Talk:Israeli occupation of Palestine

Beginning of pre-VfD discussion
This is a work in progress and references are forthcoming. This article is intended to provide a balanced view of the subject by an author not associated with either party. For highly POV articles you do not need to look far -- most articles in re Israel and Arabs/Muslims/Palestine on wiki as of today are rife with pro-Israeli propaganda. HistoryBuffEr 03:16, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)


 * Hi HistoryBuffEr,
 * I understand where you are coming from, but I think a better approach would be to attempt to make the articles with a pro-Israeli tint NPOV rather than to add articles intentionally that are POV.
 * Unfortunately this is not an easily-solved issue since many people believe Palestinian areas "belong to Israel" with no question about it, and others believe that Israel is occupying them, whether illegally or legally.
 * This clearly needs to be discussed in detail and I invite your comments.
 * Node 03:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * most articles in re Israel and Arabs/Muslims/Palestine on wiki as of today are rife with pro-Israeli propaganda . . . except for those that are rife with pro-Palestinian propaganda, and those that are full of both&mdash;IPC articles are some of the worst POV battlegrounds in the entire 'pedia.


 * Be that as it may, the contents of this page might be better-placed (after thorough NPOV treatment) in Palestinian territories. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 03:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Partly agree. The article should be balanced, but not pro-Israel POV -- there is plenty of that on wiki already. I do have references for most of the points and will provide them time permitting. Thanks, HistoryBuffEr 03:27, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)


 * It's not about references. It's about neutrality. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not an essay, and even the title of this isn't neutral. Feel free to try and fix this, but considering its current state, I'll redirect it again if it isn't improved soon. Ambi 03:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm. If you'll recall correctly, an NPOV notice doesn't mean "Please feel free to repeatedly replace the contents of this page with a redirect" but rather that the article needs discussion to work towards NPOV for the article. Node 03:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yet, you have made it clear that you aren't interested in neutrality. How can you work towards NPOV when you aren't capable of doing so in the first place.  But please, continue to hide behind the word "alleged".  --Viriditas 07:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * When the article appears to be unsalvageable and duplicates existing content, yes it does. Ambi 03:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * When you are too lazy to try to work towards salvaging the article with others and thus say it is unsalvagable and duplicates existing content, it does not. Node 03:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To "Ambi" the sophomoric redirector (and other potential agitprop troops):
Harassment is counderpoductive, as the same tactic can be used on your favored POV article(s), and facts will not be cowed no matter how shrill you get. If you have an intelligent suggestion or edit please be our guest. Otherwise you'll serve only as an amusement here. HistoryBuffEr 03:44, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuffEr, I appreciate your feelings but such rhetoric is generally considered to be counterproductive. No matter the behaviour of the other people involved, it's always best to strive for cooperation without directly accusing people of things. Node 03:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note taken, but trolls rarely listen to nuance.

Now what about those overwrought disclaimers? It is "Occupation", not "alleged accupation" -- the entire world (save for some in Israel and US) agree on that. How would Israelis feel if, say, the Holocaust article was sprinkled with disclaimers about "alleged conflict between Germans and Jews." HistoryBuffEr 03:51, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)


 * Read Neutral point of view. It's a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Ambi 04:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * On this I have to agree with Ambi. Those "some in Israel and the US" count just as much as everybody else. We have to fairly represent all POVs, but label them as such, and that is why this article is a hot topic. Node 04:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another issue is the unwarranted use of "many" in your disclaimers. In the world of 6+ Billion only about 3 M Israelis (plus a tiny minority in the US) disagree about the term "occupation" and the fairness of the UN. As even Ariel Sharon has called it "occupation", the disclaimer "alleged" sounds as silly as "alleged Holocaust" would. HistoryBuffEr 04:22, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, their views are relevant. And the people in the US are not a minority IIRC. Node 04:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me try again:

1) 3M (50%) of Israelis who disagree with the term are NOT "many" people in the world of 6+ Billion. They may be called "some" at best. The US support is largely limited to (influential) politicians and media, but very, very few in the US argue with the term "occupation". So, opponents of ""occupaton" are numerically a small minority. One can always find a few nuts claiming things, but that does not mean that they have to be given prominence (much less call them "many").

2) Under international legal standards Israel IS occupying Palestine. Even Israel itself has never claimed that either Gaza Strip or West Bank are part of Israel -- therefore they are occupied lands.

HistoryBuffEr 04:39, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)


 * So what? NPOV is NPOV. 3 million people are *not* "a few nuts claiming things", and there are millions of people around the world with similar views. I'd also like to remind you that there is currently an NPOV dispute, and when there is an NPOV dispute you usually have to make some concessions. If the other party doesn't, well, then people will see *them* as not being reasonable and things may end up working in your favour. Node 06:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You seem to miss my point. I did not say that opposite POVs should be excluded (and I have noted them in the article), just that it is not "many" but "some" at best. "Some" claim the Earth is flat, but that does not mean they should be given equal footing with the observable fact that the Earth is round. And the fact that Palestine is occupied is disputed only by few foaming-at-the-mouth fundametalists, not by any reasonable person. HistoryBuffEr 07:13, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

A new issue: Israel did not breach the U.N. Resolution 181 "in response to the invasion of neighbouring countries." Israel breached the resolution first -- Israel's declaration of independence constituted a breach. The Arabs had prepared to attack in response to the Israeli declaration and Israel was attacked only after Israel began ethnically cleansing the indigenous population. Please revise. HistoryBuffEr 05:01, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)


 * And how did the declaration of independence constitute a breach? Node 06:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Israel's declaration was unilateral and neither party was allowed to make any unilateral steps without the UN approval. HistoryBuffEr 06:47, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

870,000 inhabitants of Palestine
Israel's pogroms of 1948 resulted in deaths, maimings and the ethnic cleansing of more than 870,000 inhabitants of Palestine.
 * According to a 1945 estimate, the 870,000 inhabitants were Jews, not Palestinans. Looks like a troll named HistoryBuffEr is having fun fabricating historical facts. --Viriditas 06:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Get some history books, pal -- even the Israeli version agrees with my numbers. HistoryBuffEr 06:46, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
 * Post your sources. Sadly, there are none. It's a historical fact that the 870,000 inhabitants were Jews.  Like most trolls, however, you aren't interested in facts, just distorting them.  --Viriditas 06:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * So nobody lived in palestine prior to jewish immigration from Europe? I'm trying to NPOV this article but seriously that is over the top. Node 07:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That is not what was said. Somebody claimed that 870,000 arabs were ethnically cleansed due to pogroms of 1948.  In reality, there is no such evidence for that claim, and no sources have been posted.  As I mentioned previously, the troll who wrote that merely switched the ethnicities of the natives.  In historical reality, there were 870,000 Jews in that region prior to statehood.  But please, continue to fabricate evidence.  It merely shows what type of person you are. --Viriditas 08:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Prior to Jewish immigration from Europe, there were 870,000 indigenous Jews living in Palestine. They were not Arabs, nor did they commit suicide.  According to you, these Jews don't exist.  And you are saying that you are trying to NPOV?  Please. --Viriditas 07:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What the ? Please consult British Mandate of Palestine. There were most certainly not 870,000 indigenous Jews living in Palestine! - Mustafaa 07:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There were ~870,000 indigenous, persecuted Jews EXPELLED from Arab lands, hence their arrival in Palestine. They were from the middle-east and North Africa, not Europe.  Follow my comments above. --Viriditas
 * Precisely _not_ indigenous to Palestine - and, incidentally, in most countries not expelled either. As to the number, it's an underestimate - by 1950 it was already 914,000, according to the UN. - Mustafaa 08:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You have confused the issue. The figure of 914,000 refers to Arabs, not Jews.  The figure of 870,000 refers to Jews, not Arabs.  These Jews were indigenous to the region, and did not come from Europe like Node implied.  Around ~870,000 Mizrahi Jews fled Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen, and/or faced expulsion, persecution and death. Now, where is the evidence for the claim that Jews were responsible for the ethnic cleansing of more than 870,000 Palestinians? There is _none_.  By 1949, the UN claimed that 726,000 Palestinians (Israel claims ~530,000) were forced out or voluntarily left the new state of Israel.  So why does this article claim that Jews murdered them?  And why are you claiming that Jews murdered 1 million Palestinians when even the link you cite doesn't say that?--Viriditas 09:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You must have read your history wrong, because AT NO POINT were Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, and/or Yemen part of the British mandate of Palestine. Anybody moving from those countries to Israel and/or the "occupied territories"/"palestinian territories"/whatever cannot be considered "indigenous to the region". I mean, how many of those are in Africa, and how many are in Asia? How many of them actually share a border with present-day Israel, even!? Node 02:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Red herring, noted. Where is the evidence for your claim that Israel ethnically cleansed 870,000 Palestinians?  Hint, there is none.  Even the official UN site contradicts your claims.  Your attempt at "neutrality" is nowhere to be found, but please, continue to post outright fabrications and historical revisionism.  --Viriditas 02:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * WHAT THE FUCK!?! MY CLAIM!?! All I ever claimed in the article about Israel being responsible for the ethnic cleansing of anybody anywhere was that some people believed it'd happened, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED from my proposed revisions. Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Node 02:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I see that now, and I have rv. --Viriditas 02:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "allegations" and NPOV
Where are the sources for these allegations? Where are the citations? I just did a search for them, and found none. Now, hiding behind crazy claims by using the word "alleged" is one thing, but pretending to be neutral while posting blatant fabrications is another. And that's exactly what you are doing when you make wild claims and put the word "alleged" in front of it. Apparently you didn't read the NPOV pages. An allegation does not just stand on its own. It has to be examined, verified, and cited. That has not happened here, nor will it. Neutrality requires verification of at least the claimant, if not the claim itself. Unsubstantiated allegations by invisible and unnamed persons do not qualify as neutral sources. Hiding behind the word "alleged" does not promote neutrality, as neutrality depends on both sides being able to make claims that can be publically validated by interested parties. Since you refuse to cite sources for your allegations, you cannot be considered to be promoting a NPOV.--Viriditas 07:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sources are too numerous to list. Even the pro-Israeli propaganda page here on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict) agrees with my numbers. This is my LAST reply to you, go get your elementary education elsewhere. HistoryBuffEr 07:54, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)


 * You still haven't cited any references for your claims, nor is the link you cited a working link. I suggest you stop fabricating data and cease pretending to be neutral.  Your first comment on this discussion page reflects your inability to maintain a NPOV.   --Viriditas 08:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "Too numerous to list" is nonsense. Just give comma-separated web links (at the relavant poin in the article) to your three best online sources. If there are lots of them, this should take all of 5 minutes. I haven't looked into the substantive issue of what you are arguing about, just reacting to the claim of "Too numerous to list". -- Jmabel 06:18, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing citations, where are they?

 * Some people claim that in 1948 Israel was responsible for the deaths, maimings and the alleged ethnic cleansing of more than 870,000 Arabs from the areas designated by the UN as Palestine.

I'm still waiting for verification of this claim. The UN site quoted above says they weren't killed, but rather forced out or voluntarily left. --Viriditas 02:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

REDIRECT
Please do not use the REDIRECT function to delete this page. It has been edited since the discussion on deletion began, and no consensus has emerged since that edit.

If, however, you have indeed moved all the info from Israeli occupation of Palestine to Arab-Israeli conflict or some other suitable article, I apologize and you have my blessings FWIW. --Uncle Ed 14:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ed, return this page to its REDIRECT state, or unprotect it. Changing a protected page (identical to protecting a specific version) is an abuse of your administrator rights. Gadykozma 15:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ed, I've been told that protecting a page which you are actively involved in editing (and in conflict about) is indeed an abuse of administrator rights. I believe that editing a page already under protection is also considered an abuse. Jayjg 15:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gad, I will do neither. Jay, you are incorrect.

The only rule about sysops and protected pages is that a sysop may not use page protection to win an edit war. I have left the page unprotected, and am therefore within the guidelines.

Someone tried that argument against me before, and raised a big stink, but he "lost" his case. See Augusto Pinochet if you're interested. --Uncle Ed 15:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * ED, this page is still protected what are you talking about? Gadykozma 15:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * People, and that means Ed, Gadykozma, and Jayjg, leave this page alone for a few days. It's now on my watch list. I'd like all of you to behave like respectful professionals and if you've got edits to make, do them offline or in your user space, and leave this page be for a while. Want to discuss, go to wikien-l@Wikipedia.org. Wikilove. Christopher Mahan 16:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I've never edited or protected this page. Jayjg 17:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Gadykozma, you are right and I was WRONG. *blush* I have now 'unprotected' the Israeli occupation of Palestine page. Er, I hope you read my long reply at my talk page. --Uncle Ed 16:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Christopher, you are also right, and I will do as you say. --Uncle Ed 16:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Revival of the page
I took the liberty of resuming work on this page, heedless of the 'protected page guidelines'. I'm not sure they really apply in this case. If I'm wrong, I'm sure Gady or Jay or Buff on Mav or someone will scold me, and then of course I'll have to stop.

Possible courses of action:
 * 1) We keep the page locked and revert it to the previous version (a REDIRECT)
 * 2) We keep the page locked trust sysops to make changes based on talk page consensus.
 * 3) Same as above, but any sysop other than me (Ed Poor) since I'm such a pain in the neck (or other anatomic part)
 * 4) We unlock the page and have a big edit war or vfd or something, and it ends up locked again.
 * 5) We unlock the page and cooperate beautifully.

I'm hoping for option #5 of course. #4 would be a waste of time. #2 or #3 might work, but #5 is the most viable -- if we are really ready for it now. --user:Ed Poor (porous reed) 13:33, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are so bent on cooperation, why don't you participate in the discussions about a name for a page on ths topic rather than making unilateral moves whose obvious sole purpose is to annoy? Gadykozma 14:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please return the page to its former state and work as Gadykozma suggests. Jayjg 16:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gady and Jay both object, so "back it goes" as promised. --user:Ed Poor (porous reed) 17:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * No surprises here, Uncle_Ed, they'll never accept an NPOV article (I'll skip the told-ya-so, oops, recursion error :). Considering that NPOV is not negotiable, the only option left seems to be the use of (revert) force by the moderate majority. Let me know that you think. HistoryBuffEr 17:56, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

Ya know, now that I'm on such good terms with both you and Jay, you'd think I'd be in a position to work out some sort of mutually acceptable accommodation. Something stable, rather than something held together only with external force. --user:Ed Poor (porous reed) 18:48, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Lemme'see: I (not associated with either party) am promoting the view of most of the world as NPOV, they (Israel-Only advocates) are promoting an ultra-extremist agenda as NPOV. Split the difference and we get to, surprise, the Poor :) middle ground: a pro-Israel article. HistoryBuffEr 20:15, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "NPOV"? I do not think you are using that word the same way I am. It would help if you gave your definition of the term. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Note: Ed Poor has stated on his Talk page that he agrees with the idea that "all terrorists are Islamic". This should be taken into account when he talks about NPOV. - Xed 14:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I said While I personally side with Israel and tend to agree with the idea that all terrorists are Islamic I try hard NOT to imbue my edits with this perspective. Please do not quote me out of context. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:57, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep digging. - Xed 16:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Kindly read Larry Sanger's words about NPOV quoted on my talk page above that. And reflect that unbiased writing doesn't mean giving up one's own opinions. By the way, how's our mediation going? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Mediation is impossible with bigots like you. - Xed 15:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Revisited
Uncle_Ed, you asked and I answered "what do you mean by NPOV" before, but here are most important points again:
 * NPOV intro: Present all sides fairly. I have yet to see an article which presents the Palestinian side fairly.
 * Space and Balance: Give POVs space and prominence proportional to their weight. Meaning, mention all POVs but don't present extremist POV as if it were the majority POV:
 * The Majority POV(s) should get most space and prominence, and conversely
 * The Minority POV(s) should get less space and prominence.

HistoryBuffEr 18:00, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
 * Avoid weasel terms: Such as calling "occupation" a "conflict" ...
 * Attribute assertions: E.g: State which group denies occupation (rather than hide extremists behind "most Israelis").


 * I agree with all that. (Oops, probably should add some nuanced qualifiers ;-)


 * So how does that apply to I am promoting the view of most of the world as NPOV, they (Israel-Only advocates) are promoting an ultra-extremist agenda as NPOV.? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 18:42, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I was hoping that's obvious: I claim to represent the majority POV and that they represent the minority POV. I know it's tough to be in minority, but if life ain't fair, just grin and bear. HistoryBuffEr 20:04, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)


 * Claim being the relevant word in that summary. Jayjg 01:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "I have yet to see an article which presents the Palestinian side fairly." & "I claim to represent the majority POV and that they represent the minority POV." Now I think we're getting somewhere.


 * Buff, you have been frank and open (not to mention, rather patient) in discussing points of view. I recall now that a month or two ago you gave a lengthy and comprehensive list of bullet points. I forget which talk page that was on, and maybe it got archived. But now may be a good time to go back to that list and use it as starting point.


 * I would like to see ALL of our Wikipedia articles present "the Palestinian side" fairly. (I assume you mean, by "Palestinians", the stateless Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza (and their kin). --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:38, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your desire to be fair. The devil is in details, so let's hope we end up on the fair side.
 * Using self-appellation is generally best and NPOV, so those calling themselves Palestinians are universally called Palestinians by neutral parties (yes, they are mostly stateless Palestinian Arabs).
 * (P.S: I'll repost detailed points when I have more time.) HistoryBuffEr 07:00, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)


 * Not to drift too far from the point, but it sounds like we could define Palestinians as "people who identify as Palestinians" -- which seems like a circular definition or a recursive definition to me. I still think we need to clarify the relationship between the termes Palestinian Arab and Palestinian. If we could say that "Palestinian" is nothing more than shorthand for "Palestinian Arab" or "Arab Palestinian" then I would be satisfied; it's just that I suspect there's an ulterior motive behind some usage of the term (see Terms used in articles about Palestine). --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:37, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I wish it was that simple. What about non-Arabs, or Israeli Arabs who consider themselves Palestinians, etc? We need not dwell too much on intricate details, let's just mention them -- our description is not a legally binding document and will not prejudge anything. HistoryBuffEr 19:17, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)