Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-28 UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine

Mediation Case: 2006-07-28 UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: FightCancer 13:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine


 * Who's involved?
 * Schrodingers Mongoose, Humus sapiens, Palffy (to a small extent) and I, FightCancer, are involved.

These first three users are routinely removing verifiable facts from the article claiming that the sources "are obviously unacceptable" (Schrodingers Mongoose), "unreputable" (Humus sapiens), and "biased" (Palffy). These facts are critical of Israel. According to the Wiki article on bias, "accusations of bias often result from unacknowledged favouritism on the part of a critic or judge". While I have politely pointed out that information should be sourced and readers should decide for themselves, there seems to be no compromise--only censorship. (The only exception is Schrodingers Mongoose in this edit.) Again, as Wiki's policy on weasel words states, "If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability".
 * What's going on?

However, these are not opinions I've posted. They're verifiable facts citing 7 different articles from 6 different sources. Specifically, this information has been repeatedly removed. "According to IfAmericansKnew.org, 'Israel is the target of at least 65 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of none' from 1955-1992 . They add, 'These resolutions, which now number 66, contain the international community’s list of indictments against the Jewish state.'" Humus sapiens removed these two sentences and replaced them with this sentence. "Both pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli sources noted the disproportionately high number of the United Nations resolutions against the State of Israel." As I noted on the article's Talk page, "disproportionately high" is Humus sapiens' opinion and a violation of NPOV.
 * These two sentences:

US Vetoes Even though a huge majority of Americans, 70.4%, believe the US should "not take either side" in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the US has vetoed literally dozens of UN resolutions calling for Israel to exercise restraint. Here is a list by Donald Neff of 39 "Vetoes Cast by the United States to Shield Israel from Criticism by the U.N. Security Council" Democracy Now! reports that as of July 14th, 2006: "The US has already vetoed a council resolution demanding Israel end its military offensive in the Gaza Strip. Eight of the last nine vetoes have been cast by the United States. Seven of those were to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict." The Israeli magazine Haaretz reports, "The UN Security Council on [July 15, 2006] again rejected pleas that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon after the United States objected, diplomats said." "The U.S. was the sole member of the 15-nation UN body to oppose any council action at all at this time, [council diplomats] said."
 * This entire subsection was entirely removed first by Schrodingers Mongoose, severely altered here by Schrodingers Mongoose in attempt to compromise, completely removed again this time by Humus sapiens, and finally here by Humus sapiens a second time.
 * Currently there is no online citation for the list of UN resolutions. IMO it's because users like Schrodingers Mongoose, Humus sapiens and Palffy would consider any such website to be anti-Israel and therefore unworthy of mention in this article.  I say this because Humus sapiens removed the citation for 65 of the UN resolutions in the article.  I presume he did so because it linked to the website IfAmericansKnew.org which he describes as "unreputable", but I don't know.  Again, he simply removed the citation and not the content.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like for these excerpts to be included in the article, and I would appreciate some deterrence to what I feel is censorship.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * No. Here is fine.

-- FightCancer 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
I pointed out that analysis of a page with "list" in the title may be inappropriate to the nature of the article. FightCancer made some suggestions regarding this--including changing the article name. I have not heard any feedback to his suggestions. I also flagged the section to warn readers about the ongoing debate. --LawrenceTrevallion 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was told that the issue in this case might have been solved already. Is there still an issue to be mediated? Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well FightCancer has not answered back with me regarding it, so I guess it is over. LawrenceTrevallion 02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

In an effort to compromise, I have already agreed to remove these three paragraphs that I had originally included in the US Vetoes section. I feel strongly they should be included anyway, but have made an effort to compromise. Some say US unilateral support for Israel is hindering peace in the region. According to the CATO Institute, "a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C." : "U.S. aid allows Israel's leaders to avoid the political and economic costs of clinging to the occupied territories and refrain from making decisions that might lead to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. It also allows them to avoid the costs of perpetuating a welfare system. Moreover, U.S. aid, more than any other factor, helps to secure the power of the existing political elite." According to IfAmericansKnew.org, "Although it is not often reported by the press, a large proportion of American diplomatic and military experts have long held that U.S. support of Israel is often contrary to and, in fact, extremely damaging to U.S. interests." -- FightCancer 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)