Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29 Israel-Palestinian Peace Process

General discussion
Since no one has posted yet to this talk page, I will just make a brief comment just to open the page. I hope to watch this matter as it goes on. thanks. --Sm8900 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, we're still waiting to hear from Jayjg. I've undertaken a unilateral hudna (ha, ha) in this little edit war but it seems to be continuing apace.

Judging from what's already been said thus far, I think the best solution may be to remove the template to "Oslo Peace Process" or some similar. Third parties are objecting, with some justification, that the edits I want to make entail some judgment calls that are inherently difficult to keep NPOV. The pro-occupation editors see nothing wrong with making their own judgment calls constantly but that's another story. By moving it to "Oslo peace process" we can sidestep most of these arguments, because we ground the template in a limited number of source documents that are less ambiguous and less open to judgment. Eleland 21:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you contact Jayjg, if you want to make sure he's aware of that. thanks. --Sm8900 22:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get things rolling...?
I (User:Eleland) made three specific and one general point about the template. User:Jayjg responded, partially, to the third, saying that the Hamas charter denounces the existence of Israel and that Palestine is not a state.

User:Bless sins said that the State of Palestine has widespread international recognition. Jayjg laughed at him and said this wasn't true. I provided citations proving that China and India recognize the State of Palestine, and that Russia pursues bilateral relations on the level of equals, but may not explicitly recognize Palestine as a state (I had no information either way.) Jayjg pronounced two of these citations insufficient but did not specify why.

In parallel, I said that Hamas had made repeated offers of cease-fires and negotiations, while leaving its policy on outright recognition deliberately ambiguous. I pointed to an article in the major liberal-mainstream Israeli paper Ha'aretz, and to a CNN article, which supported this. Jayjg argued that "unofficial statements mean nothing" but did not say why. He also argued that "we all know" Hamas' peace negotiations were merely a strategic tactic to gain military strength, but did not say how or why "we all know" this, or provide any references.

Jayjg focused on the narrow issue of a 100 year cease fire, rather than the 50 or 30 year cease fires I found direct references to. He performed a personal blog-style fisking of the Der Speigel interview, and then condemned me for "original research" in the next breath.

While consensus clearly does not exist, I believe it is equally clear that no seriously argued objections have been raised to my original points.

Just a copy-paste from the talkpage, and note that jayjg objected strenuously Eleland 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)