Talk:Palestinian views on the peace process/Archive 1

In 1993, Arafat said that he would change the PLO Charter so that it would no longer call for the destruction of the state of Israel. The PLO has affirmed and reaffirmed this several times. Yet, to this day, the PLO Charter calls for the complete destruction of the state of Israel. How many years does it take to change a few sentences?

At the same time, Palestinians are destroying ancient artifacts in Jerusalem and denying the historical fact that Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years. (US Congress, search for Bill Number HR 2566)


 * RK is at it again. I'm of the opinion that this entire entry should be deleted. It's a bunch of propaganda with no real encyclopedic content. --AV

I don't agree that it is propaganda, but I do agree that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, at least not without significant contextualization of some kind.

Here's the way I see it. Some people believe that the PLO and/or Palestinian Authority are still fiercely committed to the destruction of Israel.


 * They themselves say this. On what basis do you accuse them all of lying? RK

Other people believe that the PLO and/or Palestinian Authority sincerely wants peace and will be happy with co-existence with Israel. In general, peoples beliefs on these things are correlated with their overall degree of support for Israel or the PLO. This topic is too controversial and contemporary for us to think that we can take a position on the truth or falsehood of these beliefs. Therefore, as Larry has put it -- we should fairly _characterize_ the debate, rather than _join_ the debate.


 * No! We must stop calling all of the Palestinian leaders liars. That is inappropriate. We are not mindreaders; we can only report the quotes and facts. How we interpret the facts is debateable, but the actual quotes are not disputable.

I have a theory that thoughtful combatants can disagree vehemently about who is right or wrong in the debate, but -- if careful and co-operative -- can still characterize the debate in a way that both can agree upon. --Jimbo Wales

If RK stops posting this stuff or if people just delete it I might be able to resist my urge to express my disagreements with him. To be brutally honest RK really annoys me: he keeps on attacking me personally (not on this page, elsewhere). Anyone is more than welcome to try to refute what I say, but I can't stand his unfounded ad hominem accusations of antisemitism. If you want to delete the whole page, my comment included, go right ahead. -- SJK


 * Well, engaging in a flame war is going to lead to personal attacks! Perhaps if we thought together of a way to keep ourselves from harming Wikipedia as we do now, things could be better! --Uriyan

This clearly is not an encyclopedia article. Even the topic is probably not suitable for an encyclopedia article. I have pasted it here in case anyone wants to see what we are talking about, or even to reshape this material into a more proper form. - Tim


 * The views of the PLO are not suitable for an encyclopaedia entry on the PLO? What nonsense is this? RK

-

PLO Rejection of Israel?s Right to Exist in Peace

''RK: How do you know the actions of the Palestinian leadership reflect their real motives, rather than just being propaganda for Palestinian consumption. An important part of the PLO strategy is to be able to turn on and off Palestinian sentiments. When it suits them in the negotiations, they stir up anti-Israel feelings; and when it suits them, they calm down anti-Israel feelings. If the negotiations are not going anywhere and the world's attention is drifting away from the conflict, they can stir up violence to help bring the world back to get the world's attention back. And when they need to show others they are serious about the negotiations, they crack down on violence. It's just a negotiating tactic; you have no proof their propaganda reflects their real intentions. -- SJK''


 * Given the last dozen suicide attacks by Fatah people against Israel in the last two weeks, are you now willing to admit that you were wrong? Are you now willing to stop calling these Palestinians liars? Can we finally admit that their words do have some validity and honesty, and that that they are telling the truth when many of their internal documents openly call for the destruction of Israel? [For example, the Palestinian center in East Jerusalem, Orient House, has maps of the region which show Israel to be removed from the map, and replaced with Arab Palestine. This same map is used in their public school textbooks.]  I cannot understand this anti-Israel double standard. In every entry in this encyclopaedia you have one standard for truth, expcept when it comes to an entry about destroying the Jewish state.  If your argument (above) had merit, then the entire Wikipedia project could be worthless, as you could accuse every one in the world of lying about their own beliefs.  The fact that you never have this standard - except when it comes to situations in which Israel is the victim - is not academically sound! RK

Since I agree with the article so strongly as to consider it "common sense" and "obviously true" I suspect it is not neutral, but I'd like to see a place for it in Wikipedia. Where should it go?

''Below, for now. RK, I respect your point of view and I think it might be completely correct. But Wikipedia has a firm neutral point of view policy such that, if someone might disagree strongly with the contents of an article, it must either be changed so that the dispute is characterized fairly (and also so as to represent the actual views of actual experts and parties to the dispute, and not just opinionated people from Wikipedia). If you can't agree with that policy (or something very much like it), you probably shouldn't be working on Wikipedia. But please note that I mean absolutely no offense to you or anyone by removing the article to this page. --Larry Sanger''


 * Over the past five days, no one has been willing to work on the article, or to disagree with any facts in it. I have sent messages to various Arab newsgroups asking for info, and have repeatedly asked people here to offer a different point of view. No one, so far, has been willing or able to do so. I think that an article with a neutral point of view should describe the Palestinian's own beliefs, in their own words, without judgement. That is what the current article does. If anyone would like to improve it or add to it, that's fine. Some people think NPOV means that the views of one or two people should be presented as equally imporant as the views of the majority. That may be true in academia and philosophy, but not for an entry on how a government views its relations with another government. If fellow Wikipedians think that other points of view exist within the Palestinian Authority, that's great. Let thing bring forth their sources to improve the entry. I would be overjoyed to read such material. RK

While this entry can and should certainly be improved, I don't see how it violate the Wikipedia policy of keeping a neutral point of view (NPOV). After, this article does not actually advocate murdering Jews and destroying Israel, rather it only states that PLO's view that Israel will be destroyed. I think the real problem is this: Some people don't want this information known, as it make Israel seem more sympathetic, and it makes the PLO look bad. But that is a value judgement. Similar entries on the Taliban might make the USA look good and the Taliban look bad to some people...but what does that have to do with NPOV? Nothing at all. Think about it: From the PLO point of view, this article actually makes these PLO leaders look good and admirable as they are open about their goals, and are not embarassed by them. The idea that destroying is bad is a western idea (one that I happen to agree with), but we have to admit that other people think its a great idea. (Millions of people, in fact.) Good or bad, this had been the PLO's goal, and if the contention is questioned, I feel that this sub-entry with quotes is needed to back it up. RK

Well, to start with, the title itself states an opinion that a significant minority of people might wish to disagree with publicly: "peace treaty with Isreal is a temporary measure." I'm just guessing, but I imagine plenty of Palestinians would want to disagree with that--even if they secretly and among themselves would agree with it. If you want to make the point that the peace treaty with Isreal is a temporary measure, then you ought to attribute that view to some expert, rather than trying to make it the official view of Wikipedia.

Moreover, many of the quotations in the article seem specifically designed to argue for a view that you have--very probably a true view, of course, and one that probably a large majority of informed observers have--but surely it seems odd that in an encyclopedia we should be arguing for anything at all? Instead, we should be doing exposition: "A number of different quotations from the 1990s from Palestinian officials might well be construed as saying that the Palestinians do not hope for, or intend to achieve, peace with Isreal. A very large majority of observers (in Isreal and the West) believe this..." (Then you'd go on to characterize the state of the art here--what have diplomats, foreign policy experts, and political scientists had to say about it? Report that, and you have achieved NPOV.)  Stating or even merely insinuating, "The Palestinians do not wish for peace" is clearly not NPOV.


 * Finally! This is actual constructive criticism, and this is something that I find intellectually honest. I can deal with this. Previous criticisms had no content, or simply asserted that all the quotes were deceptions. But your specific points are valid, and thus can be worked with in improving the text. RK

One more point along these lines is apropos. Why should it ever be an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article (I emphasize these words because they are important to the point I'm making) that some group of people do not desire peace? Even if it's true and uncontroversial, it is prejudicial to make that topic an encyclopedia topic. Imagine if someone were to write an article called "Americans do not desire peace with terrorists." --Larry Sanger


 * Here is the answer to your question - because the entry itself deal's with the PLO and the peace process. An entry on a peace treaty would be worthless, if not outright dishonest, if it failed to report the view of one of the parties to that treaty! This is simply common sense.  And it would certainly be appropriate for someone to write an article on America's military and political policy in dealing with terrorist organizations. The State Department has much on this topic. RK


 * It's just as worthless if it *only* reports *one* of the parties' views on the issue, and only *one* of the *range* of views of that party over time or across its leadership or membership. Nobody's arguing whether it is basically factual, but whether it is complete and fair or selective. --Dmerrill

To clarify the NPOV problems with this article, as I see them, primarily for your benefit, RK:


 * 1) Interpreting the statements of individuals as PLO policy rather than that person's policy. If you're going to use individual statements you need to give a fair overview of all the statements by PLO leaders, not just the most rabid. If Arafat's statements for some reason *define* policy, you need to document why that is (i.e., Hitler was Supreme Dictator, so what he said became national policy). If this *is* a fair overview of PLO leaders, document that, because not all of us know the leadership well enough for that to be obvious.
 * 2) Interpreting statements that propose to make part of pre-1967 Israel into part of a Palestinian state equivalent to there being *no* state of Israel.
 * 3) Not giving any kind of chronological context to positions that could have changed (a pre-Oslo statement can not be automatically assumed to be in force anymore, since positions could have changed during Oslo talks, etc.) Almost anything said in 1974 in politics (whether Palestine, Israel, the U.S. or Japan) has likely been overrun by later events. Those statements probably only belong in a timeline or historical analysis unless they've been supported by later statements.
 * 4) I haven't seen any Wikipedians proposing that all the PLO wants is peace. What I've seen both here and elsewhere is the proposal that the PLO may be willing to *settle* for peace under the right circumstances. To give an analogy, what I would really love to have is a world where gay people are fully embraced and loved for who they are, and where their orientation isn't an issue. That's my viewpoint as a gay man. But I'd be perfectly happy to settle for equal legal rights. I'd certainly not impose anything more; this is a free society even for bigots. As long as they treat me equally in the public sphere they don't have to invite me to dinner.
 * 5) There doesn't seem to have been much if any effort to include facts or arguments to the contrary. As you know, *no* issue is completely one-sided. That makes this article read like a polemic.
 * 6) Finally, the title of the article draws a conclusion not supported by the evidence enough to consider it a fact, although it is quite possibly true.

--Dmerrill

Certainly, "Israel's Right To Exist" is a topic that merits inclusion, since it is both important and controversial (like articles on Abortion and Prostitution). The article this should be would explain both sides of the controversy with a NPOV and include some of the info RK has posted. This hypothetical revised article might include topic sentences such as "The PLO's position on this issue is a matter of controversy, with some saying that the PLO clearly does accept Israel's right to exist and others saying that the public statements of PLO leaders are carefully crafted to present an ambiguous message. For example, ... "

The title of such an article might be "Right to exist" or Israel/Right to exist", with links to topics such as Sovereignty and Self determination. Plus, of course, links to pages on which this is mentioned (or bring those references to this new page).

-- Cayzle


 * Or possibly Israeli-Palestian Relations, United States-Chinese Relations, etc. to discuss international issues like this. --Dmerrill


 * Isn't the place under 'transnational relations' for various countries? --MichaelTinkler


 * Do you mean Israel/Transnational Relations? Or should it be Palestine/Transnational Relations? Significant articles probably shouldn't go under either of the countries, insinuating one country is more important than the other, yet we don't want two duplicate articles, right? That's why I propose a stand-alone article rather than subpage. Besides, subpages are supposed to be going way, ahem, any day now. --Dmerrill

We also need a list of quotes of PLO figures where they advocate neighborly relations with Israel. These occur often in western media, presumably rarely in Arab media. We will then get to the bottom of the issue: PLO strategically talks differently to different audiences; it is not clear what their real position is. --AxelBoldt


 * Yeah, documented evidence of what they've said when and to whom would be valuable information. --Dmerrill

OK, let's think of a name for the article and start writing it! :-) --LMS

A new addition to this entry states:
 * A leading PLO official has recently emerged as a voice for a new Palestinian view of the peace process and the State of Israel. Sari Nusseibeh calls for historic compromises by both Palestinian and Israelis, in order to secure a permanent and lasting peace. He explicitly states that Palestinians must give up their demand for millions of descendents of Palestinian refugees to immigrate into Israel; with this demand out of the way, he argues, a true and lasting peace can emerge

See, and you guys thought that I was too biased to search for such views! :) I have been looking for a few weeks for a high-level Palestinian official who publicly stated in Arabic that a permanent peace needs to be made with Israel, and whose repeated words and actions made clear that this was a real goal, and not a "Trojan Horse" (as Faisal Husseini himself called the PLO and PA's actual plans). And I found someone who truly seems to fit the bill. Even Israeli newspapers are still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and that says a lot during this latest intifada. I also have learned that although most Palestinians oppose him (and some have made threats against him) there are some Palestinians who agree with him. RK

--- RK should feel free to post about this matter whether others consider it propagandist/inaccurate or not. However, the info should be elsewhere: with due respect to RK, the information that's been assembled on this page belongs, summarized, on pages relating to the PLO or the Oslo or camp david accords. "Peace treaty with Israel is a temporary measure" is a statement or an invitation to argument, not a keyword suitable for a reference work. The test is simple: would anyone think to LOOK UP the title of the article?


 * I agree with you. What you suggest, in fact, is the way that the situation originally was. When this section of the entry was expanded upon and became controversial, I moved it to here, where it languished for a while until others gave constructive criticism on how to put it into a better form. In the last week people have given up on the claim that it is propaganda, because most people now accept that the quotes herein are in fact mainstream positions of the majority of Palestinian Authority (PA) and PLO leaders. The entry as it stands attempts to describe their views, in their own words, without judgement. I even have labored to find pro-peace views to counter the mainstream view (though this hasn't been easy.) RK


 * Of courese, new contributions are still welcome (as they are in all Wikipedia entries), and the article could be retitled as something like "Palestinian view of Peace process" or something like that. It could also be integrated back into the main article on the peace process, but as that article gets longer, this may make it unwieldy. I suggest that this section remain as a stand-alone entry, but with a new title. Once we agree on a new name, the entry's text can be copied there (along with this Talk section), and then the old name can be deleted. Any other suggesstions for new names for this article? RK

Good examples of article titles: "Mao Zedong", "Adolf Hitler", "Bungy jump"

Bad examples of article atitles: "Mao killed millions", "Hitler was a staunch vegetarian", "Bungy jumping is fucking insane!" ... and "Peace treaty with Israel is a temporary measure".

The scholarship here is of the standards expected by the Wikkipedia, and the information should stay in the Wikkipedia. But remove the topic as a separate article, for it is plainly NOT an encyclopaedic entry. --DD

I repeat, the test for articleship is simple: would anyone think to LOOK UP the title.

" Several articles link to it. If we change the name of this article, we can easily change the name of the link in the other Wikipedia entries which link to it. RK

I agree with Larry that the title itself is biased, although I am pro-Israel and believe that the Arabs are using the "peace process" as a cloak for their real aim of destroying Israel. I regard it is similar to Communist "peace offensives" -- but I have an even stronger anti-communist bias!

Being aware of one's own bias is often sufficient to prevent oneself from injecting that bias into an article and spoiling its NPOV.

I think there is a place on wikipedia for an analysis of Arab intentions toward Israel. I can't think of a good article title off the top of my head, unless "Arab foreign policy" works. Or how about "Middle East Foreign Relations"?

Politics is complicated stuff. It's not just what a party or nation says it's going to do that counts, but its track record and also how public opinion regards its trustworthiness. All these factors are subject to manipulation, which makes it hard to get to the bottom of it.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is stuff like: (I've already used up 11 letters, just for one party's view on an issue or one country's policy toward another country.)
 * X said Y about Z.
 * A said they don't trust X because of B, C & D.
 * E says they trust X because of F, G & H.

No answers tonight, I'm still analyizing. Ed Poor

- What about an entry called [Middle East peace process]]. That has the advantage of being what the late 20th - early 21st century American media calls the 'situation', so someone might conceivably search for it. Then most if not all of the information from 'Peace treaty with Israel is a temporary measure' would find a place in the new entry as example - but with room for counter-examples of the actual attempts by one side (or even both sides) to settle a peace, temporary or lasting. Just a suggestion. --MichaelTinkler


 * Well, this was already done. Then the material for this sub-topic expanded so much that it was moved to a separate entry. I thought that we were going to try and find a new name for it, and not bring this entire entry into a larger one. We could do that, but eventually the main topic will grow long; the Arab-Israel peace process from Camp David to today is a big 30 years subject. I don't have any problems with making a long entry like this, but it seems to me that the general Wikipedia trend is to eventually break sub-sections up into their own entry. Maybe a new entry, as you named, can be created, and a few sub-pages of that can be made, such as these:
 * ((Middle East peace process))/Palestian_views
 * ((Middle East peace process))/American_State_Dept_views
 * ((Middle East peace process))/Israeli views
 * ((Middle East peace process))/Pre-Camp_David_history
 * ((Middle East peace process))/whatever_else turns_out_to_be_useful
 * What do you think? RK

LMS writes "The contents of this page have been moved ...A new, neutral article should be created with an uncontroversially unbiased title....In case there's any question: this is an administrative decision by me."


 * I don't understand this decision Larry, and I think you missed some recent discussion and work on this article. It already has been changed a number of times due to communal comments. The latest comments indicated that the material herein was NPOV; the current discussion was _not_ about deleting the entire entry! Rather, the recent discussion was about finding a new name for this entry, and finding a new place to put it. In all other Wikipedia entries, articles are revised by communal consensus, based on comments, quotes, and facts backed uo with sources. But here alone the entire entry was effectively deleted by you alone with no discussion. Why this departure from usual Wikipedia protocol? Since this topic was first discussed, people have been uncomfortable with the views of both the PLO and the Palestinian Authority (PA) on this subject. Nonetheless, these views exist whether we happen to agree with them or not; Let's allow the leadership of the PA to state their own views in their own words. Since you feel that there are problems with this entry as it stands, instead of deleting the entry, please list the problems so that we as a community can work on improving the article. But deleting all the information not only is unproductive, it gives the impression that the material quoted so far is somehow off-limits. I re-iterate my comments from over a month ago: An article on the Palestinian view of the peace process must give their views on the peace process, and not your or my personal views of what we wish they would believe.  Please comment.  RK

RK, I don't understand what's unclear, and I don't see what there is to discuss. Many people, many who have commented on this page above, have objected to the title on grounds that it forthrightly states something that some people might disagree with. This is perfectly obvious, actually, and it's equally obvious that it's contrary to the neutral point of view policy. There's been plenty of discussion about where (what page title) you might move the article, or parts of it. Since for some reason (a combination of politeness and weariness, I think) no one seems to have done the obvious thing and simply deleted the article and demanded that you find a better title, I've done so myself. The problems I see with it are first and foremost with the title.

Please do not debate this any further, RK. Just find a better title. --LMS


 * I think you have misread my comment. I am not trying to debate with you; In fact, I thought that I said twice that I was now in agreement with this point. After your deletion of the entry, I was under the impression that the entire text of the article was not acceptable. Obviously, what you have said here makes clear that this is not the case, and you are talking about the title of the entry, as the title itself is a violation of NPOV. That'f fine by me; in fact, that is precisely what I was talking about and agreeing with. I think you have misunderstood what I was saying; we are in agreement. RK