Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

The ICJ did not rule there was plausibility of genocide

Hi,

Just was reading through this and belief the following sentence needs correction: "The court ruled there was plausibility of genocide, but did not order a ceasefire."

I do not think that is correct. As the former president of the ICJ during the initial ruling--Joan Donoghue--says here (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o) "The test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant in this case, South Africa. So the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.It then looked at the facts as well. But it did not decide, and this is something where I am correcting what is often said in the media, it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there are was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears which is that there is a plausible case of genocide isn't what the court decided"

I am not allowed to edit myself, so would appreciate if it can be edited to correctly reflect court decision by someone that does have those rights.

2405:6580:2D60:2B00:64AF:78FE:594C:9290 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The relevant material can be found at South Africa's genocide case against Israel, no need to take the individual judges view, the material and spources about what is and isn't plausible can be found correctly in that article, suffice it to say that the IP is correct in so far as the court did NOT rule there was plausibility of genocide, that is an inaccurate statement. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've used the wording from that article, it looks accurate and neutral. Alaexis_¿question? 08:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Strange quotation marks

representing what Laura Robson has called the "colonial practice of territorializing sectarian identity" whereby the "designation "Jewish" would carry with it all sorts of political baggage totally absent from the prior experience of the many Jewish communities of the Arab Ottoman world and their Muslim and Christian compatriots".

> whereby the "designation "Jewish" would carry

What's going on with the quotation marks here? Plenthy (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That material is out for the time being at least. Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The quotation marks are like that in the source Yr Enw (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh, we still need to explain that tho, I don't get it either. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

timestamp needed

this sentence: "As reported by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, since 29 September 2000 a total of 7,454 Palestinian and Israeli individuals were killed due to the conflict." should probably start with "According to a 2010 report by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem" or similar. the lack of a timestamp presents a misleading impression. 130.180.88.101 (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Could do with updating that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"Issues in Dispute"

@האופה please discuss individual points before apply such sweeping reversions.

• The original introduction to this section was poorly sourced and reads more like a rant than an encyclopedia entry
• Israeli security concerns covers Palestinian political violence
• The Israeli security concerns section used to read more like it was trying to convince you of the legitimacy of Israeli security concerns (that's not to say that they are not legitimate, but it's not how a encyclopedia entry should read).
• Palestinian on palestinian violence is not treated as a core issue in the IP conflict by RS
• Palestinian violence outside of Israel? How is this a key issue? The first reference listed was fox news...
• The occupation of the west bank section was not even about the occupation, it was about (to use the Dennis Ross language) "Israeli needs"

DMH223344 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As for the discussion on refugees. The quote used to be "Palestinian refugees are people who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab–Israeli conflict" which is of course disingenuous. I replaced this with explicit reference to expulsions and the forceful prevention from returning to their homes afterwards. DMH223344 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is much more complex than that. "The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians. Factors involved in the exodus include Jewish military advances, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare, fears of another massacre by Zionist militias after the Deir Yassin massacre." Framing it all as "people who were expelled" is factually wrong.

Also, of course Palestinian violence outside of Israel has always been an important issue of the conflict. The internationalization of Palestinian terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s is an integral part of every comprehensive source on the devlopment of the conflict. You removed loads of sourced info without ever discussing it. ABHammad (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

So propose a better phrasing rather than just reverting. You think "Palestinian refugees are people who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab–Israeli conflict" sufficiently addresses the complexity?

"The internationalization of Palestinian terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s is an integral part of every comprehensive source on the devlopment of the conflict." Then we should use sources which connect the incidents to the conflict. And certainly not articles from fox news on this topic. DMH223344 (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@ABHammad please discuss here and dont just blindly revert DMH223344 (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1. This is an issue of POV, I disagree. On the contrary, your proposed intro appears at the end of the lead and is redundant.
2. This comment is not clear, but if I understand it correctly it is irrelevant, Palestinian political violence has a separate page, but one cannot discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without it, so it is good that we have a summary here.
3. Again this is an issue of POV, I do not agree. The language appears to be encyclopedic and neutral.
4. Yes it is. See https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/9/6/who-are-israels-palestinian-informants If there is reason enough for Palestinians to execute their brethren over cooperation with Israel, it appears to be a core issue in the conflict. See the page about the civil war in Gaza in 2007, a core issue of the conflict is the fact that Palestinians still haven't formed a united leadership to represent themselves, on the contrary, the main groups unfortunately have been killing each other. More sources will be added.
5. Again, this is an international manifestation of the conflict involving other countries and ethnicities, it is an integral part of the conflict and needs to be addressed, and for that sources may be added.
6. Define "Israeli needs". The section in its current form describes the initial Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the conflicting approaches taken by Israeli and Palestinian sides towards resolving the issue in the past. As you know the issue is not yet resolved, and the section as it stands offers the background for the present state of the West Bank. ABHammad (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

   I removed the Palestinian on Palestinian violence section, that has nothing to do with IP conflict. The only bit that tried to link it to that is unsourced and even then I still can't see how it is at all relevant. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1. I said it was "poorly sourced" and your response is that it's a matter of POV? "Redundancy" is another issue, but of course the lead is a summary of the body, so "redundancy" is of course not a concern.

2. "but one cannot discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without it" then provide sources which discuss palestinian political violence as separate from israeli security concerns. Of course you cannot, because Israeli security concerns covers palestinian political violence

3. The discussion and sources should be link to the conflict. The sections I removed do not link the statements to the conflict. They are just a synth'ed list of statements.

4. "...it appears to be.." then bring in sources that claim it is a core issue

5. Then bring in sources that show it is a core issue.

6. The section you reverted to is a discussion of settlements, not a discussion about the occupation. This section should discuss the occupation. DMH223344 (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This diff with edit summary "Let's discuss on the talk page as the content seems to have direct relation to the subject", I have already commented above, so kindly explain, @Oleg Yunakov:, how that material relates to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can think of at least two cases out of my head when inter Arab actions have influences Israeli security policy:

• First, it's Pride month right now. When Fatah and Hamas were killing each other and both of them were killing gay people Israel has changed it's laws to offer gay palestinian people to enter Israel inorder to sve theit lives.
• Second, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, while Fatah officials were either taken as prisoners, executed, or expelled Israel has changed it's security policy to blockade the Gaza Strip and closed all check-points on the borders of Gaza in response to the violence. ("Hamas faced difficulty in providing for Gazans’ needs, primarily because of Israel’s security policy that imposed restrictions on the entry of goods into the Gaza Strip. Often, when merchandise came in, Hamas worked first and foremost to support its own families and only then to assist Fatah supporters").

With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not talking about "inter Arab actions have influences Israeli security policy", but it's interesting that you also lump it under Israeli security policy...

Also, those are both terrible examples. The first is so obviously not a core issue. I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the second example. DMH223344 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In the diff you have removed this sentence as the first sentence which was removed: "Fighting among rival Palestinian and Arab movements has played a crucial role in shaping Israel's security policy towards Palestinian militants, as well as in the Palestinian leadership's own policies". I said that due to fighting in Gaza between gay and non gay Palestinians Israel allowed them to come to Israel as well as changed the border policy to disallow entry with Gaza bue to internal fights there. What in your opinion is terrible with those examples? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I already said, it's obviously not a core issue DMH223344 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Any RS to prove? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course you would instead have to find RS that do treat it as a core issue. Which there are, of course, none. DMH223344 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed material and I am not seeing any evidence that this is due. Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and several examples of the policy change were provided, but then there was a protest that such examples are allegedly not a core issue. Killing muslim gay people by muslim non gay people and Israeli act on it are not a core of "inter Arab actions have influences Israeli security policy"? And closing borders are not core? If so, we need to have attribution to such opinion. I am also ok to rephrase to have exactly those examples. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding the different between issues core to the conflict, and notable or important issues DMH223344 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I can say the same about you. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not an argument. Your actual argument remains....dubious. Selfstudier (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I gave sources. You and your friend gave personal opinions. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

האופה, you have reverted twice within 24-hours, in breach of the Active Arbitration Remedies listed at the top of the page. You were informed of this being a contentious topic area on 17 April, so should have been aware of this limit. I invite you now to self-revert.

As regards your removal of the addition - the addition was neutral, presented various viewpoints in a neutral manner, and was referenced. Please now restore. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Should indeed be restored, blatant POV editing, Think no 1R breach, two different editors there (although might as well be the same). Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I also think it should be restored.

@Sean.hoyland: Would you say reversion on the same content by two seemingly very similar accounts would be enough evidence for an SPI? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean האופה and Oleg Yunakov, they look dissimilar to me. If I were to pick a potential match for האופה I might pick Icewhiz (no offense האופה). But this is based on nothing more than the distance between the editors in a metric space. It's an untested method of unknown usefulness/reliability. So, if any current sockpuppets out there want to help me out by telling me other accounts they have used, that would be very helpful and much appreciated. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Would be very helpful and appreciated indeed. We were referring to האופה and מתיאל though. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Great. So apparently I have some kind of Hebrew specific dyslexia. I'm not really seeing anything SPI worthy between האופה and מתיאל. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I'm unfamiliar with the Hebrew alphabet, and at first glance, the usernames seemed the same. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Additions to Peace Process section

It's interesting that user @האופה thinks the recent additions to this section are "only the pro-palestinian view"--I would curious to know how the foreign minister of Israel and the deputy mayor of jerusalem are considered pro-palestinian perspectives. Also, at the time of writing the Iron Wall, Avi Shlaim was a liberal zionist. You'd also need to do some work to convince me and others that Quandt and Christison have "pro-palestinian" perspectives. Lastly, if you think this does not represent RS, then bring sources. DMH223344 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The way it was worded, it placed the blame for the collapse of the Oslo process on Israel alone, That is "only the pro-palestinian view", even if you support the part of the blame that lies with Israel with quotes from Zionists. I've balanced it somewhat by adding the part with which Israel was disillusioned, from a Palestinian Authority executive. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous claims

A recent addition to the article quotes from a book by Slater, which says "from November 1977 to October 2000, no Israelis were killed inside the Green Line." this is such an obviously false claim, (see for example Dizengoff Street bus bombing) that makes the entire source questionable, It should be removed. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously a typo and should be 1997 DMH223344 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So obviously this book didn't have any serious fact checking, and we should not be using it. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You can test that argument at WP:RSN. It's quite an interesting question. Does a date error in a book published by Oxford University Press demonstrate that the source didn't have any serious fact checking, and that we should not be using it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, you can try and make a case at RSN that OUP does not do fact checking but I don't think you would get very far. Given the context it is an obvious typographical error (7 instead of 9). Just for interest I tried to find another source for that info, nearest I could come up with is the table here which does show the big drop in fatalities within the Green Line during that period compared to previously. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So you think we should have an obvious error in the artilce, just because it was published by Oxford, who didn't bother to fact check or proof read? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are addressing me, no, what I think is that you can test that argument at WP:RSN. That is what I wrote, so that is the only thing you know about what I think. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So what so be done to the article which contain something we all agree is an obvious error? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that your table is further proof that the claim is a lie, even if we limit it to 1997 and on - There were Israelis killed within the green line in 1998 and 1999, as well. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

According to Btselem, 1 in each of those years, that doesn't mean that the claim is a lie, it means that there is another source that contains conflicting information. What we usually do in such circumstances is include both sources. Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Since it is not in article body per se but only as quote within ref, I removed the troublesome part from the quote. Perhaps it is worth adding the Btselem cite since it does confirm the reduced quote. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks, that ought to do it. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

a quote from ben ami

From Prophets without honor:

The intractability of the conflict is strongly linked to the resilience of nationalist atavisms—the eminent historian Fernand Braudel wrote about the “mentalities (that) are prisons of long duration”—to the dysfunctional nature of the parties’ respective politics, and to the poverty of leadership. But the abject submission of the Palestinians and the ever deepening system of occupation and discrimination in the territories are Israel’s sole and exclusive responsibility. As brilliantly explained by Michael Sfard, this is a system built on three pillars: the gun, the settlements, and the law that formalizes the network of colonization.1 Under the mantle of security claims, the Jewish state has created in the Palestinian territories one of the most efficient occupation regimes in history, which is, moreover, also cost-effective, for it is the international community’s donor money to the Palestinian Authority that saves the occupier the burden of having to directly administer the territories. This leaves Israel free to cater to its insatiable security needs with draconic measures, such as limiting the Palestinians’ freedom of movement, erecting walls that separate communities, dotting roads with checkpoints where innocent people are manhandled, activating sophisticated intelligence mechanisms that control the lives of an ever growing number of suspects, conducting surprise searches of private houses in the middle of the night, and carrying out arbitrary administrative detentions. If this were not enough, vigilantes among the settlers, some known as “the Youth of the Hills,” constantly harass Palestinian communities, destroy orchard trees, and arbitrarily apply a “price tag” of punishments to innocent civilians for whatever terrorist attack might have been perpetrated by a Palestinian squad. Underlying this very serious problem of the unpardonable depravity of settlers’ extremism is the even more serious problem that has to do with the involvement of the entire Israeli body politic in maintaining and continuously expanding a regime of dominance in the territories. For too long, the peace process has served as a curtain behind which the policy of practical annexation has flourished.

DMH223344 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Since we are ignoring WP:NOTAFORUM, here is my take: I read Prophets Without Honor and I clearly remember Ben Ami blaming Arafat for not wanting peace. For example, he said the Palestinian "reservations" to the Clinton Parameters were completely outside the parameters (unlike Israeli reservations) and Arafat wanted to evade the talks and had to be forced into them, since he didn't want to go against his people who overwhelmingly rejected peace with Israel based on a reasonable two-state solution. Even in Taba in January 2001, when it was clear that Barak's government was in its last legs, Ben Ami didn't see any sense of urgency on the part of the Palestinian negotiators to hurry up and sign an agreement before the right takes power in Israel, as it finally did in March of that year (and it has mantained it since, maybe with a brief interval under Olmert who was a centrist). He largely blames the Palestinians for destroying the Israeli peace camp, which is today a fringe minority, much smaller than three decades ago. He also criticized the international left's obsession with Israel and a lot of talking points of the anti-Israel crowd. But of course, DMH223344 only wants to quote the parts of the book he likes, not everything what Ben Ami wrote. Unfortunately, I gave the book to a friend and she never had the opportunity to give it back to me, so I can't quote it verbatim (if you can, read it here, "Longing for Hezbollah" is quite revealing). Nevertheless, you can read his recent articles on Project Syndicate (I recommend The Unbearable Lightness of Anti-Zionism).--42.119.192.214 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I quote what is consistent with the scholarly consensus. The point is that there is much more agreement about the status of the "Issues in Dispute" than the section in this article puts forward. DMH223344 (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Better not to respond to non EC editors per WP:ARBECR, just remove commentary that is not an edit request. However, just planting a single quote on the talk page is not that helpful either, there is plentiful sourcing available on this matter. Selfstudier (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Inside a cinematic universe...

According to this, the term 'historic Palestine' is partisan and violates WP:NPOV. This is apparently the case regardless of the contents of cited reliable sources. This seems like the kind of reasoning worth discussing. Is this kind of reasoning consistent with policy? It strikes me as so odd that I'm not sure it is even consistent with the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not partisan as it is widely used in RS. It is not the first time the user in question has removed sourced content. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to confuse “impartial” with “reliable” Yr Enw (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

Correct typo in section Israeli-Palestinian Conflict#Economic disputes and boycotts. The first letter of a sentence was cut off.

Change: "s a result, the PA's" -> "As a result, the PA's" GrapesRock (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done - Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

@DMH223344, @האופה, I didn't understand the reasoning behind the reverts, could you explain it? Alaexis_¿question? 17:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)