Jump to content

Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Recent notes

Israel does not "target Palestinian militants" only.The IDF aims for innocent Palestinian men, women and children with pleasure and pride.Your article misses out many important and significant facts..perhaps to prevent Israel from being portrayed as what it really is..an illegal country built on stolen land!!!SU

Thank you for your Jew-bashing. Do you really expect us to believe that the evil Jews are going out of their way to murder innocents? Sure. And they also rule the UN and the world economy. RK

Was wondering if anyone thought that the new 'Geneva Accord' deserves a mention, it seems to be gaining a bit of momentum and support from people? 

Regards 
 J
Good idea. RK


This entry is horribly inaccurate. For a very simple start at source material for a more accurate entry, please see:

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict. Published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

It contains a indispensible wealth of information about the history of this conflict, complete with references to source material. Shawn

I do not know why you think it is "indisputable". It may be totally correct, of course, but some people even dispute the idea that the world is round! Just a note of caution. RK

Editor, I thought I'd found a goldmine, until I read this page. It's the same old pro-Israeli cant that's spewed forth everywhere, at least in America.

Sincerely,

John Francis Lee

Editor,

I have studied the issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for decades. I also lived in the middle east for 10 years. I must tell you that yours is one of the most non-biased, fact-based articles I've every seen on the topic. I appreciate your objectivity; I wish more people were like that.

Sincerely,

E. Davidson Atlanta


Bias in the article?

I had a lot of respect for this encyclopedia until I read about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on this site. Anybody who has done an iota of research knows that the information on this site is highly biased, and does not present the information accurately. Note how there is no mention of the myriad of United Nations Resolutions that have been passed concerning this conflict. Please remove this page immediately. It should not be done by any group with political affliations. You should have a respectable scholar who has actually studied this conflict provide the information. There is a plethora of scholars willingly to contribute to this archive. Please allow them to contribute. This section needs to be accurate and completely truthful. --Anon

You too can edit - please try to NPOV this article but it has already been worked on by people from both extremes of POV plus a fair number of people in the middle (like me). But deleting the article is vandalism and will not be tolerated. --mav

Hey, sorry did not mean to delete the page. I didn't know that editing the page actually deletes it (I thought the Wikipedia Editors would first take a look at the submission before it would be posted). I just wanted to bring attention to this issue. Anyway, if this site is having trouble finding what information is "accurate," then why not have both sides presented. When you click on the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" link, you have the choice of an article from this person, or this other person.

The trouble with only having one view present is that someone who has no idea what the situation is may accept everything that is written here. Some child who never done research on this topic may take the sole view of Wikipedia to be a fact. That's why what is being said here needs to accurate, or at the very least, fair in giving both sides a fair chance to present their interpretation of events.

- Andy Yon

One NPOV article, not two POV articles

No - our NPOV policy would not allow two POV articles. Which side do you feel is under-represented? This also reminds me that we need a general disclaimer linked from every page stating that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and that many articles may have incorrect or missing information in them. But all articles do improve over time. Please add and edit this article in order make it fair to both sides of the conflict. --mav

I dont know what I expect to get out of writing this. The consensus seems to be :

1. dissect the article into short, irrelevant, almost unrelated bits. 2. pepper the discussion with references to ancient history, or frame the context under such an extremely long timeframe that mixes biblical history and current, verifiable events; as to render the current as biblical, and the biblical as current. 3. edit anonymously: Wikipedia:Accountability 4.Edits made along racist or ethnocentric biases. 5. A lack of depth. the surface material doesnt go near explaining the why. The 5W's are

The issues are clear, and they run from the top, namely American interest in the region, for access to its oil. Heres a primer for beginners: here --SV

RK, why did you get rid of the summary? Summaries are very useful in long articles since many (perhaps most) people either do not have the time or interest to read through the whole article just to get the basics. This is also common in many encyclopedias; a short version of an article is placed before a much longer one. --mav 13:50 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I am not opposed at all to having a summary here, nor would I mind putting back what I just edited out. I only removed that specific text because in many cases I just couldn't tell the difference between a summary, and just plain-old repetition. I got the impression that some of this material was added by people who hadn't read the main text and started discussing a topic from scratch (I could be wrong.) I don't have a problem with the content, just the organization and writing style. Maybe we can put the intro summary back in, but eventually rewrite it a bit to bring it up to the same standard of writing as the rest of the article? RK
Yes that could be done. But I don't think it all needs to be done at one time; we could paste back in the summary doing a minor copyedit and then in time the summary will improve bit by bit - just like the rest of the article. --mav

Is there an article somewhere on relevant UN resolutions? There should be, if there isn't... - Khendon 12:48 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Is there some material that fits between the creation of Israel and the next entry which is 1958 - It seems as if an important decade has been overlooked. ---Stevert

Check out a very quick but good summary: http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gisrael2/flash.htm

Your site could describe the conflict by sticking to the major events listed in the USA Today summary. Each of the major events becomes a section worth further analysis.

At the very end of this whole encyclopedia entry, you could list the most significant UN Resolutions and current proposals being tossed around -- such as UN Resolution 242, and the Saudi proposal for security and recognition in exchange for Israel's full withdrawal of the Palestinian territories.

It should be worth nothing that the American Jewish Committee is a pro-Israel lobby more interested in Israel's interests than promoting peace or combating anti-semitism (towards all semites, not just Jews). A good article that shows you what the American Jewish Committee really does is located here: http://www.counterpunch.org/heard1009.html

Nonsense. Your unfounded changes bizarrely mean that the AJC is almost anti-Semitic itself, since you clearly state that they are not working for the best interests of Jews, but against them. Secondly, few of us here take kindly to dishonest word games concerning the word "anti-Semitism". Only those who themselves dislike Jews claim that the word "anti-Semitism" does not refer to the hatred of Jews. Thridly, distorted lies about the AJC do not facts make. RK

So I do hope you consider scraping the American Jewish Committee article because it really damages the site's reputation and credibility. It's analagous to reading the history of South Africa from a publication firm that supports apartheid. And it's obvious that this article doesn't do the job because it fails to talk about Israel's 67' invasion of Arab territories, and its invasion of Lebannon. Please consider these changes and contributing to an honest account of history.


What would be an honest account of history?

Translation. You hate the fact that Jewish people in many organizations, including the AJC, are trying to reach out and create tolerance peace. You would rather such programs not exist, but since you can'r have that, you ask for these programs not to be mentioned. Well, we won't accomodate you. There are many articles on Wikipedia about religious intolerance in general, and about Jewish-Muslim problems in specific. Some of these article report on efforts to actually end wars, discrimination and prejudice. History isn't only about killing, it is also about peace making. I find it ironic that supposedly pro-Arab people would try to remove material about the few programs that try to make the world a better place for Arabs, and that try to convine Jews to live with Arabs in peace. It almost seems as if you want "the Jews" to all hate Arabs, just so you can say "See, I told you so", and you are disappointed to find out that this just is not so. RK

RK, as usual, makes a few "good" points. "Peace", "tolerance", "reaching out", all these things are vital.

You have to be just a little smarter than the average rock to see through these though. We all (should ) know "tolerance" is a pitiful word. It strives to mean "respect", but without any valid attempt at respectablity. Respect, in turn, aspires to mean "love"... it is still a weak word, relative to love.

Perhaps.. a modern day Romeo and Juliet might be whats needed between palestinians and Israelis...

The anon guy (which I hate by the way, get a name! sign your entries! ) is right to say this article needs challenging as far as bias. Be bold in editing pages, is countered by the special interests like RK, etc. And unforntunately thats the way it is. I doubt many people in Jenin have internet access, and this is similar in all aspects of the ethnic separations between the Arab and Western worlds. That Israeli culture is more accessible to western, and modern means certainly enables (not entitles) them to blanket history with a Jewish-centrist point of view. Im sounding like David Duke here, but everyone here knows the difference between career racists, and anti-racist / anti-Zionists like myself. Or you should. Get a clue.

I make the claim here, that this entire article, its title, its premise, and most people who contribute to it have a cultural bias. And the inability for most of these people to accept criticism of their favorite pet ideologies makes is highly misleading from the get-go.

Without beating up too much on RK, ( as if he was a Palestinian, and I was an Israeli soldier, trying to break his arms - caught on video -look for it! ) The issues of Israel and Palestine are made simplistic to fit the soundbite.

Consider this: The general quality of new mainstream music - relative to what it was pre-MTV days... is significantly decreased... agree? Carry this analogy to the media, and its reporting of events. Pretty low quality - more fluff, lots on nice things to look at, but less substance.

If you agree, then the analogy of this crucial conflict may in fact carry over to here. The obstacle to most people, however, in criticizing Israels brutality, Sharon's war criminality, the US complicity - consistent with the overall strategic agenda -energy... is being called an "anti-Semite". Its not valid, according to these people, to criticize Zionism, because they say anti-Zionism is "anti-Semitic". .... You cant criticize US payment to Israel for suppressing Arab nationlism, because this would mean Israel otherwise would sink like a raft - with a huge, gaping, hole where its respect should be. Finally, criticizing Israel would mean that Israel's long history of subservience to Us interests was a deal made with a golem, and it would require Extreme courage and conviction for future Jews to abandon the sins of their fathers and rebuff US requests. Naturally, perspective, like this, may find a place only on WP's talk pages, as any changes to the articles no doubt gets certain treatment - to align them to "standardized texts". --Stevert

Stevert, this NOT a place for anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist polemics. Please take your diatribes elsewhere. Wikipedia Talk-pages are specifically about discussing edits to the article. Please work within NPOV Wikipedia parameters, or not at all. But we can't allow you to fill these pages with your diatribes about the Jews. That is not what this is for. RK

By the way, Stevert, please stop making up ludicrous claims about Arab and Muslim access to the Internet. Millions of Arabs and Muslims, including large numbers of Palestinian Arabs, do have Internet access. Once again I must remind you that your attempts to pass-off fiction as fact simply won't be believed or tolerated here. Stay within the confines of reality. RK

RK, if you read what I said, and then compare it to what you just wrote, youll see that I predicted - to a tee, the nature of your agenda, and the level of your thinking. First, I wrote:

"Naturally, perspective, like this, may find a place only on WP's talk pages, as any changes to the articles no doubt gets certain treatment - to align them to "standardized texts", The obstacle to most people... is the threat of being called an "anti-Semite". Which you answered:

"this NOT a place for anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist polemics. Please take your diatribes elsewhere.... Please work within NPOV Wikipedia parameters, or not at all."

Keep in mind, RK a slower machine cannot emulate the thinking processes of a faster one. There is nothing to preclude this from going the other way around, however, and this is the reason I'm able to predict your reactions. Take this in, and then we can move onto the next step. Your awakening into the world of intelligence goes slowly, (albeit surely). Speed it up. Think for yourself, then we can proceed to developing the article, unhindered by your ethnocentrism.. --Stevert

Who can be role models for writing NPOV articles?

I know its hard to even learn the Wikipedian Ethos with so few people practicing them ( even Fire Department Members and most distressingly amonst the corp of sysops). A child or an AI could not pick-up The Ethos simpily from observing the actual practice of the community. This Encyclopedia has reached kernal state: the Wikipedian culture is accelerating to kernal state. There is one articulated rule: NPOV. Extremely enlightening are the principles of Jimbo Wales (articulated on this site.) A quick handy primer frequently of encountered breeches of Wikipedian Ethos can be found User:Two16. The purpose of our colaboration here, as I have encapsulated to the best of my abilities:

The generation of an authoritative, general compendium of the sum of human knowledge in all languages.

This, not yet out of the suckling stage, Wikipedian Culture, is destined for Greatness. The articulation of NPOV as the only philosophically defensible Voice ( In an EngLit sort of way ) for a project such as this (defined as a member of the set of all GNUDL Encyclopedia). It is refreshing to see the appellation Professional Philospher applied to an individual, LMS , and to have it meaningful for a change. It is an inspiartion to every Python fan who ever aspired employment as a professional logican . Reason is the rarest, most precious child Humanity has.

Proper Wikipedian refactoring technique will transform discourse here, at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as surely as it transformed abortion and SUV. I am willing to learn, and help and create with you and anybodyelse who stumbles in, or counsciously seeks this place.

Peace Out.

Can someone knowledgable please clarify the section entitled "The Olive Tree"? I'm aware of the controversial Isreali uprooting of ancient olive groves (which isn't mentioned in this article, perhaps it ought to be?), but this doesn't seem to be the point of this section.

I think the point of the first paragraph is that the trees are supremely important to the Palestinians, and that monetary compensation (or whatever was offered) was unacceptable to them and this is one reason why Palestinians feel disenfrachised. The Jews on the other hand feel as if they came by the propery rightfully, hence (one aspect of) the conflict. Is this what actually happened? Is this what the author is trying to say? This final sentence of the first paragraph is very confusing, what is the antecedent of "This"? The second paragraph seem to have little to do at all with the section heading. Perhaps it belongs somewhere else? Sorry if I'm sounding obnoxious... I'm just an ordinary reader who stumbled on this article looking for some information and was confused by this section.

Best,

John

Funnily enough, I was just going to say the same thing! What on earth is the 'Olive Tree' bit all about? Someone, please rewrite it intelligibly! --Olivia Curtis

"...by Communism devoted to the cause of national liberation of occupied people" I think this misconception about communism should be fixed. Communism has nothing to do with 'liberation of occupied people' but with the distribution of wealth. Also I think it's important to point out that these groups who "viewed themselves as national liberation movements fighting colonialism and imperialism" had strategies that included car-bombs in busy streets and sending sword wielding terrorists to attack school children. Also this paragraph does not describe the wars as it title suggests but the inner palestinian organisations. It should be completely rewritten in a way that preserves all links. Yoel

Thats right - Its not OK to kill children with swords and car bombs. It is, however, perfectly fine to kill children with missiles from American-donated Apache helicopters, while they sleep in apartment buildings. Quoting scripture, of course. It is so written. -'Vert

This discussion page should focus on specific changes to this encyclopedia article. Please do not use it to attack Israel and to score points on the issue. This is not an anti-Zionist discussion forum. RK

This talk page should focus on rewriting the article

RK is right. In fact, this is not a forum for pro or anti anything. Let's stick to the text of the article. I agree with Yoel about Communism--that paragraph is not very coherent.
By the way, I have written a list of topics that could use more exposure in the article. Any thoughts?
  • What is the general feeling of the Israeli population and the Palestinian population regarding this conflict? Preferably, the results of a detailed poll or two, carefully reproduced for fairness, would be included.
  • In the news, there have been reports of small amounts of opposition within the Israeli camp. It is reported that 500 Israeli soldiers known as "refuseniks" are refusing to serve in the "occupied territories"[1].
  • Interaction with the national community. "Delegates to the summit of 114 NAM countries on Sunday endorsed a declaration condemning Israel for committing 'systematic human rights violations and reported war crimes' in Palestinian areas."[2]
  • There is a perception that the Palestinian leadership is helpless in calling for peace, because of extremist groups who continue attacks to avert peace. Details for/against this view would be nice.
  • Details of some of the peace plans being proposed. What were the compromises required? Why were they rejected?
  • Israeli settlements (including those not authorized by the Israeli government) in the "occupied territories" are controversial, even among Jews. What are different views in this situation? Who are the players?
  • When Jordan held the "occupied territories" before 1967, why didn't Palestinians try to create a homeland (or is this incorrect[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31194])?
  • Why have most Arab nations not allowed Palestinians to take refuge in their countries?

The Firestone and Duran books need to be articles in themselves, or at least links for now. They are significant beyond this conflict, and are part of a significant peace movement within religious circles in Judaism and Islam. Also, some think they fuel conflict as much as anything by trying to draw too much attention to Abraham as a patriarch, who really wasn't all that well behaved a guy if you read Genesis.

I think any article on this conflict should include both problems, and the efforts to fix these problems! RK

Good day fellow citizens of the wikipublic. I ask of you, "Why for hath RK removed the following sentence (amongst others)?" *Such a policy, they claimed, was indicative of a Jewish theocracy, not a democracy.

Because it is icorrect. Arabs in the region never spoke out against theocracy. In fact, many Arabs established theocracies, and still lived in them. Arabs at that time had a number of other reasons for opposing the creation of a Jewish State in the western quarter of Palestine, but this was not one of them. RK

After all, is it not true that many advocates of a free Palestine are quick to note that, by their POV (of course), Israel is not a democracy but in fact a theocratic police state! Perhaps I am confused and most Palestinians agree that Israeli is a democracy... Susan Mason

I think you are confused! How can what some Arabs say in the 1990s and 2000s be mistaken for what Arabs said in the 1920s and 1930s? These statements were said by different people, in different historical eras, under vastly different circumstances. Please try to retain some sort of historical perspective. It is hard to take you seriously when you say things like this. In any case, the vast majority of Palestinian do not say that Israel is a theocratic police state. They have real complaints of their own, but most don't hold by this one. By the way, Israel, to the consternation of many of its Ultra-Orthodox Jewish inhabitants, refuses to allow most of its laws to adhere to the theocratic ideals that the Ultra-Orthodox promote. Israel is a democracy. RK
And I think you are confused. The section in question begins:
  • End of British Rule On the date of British withdrawal, 15 May 1948,
Did the post-1948 era happen between 1920-1939...I must admit that I am confused, but I think you are confused too! I do not assert that all or nearly all Palestinians think Israel is a theocracy, only enough that it is a viewpoint which should be noted, rather than censored. On a side note, isn't Israel more a republic?Susan Mason
In this case, we are thinking about different things. I agree you are correct to note that those attitudes existed post-1948; However, I was trying to write about Arab opposition to the creation of Israel, which was before 1948. Arab beliefs after 1948 changed in certain ways. I also agree with you that a full range of views should not be censored, and if you really want to put that back in, its Ok by me. I only took this statement out because (a) it was not representative of Arab beliefs before the State of Israel came into existence, and (b) even today most Arabs really don't make this point. It is a polemic made from time today that most Arabs don't believe themselves. They do, of course, have a list of other reasons, and I do not want to hide any of them. RK

The statement "The majority of Arabs who consider themselves Palestinians today are descendents of Arab immigrants", that was just deleted, can be disputed on several different grounds. Without going into those arguments just here just yet, I want to raise the meta-point that if it is so far from established, it shouldn't be in the article. PML.

See From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. This is an exhaustively researched books, with extensive quoting from vast numbers of British, Arab and United Nations documents. It clearly proves that there was a very large immigration of Arabs into the western quarter of Palestine (now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza), and that the majority of people who later called themselves Palestinians were descendents of these rather recent immigrants. In fact, the United Nations implicitly holds this way even now; The United Nations created a totally new definition of the term "refugee" in regards to Palestinian Arabs. For this group only, an Arab is officially considered a "Palestinian refugee" even if that person had recently immigrated to the British mandate of Palestine in the last two years before 1948! Clearly, this was a political attempt to inflate the number of people who would be considered Arab refugees. The UN refuses to apply this standard to any other nation. RK
"From Time Immemorial" is infamous as it has been discredited as revisionist propaganda. It has become quite clear by now what your true intentions are regarding this subject matter and they don't include NPOV.
First off, sign your comments with your username or real name. Your anonymous attacks carry no weight. Secondly, the research in From Time Immemorial is indisputable...and in fact is mostly from Arab and United Nations historical documents sources. That, ironically, is the reason why some Arab apologists of today are afraid of it. Thsi exhaustivly documented book quotes in great detail statements and documents from Arab sources in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, which today's Arab leaders try to deny the very existence of. It is not the author of that book who is guility of illegitimate historical revisionism; she is merely a historian printing facts that some pro-Arab groups today are ashamed of, and thus try to hide. Unlike books by certain pro-Arab apologists, Peter's book (From Time Immemorial) provides a vast number of lengthy quotations, which a huge amount of easily verifiable footnotes. And many Arab history professors agree with her; the vast majority of Arabs who came to be called "Palestinians" were in fact recent immigrants into Palestine. RK
I'd rather read Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman G. Finkelstein, thank you very much. As for your proof by assertion, let's see how it stands up against the following articles:
Not so tough now, eh? And to drive the final nail into the coffin, answer this:
IF what you say is true, why hasn't the Israeli government brought this argument up itself during negotiations, eh? Could it be that they know your claim is without merit? The only thing I EVER hear them bring up when discussing the issue of the refugees, is its demographic concern (never mind the fact that REAL democracies shouldn't care about their ethnic makeup).
Call me 212 for all I care.


Dear 212, this page is for discussion of the article. It is not a debate forum. In any case, bookreviews are not considered historical source material! I can find hundreds of anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli and anti-Israeli book-reviews on any book we mention on this subject. So what? History depends on analytical and unbiased readings of source documents, and interviews, read in their historical context. Such book reviews do not carry any weight in the historical community. And by the way, please do not lie about the position of the Israeli government during its negotiations with Arabs. They have repeatedly brought these points up, and in recent years even the negotiators of the Palestinian Authority has begun to accept some of these points! For instance, some PA negotiators have admitted that many Palestinians were relatively recent immigrants, and thus have no right of erturn to pre-1967 Israel, and they also have admitted that a huge number of Jewish refugees were created during the Arab-Israeli wars, and as such they have refugee rights as well. Frankly, it seems as if you have fallen for popular Arab propaganda, but are totally unaware of the current state of actual historical studies by moderate Arabs, as well as Americans. You don't even get current Palestinian propaganda correct! RK

I came to this page to get some basic information on the conflict after I read about the current plan for peace (May 2003). It is hard for me to understand this conflict without maps. Why are there no maps? Can we add them? --66.47.86.47 17:39 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Palestinians regard this as a "colonial" document with no legitimacy; they hold that "Europeans" had no right to give away any part of Palestine. However, all the borders of the Middle East were decided by the victorious Allies at the Treaty of Versailles, and as there were Jews in Palestine, they too were granted a future homeland equal to the Arabs.

These sentences don't belong in the article, and certainly not in the summary. The summary should not contain arguments over "legitimacy". These are editorial remarks. DanKeshet 15:39 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"The British appointed Haj Amin Al-Husseini as "mufti of Jerusalem", in order to have an official representative of the Palestinean people. This turned out to be a major mistake. The mufti soon emerged as an open supporter of Hitler and convened with Nazi leaders several times."

  • That's no good. He was appointed in the 1920s, and by the time he openly sided with Hitler he had been fired from the job and expelled from Palestine.

-- bdm

No. He was mufti until 1948 but I fail to see how his alleged anti-semitism is relevant. If we added all small facts like that to this page it will become very very big. Better to move it somewhere else. And another thing, could we please avoid paragraphs like "xxx did something bad. HOWEVER yyy did something other also bad". Or "xxx thinks that blah, yyy thinks it is bull". Because we then have for sake of NPOV:ness add these retorts to all statements and it would make it to bloated. imho --BL

You are right in that his title of "mufti of Jerusalem" remained in principle until 1948, but it had no practical import from 1937 onwards, when a warrant for his arrest was issued and he fled from Palestine. His Nazi activities in WW2 make him an easy target but the fact is that after he left Palestine he was largely irrelevant and doesn't deserve a mention on a page like this. -- bdm

Just to note, it wasn't the Treaty of Versailles where the Middle East was cut up but the Sykes-Picot Plan drawn up before the INVASION of the Ottoman Middle East (named after two British and French (respectively with regard to the name) diplomats) which gave the British Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait and the French Syria and Lebanon Hauser

You are confusing agreements with treaties. Agreeing to cut up the Middle East is not the same thing as actually cutting it up. Treaties are what creates legal frameworks and facts on the ground. -- bdm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict/Archive_3&oldid=867383965"