POV implication that all violence by the Palestinians deserves that epithet "terrorism", but none be the Israelis does. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Israel doesn't worry so much about militant attacks on soldiers, but it does care a great deal about terrorist attacks on civilians. The Oslo Accords specifically talk about "terrorism". Jayjg 19:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * But surely any peace settlement would involve the end of all attacks on one another. An end to the conflict would not only mean an end to attacks on civilians. And Israel has not been short on killing civilians, either (well, technically, all Palestinians are civilians, since they don't have a recognized army, so I suppose I should say "killing non-combattants") but I imagine you don't want to call that terrorism. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I have made several other partial reverts. These others were simple enough that I think my change comments explain themselves. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * The difference is, that Palestinian attacks are aimed at civilians. Israeli attacks are aimed at terrorists. Most civilian casualties are "collateral damage". Don't get me wrong - that doesn't make them good... But you can't equate the accidental killing of civilians (by their being used as shields, for example) with the intentional killing of civilians (by packing a bus bomb with nails to maximize damage). It just isn't fair to equate the two. -- anonymous

Elements of the conflict
The list "Elements of the conflict" includes Partial list of Palestinian terrorist acts and Child suicide bomber. I don't object to these being there, but there seems to me to be implicit POV in not including any articles on specific Israeli tactics. Do we have any articles on (for example) Israeli bulldozing of houses or so-called "targetted killings"? It seems to me that this asymmetry of inclusion in a list of links represents a bias. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've given up on trying to remove links provided purely to create bias; have a look at Ibrahim Muhammad Ismail and various other articles created by the same author. Jayjg 20:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One solution would be adding red links to some of these missing articles. - Mustafaa 23:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of the propaganda map here
Why do Zionists think their edits don't need discussion but everyone else's do? --Alberuni 00:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * For an encyclopedia, it is important to provide the context for the conflict: where on earth is it going on, what are the forces involved, etc. What exactly do you object to, the presence of Israel?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This map does not provide context relevant to this article. It is a trite old piece of Israeli propaganda that "the Arabs possess 99% of the Middle East but they are unwilling to share just this tiny sliver of 1% with the poor Jews who suffered so much in the Holocaust!" This article is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and so the rest of the Arab world is not relevant. Most of the Arab countries never went to war with Israel so the map is deceptive as per your usual standard. And Iran is not an Arab country so it's not even part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. You will have to save it for the "Muslim world-Israeli conflict". Then you can make a map that includes Europe, Africa and the parts of South America and Asia with al-Qaeda for your "Whole World Hates the Poor Innocent Jews" map. If you want to show a really relevant map you can show this one with Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. . That's relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Alberuni 01:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "the Arabs possess 99% of the Middle East but they are unwilling to share just this tiny sliver of 1% with the poor Jews" - are you sure it's not the other way around?
 * "This article is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and so the rest of the Arab world is not relevant." - In that case, why in the very beginning the article says: "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a part of the greater Arab-Israeli conflict..." Do you propose to change it into: "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict completely differs from Arab-Israeli conflict..." - go on.
 * "Most of the Arab countries never went to war with Israel" - what about those that did and what about those that supported them? And what did they fight for? Not for Palestinians anymore?
 * "Iran is not an Arab country so it's not even part of the Arab-Israeli conflict." - Iran is very much a part of the conflict because they sponsor Hizballah. Will you finally tell us who says Iran is an Arab country? Quote please.
 * I just counted that Alberuni made 6 reverts in 24 hours. What happened to WP:3RR?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Your points about the references to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Iran sponsoring Hizbullah are quite true, and a number of Arab countries have indeed directly gone to war with Israel, or indirectly done so through the Arab League. That said, please do not keep inserting the map, these facts still do not make it appropriate to insert it on this page, and it is clearly intended to create a POV.  The fact that many other pages have been used the same way, or even created solely for that purpose, does not excuse doing it here. Jayjg 22:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The essence of what you just wrote is: "If facts contradict theory, so much the worse for the facts". I see lots of emotions here, but no rebuttal of any of the points above. However, since there is a clear motion here against the map, I'll reconsider it for now, as a good will gesture. Any prediction of the same from the other side? BTW, any suggestions as to improving the map are appreciated.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow. What stunning displays. The map is POV rubbish. If I run onto pages and vandalize them with topical vandalism, it doesn't mean that the individual who reverts is at fault. Humus, I'm not sure what you're doing, but Alberuni is not the one being unreasonable. To take a counter-example, if I go onto the "Israel" page and post a funding graph (monetary resources of Israeli vs. Palestinian military machinery), it would be semi-topical vandalism of the same order. Me re-inserting such rubbish and you reverting it 6 times doesn't make me right. Tarek 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The aid to Israel and about the same amount to Egypt were one of the conditions of Camp-David peace agreement and Israel's pull out from the Sinai. As for the aid to the PA, hope this helps: : "The Marshall Plan distributed $60 billion (at today's prices), which worked out to $272 per European in the main participating countries. By contrast, by the end of last year (that's 2001  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk) according to the World Bank, the Palestinians had received $4 billion since Oslo, which translates into $1,330 per Palestinian... In 2000, according to the World Bank's World Development Indicators 2002, WBG received $636 million in aid or $214 for each of the three million WBG residents. That is the highest in the world by far. Only Bosnia, at $185, is close; shamefully, Israel is third at $128. Compared to the $214 for the Palestinians, the average for sub-Saharan Africa is $20; for South Asia, it is $3."   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have again removed the propagandistic and off-topic map. OK, folks, a bunch of you who are clearly politically pro-Israel have been busy assuring me here and elsewhere of your intellectual honesty and your willingness to apply the same standards to material that supports your politics and that which opposes it. Time to step up to the plate. It shouldn't be left to Alberuni to remove this obvious propaganda. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:20, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've tried in a couple of ways to convince Humus to stop inserting it, but I've only had a few minutes at a time on Wikipedia here and there in the past few days. I'll try to ensure that it stays out; while I'm busy doing that, perhaps you could keep an eye on Yasser Arafat and Sabra and Shatila massacre which have been under-going a much more serious POV assault than the insertion of a simple map. Jayjg 23:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sabra and Shatila massacre has been such a back-and-forth battle that I don't have the patience to deal with it. As you can see from the talk page, I've tried several times to weigh in, but no one seemed very interested in listening to me (you included, if I remember correctly). I've never even looked at the Yasser Arafat article, though I'll try to get a look at it soon. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:35, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Right now Quadell and Mustafaa are trying to build a NPOV version. Everyone else (except HistoryBuffEr and Alberuni of course) have agreed to let them do it.  I'm sure your assistance on building that version would be most welcome by both Quadell and Mustafaa. Jayjg 23:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As someone who has little interest in "propaganda" either side, but an interest in the conflict, I don't think it hurts to show a wider map. I want to understand the size and scale of the issue.

That said the map being used is not the best, it shows all arab countries as one colour, giving the impression of a unified anti-israel force, which clearly isn't the case, for example.

I would support a map which showed a slightly more thoughtful approach, such as whowing relevant islamic/arab oriented countries by name (not just by colour), AND perhaps different keys for status such as "at peace with Israel" or "not actively involved" or "other". (I say "other" because classifying them as anything would be POV, some are not presently, actively, directly involved but have been or could be or have some citizens who are). FT2 17:04, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Such a map would arguably be of relevance at Arab-Israeli conflict, but I would strongly oppose its inclusion here in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:35, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel - but even at Arab-Israeli conflict, any conflict map that, like the originally proposed one, shows Mauritania but not the US is worthless in understanding the conflict. - Mustafaa 14:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with that. Even when attached to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the map amounts to propaganda, but here it is literally absurd. (It is basically a minor edit of a map that sits far more legitimately at Arab World. Even there, for many of the countries in Africa, marking the entire country as Arab is very misleading: many of these countries have an Arab north but other ethnic groups in the south.) -- Jmabel | Talk 19:42, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Recently added Ghandi link
The recently and anonymously added link to a piece by Ghandi may or may not belong at this article, but it seems to deserve being linked from somewhere in Wikipedia. It does seem to lay out some of Ghandi's views relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it's mostly a call to the Jews of Germany to use tactics of non-violent civil disobedience against the Nazis rather than seek to emigrate to Palestine.

In some ways, it's an interesting document. In the light of history, that advice to the German Jews seems rather naive, which tends to argue in favor of the Zionist vision. On the other hand, it explicitly supports the Arabs' right to Palestine against that of the Jews, so I could imagine either side wishing to point to it.

I'd like to hear others' opinions on the relevance and/or whether there is a better place for this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:49, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it's of marginal relevance. To begin with, as you point out, it's mostly about a different topic.  As well, it's 60 years out of date; there's an awful lot of water under that bridge.  Finally, while Ghandi himself was quite famous and well respected in most circles, it's not clear why Ghandi's views on this specific topic would be particularly noteworthy. Jayjg 21:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think if this had been the main focus, they would be relevant at least to History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it isn't, so I'm not sure where the link would best go. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure either, but I don't think it's here. Jayjg 03:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)