Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 6

recent dubious edits
I haven't been following this sufficiently to want to wade in with edits of my own, but I believe that the recent edits by GabrielF should be scrutinized closely. Among other things, he seems to have removed other people's cited references; the removals seem to me to have a political pattern (removing politically left or pro-Palestinian references). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not simply dubious. It's mostly unrefined POV garbage.. sheesh. Tarek 16:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * For anyone following this, it looks like Tarek followed his comment here with a good de-POV'd version of GabrielF's content. And the edits he made seem to bear out my view that just reverting would have been wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:26, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Re: sources - I removed a couple of sources and added a couple of sources. I removed the indymedia link because it was entirely in Hebrew and contains a disclaimer saying that it doesn't live there any more. I might have gone a little overboard on the rest because I thought it would be better to provide general reference materials with biases that are relatively slight (the Ross book) rather than materials designed to reexamine the conflict with a particular POV (Chomsky). If the consensus is to keep all references, thats okay with me.


 * As for the actual content, my point was to 1) emphasize the complex nature of the conflict, I think that this article is far too simplistic and does not take into account the multifaceted nature of the conflict. I think that a decision has been made to whittle this article down to a certain core in order to avoid POV issues and the result is that the article sounds like a 7th graders powerpoint presentation. 2) I wanted to rewrite the description of the Israeli perspective to be more accurate. You may notice that I did not modify the description of the Palestinian perspective, I believe that someone with a different viewpoint should do that. However, I think that calling suicide bombings "militant" or "terrorist" will be POV one way or the other, and it seems to me that "terrorist" is more accurate and should be used provided that we are very specific in what we refer to. GabrielF 20:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into most of this, but, please, when removing other people's citations, that is something where a specific reason should always be stated, otherwise it just turns into a pissing match. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:24, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, I didn't see any unreasonable (or any) removals of citations in the second round of editing.. Well, indymedia Israel, but it really was a broken link that I have now fixed. Tarek 06:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And he commented that, which was my point. I wasn't complaining, just remarking. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:34, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you GabrielF for your contributions. I have a couple of comments:
 * To the best of my understanding, this is a "disambiguation page", basically serving only as a basic intro, and pointing to various other articles related to the conflict. Your comments and analysis on the current Unilateral Disengagement were, I think, important, but much too deep for this particular article. I do not see linked an article on Unilateral Disengagement, but I would be mortally shocked if one didn't exist, so I suggest finding it and contributing to it, then linking it into the page. I commented out some of your edits, and a couple of my own that were quite detailed about the disengagement plan..
 * It was my personal opinion that the "core issues" are sufficient. Perhaps we could add the detailed articles beside them (i.e., See Palestinian refugees or See Israeli settlements). What do others think of this? I recognize that you view the conflict as being extremely complex, but there is really no need to complicate the article if not necessary.
 * I understand that your wording is trying to be neutral / POV-ambiguous in some parts, but I found some of it to be stylistically cumbersome (e.g., the section on those sympathetic to...). Here, we can stand to make a summary, since virtually every statement is discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.
 * With regards to the reference on "Myths and Facts", I renamed the link according to the actual site title there.. However, I wish to object to the term "a pro-Israeli view" as opposed to what it used to be: "an Israeli view". I would like to note that it is the only time in the article that the term "pro-" is used (for either 'side').. There are many arguments against it, such as that it fails to recognize that Israel is not a monolith of opinion.
 * I'm more of the AP view that the word "terrorist" is so loaded that it is almost worthless as anything but a propaganda tool. However, the Wikipedia discussion is ongoing, and a policy is being formed here: Use of the word terrorism (policy development)
 * Tarek 06:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I won't go into the rest now, but regarding #5 - I used the term pro-Israeli because that is more accurate, the source is American, not Israeli GabrielF 12:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article should serve as an overview only, although it is significantly more complex than a disambiguation page. The article you are looking for is Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2004.  It could use some work, particularly around format.
 * I agree.
 * I didn't find the "sympathetic" language so bad.
 * "Israeli" doesn't work, since, as you point out, it isn't the only Israeli position, and as Gabriel pointed out the view is American. I'm not sure what wording works better than "pro-Israeli"
 * I'm of the view that attacks that unambiguously and deliberately target civilians for death or injury are clearly terrorist, and avoiding that terminology when warranted is itself POV.
 * Jayjg 17:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sticking up for my prose jayjg :). Tarek: Sorry for editing that quote - I didn't notice thats what it was, but why are you using the quote there? If nothing else it isn't explicitly clear to a casual reader that it comes from the reinhart piece and the viewpoint could be easily summarized without POV as a statement, what is the advantage of having a blind quote?


 * Re: "pro-Israeli" - we could replace this with something like "generally supportive of the Israeli government" or something but it seems unnecessarily cumbersome, I think that if we specify the fact that opinions on neither side are uniform above as I tried to saying "pro-Israeli" below seems okay


 * Re: terrorism - why not avoid the issue entirely by specifying precisely what we mean when we say "Israeli security from..." I suggest wording it as "Israeli security from suicide bombings and other attacks" we could also use the word incursion to describe both attacks on Israelis and attacks on Palestinians.


 * Re: sources, I won't remove anything but I would like to reorganize and expand this section, I would like to add some more links to media, more scholarly journals (MERIP, Middle East Quarterly, etc), activist groups (AIPAC, etc.) and thinktanks (Washington Institute for Near East Policy, etc.) I think that the specific articles should be moved into a subsection "Specific Articles of Interest" or something. I think that the jerusalem.indymedia link should be titled Palestine Independent Media Center (its title). I will attempt to be balanced in what I link to, but it might be better if someone with a different viewpoint also adds links. GabrielF 19:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the quoter is non-notable, and the quote would probably better be summarized. Regarding terrorism, in other articles I've used "attacks on civilians" or similar language to be more exact and get over objections.  I admit that the problem with that is that many anti-Israel groups and/or individuals assert that no Israelis are civilians. Jayjg 21:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major Inaccuracies
The thrust of this article is wrong. The list that is presented as the conflict's major issues is, in fact, the major issues of the two-state solution. That article is where this list belongs. The major issues of the conflict are different, and they include, for starters, who ought to control the territory, whether there should be one state or two, whether the Palestinians have the right of return, whether the settlers will be removed, and whether Israel will extend equal rights to its non-Jewish citizens.

I suspect that the authors wish the issues listed were the last issues not covered by broad agreement, but that's just not so. For the Israelis, Ariel Sharon's Bantustans are a fine solution for the next twenty years. On the Palestinian side, Hamas just kicked Fatah's ass in local elections. So while some may believe that smart people agree on everything but these issues, it isn't those smart people who are running the show.

This conflict is not a part of the larger Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab-Israeli conflict is geopolitical; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a civil war. The surrounding Arab states are concerned with territory and the balance of power; the Palestinians are concerned with freedom, security, and self-determination.

In its short life, Israel has made many enemies. Just because Palestinians are Arabs does not make their war a subset of the Arab states' feud with Israel.

I'm trying this discuss-before-editing thing. Comments and thoughts welcome -- sorry if the tone is strident.

-- Robert Farrell


 * Your general points seem sensible, although "This conflict is not a part of the larger Arab-Israeli conflict" is certainly arguable. What wording do you propose? - Mustafaa 17:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in seeing your take on this (hopefully without being too destructive of what is here before we can build consensus. Like Mustafaa, though, I disagree with your claim that "This conflict is not a part of the larger Arab-Israeli conflict". I've literally never heard anyone make that claim before, and it seems like it is nothing more than an idiosyncratic personal view. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:50, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not confident that NPOV will be possible for someone who states "For the Israelis, Ariel Sharon's Bantustans are a fine solution for the next twenty years." Jayjg 01:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * For the record, I agree entirely that "For the Israelis, Ariel Sharon's Bantustans are a fine solution for the next twenty years." - Mustafaa 11:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * we all have a point of view.. At least we don't have to guess his : ) I think a question to ask, though, is at what stratus are Robert's issues the issues, and why has the current list of issues lasted so long? The probable answer is that – at least at some level of the collective psyche – the two-state solution is it, so its issues are the conflict's issues. So, I think we will have to be very clear in distinguishing the issues and perhaps opt for a more explanatory model than that which exists now.. Tarek 03:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you are right about the issues being embedded in the collective psyche. Original thinking is frowned upon as groups have been divided into ideological categories for so long. If Robert can document that these alternative points of view on the conflict are espoused in the literature, instead of being his own original research, then I think we should welcome it into the article. --Pravda 03:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Robert Farrell, welcome to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You are obviously knowledgable and articulate so create an account for yourself and join the Wikipedia project. These pages don't belong to any editor or group of editors (despite what some may have you believe) but if you intend to make major edits that alter the "thrust" of the article, try to reach consensus with other editors and provide reliable references, especially for controversial articles like this one. NPOV (neutral point of view) is the goal so express your perspective freely on the Talk page but try to write descriptions neutrally in the article. Don't be surprised if other editors mercilessly revise your edits as described in the warning on the editing page. We look forward to your contributions. --Pravda 03:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * New editors are welcome, but obvious sockpuppets intended to evade eventual consequences from ArbCom (like yourself), are not. Jayjg 04:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please observe No personal attacks, "don't bite the newcomers" and assume good faith. If you can't be polite and work collaboratively, please consider another vocation. Merry Christmas! --Pravda 04:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I assume good faith with newcomers. I have long experience with you, and you've shown no evidence you can be polite or work collaboratively. Jayjg 05:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know who you think I am but you should always make an effort to get along with everyone. I am sure you are always polite and open to collaborate and I have no reason to believe anything else until you prove otherwise. --Pravda 05:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, you know exactly who I think you are, and, indeed, who you really are. And I am always polite and open to collaboration, even with sockpuppets created to evade ArbCom rulings. Jayjg 05:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about but I'll play along if it makes you happy. I'm glad that you are happy. --Pravda 06:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Farrell - good points I think, and well spoken. FT2 15:13, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I've made a small edit in Farrell's direction, simply noting that the governing authorities' positions are not necessarily those of the entire communities. I have not, however, attempted to detail the non-governmental positions. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:20, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey Mabel! I enjoyed your edits, but made a few modifications. For example, I think you used "PA" as a geographical place, which is at least imprecise and more likely just inaccurate. Also, I thought there was a little redundancy ("one single point of view"), so I took that out and added some links.. Please let me know if any of those edits are problematic.. Tarek 15:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The only one that's problematic at all is the use of "occupied territories". That is, itself a contentious phrase. I use it in my own writing outside of Wikipedia, but because the Israeli gov't objects to it we've generally tried to avoid it in the narrative voice of the articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Exactly. As usual, the term is intended only to insert POV; it doesn't actually add any useful information not already encompassed by "Gaza Strip and West Bank", which is precise and fully informative. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough criticism on the redundancy (it does appear two lines later), but I disagree that a) it is "contentious" and b) that because it is "contentious", it shouldn't be here. On the first point, certain parts of the more extreme Israeli population reject the term, but prominent figures in Israeli and Zionist history and even presently have recognized that there is an occupation as surely as there are occupations in Morocco, Syria, Indonesia, and North America. Outside of Israelis, the United States recognizes that there is an occupation (as Michael Freund laments in the 8 August 2001 Jerusalem Post while justifying his by theirs ), as does virtually every state and major judicial body in the world (the UNGA and UNSC resolutions are too many to list). So, occupation is not contentious, but calling it occupation is, just like making Israel(is) "look bad" to the "uninformed person" (as discussed in Talk:Israeli violence against Palestinian children). On the second point, I would like to point out that lots of things that are right are also unpopular. If we lived in Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, would we be obliged to tone things down for fear of being unpopular? So why here and now, especially when we face none of the same persecutions in our privileged lives? So long as we can source it and work vigorously to ensure its truth, it should be here! : ) Tarek 01:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Apparently the view of the U.S. is not as monolithic as all that. Rumsfeld specifically said they weren't occupied  Jayjg  |  (Talk)  02:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm all for using the word in quotations, and I'd really like to see someone do the research on who does use the word and who doesn't, but it is tricky: for example, I would consider Gaza, the Golan Heights, and most of the West Bank to be "occupied", but East Jerusalem to be "unilaterally annexed". Not that one is "better" or "worse" than the other, but they are different. I think we would do well to quote, or paraphrase, with attribution the (in my view conclusive) case that this is an occupation, but I don't wish to suppress the conflicting point of view. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the term is both superfluous and incorrect in the next section. To begin with, as far as I know UNSC 497 deals only with the Golan Heights, yet that is the only part of the territories not mentioned in the description.  Second, the status of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are inherently different from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  The Golan Heights is annexed, because Israel has annexed it.  As for East Jerusalem, its status differs because it was never intended to be a part of a Palestinian state, but rather of an international zone. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  03:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough on both counts Jayjg, and touché on the monolith topic, which is exactly what the edit was about : ). I would like to point out, though, that Rumsfeld still doesn't speak for the "official" US line, which has grudgingly accepted international law on the occupation when it really comes down to it.. As for UNSCR 497, I was a little miffed by the selection of 497 as well, but never really looked into it. It's here: . The best I can figure is that it is one affirmation that unilateral annexation is "without international legal effect" and calls Israel the "occupying Power". So, I agree that its use here is badly out of context. There are quite a few UNSCR and UNGA resolutions that call the territories "occupied" and discuss the issue directly, and so would fit as sources in this context. I'll try to update it tomorrow or so unless somebody else does first. Tarek 03:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why does the table of the emblems belong here?
It seems to me the table is somewhat distracting and is inherently POV. No Jewish organizations' emblems are shown (such as that of Irgun). Each article has its own emblem, putting them all together here on this page is distracting from the main point of the article. Also, the table is put right under the section about pro-Palestinian views as if to discredit them.Yuber


 * I tend to believe that the emblems of major Palestinian organizations are crucial to the topic of the conflict because - as of 2005 - all of them happen to brandish map of Israel. Your points 1 by 1:


 * 1) Please explain why you called those emblems "somewhat distracting" "from the main point of the article" and what do you think that point is?
 * 2) You said the emblems are "inherently POV": were the images distorted or misinterpreted in some way? Was the caption POV? See WP:RULES.
 * 3) Irgun was dismantled in 1948, so including their emblem (which I do not necessarily oppose) would require some proof of relevancy from whoever insists on it.
 * 4) I have no intention to discredit pro-Palestinian views at all.
 * On a personal note, I consider myself both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel: I believe they can be good neighbors, live in peace, trade and prosper. I do not believe that those who encourage Palestinian children into the line of fire are pro-Palestinian. Please assume good faith.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What seems a little problematic to me is the phrase "the land they claim as Palestine". This is literally true but, in the case of the PLO at least, misleading. Yes, they consider "Palestine" to include all of Israel (as do most geographers, and as did most Zionists a century ago; if anything, they meant something even larger), but they have long since abandoned the position that this would necessarily be the dimensions of a Palestinian state. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd love to believe that, but considering that the emblems are what they are, plus numerous post-1993 revealing speeches by Arafat and Kaddoumi, plus the fact that "new" PLO covenant was never officially published and the covenant of Hamas still calls for the complete destruction of Israel, plus the rifles, hand grenades & swords, I'd call that "abandonement" a little controversial if not outright deceiving. Imagine Pakistan brandishing map of India (or Germany - map of Sudetenland) on their official symbols.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While you are entitled to that opinion, thats surely a POV and should not be chosen as text for these symbols. I also find it distracting; it's taking up too much place in this article which is more of a summary with links to other articles than a full blown one, and creates imbalance. --Cybbe 09:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please note that the speeches, the convenants and the emblems are cold hard facts, not opinions. We are supposed to reflect the reality in encyclopedic way, instead of hiding relevant facts or creating some artificial balance. Please see WP:POV.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is easy to use cold hard facts to support one own's POV. E.g. it would be nothing factual wrong with posting a large picture of the west bank wall (and then Im talking about the portions which definitively can be called a wall) with the text "The Israeli government is constructing a barrier in the West Bank which have been deemed illegal by the ICJ". These are also cold hards facts. My point is, these facts are all here on Wikipedia, the emblems are all in the relevant articles for Fatha, IHJ etc., and links to those articles are given: showing them here is making the article imbalanced, just as a large picture of a section of the Wall with the text given under would be awkward. Nothing is hidden, both the emblem and sections of the wall is covered in their own articles. This article is a gathering point for a lot others, there are tons of pictures that can be deemed relevant to the conflict, but these should be placed in their given articles, not in this one. --Cybbe 12:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * We can discuss the relevance of a wall picture with your caption but I won't: simply because it's a vague idea. As for the table, there is no dispute these are official emblems of major Palestinian factions pertinent to the conflict. Systematizing relevant stuff in a table in encyclopedic manner is what normally encyclopedias do. What you propose is to hide information because it doesn't suit your agenda.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 16:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This seems akin to claiming that Israel wishes to rule "from the Nile to the Euphrates", or to say that the 10 Agorot coin represented a serious territorial agenda. Either of these may belong in that article, properly cited, as a claim that partisans of one side make about the other, but it's another thing to put it in the narrative voice of the article with the strong implication that it is an actual plan. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is too short and too much of a reference article to other sources too justify including these emblems. They are not hidden away, if I would look up Fatahs emblem I would read the Fatah article. The text used show that the inclusion is motivated by a political agenda, it is not included too show the emblems, it is included too show the Palestinian map used even though this contradicts official Palestinian policy (and that is not mentioned at all). A neutral version would simply show the emblems without stressing the point it currently does, and even then it would be awkward to include it in this article which is more of a summary than a full blown one. --Cybbe 19:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think that encyclopedic systematization of the common elements in the official emblems is of the essence in relation to the conflict, especially because there is a controversy, even you admit it: "this contradicts official Palestinian policy". There is no clear reason for removal: switching arguments from "but this is distracting from the main point" to "but this is POV" to "but you too" to "but this is a short artcile" only makes partisan desire to hide the table more noticeable. All these arguments have been rebuffed above. If you find some info encyclopedic & important to the topic (10 Agorot, Irgun, barrier, etc), please add/propose your changes as we normally do. Finally, may I suggest those who claim consensus learn what the term means. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 00:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your have not explicated why there is a need for the table. This isn't about us trying to give you reasons why it should be removed, but it's about you giving us a reason why there is a need for it.  The only reason you have given is that there is a "partisan desire to hide the table" as if there was a table in the first place.  The table was put in from a POV directly to undermine a pro-Palestinian argument (it was put in right under that paragraph, coincidence?).Yuber(talk) 05:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason has been explicated many times: it systematizes common elements of major Palestinian factions' contemporary official emblems that "contradict official Palestinian policy" (quoting Cybbe). As for your last question, the table is in the next paragraph. Frequently pro-Pal. and pro-Isr. arguments follow each other, so what, are you going to go through WP and remove text/tables/images that don't serve your political agenda? Learn to face facts that contradict your opinions, that's what good encylcopedias are for.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not an article on the PLOs view on what constitutes "Palestine". And I find it rather funny you say it was included to shed light over PLO policy towards what constitutes Palestine, when that policy is NOT included in the article. So why is this table _really_ here? And why the POV text "the land they claim as Palestine", when this is simply not true? --Cybbe 18:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * This contradiction is a crucial aspect of the conflict. While other articles provide specific details, this one is supposed to systematize them. If you feel that something is missing from the article, please propose/add it as we normally do. As for this is simply not true: I can provide pictures from official Palestinian school textbooks that prove you wrong. Only in the interests of the peace process I intentionally didn't mention Palestinian National Authority here, but if you insist...  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 22:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You still haven't managed to NPOV the table/article by adding emblems of Jewish groups such as Irgun. But that is not the main problem I have with this table.  You say the contradiction is a crucial aspect of the conflict, then you go and make a table that  has no mention of the contradiction and the fact that there are organizations that accept the two-state solution.  The table is just redundant, all the emblems are in their respective articles, it is ridiculous to say the table was made for NPOV reasons.Yuber(talk) 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * We already discussed Irgun above and you did not respond. I don't see why the table is redundant, moreover I explained why it is crucial and you did not respond. Even though you sited various pretense reasons, notably you made no attempt to improve it, only a partisan urge to hide inconvenient but undeniable facts. IMO, the caption is NPOV and I am not in the mood to add inflammatory wording.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read through this entire talk discussion and you still haven't said why it's relevant besides "to show the contradiction". There are plenty of other articles on the Palestinian organizations where you can show the contradiction, but a POV table on the conflict page is not one of them.Yuber(talk) 02:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You wrote: There are plenty of other articles on the Palestinian organizations where you can show the contradiction, but a POV table on the conflict page is not one of them. Don't send me to "other articles", because this article, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is supposed to systematize the major aspects of the conflict. Are you trying to say the contradiction is NOT a part of the conflict? If you believe the table is irrelevant, please explain why you think so. If you believe the table is POV, please explain why you think so or try to improve it.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 04:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You have been removing my Discrimination against Israeli Arabs section from Zionism and racism, claiming that it exists in another article and therefore needs not be included in the Zionism and racism article. Here you're telling me that even though the logos exist in other articles, a POV table should still be put on the conflict page.  Sorry, I'm not buying it.Yuber(talk) 01:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You've been duplicating the entire article Israeli Arabs in Zionism and racism. Of course it is inappropriate: Z&R contains a summary and a link to IA article. Back to the table here: the NPOV caption was negotiated at Talk:Fatah & Talk:Hamas and per your request I compromised (assuming good faith) and made the table tiny, but you still keep removing it totally to hide the facts. You did not come up with a good reason to remove it and did not say what you think makes it POV. Did the Zionists design those emblems? Were the images misinterpreted or distorted in any way?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 02:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The table looks neat. I like the idea of comparing emblems. I think it could be useful. The author obviously has a point to make. The problem is that it isn't being made in the article.

Every Palestinian child recognizes the shape of British mandate Palestine as "Falasteen". They don't recognize any other shape for their homeland. In fact the shape described by British mandate Palestine's borders may be the only symbol that all Palestinian nationalists recognize. What is more, almost every Palestinian claims a right to the region the shape describes. Despite what organisations say or do for political expediency. The symbols organisations use are not a part of the conflict, their ideas are. Symbols can be used to illustrate those ideas. In the article, the emblems aren't clearly illustrating anything in the text. Yodakii 17:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Militant or Terrorist?
We need a definition on terms here. While some claim that "Militant" is more NPOV, there will be others claiming that it is not NPOV because the term grants a certain legitimacy that "Terrorist" does not. ElKabong


 * If "militant" is a description everyone can agree on, then it is NPOV. "Are they militant or non-militant?" If "terrorist" is not a description everyone can agree on, then it is not NPOV. "What is a terrorist?" Yodakii 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The Irgun poster
If we decide to include it, it should be put in the correct perspective: a renegade militant revisionist Zionist group dismantled by Israel in 1948 and condemned by the mainstream general Zionists numerous times before that. OTOH, the caption under the Palestinian groups' emblems says "present-day" because those are 2005 images. Objections? &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The land they claimed is present-day Israel, West Bank, Gaza strip, and Jordan. Is there something untrue about this statement?  Also, I don't care if they've been condemned by mainstream whoevers, the Palestinian table certainly does not differentiate between condemned groups and groups that actually are supported by the U.S/Israel for a solution to the conflict.Yuber(talk) 05:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But we did not include the text about condemnations, did we? Your caption is misleading because there was no State of Israel and no West Bank at the time.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are not understanding simple English. Present-day West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jordan means the present-day (AKA as they exist today, AKA modern) states and territories.Yuber(talk) 05:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll ignore your ad-hom for now. Would you say "Alexander the Great claimed the present-day India"? The poster is from 1920s to 1940s, why drag the old stuff into the "present-day"? To score poilitical points, I guess?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you read the article on Alexander, you would notice certain appositives that refer to what the present-day state is. He conquered Assyria, modern-day Iraq.  Besides, Alexander isn't even a valid comparison.  You're comparing events that occurred over a millenia ago to events that took place 60 years or so ago.Yuber(talk) 06:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As long as we say that it is an old poster of a dismantled renegade group, fine.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 06:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the Irgun-poster nor the Palestinian table should be included. Information about Irgun/PLO/Hamas etc can be found in their respective articles.
 * That been said, its hard to justify one of them without including the other. --Cybbe 11:03, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * This whole argument reminds me of just how much I hate this corner of wikipedia. First somebody drops in an image of the emblems of palestinian organizations in order to sneak in a POV, then that person's opponents feel the need to insert a more egregious image to counter the first image. The whole thing seems destined to descend into a brawl and the general public that increasingly relies on wikipedia continues to suffer. The table of emblems is clearly here because someone wants to further their POV, but at least its relevant. Yuber - I can understand that you want to counter the POV implied by the table of emblems, however the Irgun image is simply not appropriate for this article. It is irrelevant and quite frankly deceptive. I would guess that the poster dates from 1945 or 1946 and it represents a group and a position that simply does not exist any more. Put it in the Irgun article or in the godawful article on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, don't put it here. I'm inclined to say a pox on both houses and get rid of both images but that seems unlikely. I suggest as a compromise removing the Irgun poster and adding a sentence to the caption of the emblem picture saying that significant minorities of Israelis believe that Israel should encompass part or all of the West Bank or Gaza. GabrielF 21:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, the table was intended to sneak in a POV. I have removed it.Yuber(talk) 21:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * An official emblem of an organization is a conscientious expression of their free choice how to present themselves to the outside world and to their own members. If their own emblems undermine their (or someone else's) posturing, again it's their choice. I don't see how including and neutrally describing the official emblems violates the NPOV policy.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 03:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with Humus; the Table of Emblems is perfectly fine and relevant [personal attack removed]. ElKabong


 * I have removed the table again now that the Irgun poster has been removed. It seems that even when I offer a solution of both pictures existing, the pro-Israel POV must continue to be pushed with the inclusion of only one table.Yuber(talk) 05:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yawn... See my comment a few lines above: "An official emblem of an organization is a conscientious expression...", etc. Throughout this entire talk page you were unable to prove your repeated claim that the table is POV. Please learn the concept of NPOV. Please don't insist that the presence of the table (even with the newly added text) somehow depends on that irrelevant Irgun poster of 1940s, it is preposterous.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 04:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have made a new section called "Emblems of Organizations" and included both the Irgun poster and the table. I also made clear the fact that some organizations with emblems encompassing the entire region have committed themselves to peace and the two-state solution.Yuber(talk) 04:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * ... uh-huh, and their official emblems were drawn by the wicked Zionists.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * An Irgun poster from the 40s is irrelevant; it wasn't the emblem of the organization, and the organization was dismantled almost 60 years ago. Please try to include only relevant information in the article, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Today official emblems of major Palestinian organizations brandish map of Israel
I feel strongly that this issue contributes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and until someone presents a serious argument that it doesn't, the table stays. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 22:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I readded the Irgun poster to show that in different periods of the conflict different groups have used posters to claim land as theirs. These posters really do not mean anything.Yuber(talk) 01:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering the discussion we've had about the Irgun poster in the article on Irgun, there may be a double standard here. This one poster from the past appears to be highly relevant for one side of the issue, but not for the others.  It should probably also be mentioned that Palestinian text books have maps of "Palestine" that encompass all of Israel.  These maps do indeed something.  --Leifern 01:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Of maps and hegemony

 * I'll admit that the following may be (slightly) off-topic, but here goes anyway.
 * Given that the State of Israel today effectively projects power through the geographic area of the Irgun map, it seems to me quite likely that the main reason the Israelis today do not wave around such maps is that it would be redundant to do so, and that (due to the controversies over the occupation) it is something of an embarrassment to them to be in effective control of some of this territory. At this point, they are, for the most part, less concerned with claiming turf than with staving off the demographic threat of having conquered so much territory in which Palestinians live as to be in danger of being outnumbered in their own effective realm. Hence, the withdrawal from Gaza. Hence, also, various strategies proposed by various Israeli factions (especially, but not exclusively, in Likud and in the settler movement) to effectively annex as much West Bank land with as few West Bank Palestinians as possible. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I honestly believe that Israeli territorial ambitions have historically been based on the desire for security, not for hegemony. Remember that Israel is a very narrow country - 25 miles wide at the widest point. As a result a well-organized tank assault could cut the country in two in half an hour. Israelis are very much aware both of this strategically untenable position and of the fact that Israel has been to war three times in the last sixty years with all of the surrounding unfriendly regimes. The fact that Israelis no longer look to expand their borders beyond 5-13% of the West Bank is due to the fact that the Israeli security situation has improved vastly since '73. Israel is now at peace with Jordan and Egypt and has proven its military superiority over its neighbors. GabrielF 03:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with GabrielF here. Jmabel wrote: "Given that the State of Israel today effectively projects power through the geographic area of the Irgun map" - considering that 3/4 of that map is today's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, what are you implying?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 04:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't have graphic access where I was writing that, I was trusting the written description of the map. Still, I think my point basically stands: those in Israel who wish to retain control over the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights are a real, present-day, fact on the ground, with the political and military means of power projection. Doubtless there are many Palestinians who wish to "drive Israel into the sea", but unlike the Israeli advocates of "transfer", they clearly don't have the means to achieve their goal in the foreseeable future. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:06, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

POV section on Palestinian emblems
The sidebar with the Palestinian organization emblems made an (I think extreme) POV statement: "The emblems of all major Palestinian organizations include a map of the land they claim as Palestine" The PLO may harbor secret designs for a Palestinian state stretching between the river and the sea: it certainly seems to many that Israel does. But whatever these entities' secret aims may be, it is accepted by very few observers (if any) that the PLO "claims the land as Palestine" when since the mid-seventies they've publicly "claimed" only the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine, endorsing a two-state solution. If you think any other definition of "Palestine" was intended by the creators of this sidebar, then why did they have the word Palestine link to the page Proposals_for_a_Palestinian_state"?   --joveis 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The territorial ambitions of Hamas are no secret. As for Palestine, what comprises "historical" Palestine is a matter of some debate - the images provided comprise part of the British Mandate. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The table shows and describes (in NPOV way, I think) factual emblems of major Palestinian groups. Expressing our opinions about some alleged "secret aims", "secret designs", the nature of their claims, or guessing "whether they represent any current policy" would be POV on our side, and that is why, with all due respect, I am going to revert User:Jove Is Mad's edit. There's been long discussion about this table, please get familiar with it before you proceed. BTW, if their own official symbols consistently misrepresent their own declared policies, that cognitive dissonance makes it doubly appropriate for an encyclopedia.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the proposals for a Palestinian state page is a better place for this POV emblem. It makes no sense to put it in the general conflict page.  If there are no objections, I will move it there.Heraclius 01:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'll have to object: the fact that these emblems brandish maps of the entire State of Israel constitutes a crucial part of the conflict.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 02:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is a general overview of the conflict. They would be more suitable to the proposals for a Palestinian state page, and you know it.Heraclius 02:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree: this article is not called General overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even today, these emblems very consistently brandish map of a neighboring state (clearly a part of the conflict), but you are trying to pose it as a mere "proposal for a Palestinian state". I can't comprehend what makes it "more suitable to the proposals for a Palestinian state page", but I see repeated unsubstantiated attempts to hide them away. An encylopedia is supposed to systematize relevant facts, not hide them.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 02:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Heraclius is absolutely correct that this should be moved. All elements of the conflict are crucial elements.  But first, the statement "the land they claim as Palestine" must be removed as POV.  Jayjg, you are well aware that the PLO's "claims" differ from those of Hamas.  Humus, none of us are "Expressing our opinions about ... "whether [these emblems] represent any current policy"" except you.  The text I proposed simply declares that these are disputed positions, which is accurate.  I'm going to revert to this accurate text, from which we can go forward (with emendations, not reversions, Humus) toward compromise: perhaps some text could be added to clarify Hamas' position and satisfy Jayjg.  In moving forward, please amend: don't revert. --joveis 22:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Gave it even more thought and decided that concision might be the route to compromise. So as a gesture of good faith I deleted the (accurate) disclaimer about disputed interpretations of the emblems, with the understanding that future versions of the page will not falsely assert that the PLO opposes a two-state solution. Cool? --joveis 00:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The current version works for me. If you still think there is a need to describe the dispute, please do it in the text, not inside the table.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 05:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, what is the rationale for keeping a table of emblems about proposed Palestinian states in this article and jamming it in the middle of an overview section?Heraclius 04:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Parading map of Israel in official emblems of Palestinian orgs is a part of the conflict
Please explain what is this "proposal" about and what makes it not a part of the conflict? Imagine that on their official symbols Pakistan would brandish map of India, or Germany a map of Sudetenland, or Mexico - the USA. Would it constitute a conflict or merely a "proposal"? &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 05:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Referring to Israel as a "neighboring state" to Palestine betrays either a rather profound lack of understanding of the conflict or a purposeful desire to mislead. I will not speculate as to which it is, but we should always strive to describe things accurately, especially when they raise such emotional resonances. Also: what is the purpose of this little section in terms of improving the article? I must confess that I can't make heads or tails of this business about a "proposal" as contrasted to a "part of the conflict." What on earth are you talking about? john k 07:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunate choice of words on my side. I've renamed this section to make its subject clear. These emblems indeed raise a lot of "emotional resonances" and therefore are a part of the conflict.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 08:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

A recently deleted article
I have just deleted an article on the agreement that any useful information should be merged here. It was made by User:67.180.229.158. Ingoolemo  talk 19:39, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of reformatting slightly so this can be read. Frankly, though, at a skim, it's a polemical, one-sided piece and the citations are vague. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The text of the article is:

Palestine

General Overview

Since 1994, Palestine has generally been described as a semi-autonomous territory of Israel, with its official land area consisting of the Gaza Strip and roughly a quarter of the West Bank. While the eastern half of Jerusalem consists of nearly one million Palestinians, thus forming a quarter of the nearly four million Palestinians in Palestine, Israel officially controls Jerusalem as its own capital. To truly appreciate the complex nature of this irregular geographic definition, one must consider the history of Palestine - a history that is fundamentally rooted in border disputes, foreign interests, and bloodshed. Palestine is located in the Sinai Peninsula, a region of semi-arid land between the Red Sea to the South and the Mediterranean Sea to the West. Palestine is surrounded by Arab nations with whom it shares its turbulent history: to the North lies Lebanon and Syria, to the East lies Jordan, and to the Southwest lies Egypt.

With a land area of 5,860 square kilometers, the West Bank lies in the northeastern section of Israel, upon the western bank of the Jordan River, where it also borders the nation of Jordan. Narrowly situated between Egypt and Israel, the Gaza Strip lies upon the far eastern border of the Mediterranean Sea and has a land area of 378 square kilometers. Of this total land area of about 6,238 square kilometers, less than a quarter of it is controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Israeli-approved governing body of Palestine. Israel strictly controls the remaining portion of this land area. For example, since 1967, Israel has created settlements of its own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, filling them with about a quarter of a million Israeli settlers who, in graven contrast to neighboring Palestinians, enjoy all the benefits of one of the strongest economies, protected by one of the strongest military regimes, in the Middle East. Further, Israel controls virtually all the modes of transportation in and out of Palestine, holds the key to all borders, strictly limits the PA’s ability to nurture foreign relations of any type, and forbids the PA from creating a military force of its own. In 2003, in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare and in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel commenced the building of a great wall of sorts along the borderline between the West Bank and Israel “proper,” and in so doing, has greatly changed and infringed upon the territory traditionally demarcated as the West Bank. Much like Israel’s recent aggressive control of the Palestinian border has damaged the already ailing Palestinian economy, this physical barrier has further robbed Palestinians of equitable access to land and water, food sources, health care, and employment opportunities. As a result, Palestinians are ever more beholden to Israel as their source of food, water, shelter, and safety.

Although the once-rich soil of Palestine had traditionally been used by Palestinian farmers and shepherds for agriculture and livestock-grazing, over fifty years of Israeli-led military attacks against Palestinians, Israel’s destruction of the territory’s landscape, and Israel’s paralyzing blows to the Palestinian economy have more than simply eroded the topsoil and destroyed the practicality of subsistence farming. Today, most Palestinians who are employed – about half of the workforce is unemployed – hold low-level jobs in the agricultural, construction, manufacturing, and service industries. While farm work is the major form of employment for Palestinians, most of the farms employing them are located in Israel “proper,” and to a lesser degree, in the surrounding Arab nations. As a general rule, Palestinians are far too poor to own their own companies or lands. Due to the Israeli government’s suffocation of Palestinians’ access to free trade, their free use of land and water, their free movement within and outside of their reserved territories, and their freedom from constant armed Israeli attack, more than half of Palestinians live below the poverty line of US$2 per day, more than half are refugees from the Israeli war machine, more than half are youth under the age of eighteen, and more than half are illiterate.

Since 1987, Palestinians have risen in mass revolt against Israel’s efforts to destroy them. This Palestinian revolution is called the Intifada, or uprising. It has come in two waves, now referred to as the First Intifada of 1987 and the Second Intifada of 2000. In the name of nationhood, both sides have committed thousands of murders, and the fighting continues because neither Israel nor Palestine is willing to compromise on crucial issues. In 1994, Palestine was granted partial self-governance by Israel as a result of negotiations between the PA President, Yasser Arafat, and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, both of whom received the Noble Peace Prize for their efforts. The PA, with its eighty-eight member Legislature, President, and Judicial Body, was born as a result of these negotiations. Its nascent political structure is still too disheveled to appropriately handle the crisis into which it was born. Although it has been attempting to clarify its Basic Law, to draft a Constitution, to delineate the powers of its Judicial Body, and to barter peace with Israel, the PA is itself embroiled in political turmoil between its various factions, ranging from the moderate to the extreme. Such a delicate lawmaking process is only further hindered by the constant military violence between Palestinians and Israelis.

History: Ancient Period to the 20th Century

Precariously situated between the continents of Africa, Europe, and Asia, this ancient crossroads of diverse nations seems to never have known the peace that multiculturalism is truly capable of spawning. There was one not so brief exception, however, to this grim view of history. Between the Sixth and Fourth Centuries BC, the Persians ruled this region with respect and support for the varied array of people living there. The Persian kings rebuilt the Temple of Solomon that the previous Chaldean warlords had destroyed, and they helped foster an intellectually appreciative climate which, among many other academic and cultural pursuits, promoted the writing of the Torah. This example of peace serves as a pristine historical lesson in the restorative potential of compromise and collaboration – virtues which seem to be dreadfully lacking in the periods of time before and after this particular era of Persian rule.

Archeological evidence proves that people have inhabited the Sinai Peninsula as far back as 200,000 BC. Evidence of agricultural and artistic pursuits notes that a substantially sized community of human beings lived in this area around 12,000 BC. Jericho, a Palestinian city in the West Bank, is considered by most archeologists to be the oldest continually-inhabited city on Earth, with evidence of farming, herding, and craftmaking dating back to 7,000 BC. Between 5,000 BC and 2,000 BC, various tribes settled and clashed in this region, starting with the Assyrians and Akkadians, and the Amorites and Canaanites. The Jewish faith commenced with the birth of the line of Abraham at about 1,800 BC, which over the next few centuries, splintered into the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel, who strayed almost entirely from the precepts of the Jewish faith and who battled for dominion over the region. This taut struggle between the Hebrews was exacerbated by the influx of Greek Philistines at around 1,200 BC. Such divisive tribal fighting eventually led, in the Eighth Century BC, to the destruction of all local power by the foreign Chaldean invaders, who took military advantage of the havoc in the region to broaden the reach of their own empire. The oppressive Chaldean grip on the peoples of the region lasted until the Persians wrested power from them in the Sixth Century BC. As noted, the next two hundred years of Persian rule liberated the Hebrews, Philistines, and even the Chaldeans, from cultural oppression.

In 300 BC, Alexander the Macedonian, also known as Alexander the Great, entered the region at the head of vast armies with the singular focus of spreading Hellenism to the world. Though Greek did become the principle language of this region for centuries to come as a result of Alexander’s invasion, the stability of the region that existed under Persian rule was utterly vanquished – thus, lending much support to the ancient credo that states, “it is much simpler to destroy than it is to create.” Over the next nearly two millennia, the Sinai Peninsula became enslaved to foreign interests battling for control over the region with all the bloody elements of political, military, and economic warfare, thus signaling to the world that the Sinai Peninsula is a region of pivotal importance – a geographic key to throw open empirical fancies onto the stages of three empires – Asia, Africa, and Europe. Power hungry empires followed in the footsteps of Alexander. The Romans came in the First Century BC; the Arabs followed in the Seventh Century AD; the Romans returned - now aided by the French, English and Germans - with the Crusades in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries AD; the Arabs regained control in the Fourteenth Century; and finally, the Ottoman Turks added the region to their list of conquered peoples in the Sixteenth Century, and held such dominion until the Twentieth Century, when European re-ascendancy over the region’s affairs became certain during World War I. Certainly, history shows us that multicultural appreciation for minorities did not exist in the Sinai Peninsula during those two bloody millennia. Neither did multiculturalism seem to exist in Europe, for it was this very lack of minority rights in Europe that led to the Jewish Zionist movement of the late Nineteenth Century – a movement that would soon collide with the interests, rights, and very lives of the Arabs of the Sinai Peninsula.

Twentieth Century History

After World War I, with the Treaty of Versailles, Palestine was granted its long sought-after independence from the Ottoman Turks in 1919, and thus the nation of Palestine was born. Its sad fate, however, was sealed two years earlier. In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, which voiced support for the Jewish Zionist movement – a policy that sought to assist Jews, particularly those in Europe, to migrate en masse to the Biblical Holy Land in and around Jerusalem. Moreover, the Zionist movement activated the 1896 dream of its German Jewish founder, Theodore Hertzl - a dream of “a land without people for a people without a land.” The obvious problem with this fancy bit of propaganda was the fact that the Sinai Peninsula was home to a large Arab population – a people, indeed, who would look harshly upon further European despoiling of their independence. In the 1920’s, tens of thousands of Jews started to migrate to Palestine. By the end of this decade, Palestinians began to understand that Zionist immigration into their country would continue despite their laws to the contrary. Violence erupted between the Palestinian Moslems and the Jews in 1929, when a skirmish over the holy site of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem boiled over into a major street riot. This initial confrontation over control of sites held sacred to Jews and Moslems alike marked the beginning of tensions that would carry forth to the present.

In the 1930’s and 1940’s, fleeing from Nazism and general European anti-Jewish fervor, European Jews began to illegally migrate to Palestine in ever-larger numbers, tripling the number of Jews that lived in Palestine before the commencement of the Zionist exodus, and quadrupling the amount of land owned by the Jews in Palestine. The European Zionists’ purchasing power over the Palestinians was not the only factor involved in helping the Zionists to buy huge quantities of Palestinian real estate. Since their immigration, the Zionists realized that they would have to fight for their right to stay in Palestine. They began to form large and aggressive street gangs using thug-like activities to intimidate and destroy Palestinians at every opportunity. Two of the most powerful Zionist terrorist groups were the Stern gang and the Irgun gang. In order to send a clear message that anti-Zionist policies would receive violent responses, regardless of their state of origin, in 1944 these Zionist gangs killed the British High Commissioner after he expressed support for the Palestinians’ rights to limit Zionist immigration; in 1946, the gangs bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, a hotel that hosted various diplomats whom Zionists perceived as hostile to their cause; and in 1948, as part of the Deir Yassin massacre, these Jewish gangs killed 254 Palestinians. Meanwhile, Zionists in the USA lobbied US support for their continued migration into Palestine and defended the Jews’ right to a homeland via careful alliances with the media and academic intelligentsia.

These combined political, economic, and military tactics worked to drive Palestinians out of their own lands. By 1948, after the Deir Yassin massacre and related threats of further violence against the Palestinians by the Zionists, 750,000 Palestinians fled their own nation, leaving behind all their real and most of their personal property, and sought refuge in the neighboring Arab countries, especially Jordan. The Zionists claimed victory. As a response to the Zionist’s terrorizing methods, and even more so, in order to reverse the flow of Palestinian refugees into their lands, the nations of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt declared war on Israel. By the end of this Arab-Israeli War, the well-funded Zionist forces occupied 78% of Palestine, ceding the West Bank and the eastern half of Jerusalem to Jordan and the Gaza Strip to Egypt. On May 14, 1948, Israel declared statehood, and the short-lived nation of Palestine was destroyed. Sealing their unchallengeable dominance over the region, that same year, the Zionists murdered the United Nations mediator Count Sweden who was deployed by the UN to help bring peace and safety to the region. Further, immediately after declaring statehood, Israel issued laws appropriating all the real and personal properties that the Palestinians left behind in their escape from Zionist violence, thereby vastly multiplying Israel’s wealth and real estate holdings in what was once Palestine. Between 1948 and 1967, Israel declared Jerusalem its capital, it continued its attacks on Palestinians living in UN refugee camps in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and it repeatedly defied UN resolutions reprimanding Israel for its violence. Feeling unprotected by the international community, frustrated Palestinians began to mobilize into armed groups, such as Fateh and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and used similar tactics as the Zionist gangs in prior decades. Violence between Israel and Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip escalated to the point of war.

On June 5, 1967, in a preemptive surprise attack against a poised offensive movement of troops by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, Israel commenced the Six-Day War. By June 10, Israel had defeated the three Arab nations, and had reclaimed the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as its own. As a result, 325,000 fearful Palestinians fled these Occupied Territories and sought refuge in Jordan, Egypt and Syria. As for the lands and properties abandoned by Palestinians fleeing their homes in the Territories, Israel appropriated these and established Israeli settlements in their place. The clashes between Israelis and Palestinians only worsened after this War. In 1969, Zionists set fire to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the most holy Moslem sites in Jerusalem. Similar acts of violence were used by both sides of the confrontation; however, Israeli military, political and economic clout dwarfed Palestinian efforts. Despite numerous documents issued by the UN and the international community, not one nation stepped forward to assist the Palestinians in their military struggle against Israel. In the 1990’s, when hundreds of thousands of Zionist Jews migrated to Israel after the fall of the Communist bloc, and when 370,000 Palestinian refugees from Kuwait returned to the Occupied Territories and to Jordan after the First Persian Gulf War, the tension between Arabs and Jews naturally increased.

Palestinian resistance, left without effectual international support, eventually devolved into violent revolution, namely via the First Intifada of 1987 and the Second Intifada of 2000, caused by the Israeli Prime Minister’s surprise visit to the rebuilt Al-Aqsa Mosque – a show of great disrespect for Moslem’s rights in Jerusalem and a dashing of any pretense of Palestinian claims to partial-sovereignty in that holy and much-disputed city. In response to these Palestinian uprisings, Israel has faithfully pursued what in 1988 it aptly named its “Iron Fist Policy,” a fierce course of action that includes a host of human rights violations against Palestinian revolutionaries and their ideological supporters in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and in any other part of Israel. The official Israeli policy includes measures such as the “breaking of bones” that Israel publicly promised Palestinian detainees, mass arrests and minimum administrative detentions without trial, explosive home demolitions of suspected “enemies of the State,” strategic assassinations, and extreme methods of general warfare.

Such a dehumanizing level of oppression of Palestinian’s basic human rights has attracted much vocal and written international support, in addition to over four billion US dollars of aid earmarked for immediate relief and rebuilding efforts in Palestine. Unfortunately, due to the disheveled structure of the new PA and the long standing war-torn status of Palestine, little of the international relief funds are effectively useable. Further, the vocal support lent by the international community has not been backed by any actions aggressive enough to dissuade Israeli occupation and destruction of Palestinian life. Despite the limited autonomy granted to Palestine after the 1994 peace accords, and despite internationally-bartered peace negotiations leading to the 2003 Roadmap, true independence for Palestine, the end of Israeli occupation, and a resolution to armed conflict in the region – indeed the very aims of the Roadmap – are, in the eyes of Palestinians, far-fetched hopes so long as Israel is effectively permitted by the international community to fearlessly employ hostile tactics against Palestinians.

As it stands, Israel continues to deprive Palestinians of their rights to healthy food, land, air, water, shelter, safety, free movement, free expression, free worship, and among many others, the simple right to live in a homeland which Palestinians and their ancestors have held precious for thousands of years. To justify its actions, Israel states that like the United States in its mission against Al-Qaeda and the nations that President George W. Bush has named the “Axis of Evil” – Iraq, Iran, and North Korea – Israel is a “freedom loving nation” fighting terrorist Palestinians in a war meant to bring democracy via a two-State solution. Palestinians retort that they are not terrorists, but rather that they are freedom fighters, and are striving to overthrow a colonial regime directly headed by Israel and supported by the USA and Great Britain, whose oil interests in the Middle East arguably guide their necessity to find a sure foothold in the region from which to wage political, economic, and military warfare on all who hinder their access to such natural resources. The truth of this dialectic remains clouded in the eyes of the international community.

Meanwhile, what remains clear is that Palestine is falling, and Israel is on the rise. Recently, one journalist embedded in Palestine captured a translucent image of this crisis on a brief video, which received little air time in the media of the USA. The video shows an Israeli soldier with an M-16 chasing a young Palestinian boy, who seemed to be less than ten years old. After being chased by the soldier for a couple of minutes through part of a village that had been dessimated by explosives, the boy stopped, bent down, picked up a rock, turned around, raising the rock fiercely over his head and aiming at the soldier. Through the video, which was taken at some distance, one could see the boy yelling “Allah-u Akbar,” which means “God is great” in Arabic. The soldier stood his ground and aimed his rifle straight at the boy’s chest, but he lacked the moral surety to shoot. Instead, he turned around and started running in the direction from which he came, and the boy gave chase. This image of the boy with a rock in his hand chasing a fully-equipped adult Israeli soldier shocks the conscience. The reality, however, is that this scene depicts the actual differences in power between the two sides fighting this decades-long war. The typical Palestinian “soldier” is a slingshot-armed boy - poor, hungry, and tormented. Not only does this stand in stark contrast to a typical Israeli soldier, but this odd pairing of foes also clearly spotlights a frighteningly explosive situation to which the international community has failed to adequately respond.

Word Count: 3,420

Sources:

1.	The United Nations at www.palestine-un.org 2.	EUROPA: European Commission External Relations at www.europe.eu.int 3.	Human Rights Watch at www.hrw.org 4.	Al-Jazeera Online News Service

The West Bank

The West Bank lies in the northeastern section of Israel, upon the western bank of the Jordan River, where it also borders the nation of Jordan. With a land area of 5,860 square kilometers and a semi-arid Mediterranean climate, the landscape of the West Bank is primarily used by its residents for animal grazing and agricultural purposes. More than 80% of its population of nearly 1.8 million people consists of Palestinian Arab Moslems, with Christian Arabs and Israeli Jewish settlers each forming just under 10% of the population. More than half of the population of the West Bank is comprised of youth under the age of eighteen. There are nearly 700,000 registered Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, with a quarter of them living in nineteen United Nations recognized refugee camps and the rest living in West Bank towns and villages. Due to an unemployment rate of about fifty percent, with sixty percent of the population living below the poverty line of US$2 per day, and burdened by dismal infrastructure, public utilities, educational and communications systems, the West Bank suffers from severe levels of human rights violations, crime, pollution, and social unrest, including ongoing armed clashes between Palestinians and Israelis.

The history of the West Bank mirrors that of the Gaza Strip. Both territories were created in 1949 after the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. The West Bank was governed by Jordan from 1949 until 1967, when on June 10, 1967, Israel regained control of the West Bank after the Six-Day War, in which, via powerful surprise attacks, it quickly defeated the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. To secure control of this post-war hotbed of Arab resentment against Israeli domination, the Israeli government appropriated Palestinian-owned land, established fortified Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and maintained an active military presence throughout the territory. In 1987, the Palestinians mounted a major revolutionary effort against Israeli occupation known as the Intifada. Finally, after thousands of deaths, in May 1994, the Palestinians and Israelis signed a peace accord whereby the Israeli government agreed to cede limited autonomy of the city of Jericho and the Gaza Strip over to the newly-formed Palestinian Authority (PA) under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. In 1996, Israel agreed to give the PA partial control of the remaining Palestinian-occupied regions in the West Bank, totaling 27% of the West Bank’s land area. Further important power concessions by Israel, however, were reneged in subsequent years. In fact, Israel continues to maintain absolute control of the remaining seventy plus percent of the West Bank’s land area, including extremely strict governance of all borders, armed forces, foreign affairs, Israeli settlements, all modes of travel outside of the West Bank, and road networks within the territory itself. The mounting level of Palestinian frustration with the Israeli government’s control of daily life, compounded by failed peace negotiations, ultimately led to the commencement of the Second Intifada on September 28, 2000, which continues to embroil the region in military, social, and political conflict.

Actual Article Word Count: 499

Sources:

1.	Human Rights Watch 2.	MSN Encarta: The Gaza Strip 3.	UNRWA 4.	The USA Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book 2000: The Gaza Strip

The Gaza Strip

Narrowly situated between Egypt and Israel in the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip lies upon the far eastern border of the Mediterranean Sea. A conflict-filled and impoverished territory created in 1949 by the armistice agreement between Israel and Egypt at the end of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the Gaza Strip was occupied and governed by Egypt between 1949 and 1967, and then, as a result of the Six-Day War in 1967, by Israel from 1967 to 1994. Of the 1.3 million residents of Gaza, at least 75% of them are Palestinian refugees who fled from the region’s war zones during the Arab-Israeli War and the Six-Day War.

During the Israeli occupation, Jewish settlements were created in Gaza by Israel as a mode of increasing Israeli control over the territory, resulting today in about 7,000 Israeli settlers there. Political, social, and economic differences between the well-supported Israeli settlers and the impoverished Arab refugees in Gaza, in addition to ongoing Palestinian resentment against the expansion of Israel’s control over their lives, led to the Palestinian uprising known as the Intifada in 1987, which lasted six years and claimed thousands of lives. The Second Intifada, a similarly bloody armed revolt, commenced in Jerusalem on September 28, 2000, quickly spread to the Gaza Strip, and continues to rage today as a result of further disputes over human rights and border disputes between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

To pacify that first major Palestinian revolt, in May, 1994, Israel redefined all of the Palestinian-occupied regions of the Gaza Strip as a quasi-autonomous zone to be governed by the newly-formed Palestinian Authority (PA) and its vociferous chairman Yasser Arafat, yet with borders, armed forces, foreign affairs, Israeli settlements, and the only international airport still to be controlled by Israel. Since 1996, the 88-member Legislative Council of the PA has been headed by Arafat, who along with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 for his joint efforts in peace negotiations with Israel. In recent years, the Legislative Council has crafted certain reforms, such as adopting its first code of law known as the Basic Law, granting greater independence to its judicial body, preparing to form a Palestinian Constitution, and holding regular elections. In March 2003, the Council created a new post of Prime Minister, currently held by Ahmed Qurei, to balance the executive body of government and thus assuage the controversy around President Arafat.

As a consequence of decades of military confrontations in the region between Arabs and Israelis and a destabilized local government, the Palestinian refugees living in the Gaza Strip are plagued with extreme overcrowding, a 60% poverty rate, a 40% unemployment rate, pervasive illiteracy, a very limited educational system, a poorly-trained workforce, terrible pollution, serious shortages of food and water, widespread crime, a dilapidated infrastructure, civil rights abuses, and ongoing terribly violent upheavals with Israel. Despite nearly a billion US dollars in promised international aid to Gaza, few projects structured to improve life there have actually materialized.

Sources:

1.	EUROPA: European Commission External Relations 2.	The Foundation for Middle East Peace: Settlement Database 3.	Human Rights Watch 4.	MSN Encarta: The Gaza Strip 5.	National Geographic.Com: The Gaza Strip 6.	The Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, Jerusalem 7.	UNRWA 8.	The USA Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book 2000: The Gaza Strip 9.	Al-Jazeera News Online 10.	 The Palestine Chronicle

Article Word Count: 500

A recently added link
A recently added link, Russia as a Bridgehead of HAMAS, goes to an article on the Axis Information and Analysis. I'd be interested in others' thoughts on the appropriateness of the link; also on should we perhaps have an article on Axis Information and Analysis, I can't quickly get a handle on who they are, where they are coming from, whether they are a reliable source, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OR in History section
The following text has been added today:
 * Israel has now completed its withdrawal from Gaza with the result that the are is now a haven for terrorist organizations. The Palestinian Authority, is an authority in name only and has no "authority" at all. It can not contorol its own Fatah soldiers, nevertheless control the Hams or Islamic Jihad organizations. People are people, Jewish or Arab, they can be good or bad, but only as individuals and only as well as they are taught. The Israeli Palestinian problem, is really an Israeli Jordanian problem as there is no Palestinian country, it is an area of Jordan take over by the State of Israel and was never an independent area and the Palestinian people never were a seperate people under the Jordanian regime. Jerusalem, was never a part of Islamic history. It is a rallying cry started by Yasser Arafat to bring a defeated people together in a terrorist movement.

This looks like an original research. It does not matter what we the editors think, unless a verification is presented, this can not get into the article. Thanks. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 09:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicities
Why are the Armenians linked as a relevant ethnicity? There is no mention of them elsewhere in the article; I'm unaware of them playing any significant role in the conflict. On the other hand, Druse is conspicuous by its absence.

I haven't been particularly active in this article, so I'll give a day or two for a response before I edit accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Weasel words
"People who sympathize with Palestinians tend to view"

"Many tend to view the armed Palestinian resistance"

"some extend this view to justify attacks"

--Dfeuer 04:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the phrase "people who sympathize with Palestinians" should be replaced. It is completely meaningless since it is very easy to sympathize with Palestinians and NOT view the conflict as an illegal military occupation. I'm not sure what an adequate replacement would be. GabrielF 03:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of "conflict"
The OED defines conflict (the noun) as:

  An encounter with arms; a fight, battle. esp. A prolonged struggle. (without article or pl.) Fighting, contending with arms, marital strife.   transf. and fig. A mental or spiritual struggle within a man. The clashing or variance of opposed principles, statements, arguments, etc. 

and another couple definitions entirely irrelevant here. I don't think any of these definitions permits the use of the word &ldquo;conflict&rdquo; in the places I have tagged it as inappropriate.

--Dfeuer 08:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

History
This sentence in the history section seems both POV and simplistic. Probably needs both rewording and elaboration.


 * 2005: Ariel Sharon – After hundreds of years, Sharon eventually ordered his people to leave the lands that belong to Palestinians. It can be immoral for Jews in Israel, and moral for Palestinians, but it is just. Thus Sharon mitigated the Israeli-Palestinian war.

惑乱 分からん 21:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs update
The article speaks of Gaza disengagement as something which has not yet happened. AnonMoos 20:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to fix that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there also be something on the elections? I couldn't think of the right way to phrase it. Rachel 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor
Ed Poor, your edits were completely POV and totally unwarranted. To change the entire name of the topic from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Arab nationalism in modern Palestine" is totally unacceptable. Lokiloki 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain why here - not just on my talk page. --Uncle Ed 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing entire topic
Your change of Palestinian-Israeli conflict to "Arab Nationalism in Palestine" was completely unwarranted, and the additional POV content you added was inappropriate. Lokiloki 17:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Care to explain why, or just blowing off steam?


 * Because Israeli-Palestinian conflict is well-known and frequently searched for conflict: to somehow reflect that this conflict is primarily about Arab nationalism (and not, say, about settlements, the expulsion of Arabs, etc etc) is unwarranted and not based on fact. Lokiloki 18:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * All of that which is unrelated to Arab nationialism can go in Arab-Israeli conflict. Furthermore, the identity of "Palestinian" is unclear, hence unsuitable for an article title.


 * As you may know, the formation of Palestinian identity is a key element in Arab nationalism. Anyway, I refuse to have an edit war over it. We can discuss it, or you can change it back unilaterally. Anything's better than an edit war.


 * I didn't know you had also started a thread at the talk page. It's usually a better practice to discuss things like this in one place. Fractured threads are harder to follow. --Uncle Ed 18:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Arab nationalism in modern Palestine is the primary source of conflict between modern Arabs and the state of Israel". Wow... that leaves me breathless. Palmiro | Talk 18:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if I've blundered, I've come to the right place to do so. This is a wiki, and any one person's error is easily undone. (Hmm, in my hasted I see to have left out Jewish nationalism. . . .) --Uncle Ed 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to give you an alternative view? I don't mind doing so! Palmiro | Talk 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, of course. The whole point of having an article about a political conflict is to understand WHY the sides are in conflict. Does it have anything to do in this case with Arabs and Jews both wanting the same piece of land?


 * Your continued blotting out of the term Palestinians in reference to this conflict in multiple articles is non-factual and bizarre. Please stop inserting your POV in grand sweeps. Lokiloki 20:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'll tell me what point of view is "mine" I'll stop inserting it. I thought I was inserting the point of view of the PNC that "Palestinian Arabs" or "Arab Palestinians" is what the PNC means by "Palestinians" - a meaning that deliberately and specifically excludes Palestinian Jews.

If this is the point of view you want me to stop inserting, please tell me why. I will stop inserting it, while you explain your reasons. --Uncle Ed 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Palestinian Jews themselves have equally excluded themselves from being considered "Palestinian" by accepting an identity as "Israelis." The native Palestinian-Jewish population is, at any rate, negligible when compared with the non-Palestinian-Jewish population of Israel and the Palestinian-Arab population of Israel, the Occupied Territories, and the Diaspora.  Using "Palestinians" to refer to "Palestinian Arabs" is perfectly conventional and appropriate.  In the second place, that you would think that it could possibly be appropriate to say that "Arab nationalism in modern Palestine" is the primary cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is completely ridiculous.  In the first place, "Arab nationalism" would more naturally mean "Pan-Arab nationalism," and a whole lot of Palestinians are incredibly dubious about pan-Arab nationalism, since they view the other Arab countries quite negatively, for the most part.  The term you're looking for, but are, apparently, ideologically incapable of using, is "Palestinian nationalism."  ("Palestinian Arab nationalism" might be an appropriate term for it before 1948, but not after the foundation of the State of Israel, when the Jews of Palestines en masse abandoned the label of Palestinian). In the second place, it is absurd to talk about Arab/Palestinian nationalism as the cause of the conflict without referring to Zionism as an alternate cause.  I would say that, Zionism was chronologically prior to Palestinian nationalism, and that Palestinian Arab nationalism originally arose as a response to Zionist settlement, especially during the Mandate period.  In the third place, there are many alternative causes/motives that might be given for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict besides competing nationalisms.  Materialists would certainly argue for economic causes, and there's much to be said for economic issues leading to the First Intifada, in particular.  And any number of other issues can be brought into it too.  You can't just reduce an article to your preferred explanation of it and expect that that's NPOV. And these protestations of surprise and innocence are completely absurd.  How on earth can someone who has been around for as long as you have have absolutely no idea that he is turning an article on an extremely sensitive subject into a POV mess? john k 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For that matter, the exclusion of Jews from the category of "Palestinian" was and is by no means uniform among Palestinian Arabs. I remember reading an interview with Arafat, printed in New York Review of Books sometime around 1983-1985 (sorry, this long after, I don't remember the exact date) in which he remarked with reference to just this sort of question, "Ezer Weizman is a Palestinian." (At that time he was advocating a unitary secular state. Post-Oslo, he might have said differently.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the original PLO Convenant stated very clearly (and notoriously) that “The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.”  Later it was clarified that “beginning of the Zionist invasion” meant the Balfour declaration.  A few years after 1967, some articles appeared in Fatah journals which revised this doctrine so that all current Israelis would be considered Palestinian provided they reject Zionism.  There‘s an interesting article by Y. Harkabi written in the late sixties and reprinted in the current edition of the Israeli-Arab Reader which analyzes the Fatah position from an Israeli point of view. Brian Tvedt 11:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

New intro
I agree in part with John Kenney, and here is a sentence from the new intro:


 * Much of it has to do with competing nationalistic aspirations of Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians, but it is also related to Pan-Arabism.

Since (as you say) it is absurd to talk about Arab/Palestinian nationalism as the cause of the conflict without referring to Zionism as an alternate cause I have mentioned Jewish nationalistic aspirations in Palestine right along with Arab nationalistic aspirations.

I have no desire to reduce the article to one simplistic explanation. This is not a final draft, just my latest stab at crafting a neutral intro: one which neither endorses nor condemns any point of view. I'm not saying Jews, Israelis or Zionists are right in hanging onto West Bank, etc. But I'm not saying they are wrong to do so, either. In fact, I'm not giving my own opinion at all and I challenge you to discern my actual opinion out of anything I've added to the article (or taken away from it). Same for Arabs, Palestinian Arabs, or Islamists, or Muslims: I'm not for them and I'm not against them.

I'm just trying to write an encyclopedia article here: not trying to make an argument to persuade the reader that any particular side is right or wrong. I would like a little help describing WHAT the various sides have SAID that they want, along with (if possible) the reasons THEY GAVE as to why they feel their desires are right, good, justifiable, due, etc. --Uncle Ed 13:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish Palestinians" is a completely anachronistic term, as I explained before. I'm reverting. john k 15:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism in Palestine
Do we have an article on Palestinian nationalism, and if we do would be about nationalism and/or nationalistic aspirations in Palestine?


 * Er, we do have such an article. You can read it, if you like. It seems like a pretty good article.  At any rate, Ed, why don't you explain on the talk page what you object to in the current article, and try to see if we can arrive at some consensus that would satisfy everybody, rather than these continual clumsy efforts to unilaterally edit the article to your liking?  john k 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

HI all....question
I wonder when I read these Israeli/Palestinian articles there seems to be such a heavy bias toward Israel? For example - there is very little mention of Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Yet International agencies and NGO's all consider Palestinian territory occupied, and as such consider Israel to be responsible for those persons under their control. Just wondering...can anyone tell me? NadineG 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you give specific examples of bias from the article, please? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I gave a clear example...occupation? There is no mention of what has been declared occupation by International bodies?  NadineG 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, you are referring to Israeli-occupied territories, Status of territories captured by Israel, Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict, a slew of different articles. This article is more of a general overview of the conflict, which does not take a particular side.  Interestingly,  International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict is linked on this page, within Template:Politics of Israel.  Do you have any good ideas as to what you want to add to the article, after visiting those links?  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

parties to the conflict
It's not between all Israel and all Palestinians because a significant portion of Israel's citizens are Arabs (see Israeli Arabs). And a significant group of Palestinians are Palestinian Jews. --Uncle Ed 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A war or conflict is rarely between all the citizens of one country or the other. When we speak of what the Germans did in World War II, we rarely include the German Jews in that. When we speak of American attitudes toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we don't usually bother to mention the small number of Americans who were active sympathizers with Soviet communism. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the frames/windows is covering some text
The national palestinian authority window/frame is covering/blocking the sentance "The status and future of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem ?.........? areas for the proposed State of Palestine."

Can someone please fix it....thanks

Civil-society and NGOs working for peace??
Hi all, I was just wondering if there is room for such a section here, or if there the topic is already covered on another related page. In addition to the PA, Israeli Government, UN, USA, etc, there are also a ton of civil society groups and NGOs working for peace and co-existence. Shalom Achshav, CJAED, etc. Gershonw 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe under Organizations and armed forces, you could add a subsection called Peace organizations. George100 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Biased?
Well, I was reading over the 5-6 paragraphs of this article, and I thought they had a subtle Israeli POV. It mentions that Palestinians had problems with Israelis, and were dealing with them militarily, with attacks against civilians. Then again, it states that Israel retaliates in legitimate self-defence. Nowhere does it mention that Israel also makes attacks against civilians. --Anarkial 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * examples? -- tasc talkdeeds 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I just provided them. But here: --Anarkial 17:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Talking about Israeli retaliation: "...view these actions as legitimate Israeli self-defense against a campaign of terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian groups..."
 * Talking about Palestinians: "...justify attacks, frequently against civilians..."

I fixed some errors....
Changed "Prime minister Ariel Sharon" to "now comatose former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon" Changed "Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert" to "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert" Changed some other slight errors (not real errors, just updates with current information). i. e. Sharons own Likud Party (he had since left that party and created his own, called Kadima.). etc.... (38.117.234.130 04:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Categories
Editors of this article might be interested in this CfD on Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon Raphael1 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV diction
It seems to me, that the choice of words is not neutral in this article: While violent acts perpetrated by the IDF is refered to as incursion, violent acts perpetrated by Palesinians is continuously refered to as terrorism. While there might be reasons for this diction (a frequently stated reason is that Palestinian resistance deliberately attacks innocent people), it is certainly not neutral, because Palestinians and many people in the Muslim world wouldn't accept that choice of word since they frequently call violent acts perpetrated by the IDF "states terrorism". I'd suggest to use a common word for violent activity perpetrated by both Israelis and Palestinians. I.e. bomb/military "attack" Raphael1 02:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, most of the time we use specific wording like "suicide bombing" wherever possible. "Incursion" is a pretty standard term in the Western media and it is accurate without being particularly loaded. I can't think of a better word to describe the current situation for example. Doing a quick search, I see that there are only two places in the article where the word terrorism is used - one to describe the Israeli perspective on the conflict, and the other to describe the terms of the Road Map. In both cases use of the word terrorism is justified because they refer to a qualification that others have made, not one that wikipedia is making. GabrielF 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How should a reader recognize that the phrase "terrorist groups" in this sentence is not a qualification wikipedia is making? "Israel currently plans on expanding existing large West Bank settlement blocs, and maintains the current impasse in the peace process [...] cannot be restarted until the Palestinian government dismantles terrorist groups." Raphael1 12:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably should either be reworded as "…dismantles what Israel characterizes as terrorist groups" or a direct quotation should be used. - Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon comment
Why is it always the Isarealis who are merley defending themselfves that are criminazlized by the leftists in Europe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.111.223 (talk • contribs) 9 July 2006.

Peer Review Request
I've just requested a peer review for Operation Wrath of God, which was a campaign directed by the Mossad to kill those responsible for the 1972 Munich Massacre. Obviously this was a major event in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions. Thanks.--Joshdboz 11:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"An unbiased, objective overview"?
Our link to http://www.historyguy.com/israeli-palestinian_conflict.html] (The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict) is described as "An unbiased, objective overview of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians from 1948 through the present day. From the History Guy Website". I'm not saying that it is deliberately biased, but it is not so unbiased that we should single it out and describe it this way. In this version of history, the Palestinians always "attack" and the Israelis "respond". The Palestinian actions are described in terms of deaths and havoc; the Israeli actions in terms of goals. I could say more about its problems, and I'm not saying it should not be linked (it's a reasonably informative site) but it seems to me to be totally out of line to praise its lack of bias and its objectivity. - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed the words "unbiased, objective", but still classified it with the other essentially neutral sites. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)