Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Arab-Israeli conflict general remarks

Take for example the article on UN Security Council Resolution 242. The facts are: there is an UN-resolution who calls for end of occupation and Israel decided to ignore it.
 * Israel didn't ignore it. The resolution called for negotiation and "territories for peace" principle. Eventually that's exactly the sort of stuff that led to Camp David accords and the peace treaty with Jordan. By no all means Resolution 242 reads "Israel should unilaterally retreat from all territories" - as Elian might have been implying


 * first, I imply nothing. Everything I say in general remarks is to be taken cum grano salis ;-) But you already formulated in an excellent way the principles of UN-resolution 242, from which there is nothing to be found in the article. What I wanted to say: formulations are to some point irrelevant, but instead we have to work the essence out. Is this okay with you?

These are the important facts. The unimportant part is what Israel said to justify its decision.
 * In diplomacy, every little punctuation mark matters. Read about the Camp David negotiation process in Moris's book, Righteous Victims, if you don't believe me.


 * yes, I believe you. It matters in diplomacy, i.e. a whole congress can debate for weeks over a simple semicolon. But it doesn't matter in an encyclopedia which is interested in the outcome and the consequences, not in the process.


 * True, but the process is directly influenced by the document that motivated it :-)


 * It is interesting to note that the resolution spoke about Israel as much as the Arab nations - because obviously it takes 2 sides for a peace treaty. Yet I find it biased and even basically impolite to mention Israel as the only violator and declare anything else irrelevant. That's exactly the wrong sort of reasoning in my opinion. --Uri


 * Uri, please. In this sort of general debate you will find me taking examples from both sides and I will often simplify to illustrate a point I want to make. It's about identifying where something is "wrong" (not in facts but in writing) - and don't you agree there is something "wrong" in the article about 242? This was my try to identify what is wrong. Of course reality is more complex. If I was impolite, I apologize. --Elian


 * I'm sorry for jumping at the point, but the example was really problematic. You could have brought the example of e.g. settlements, where it is indeed much closer to the position you claimed. I agree with you that deeds should receive more attention than words, particularly in this region.
 * As to the article about 242, it did explain the "land for peace" principle. I've never actually heard an Israeli claiming the position you attribute to them ("Sinai was enough"). May I update the page according to my notes at Talk:UN Security Council Resolution 242? --Uri


 * Let's also try to separate (or at least distinguish) between (A) facts about what happened in history or current events; (B) what various sides say is "right" ethically, morally, legally, etc.; and (C) what various people and organizations propose as resolutions to the conflict. I think it's easier to describe A than B, and also I note that C often gets left out. --Ed Poor


 * Well, what I said was essentially that Res. 242 is in C, rather than B :-) --Uri