![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 1 | ArchiveĀ 2 | ArchiveĀ 3 |
The undercored part of this sentence needs backing up: Simultaneously Palestine's neighbour states entered the war in support of the Palestininians. AFAIK, they invaded to destroy Israel and did not hide their genocidal intentions. If that was meant "support of the Palestininians", we should say so. ā Humus sapiensā Talk 20:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. IZAK 08:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
i like how HistoryBuffEr continually puts up highly POV edits that have no factual basis and then complains when other users call him an anti-semite. I am starting to think that IZAK was entirely justified calling HistoryBuffer such. Xtra 09:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. No kidding! IZAK 05:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I realize that I am a couple years late contributing, but it seems to me that name-calling should not be encouraged on Wikipedia discussion pages. Just because a user was overly-critical of Israeli policy does not automatically make him an anti-Semite. He did not have enough historical evidence to include his points in the Wikipedia article, and it should be left at that. And for the record, if someone is overly-critical of Israel, it is probably because they have friends and family who have suffered as a direct result of Israel's current oppressive occupation of the Palestinian Territories. This clouds judgment, and it is certainly NOT a case of antisemitism, although perhaps a case of being anti-Israel. The distinction is immensely important. āPreceding
unsigned comment added by
128.54.170.191 (
talk)
10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that this has a "totally disputed" tag on it. I would very much appreciate if we could have a listing of the specific sentences (or omissions) in the article that are disputed, so that we have some chance of resolving the issues one by one. Most to the point, it appears that the note came from HistoryBuffEr, and he is threatening other people with disciplinary action for removing it, but he has not given the required notice here on the talk page of what he is disputing. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:48, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the list here. I don't doubt that I could have worked this out from a tedious examination of the article's history, but it really helps to have it in one place. And, frankly, edit wars are a hellish way to carry on a dialogue and try to build consensus.
I do want to say before starting: as far as I can see, it's not like you've been coming at this from a no-stake-in-the-matter, neutral point of view yourself. Clearly, you are exactly as much of a POV pusher as those with whom you are disputing.
So as not to interfere with your original list, I am replicating it to make an area for point-by-point discussion. Everyone should feel free to intersperse here, please sign every comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's short. And while I don't disagree strongly, I have some issues and some questionsĀ :
So, I would end up with something like:
On September 16, 1982, Israeli army troops, under the command of Ariel Sharon, encircled the refuge camps "Sabra" and "Shatilla" in Lebanon, and the Phalangist militia entered the camps. For 36 hours, Phalangists massacred the generally unarmed Palestinian inhabitants of the refugee camps. Estimate of the number kill range widely, from "at least 800" (cited by the BBC [1]) to 3,500 (cited as a maximum by Al-Ahram [2]). (See Sabra and Shatilla Massacre.)
On December 16, 1982, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/123 condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. [3]. An Israeli Commission of Inquiry, the Kahan Commission, found that Israeli military personnel had several times become aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it. Their failure to hold the Israeli forces more directly responsible was widely seen as a whitewash. [citation needed for that last] At the commission's recommendation, Sharon was dismissed as defense minister; nonetheless, in 2001 he became Israeli Prime Minister.
Noting here, in case the web pages go away, that the Al-Ahram citation is Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 20ā26 September 2001, Issue No.552 and the BBC citation is "Flashback: Sabra and Shatila massacres", Thursday, 24 January, 2002, 19:05 GMT.
If anyone has the relevant citations, feel free to just insert them in my text. For other edits, I'd appreciate if you either copy this somewhere or just comment and I will edit.
Jmabel | Talk 06:12, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
The article currently says "Israel didn't allow Arabs who fled to return". I object to this formulation as a vast over-simplification. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees. The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. This impasse is an important causal factor, and is unmentioned. Jayjg 15:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, if you have clear documentation of that, I think it belongs in the article (along with a clear statement that 100,000 would have been ā I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong on this ā slightly less than 20% of the refugees) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:08, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
[back to left margin because this is indenting too deep]
If that's all we've got, I would suggest, "All sides seem to agree that several thousand refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected, but reliable numbers are hard to come by. The number 35,000, given by the pro-Israel website Palestine Facts [11], can be reasonably assumed as an upper bound." But I'm open to other suggestions. I'd sure be happier if we had either something we could equally assume to be a lower bound or something relatively non-partisan (say, a UNHCR estimate). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I am not a nitpicker -- if the big picture is accurate, what's included and what's not is less important. But this would paint a false picture that 1/3rd returned despite the disagreement. The one and only source cited is highly biased and the 35,000 figure is highly unlikely.
The claim actually misstates the fact that negotiations about 35,000 were completed previously and return of some was underway. Some returned, but as the agreement fell apart, that was stopped and it is higly unlikely that 100% of these returned before and despite talks breakdown. See This reference: "This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway ". HistoryBuffEr 16:15, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
To Jmabel:
Well, it's better than nothing. This seems like a topic moderately worthy of a survey of the literature, if someone is in a scholarly mood. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:05, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg has now changed this to use "(this number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway)". He says that comes from HistoryBuffEr's source; I will take him at his word, I've got a backlog right now, and I haven't known him to misquote sources. However, I find that wording in this context a bit misleading, because it could easily be misunderstood as asserting that 35,000 returned, and, as I understand it, when negotiations broke down the return stopped somewhere short of that number. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Notably, from the early 1950s until 1967, Israel maintained a family reunification program under which it claims that around 40ā50,000 refugees returned to Israel; several additional thousands returned between 1967 and 1994. And since the beginning of the Oslo process, Israel has collaborated in the de facto āreturnā to the Palestinian authority of thousands of 1948 refugees: PLO political figures and security forces, and their families. If return is defined as applying to āmandatory Palestine,ā this may enable both Palestinians and Israelis to take satisfaction in the exercise of a return to the eventual Palestinian state alone. But in general, Israel, in keeping with its narrative, has preferred to avoid taking political initiatives in the refugee issue.
The principal known Israeli initiative took place in the summer of 1949. Under pressure from the US, and in view of Arab refusal (at the Lausanne Conference) to discuss agreed borders until the refugee issue had been resolved, the Ben Gurion government agreed to absorb 100,000 refugees. This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway. Israelās decision was made conditional upon Arab agreement, at Lausanne, to a comprehensive peace, including resettlement of the remaining refugees in Arab countries. Discussion within the Israeli government at the time also touched upon the possibility of absorbing a larger number of refugees, on condition that the Gaza Strip (with some of its refugee population) would be transferred from Egyptian to Israeli control, thereby improving Israelās military security situation vis-Ć -vis Egypt. Ultimately the Arabs rejected the Israeli offer, after which Israel retracted it.
I had not seen this before. Jay, can you give us proper citation on this Alpher and Shikaki article (when it was published, in what journal or book, etc.).
HistoryBuffEr, do you have any objection to this as a source?
I'd propose the following edit; additions are indicated by bold, deletions by strikethrough:
In 1949, as part of a proposed comprehensive peace settlement, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (these were eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees (this number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway), about 15% of those who had fled. The Arabs rejected this compromise, at least in part because they were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, which Israel rejected. [Palestine Reconciliation Commission, September 1949; Prittie, 1975].
In the face of this impasse, Israel halted the process of return; it resumed in the early 1950s with a family reunification program that Israel claims had returned around 40ā50,000 refugees to Israel by 1967. Several additional thousands returned between 1967 and 1994. [Alpher and Shikaki. date?
didn't allow any of the Arabs who fled to return and, wWith the exception of Transjordan...
Comments? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:42, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Gosh, I don't see anything the least bit unreasonable about the Arabs rejecting an offer that came down to "15% of you can come back and the rest are screwed. And you have to let go of this as a grievance." In an analogous situation, I believe I would have done the same (though I might have "stayed at the table").
So what i don't understand is why palistinians and jews can't just share, if it's about resources then pool them if it's about religeon the only way to find out whos right is to die, so why not live a calm, peaceful co-operativve life until then? and if it's all just dwelling on past events how do you expect anything to be resolved, ever? so please tell me why does this go on? to quote Ghandi 'An eye for an eye and we're all blind' (my Remix) 'A tooth for a tooth and we all eat soup' (anonymous question Nov 16, 2004)
_________________________________________________________________
I have been trying to read ever more veraciously the history of the israeli palelstinian conflict. I read this page with interest. I also spent a time recently looking at claims and counter claims about what was the arab population during the latter part of the nineteenth century.....
But I have a two fundemental questions?
1. Why is the conflict so divisive around the world - ie why do so many seemingly unconnected countries and peoples (I have read some quite strong language on the conflict by chinese officials) seem to have such diametrically divergent viewpoints? (Israel cannot be an ethnic cleanser and commiter of attrocities as well as being a bastion of liberalism, freedom and constant seeker of peace at the same time.) Countries like Malaysia and Russia have very strong points of view. The US similarly but in the opposite direction has a quite different point of view. So why the strong opinions from people that are not directly conneceted to the conflict? (Most countries and people have a much more relaxed viewpoint when it comes to kashmir or the tamil the tiger guerrilla conflict.)
2. To what degree are people on both sides concerned with the truth? If they suddenly realized that they had got several vital facts wrong would they change their point of view on the conflict?
3. Can anyone recomend any good books that give as close to an 'objective' or 'unibased' history of the israeli conflict as can be expected.
-To what degree are people on both sides concerned with the truth?
that is the essential point. as far as i have seen little to no degree. but another question: what is the truthĀ ? your historian or mineĀ ? (anon 5 July 2005)
Humus Sapiens recently removed the statement, "Since this period, the PLO has officially renounced armed struggle." He does not seem (by his comments) to contest the literal truth of the statementāthat this is their official viewābut apparently considers the official position hypocritical. May I suggest that the statemen, which accurately reflects their official position, be restored, along with perhaps the three most salient examples of PLO (not arbitrary Palestinian) uses of "armed struggle" since the time of the Olso accords? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The following is clearly wrong, so I am commenting until someone to works out what it meant to say: "The Jewish State would be roughly 5,500 acres in size (including the large Negev desert which could not sustain agriculture at that time) and would contain a sizable Arab minority population. The Arab state would comprise roughly 4,500 acresā¦" This would say that each state was less than 10 square miles or 25 square kilometers, clearly wrong. Even Andorra is about 15 times bigger than that. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
the intifada section needs serious cleanup. Amoruso 10:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
A lot of this information is repeated in History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but some of it also belongs in the PLO#History section. Does a merge into these two articles seem like a good idea? I'd like to hear other comments before I add a tag. -- GHcool 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please verify the information attributed to Edward Said in the "Origins" section? Said is not a historian and the information sounds like his personal POV. If nobody can verify the information in an unbiased source, I will remove the paragraph in a week. -- GHcool 20:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
For someone that uses JVL as a basis for their version of historical events your opinions on POV are somewhat compromised... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The section on the Six-Day War is worded in ways that make it unclear exactly what happened and smacks of POV. For example, it opens with "The Six-Day War (June 5-June 11, 1967) was waged as a security consideration designed to remove the threat of Arab attack from the Egyptians . . ." The use of passive voice makes it unclear who waged the Six-Day War, and the claim that it was waged as a "security consideration" has the feel of POV. While I know nothing about the Six-Day War, I find it hard to believe that it is a well-established fact (that can be backed up with a reliable source) that security was the only reason the war was fought by whoever that clause is describing (it seems to be the Israelis, but it's hard to be sure)? Surely someone on the other side must think claims of "security considerations" were but a fig-leaf for some other agenda. Alternatively, if the war was fought for multiple reasons, what's the reason for only mentioning one of them? Furthermore, vital information such as who exactly initiated hostilities, and in response to what, is left for the reader to guess or is presented in a confusing or obfscutory manner. Can someone (not me!) who knows something about the Six-Day War rewrite this section? Elliotreed 07:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
i'm currently reading an academic book which tries to describe the starting point for existance of the palestinian people as a self aware collective. the book, being a serious one, explains that it's allways possible to start going over accounts from earlier or later points in time, depending on what you consider important to the formation of self-awareness, and they choose to start at the 1834 rebellion as their first historically important event for the formation of the future group.
abviously, many things happened in Palestine in those days and they are very much a foundation for the future israeli-palestinian conflict. any book that says "it all started at 1880" is simply reffering to the first modern day aliyah from 1882 but it's disregarding all the events leading to that point.
hence, i believe we should clearly state that this article is not dealing with pre-1880 materials, which are a bit hard to come by, btw. Jaakobou 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that there is no mention of Edah HaChareidis anywhere in this article. Not all Jews believe that the state of Isreal is ligitimised by the Torah. Likewise, not all of the Jewish community accepted Zionism and many are still adamently opposed. Their belief is that there should be no Jewish state under current conditions. Also, these beliefs predate Zionism. At least, statements should refect this and an internal link given to Jews that oppose the Zionist and the Jewish state. Mike 172.138.43.4 ( talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have to inform you but yes they do, the terriatorist argument in Zionism split up early the Edah HaChareidis argument was put forward that Palestine was not the place to go to. hence Uganda etc was a option. The redemtionist argument won the day. the secular branch then recombined with the redemtionists to pick Palestine as the place to settle...2 lines to put that in an article of this length is appropriate and not WP:UNDUE..to leave it out is WP:POV.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed a few sources which, according to the article, gave "concrete evidence" that the PA in general supported anti-Israeli activities. This is disputable, first because of such wording as "empirical" and "concrete" when there is still a large debate over the issue. Tessler (1994) and Bowker (1996) both dispute that the PA "actively" supported attacks on Israelis. Second, I couldn't really find anything except passing mentions in the articles, certainly not "concrete evidence". I might have missed something in the haste, though. Open to discussion. 202.40.139.170 ( talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a quite important part of this conflict - why is this not mentioned at all in this article? āPreceding unsigned comment added by Shane77777 ( talk ā¢ contribs) 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Civil Engineer III cut out the "Hamas election win, new conflicts, 2004 and after" section for the reason, "this is a HISTORY article. seems like a nice place to stop it. Rest is covered by main article." While I do not agree with cutting the whole section out, I do think that this history article is too heavily weighted towards recent events. 43 paragraphs are devoted to events that occurred in or after 2004. Compare this with the 9 paragraphs devoted to the 1947-1949 period, which was the founding of the State of Israel and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. I plan on trimming the fat in the "2004 and after" section unless I hear any good arguments for not doing so. -- GHcool ( talk) 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
as the article is the same as Israel-Palestine conflict, maybe this need splitting so that all the referenced work stays...as all the unreference work is at the end may I humbly suggest removing it... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The German colonies need to be added...as they are pertinent to palestinian nationalism...as with all nationalisms Palestinian nationalism did not grow in a vacuum, Zionism (a form of nationalism) grew out of Russian Pogroms, so Palestinian nationalism grew out of European settlement in Palestine...and that subject is not covered it the article... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The German colonies was one of the earliest European invaders, the Palestinians were in conflict with a European invasion that was seen as fundamentally altering the nature/culture of a Muslim land...I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you but Palestinians have had a longer conflict with the Europeanisation of Palestine that they have had with Zionism which was first seen as a part of the Europeanisation...the first Zionists were Russian ƩmigrƩs who the Palestinians identified as Russian first and later as Zionists (at about the 1929 point).... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The greater vision here, should be the actual merger of the two articles already in place, which will produce a larger article of course, which will then be split into something more manageable. Cryptonio ( talk) 15:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ghcool you are one of the most atrocious liars...and quite frankly not worth the bothering with... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
And your's wasn't a personal attack??? for a balanced article I'm including the section Ben Gurions Racist attitudes... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You haven't seen me write articles without references, I certainly don't need to do any OR to find out that BG was an atrocious racist who had white supremacist and segregationist attitudes... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
My mind is thatĀ : 1. the article could be cut into 3 partsĀ :
My rationale for this is that 1920 and 1948 cut the article into 3 reasonnable sections and that both these dates are important milestone in the conflict (1920 for the first major violenceĀ ; 1948 for the birth Israel and the Naqba).
2. antisemitism should be removed from the section title concerning the Mufti because the fact he was antisemite is irrelevant. What is important is that he was antizionist. But I also wonder if a full section about him is relevant. Why not Weizmann, Ben Gurion or Jabotinsky...
Ceedjee (
talk)
19:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just adding balance....mind if the WP:Undue was to be removed then I would have to remove the BG is a racist section....The section that portrays hajj Amin as though he is an average representative of the Palestinians ....is somewhat tacky, I don't particularly like the BG bashing but for balance one has to achieve NPOV some how... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Why aren't the sections split into areas defined by stern gang atrocities?..
Tom Segev does a break down as 1917-1927, 1928-1938, 1939-1948....No where near the mile stones pick out in the wiki article....the mile stones picked out in the wiki article are for one reason only and that is not for WP:NPOV.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 08:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the IsraeliāPalestinian conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Guardian20091105":
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ā” 08:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Cryptonio has, for a second time, renamed the section titled "The Mufti and anti-Semitism" to simply "The Mufti." He/She says that my judgment is not a reliable enough source to label the Mufti as anti-Semitic. Cryptonio is correct; I am not a reliable source on anti-Semitism or the Mufti. However, the article currently states the following:
To repeat: the Mufti supported and actually met with Hitler, joined the Nazis, was involved himself in a pogrom, incited violence against Jews, and called for genocide against Jews. Based on this evidence, it would be proper to call the Mufti anti-Semitic. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum also calls the Mufti anti-Semitic. Benny Morris wrote in 1948 that the Mufti "was deeply anti-Semitic" (p. 21-22). Of course, Mitchell G. Bard, David G. Dalin agree with this analysis. [15] [16] -- GHcool ( talk) 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As we see, you went ahead and added that thing that you added. This is no way of editing an encyclopedia. What or how we label someone is more important than what he did, and at the same time what he did needs to be labeled. We say, that the mass murdering of Jews was/is called the Holocaust, and that Hitler was the main person responsible for the Holocaust, we somehow then must ALSO include that he 'was' anti-semetic? And if anti-semitism is such a bad thing, and somehow we leave it out, does that mean that there is nothing worse than being anti-semitic? Talk about fallacies. Cryptonio ( talk) 01:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Did they also say it belongs in the title? A lot of information is included in the section, shall we summarize in the title all topics covered in the section? that actually sounds like a good idea. Cryptonio ( talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I found a solution. I just changed the heading to "Arab reactions to Jewish immigration." Now it is no longer a biography on the Mufti and is more relevant to the conflict as a whole. I encourage any Arab reactions, positive or negative, to Jewish immigration to Palestine to be included there. There's no need to just be Mufti-centric. -- GHcool ( talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a waste of time(what i'm about to write). It is 1948, a Jew gets attacked in Thailand, for no apparent reason except that he is a Jew and the attacker is an Arab street bum. Clearly anti-semitism(used in the context, that the concept is mainly or solely used when this kind of attacks happens to Jews). It is 1920, nothing on the books(meaningful books, on the reality of Jewish demands on Palestine anyways) that says whoever is living in Palestine must share the land with whoever decides to move there. At first, no problems. Jews buy Palestine land, Puerto Ricans had no intention of doing so. Then Jews started to quote the Torah. BIG PROBLEM, all alarms goes off. "This land was not only given to us, but it still belongs to us". Umm, i'm an Arab at the time, i'm thinking "is this going to turn into a Book vs Book(religion vs religion) affair?" "because let me tell you, in our Book, there is also claim to this land". Anyways, the Jews said yes, this is will be that kind of a affair. I'm still that Arab, i'm thinking, "well...you could have been a Puerto Rican quoting their wica books, i would 'dislike' you very much if you try to take over our land". War ensues from that point. But now, think, what other 'group' 'people' 'nationality' was in a position of making a similar 'claim' as that of the Jews? No other group, except if they came in with guns and told the Arabs(as it was done against Jews) "get the hell out of here". To Jews credit, in their Book, it clearly states they always fought to the last drop of blood, even when the 'prophesy' had stated the chances of survival was stillborn. So, that this conflict has had ups and downs, violence and more violence, can't be used to label the "hatred" that one side feels for the other AND vice-versa. Clearly as that. And, lets not forget what happened to the Japaneses in the US during WW2. That the longest running dispute in human history spills over to Madagascar cannot be solely labeled "anti-semetic". Or anything other than a conflict.
That there are people who hate Jews no matter what. Ignorance That there are people who hate Blacks no matter what. Ignorance That there are people who hate Asians no matter what. Ignorance That there are people who hate hate hate. Ignorance. Cryptonio ( talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the header can have the word "Allegations" in it: does any dispute the Mufti's antisemitism? Any RS's? IronDuke 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware that we will attempt to merge the above article with this one. Information will be transferred before editing for coherence where needed. also POV issues will be resolved along the way. the conversation is outgoing and in here - [17]. Cryptonio ( talk) 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I've divided the headlines into the main six time periods which are listed in " IsraeliāPalestinian conflict#Periods of the conflict". What do you think? TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 06:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is currently not possible to provide a good comprehensive and neutral historical overview of the conflict because the sub-chapters of the article only focus on the most prominent events of the conflict.
In addition to that, I believe that a sub-chapters partition based the most prominent events of the conflict is a bad partition because the chosen chapters would always be controversial among both parties and might occasionally even skew the article to a one sided POV.
Therefore, I believe that only a sub-chapters partition based the main six time periods would enable us to provide the missing additional important information which didnāt fit into the current sub-chapters, which would help keep the historical overview more comprehensive and more neutral.
Even though I have added a time periods sub-chapters partition only a few days ago in addition to the major events sub-chapters partition, in my opinion it is absolutely necessary that weāll only have a time periods sub-chapters partition.
What do you think? TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 05:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear enough about this. Since your draft still needs much improvement, since it hasn't reached a consensus in the talk pages and since I've started working on intensively improving each section of this article per day as much as I can I ask of you to please refrain from replacing this entire article with your draft. I have already invested many hours on improving the last two sections which in my opinion are much better than in your draft. I'll be glad if you could join in and help improve the article with me and/or if you can help add important or missing sentences or add sources. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I just merged my article into this one paragraph by paragraph. If I deleted anything of yours that you feel is vital, I apologize ask that you restore the sentences you think were vital. -- GHcool ( talk) 23:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to point out again that I am still working on merging the content. you could read this discussion page and this discussion page and see for yourself that this action has been previously discussed. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
During the last couple of days I've spent a lot of time in merging the information IsraeliāPalestinian conflict#Historical outline into this article. I haven't finished merging all the information, nevertheless, I wanted to point out that any feedback you could give to my latest additions would be gladly appreciated. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 14:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry User:Mbz1, but Osher Twito is not notable enough to go in this article. Normally I would give you the benefit of the doubt, however your insertion of this picture/caption into at least 2 other articles says to me you are trying to use Wikipedia to make a point. Please don't. Regards Suicup ( talk) 02:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The picture is not notable, it is blatantly POV, and has not been individually chosen for this article, but rather spammed into any article the editor deems he should be making his point. However, why am I not surprised the usual suspects come to its defence. Indeed, this page has just undergone a massive revision to remove so-called cruft, the bloated factoids of each individual editors whim. And here we have exactly the same thing occurring, only this time it is a picture, not a sentence. The hypocrisy is damning. Suicup ( talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If we really are going to play this game, i'd like to have my arguments against the picture/caption refuted...that is unless you can't refute them and hence agree that the picture should be deleted. Regards Suicup ( talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
there have been many victims on both sides during the last century why should we only show this image? this is why I believe that it would be much better to refrain from adding any images in the future of Israeli victims or Palestinian victims to this article and rather add this specific image to an article which focuses on the victims of the conflict. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ā Note: You guys really should all stop, take a deep breath, and pursue
Dispute Resolution because I don't think you can resolve this on your own.
shirulashem
(talk)
21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion it is essential that population statistics charts of the Arab and the Jewish population in Palestine/Israel would be included to this article for our readers to better understand the history of the conflict. Even though I just added population statistics to all periods of the conflict, I need your help in adding even more sources which would confirm the charts I just added and the population statistics charts in the two time periods period to 1948. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The missing data which we seek is availble at the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. please help me obtain it. If nobody manages to find it on their website, we should try requesting the data from them through an email. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 07:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I put an NPOV tag on the Mandate section. It deserves a FACT tag as well, but I don't like multiple tags. Examples:
Zero talk 12:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody aside from TheCuriousGnome believe that a little-known Jordanian plan in 1972 that never got even close to being off the ground and had nothing to do with the relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis deserve a full paragraph in the 1967-93 section? If not, I'll remove the paragraph within the next couple of days. Thanks. -- GHcool ( talk) 05:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
1 The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel of 14 May gave no exact locality of the new State of Israel. The nearest is the phrase in Eretz Israel. [1] Presumably the Arab armies marched into part of the Mandate set aside for the Arab state. Is that an invasion? The Jewish forces had already marched, or were also about to march, into areas set aside for the Arab state. Is that an invasion? To give an accurate description of where the Arab armies went, a reference to the former British Mandate seems better.
2 The Cablegram of 15 May from the Arab League [2] describes it as an intervention. An inclusion of both invaded and intervened in is a neutral description. Trahelliven ( talk) 04:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
TheCuriousGnome
I agree that the split was not necessary. It just seemed to me that the end of World War II was a watershed, particularly when thw section had become rather long. What are your reasons for not liking the split? Trahelliven ( talk) 20:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe it is necessary. I do not have strong feelings about it. We'll wait and sse what others might think. There are more important things to have strong feelings about. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Given the importance of the conflict articles to our project I had hoped for more feedback at this RFC, but I think I overcomplicated the description. Some editors may also be thinking "we've been just fine for 10 years so is there really a problem here that needs solving"? I would like to encourage more editors to contribute.
The core issue behind the RFC question is that most readers know very little about the conflict and therefore need one single summary article to read and begin their journey, and we need that single summary article to broadly match the picture that the 1,000s of books summarizing this conflict take. Instead we have sat for many years with three primary articles ( IPC since 48, AIC since 48 and ICMP 20-48) which are fine but are missing something above them to thread them together into the 100-year-narrative of the conflict presented by the vast majority of books on the topic.
I recognize that many editors may find the question is a little more dry and boring than many of the debates around here, but its importance to the average Wikipedia reader can hardly be overstated.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of the IsraeliāPalestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.ā cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I think there's a considerable amount of NPOV issues that need fixing here. This article's presentation of the modern history of the conflict, particularly Oslo and since, focuses disproportionately on Palestinian terror attacks, while leaving out far more significant events that reflect negatively on Israel - for example, a whole section on the Second Intifada which doesn't mention Ariel Sharon's triggering visit to the al-Aqsa mosque, or the characterisation of 2005-present as "The strengthening of Hamas in the Gaza Strip".
I'm going to start work on a thorough NPOV clean-up, including some restructuring, and retitle 2005-present within the framework of Palestinian statehood, which has had far more significant developments in terms of the big picture consideration of the conflict. TrickyH ( talk) 17:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the IsraeliāPalestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.ā InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 1 | ArchiveĀ 2 | ArchiveĀ 3 |
The undercored part of this sentence needs backing up: Simultaneously Palestine's neighbour states entered the war in support of the Palestininians. AFAIK, they invaded to destroy Israel and did not hide their genocidal intentions. If that was meant "support of the Palestininians", we should say so. ā Humus sapiensā Talk 20:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. IZAK 08:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
i like how HistoryBuffEr continually puts up highly POV edits that have no factual basis and then complains when other users call him an anti-semite. I am starting to think that IZAK was entirely justified calling HistoryBuffer such. Xtra 09:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. No kidding! IZAK 05:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I realize that I am a couple years late contributing, but it seems to me that name-calling should not be encouraged on Wikipedia discussion pages. Just because a user was overly-critical of Israeli policy does not automatically make him an anti-Semite. He did not have enough historical evidence to include his points in the Wikipedia article, and it should be left at that. And for the record, if someone is overly-critical of Israel, it is probably because they have friends and family who have suffered as a direct result of Israel's current oppressive occupation of the Palestinian Territories. This clouds judgment, and it is certainly NOT a case of antisemitism, although perhaps a case of being anti-Israel. The distinction is immensely important. āPreceding
unsigned comment added by
128.54.170.191 (
talk)
10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that this has a "totally disputed" tag on it. I would very much appreciate if we could have a listing of the specific sentences (or omissions) in the article that are disputed, so that we have some chance of resolving the issues one by one. Most to the point, it appears that the note came from HistoryBuffEr, and he is threatening other people with disciplinary action for removing it, but he has not given the required notice here on the talk page of what he is disputing. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:48, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the list here. I don't doubt that I could have worked this out from a tedious examination of the article's history, but it really helps to have it in one place. And, frankly, edit wars are a hellish way to carry on a dialogue and try to build consensus.
I do want to say before starting: as far as I can see, it's not like you've been coming at this from a no-stake-in-the-matter, neutral point of view yourself. Clearly, you are exactly as much of a POV pusher as those with whom you are disputing.
So as not to interfere with your original list, I am replicating it to make an area for point-by-point discussion. Everyone should feel free to intersperse here, please sign every comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's short. And while I don't disagree strongly, I have some issues and some questionsĀ :
So, I would end up with something like:
On September 16, 1982, Israeli army troops, under the command of Ariel Sharon, encircled the refuge camps "Sabra" and "Shatilla" in Lebanon, and the Phalangist militia entered the camps. For 36 hours, Phalangists massacred the generally unarmed Palestinian inhabitants of the refugee camps. Estimate of the number kill range widely, from "at least 800" (cited by the BBC [1]) to 3,500 (cited as a maximum by Al-Ahram [2]). (See Sabra and Shatilla Massacre.)
On December 16, 1982, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/123 condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. [3]. An Israeli Commission of Inquiry, the Kahan Commission, found that Israeli military personnel had several times become aware that a massacre was in progress without taking serious steps to stop it. Their failure to hold the Israeli forces more directly responsible was widely seen as a whitewash. [citation needed for that last] At the commission's recommendation, Sharon was dismissed as defense minister; nonetheless, in 2001 he became Israeli Prime Minister.
Noting here, in case the web pages go away, that the Al-Ahram citation is Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 20ā26 September 2001, Issue No.552 and the BBC citation is "Flashback: Sabra and Shatila massacres", Thursday, 24 January, 2002, 19:05 GMT.
If anyone has the relevant citations, feel free to just insert them in my text. For other edits, I'd appreciate if you either copy this somewhere or just comment and I will edit.
Jmabel | Talk 06:12, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
The article currently says "Israel didn't allow Arabs who fled to return". I object to this formulation as a vast over-simplification. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees. The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. This impasse is an important causal factor, and is unmentioned. Jayjg 15:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, if you have clear documentation of that, I think it belongs in the article (along with a clear statement that 100,000 would have been ā I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong on this ā slightly less than 20% of the refugees) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:08, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
[back to left margin because this is indenting too deep]
If that's all we've got, I would suggest, "All sides seem to agree that several thousand refugees had already been allowed to return by the time this proposal was made and rejected, but reliable numbers are hard to come by. The number 35,000, given by the pro-Israel website Palestine Facts [11], can be reasonably assumed as an upper bound." But I'm open to other suggestions. I'd sure be happier if we had either something we could equally assume to be a lower bound or something relatively non-partisan (say, a UNHCR estimate). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I am not a nitpicker -- if the big picture is accurate, what's included and what's not is less important. But this would paint a false picture that 1/3rd returned despite the disagreement. The one and only source cited is highly biased and the 35,000 figure is highly unlikely.
The claim actually misstates the fact that negotiations about 35,000 were completed previously and return of some was underway. Some returned, but as the agreement fell apart, that was stopped and it is higly unlikely that 100% of these returned before and despite talks breakdown. See This reference: "This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway ". HistoryBuffEr 16:15, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
To Jmabel:
Well, it's better than nothing. This seems like a topic moderately worthy of a survey of the literature, if someone is in a scholarly mood. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:05, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg has now changed this to use "(this number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway)". He says that comes from HistoryBuffEr's source; I will take him at his word, I've got a backlog right now, and I haven't known him to misquote sources. However, I find that wording in this context a bit misleading, because it could easily be misunderstood as asserting that 35,000 returned, and, as I understand it, when negotiations broke down the return stopped somewhere short of that number. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Notably, from the early 1950s until 1967, Israel maintained a family reunification program under which it claims that around 40ā50,000 refugees returned to Israel; several additional thousands returned between 1967 and 1994. And since the beginning of the Oslo process, Israel has collaborated in the de facto āreturnā to the Palestinian authority of thousands of 1948 refugees: PLO political figures and security forces, and their families. If return is defined as applying to āmandatory Palestine,ā this may enable both Palestinians and Israelis to take satisfaction in the exercise of a return to the eventual Palestinian state alone. But in general, Israel, in keeping with its narrative, has preferred to avoid taking political initiatives in the refugee issue.
The principal known Israeli initiative took place in the summer of 1949. Under pressure from the US, and in view of Arab refusal (at the Lausanne Conference) to discuss agreed borders until the refugee issue had been resolved, the Ben Gurion government agreed to absorb 100,000 refugees. This number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway. Israelās decision was made conditional upon Arab agreement, at Lausanne, to a comprehensive peace, including resettlement of the remaining refugees in Arab countries. Discussion within the Israeli government at the time also touched upon the possibility of absorbing a larger number of refugees, on condition that the Gaza Strip (with some of its refugee population) would be transferred from Egyptian to Israeli control, thereby improving Israelās military security situation vis-Ć -vis Egypt. Ultimately the Arabs rejected the Israeli offer, after which Israel retracted it.
I had not seen this before. Jay, can you give us proper citation on this Alpher and Shikaki article (when it was published, in what journal or book, etc.).
HistoryBuffEr, do you have any objection to this as a source?
I'd propose the following edit; additions are indicated by bold, deletions by strikethrough:
In 1949, as part of a proposed comprehensive peace settlement, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (these were eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees (this number would have included some 35,000 refugees whose return had already been negotiated and was underway), about 15% of those who had fled. The Arabs rejected this compromise, at least in part because they were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, which Israel rejected. [Palestine Reconciliation Commission, September 1949; Prittie, 1975].
In the face of this impasse, Israel halted the process of return; it resumed in the early 1950s with a family reunification program that Israel claims had returned around 40ā50,000 refugees to Israel by 1967. Several additional thousands returned between 1967 and 1994. [Alpher and Shikaki. date?
didn't allow any of the Arabs who fled to return and, wWith the exception of Transjordan...
Comments? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:42, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Gosh, I don't see anything the least bit unreasonable about the Arabs rejecting an offer that came down to "15% of you can come back and the rest are screwed. And you have to let go of this as a grievance." In an analogous situation, I believe I would have done the same (though I might have "stayed at the table").
So what i don't understand is why palistinians and jews can't just share, if it's about resources then pool them if it's about religeon the only way to find out whos right is to die, so why not live a calm, peaceful co-operativve life until then? and if it's all just dwelling on past events how do you expect anything to be resolved, ever? so please tell me why does this go on? to quote Ghandi 'An eye for an eye and we're all blind' (my Remix) 'A tooth for a tooth and we all eat soup' (anonymous question Nov 16, 2004)
_________________________________________________________________
I have been trying to read ever more veraciously the history of the israeli palelstinian conflict. I read this page with interest. I also spent a time recently looking at claims and counter claims about what was the arab population during the latter part of the nineteenth century.....
But I have a two fundemental questions?
1. Why is the conflict so divisive around the world - ie why do so many seemingly unconnected countries and peoples (I have read some quite strong language on the conflict by chinese officials) seem to have such diametrically divergent viewpoints? (Israel cannot be an ethnic cleanser and commiter of attrocities as well as being a bastion of liberalism, freedom and constant seeker of peace at the same time.) Countries like Malaysia and Russia have very strong points of view. The US similarly but in the opposite direction has a quite different point of view. So why the strong opinions from people that are not directly conneceted to the conflict? (Most countries and people have a much more relaxed viewpoint when it comes to kashmir or the tamil the tiger guerrilla conflict.)
2. To what degree are people on both sides concerned with the truth? If they suddenly realized that they had got several vital facts wrong would they change their point of view on the conflict?
3. Can anyone recomend any good books that give as close to an 'objective' or 'unibased' history of the israeli conflict as can be expected.
-To what degree are people on both sides concerned with the truth?
that is the essential point. as far as i have seen little to no degree. but another question: what is the truthĀ ? your historian or mineĀ ? (anon 5 July 2005)
Humus Sapiens recently removed the statement, "Since this period, the PLO has officially renounced armed struggle." He does not seem (by his comments) to contest the literal truth of the statementāthat this is their official viewābut apparently considers the official position hypocritical. May I suggest that the statemen, which accurately reflects their official position, be restored, along with perhaps the three most salient examples of PLO (not arbitrary Palestinian) uses of "armed struggle" since the time of the Olso accords? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The following is clearly wrong, so I am commenting until someone to works out what it meant to say: "The Jewish State would be roughly 5,500 acres in size (including the large Negev desert which could not sustain agriculture at that time) and would contain a sizable Arab minority population. The Arab state would comprise roughly 4,500 acresā¦" This would say that each state was less than 10 square miles or 25 square kilometers, clearly wrong. Even Andorra is about 15 times bigger than that. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
the intifada section needs serious cleanup. Amoruso 10:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
A lot of this information is repeated in History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but some of it also belongs in the PLO#History section. Does a merge into these two articles seem like a good idea? I'd like to hear other comments before I add a tag. -- GHcool 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please verify the information attributed to Edward Said in the "Origins" section? Said is not a historian and the information sounds like his personal POV. If nobody can verify the information in an unbiased source, I will remove the paragraph in a week. -- GHcool 20:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
For someone that uses JVL as a basis for their version of historical events your opinions on POV are somewhat compromised... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The section on the Six-Day War is worded in ways that make it unclear exactly what happened and smacks of POV. For example, it opens with "The Six-Day War (June 5-June 11, 1967) was waged as a security consideration designed to remove the threat of Arab attack from the Egyptians . . ." The use of passive voice makes it unclear who waged the Six-Day War, and the claim that it was waged as a "security consideration" has the feel of POV. While I know nothing about the Six-Day War, I find it hard to believe that it is a well-established fact (that can be backed up with a reliable source) that security was the only reason the war was fought by whoever that clause is describing (it seems to be the Israelis, but it's hard to be sure)? Surely someone on the other side must think claims of "security considerations" were but a fig-leaf for some other agenda. Alternatively, if the war was fought for multiple reasons, what's the reason for only mentioning one of them? Furthermore, vital information such as who exactly initiated hostilities, and in response to what, is left for the reader to guess or is presented in a confusing or obfscutory manner. Can someone (not me!) who knows something about the Six-Day War rewrite this section? Elliotreed 07:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
i'm currently reading an academic book which tries to describe the starting point for existance of the palestinian people as a self aware collective. the book, being a serious one, explains that it's allways possible to start going over accounts from earlier or later points in time, depending on what you consider important to the formation of self-awareness, and they choose to start at the 1834 rebellion as their first historically important event for the formation of the future group.
abviously, many things happened in Palestine in those days and they are very much a foundation for the future israeli-palestinian conflict. any book that says "it all started at 1880" is simply reffering to the first modern day aliyah from 1882 but it's disregarding all the events leading to that point.
hence, i believe we should clearly state that this article is not dealing with pre-1880 materials, which are a bit hard to come by, btw. Jaakobou 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that there is no mention of Edah HaChareidis anywhere in this article. Not all Jews believe that the state of Isreal is ligitimised by the Torah. Likewise, not all of the Jewish community accepted Zionism and many are still adamently opposed. Their belief is that there should be no Jewish state under current conditions. Also, these beliefs predate Zionism. At least, statements should refect this and an internal link given to Jews that oppose the Zionist and the Jewish state. Mike 172.138.43.4 ( talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have to inform you but yes they do, the terriatorist argument in Zionism split up early the Edah HaChareidis argument was put forward that Palestine was not the place to go to. hence Uganda etc was a option. The redemtionist argument won the day. the secular branch then recombined with the redemtionists to pick Palestine as the place to settle...2 lines to put that in an article of this length is appropriate and not WP:UNDUE..to leave it out is WP:POV.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed a few sources which, according to the article, gave "concrete evidence" that the PA in general supported anti-Israeli activities. This is disputable, first because of such wording as "empirical" and "concrete" when there is still a large debate over the issue. Tessler (1994) and Bowker (1996) both dispute that the PA "actively" supported attacks on Israelis. Second, I couldn't really find anything except passing mentions in the articles, certainly not "concrete evidence". I might have missed something in the haste, though. Open to discussion. 202.40.139.170 ( talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a quite important part of this conflict - why is this not mentioned at all in this article? āPreceding unsigned comment added by Shane77777 ( talk ā¢ contribs) 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Civil Engineer III cut out the "Hamas election win, new conflicts, 2004 and after" section for the reason, "this is a HISTORY article. seems like a nice place to stop it. Rest is covered by main article." While I do not agree with cutting the whole section out, I do think that this history article is too heavily weighted towards recent events. 43 paragraphs are devoted to events that occurred in or after 2004. Compare this with the 9 paragraphs devoted to the 1947-1949 period, which was the founding of the State of Israel and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. I plan on trimming the fat in the "2004 and after" section unless I hear any good arguments for not doing so. -- GHcool ( talk) 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
as the article is the same as Israel-Palestine conflict, maybe this need splitting so that all the referenced work stays...as all the unreference work is at the end may I humbly suggest removing it... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The German colonies need to be added...as they are pertinent to palestinian nationalism...as with all nationalisms Palestinian nationalism did not grow in a vacuum, Zionism (a form of nationalism) grew out of Russian Pogroms, so Palestinian nationalism grew out of European settlement in Palestine...and that subject is not covered it the article... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The German colonies was one of the earliest European invaders, the Palestinians were in conflict with a European invasion that was seen as fundamentally altering the nature/culture of a Muslim land...I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you but Palestinians have had a longer conflict with the Europeanisation of Palestine that they have had with Zionism which was first seen as a part of the Europeanisation...the first Zionists were Russian ƩmigrƩs who the Palestinians identified as Russian first and later as Zionists (at about the 1929 point).... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The greater vision here, should be the actual merger of the two articles already in place, which will produce a larger article of course, which will then be split into something more manageable. Cryptonio ( talk) 15:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ghcool you are one of the most atrocious liars...and quite frankly not worth the bothering with... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
And your's wasn't a personal attack??? for a balanced article I'm including the section Ben Gurions Racist attitudes... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You haven't seen me write articles without references, I certainly don't need to do any OR to find out that BG was an atrocious racist who had white supremacist and segregationist attitudes... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
My mind is thatĀ : 1. the article could be cut into 3 partsĀ :
My rationale for this is that 1920 and 1948 cut the article into 3 reasonnable sections and that both these dates are important milestone in the conflict (1920 for the first major violenceĀ ; 1948 for the birth Israel and the Naqba).
2. antisemitism should be removed from the section title concerning the Mufti because the fact he was antisemite is irrelevant. What is important is that he was antizionist. But I also wonder if a full section about him is relevant. Why not Weizmann, Ben Gurion or Jabotinsky...
Ceedjee (
talk)
19:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just adding balance....mind if the WP:Undue was to be removed then I would have to remove the BG is a racist section....The section that portrays hajj Amin as though he is an average representative of the Palestinians ....is somewhat tacky, I don't particularly like the BG bashing but for balance one has to achieve NPOV some how... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Why aren't the sections split into areas defined by stern gang atrocities?..
Tom Segev does a break down as 1917-1927, 1928-1938, 1939-1948....No where near the mile stones pick out in the wiki article....the mile stones picked out in the wiki article are for one reason only and that is not for WP:NPOV.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 08:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the IsraeliāPalestinian conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Guardian20091105":
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ā” 08:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Cryptonio has, for a second time, renamed the section titled "The Mufti and anti-Semitism" to simply "The Mufti." He/She says that my judgment is not a reliable enough source to label the Mufti as anti-Semitic. Cryptonio is correct; I am not a reliable source on anti-Semitism or the Mufti. However, the article currently states the following:
To repeat: the Mufti supported and actually met with Hitler, joined the Nazis, was involved himself in a pogrom, incited violence against Jews, and called for genocide against Jews. Based on this evidence, it would be proper to call the Mufti anti-Semitic. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum also calls the Mufti anti-Semitic. Benny Morris wrote in 1948 that the Mufti "was deeply anti-Semitic" (p. 21-22). Of course, Mitchell G. Bard, David G. Dalin agree with this analysis. [15] [16] -- GHcool ( talk) 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As we see, you went ahead and added that thing that you added. This is no way of editing an encyclopedia. What or how we label someone is more important than what he did, and at the same time what he did needs to be labeled. We say, that the mass murdering of Jews was/is called the Holocaust, and that Hitler was the main person responsible for the Holocaust, we somehow then must ALSO include that he 'was' anti-semetic? And if anti-semitism is such a bad thing, and somehow we leave it out, does that mean that there is nothing worse than being anti-semitic? Talk about fallacies. Cryptonio ( talk) 01:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Did they also say it belongs in the title? A lot of information is included in the section, shall we summarize in the title all topics covered in the section? that actually sounds like a good idea. Cryptonio ( talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I found a solution. I just changed the heading to "Arab reactions to Jewish immigration." Now it is no longer a biography on the Mufti and is more relevant to the conflict as a whole. I encourage any Arab reactions, positive or negative, to Jewish immigration to Palestine to be included there. There's no need to just be Mufti-centric. -- GHcool ( talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a waste of time(what i'm about to write). It is 1948, a Jew gets attacked in Thailand, for no apparent reason except that he is a Jew and the attacker is an Arab street bum. Clearly anti-semitism(used in the context, that the concept is mainly or solely used when this kind of attacks happens to Jews). It is 1920, nothing on the books(meaningful books, on the reality of Jewish demands on Palestine anyways) that says whoever is living in Palestine must share the land with whoever decides to move there. At first, no problems. Jews buy Palestine land, Puerto Ricans had no intention of doing so. Then Jews started to quote the Torah. BIG PROBLEM, all alarms goes off. "This land was not only given to us, but it still belongs to us". Umm, i'm an Arab at the time, i'm thinking "is this going to turn into a Book vs Book(religion vs religion) affair?" "because let me tell you, in our Book, there is also claim to this land". Anyways, the Jews said yes, this is will be that kind of a affair. I'm still that Arab, i'm thinking, "well...you could have been a Puerto Rican quoting their wica books, i would 'dislike' you very much if you try to take over our land". War ensues from that point. But now, think, what other 'group' 'people' 'nationality' was in a position of making a similar 'claim' as that of the Jews? No other group, except if they came in with guns and told the Arabs(as it was done against Jews) "get the hell out of here". To Jews credit, in their Book, it clearly states they always fought to the last drop of blood, even when the 'prophesy' had stated the chances of survival was stillborn. So, that this conflict has had ups and downs, violence and more violence, can't be used to label the "hatred" that one side feels for the other AND vice-versa. Clearly as that. And, lets not forget what happened to the Japaneses in the US during WW2. That the longest running dispute in human history spills over to Madagascar cannot be solely labeled "anti-semetic". Or anything other than a conflict.
That there are people who hate Jews no matter what. Ignorance That there are people who hate Blacks no matter what. Ignorance That there are people who hate Asians no matter what. Ignorance That there are people who hate hate hate. Ignorance. Cryptonio ( talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the header can have the word "Allegations" in it: does any dispute the Mufti's antisemitism? Any RS's? IronDuke 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware that we will attempt to merge the above article with this one. Information will be transferred before editing for coherence where needed. also POV issues will be resolved along the way. the conversation is outgoing and in here - [17]. Cryptonio ( talk) 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I've divided the headlines into the main six time periods which are listed in " IsraeliāPalestinian conflict#Periods of the conflict". What do you think? TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 06:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is currently not possible to provide a good comprehensive and neutral historical overview of the conflict because the sub-chapters of the article only focus on the most prominent events of the conflict.
In addition to that, I believe that a sub-chapters partition based the most prominent events of the conflict is a bad partition because the chosen chapters would always be controversial among both parties and might occasionally even skew the article to a one sided POV.
Therefore, I believe that only a sub-chapters partition based the main six time periods would enable us to provide the missing additional important information which didnāt fit into the current sub-chapters, which would help keep the historical overview more comprehensive and more neutral.
Even though I have added a time periods sub-chapters partition only a few days ago in addition to the major events sub-chapters partition, in my opinion it is absolutely necessary that weāll only have a time periods sub-chapters partition.
What do you think? TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 05:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear enough about this. Since your draft still needs much improvement, since it hasn't reached a consensus in the talk pages and since I've started working on intensively improving each section of this article per day as much as I can I ask of you to please refrain from replacing this entire article with your draft. I have already invested many hours on improving the last two sections which in my opinion are much better than in your draft. I'll be glad if you could join in and help improve the article with me and/or if you can help add important or missing sentences or add sources. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I just merged my article into this one paragraph by paragraph. If I deleted anything of yours that you feel is vital, I apologize ask that you restore the sentences you think were vital. -- GHcool ( talk) 23:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to point out again that I am still working on merging the content. you could read this discussion page and this discussion page and see for yourself that this action has been previously discussed. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
During the last couple of days I've spent a lot of time in merging the information IsraeliāPalestinian conflict#Historical outline into this article. I haven't finished merging all the information, nevertheless, I wanted to point out that any feedback you could give to my latest additions would be gladly appreciated. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 14:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry User:Mbz1, but Osher Twito is not notable enough to go in this article. Normally I would give you the benefit of the doubt, however your insertion of this picture/caption into at least 2 other articles says to me you are trying to use Wikipedia to make a point. Please don't. Regards Suicup ( talk) 02:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The picture is not notable, it is blatantly POV, and has not been individually chosen for this article, but rather spammed into any article the editor deems he should be making his point. However, why am I not surprised the usual suspects come to its defence. Indeed, this page has just undergone a massive revision to remove so-called cruft, the bloated factoids of each individual editors whim. And here we have exactly the same thing occurring, only this time it is a picture, not a sentence. The hypocrisy is damning. Suicup ( talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If we really are going to play this game, i'd like to have my arguments against the picture/caption refuted...that is unless you can't refute them and hence agree that the picture should be deleted. Regards Suicup ( talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
there have been many victims on both sides during the last century why should we only show this image? this is why I believe that it would be much better to refrain from adding any images in the future of Israeli victims or Palestinian victims to this article and rather add this specific image to an article which focuses on the victims of the conflict. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ā Note: You guys really should all stop, take a deep breath, and pursue
Dispute Resolution because I don't think you can resolve this on your own.
shirulashem
(talk)
21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion it is essential that population statistics charts of the Arab and the Jewish population in Palestine/Israel would be included to this article for our readers to better understand the history of the conflict. Even though I just added population statistics to all periods of the conflict, I need your help in adding even more sources which would confirm the charts I just added and the population statistics charts in the two time periods period to 1948. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The missing data which we seek is availble at the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. please help me obtain it. If nobody manages to find it on their website, we should try requesting the data from them through an email. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 07:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I put an NPOV tag on the Mandate section. It deserves a FACT tag as well, but I don't like multiple tags. Examples:
Zero talk 12:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody aside from TheCuriousGnome believe that a little-known Jordanian plan in 1972 that never got even close to being off the ground and had nothing to do with the relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis deserve a full paragraph in the 1967-93 section? If not, I'll remove the paragraph within the next couple of days. Thanks. -- GHcool ( talk) 05:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
1 The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel of 14 May gave no exact locality of the new State of Israel. The nearest is the phrase in Eretz Israel. [1] Presumably the Arab armies marched into part of the Mandate set aside for the Arab state. Is that an invasion? The Jewish forces had already marched, or were also about to march, into areas set aside for the Arab state. Is that an invasion? To give an accurate description of where the Arab armies went, a reference to the former British Mandate seems better.
2 The Cablegram of 15 May from the Arab League [2] describes it as an intervention. An inclusion of both invaded and intervened in is a neutral description. Trahelliven ( talk) 04:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
TheCuriousGnome
I agree that the split was not necessary. It just seemed to me that the end of World War II was a watershed, particularly when thw section had become rather long. What are your reasons for not liking the split? Trahelliven ( talk) 20:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe it is necessary. I do not have strong feelings about it. We'll wait and sse what others might think. There are more important things to have strong feelings about. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Given the importance of the conflict articles to our project I had hoped for more feedback at this RFC, but I think I overcomplicated the description. Some editors may also be thinking "we've been just fine for 10 years so is there really a problem here that needs solving"? I would like to encourage more editors to contribute.
The core issue behind the RFC question is that most readers know very little about the conflict and therefore need one single summary article to read and begin their journey, and we need that single summary article to broadly match the picture that the 1,000s of books summarizing this conflict take. Instead we have sat for many years with three primary articles ( IPC since 48, AIC since 48 and ICMP 20-48) which are fine but are missing something above them to thread them together into the 100-year-narrative of the conflict presented by the vast majority of books on the topic.
I recognize that many editors may find the question is a little more dry and boring than many of the debates around here, but its importance to the average Wikipedia reader can hardly be overstated.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of the IsraeliāPalestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.ā cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I think there's a considerable amount of NPOV issues that need fixing here. This article's presentation of the modern history of the conflict, particularly Oslo and since, focuses disproportionately on Palestinian terror attacks, while leaving out far more significant events that reflect negatively on Israel - for example, a whole section on the Second Intifada which doesn't mention Ariel Sharon's triggering visit to the al-Aqsa mosque, or the characterisation of 2005-present as "The strengthening of Hamas in the Gaza Strip".
I'm going to start work on a thorough NPOV clean-up, including some restructuring, and retitle 2005-present within the framework of Palestinian statehood, which has had far more significant developments in terms of the big picture consideration of the conflict. TrickyH ( talk) 17:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the IsraeliāPalestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.ā InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)