Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Israeli–Palestinian conflict. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

"The roots of the conflict can be traced to the late 19th century" ??

I doubt that there where any conflict to mention between zionist and palestinians back in the 19th century. My impressions of what the roots where are the Balfour-decleration and the massive jewish immigration to the area after WW1. The conflict began that day those zionists startet to realize their plan for a jewish homeland and not the days this idea popped up in their minds. I doubt there where any significant jewish immigration to Palestine before 1900.--Ezzex (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See First Aliyah: there were 25-35,000 Jewish immigrants from 1881-1903. Maybe there wasn't an open inter-communal conflict until after WW1, but this says the roots of the conflict date from that period. <eleland/talkedits> 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It would in any case be sensible to source this remark in the scholarly literature. Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, theere were plenty of things to criticze Zionists for, even in the 19th Century.

Page protection; contested issues

Due to the recent edit-warring, I have submitted a request for page protection. ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Michael, that's a pretty concise request. Can you be more specific? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 10.03.2008 11:04

Michael is right, in my opinion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then, the proper thing is not to let the page languish, as one suffers the temptation to scuttle off, but rather to iron out the differences in the meantime. Michael, it would help if you could sum up the points over which the 'edit-war' occurred. On memory, they consist of just two niggling points, that are, however, gravid with consequences for the kind of editorial behaviour most of us deplore (1) 'Palestinians' vs 'Palestinian Arabs' (2) Eretz Israel as the place where Zionists emigrated, as opposed to Palestine, the place where Zionists emigrated in order to reconstruct Eretz Israel. Is that it?Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I aprpeciate your helpful start in laying out the contested issues here. By the way, the person who requests protection may not necessarily be the one who lays out the issues or helps forge a compromise; they are simply the person who calls attention to a certain situation. Obviously, they may still play a role, as they may desire. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The other issue was people constantly reverting each other. that's the reason for a page protection; it makes it impossible to continue with constant reversions, and gives people a reason and an inducement that they should not continually do such things. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of explanation. I requested protection in response to this string of reversions [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on these diffs, it seems like Nishidani has summed up the disputes. Before we discuss these, though, I would like to first say:

I am not innocent of edit-warring, and do not claim to be. I hope, however, to change that.
I think there is a larger issue of reverting edits before consensus has been reached.

Can we all agree, in the future, to not alter material which is being discussed on the talk page while consensus has not yet been reached? ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to that. However I would note that it may give a false impression to take my edit as the one which sparked off an edit-war. That passage had been modified several times, while I myself simply stood in here discussing the pros and cons, and refrained from tampering with the text. I only made my edit when I gathered the impression that my interlocutors were more active on the article, than they were on the Talk page section. I welcome therefore the opportunity to review this problem as well, and hope all who have edited this passage join in to give their reasons for the versions they respectively prefer.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Nishidani. I did not mean to imply that you had started the edit war. These were only the most recent in the string of reversions. ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Safyan. No apology needed, Michael. If we have learnt from the past four decades in the philosophy of reading, it is that texts get the better of their authors, and this is a problem we all have. I must sound noisomely pedantic in my Nestorian expatiations - that is partly due to age, part fear of the words or choices of statement I make getting the better of my intent. The fact that we are all drafting an encyclopedia that must speak, ideally, to every imaginable reader from every imaginable background, without offense, only sharpens one's sense that a deontology of linguistic precision must have its due place in our respective editorial vademecums. I value the equanimity of your style, and, if I may add, reading between the lines of your comments in here, the quality of your sentiments. Leyl menukhah Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Basic historical outline

Why do we have a section on the "Basic historical outline" followed by a "History" section? I propose we merge the "Basic historical outline" section into the larger "History" section. If there is no significant disagreement, then I will do this within the next few days. --GHcool (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is leftover material from the old introduction. IMO, the History section as it stands should be deleted, and Basic Historical Outline expanded to cover the most pertinent points. This is because we already have a history article, and it seems the extensive content debates which are occurring on this page are really better suited to that page. This article is already too long, so rather than spend what will be an inordinate length of time negotiating an entire history section, why not leave it to another article which has the history as its prime focus (which this articles editors are obviously free to edit), and exert our collective energies cleaning up the rest of this article.

Furthermore, having watched this article for a while, it seems that few are willing to edit the history section at all, preferring to edit issues or current events. Thus why bother having such a large section which nobody will improve, and which is essentially a duplicate of another article anyway? Suicup (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Suicup. I suggest we merge the most relevant information from the "History" section into the "Basic historical outline." --GHcool (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there are many holes in the current history section, so new content will have to be added to the Basic Outline. However, it is crucial that we don't allow it to become bloated and simply a photocopy of the existing history article. IMO it must remain a Basic Historical Outline, and this is not because I believe the history is simple, or that I favour one narrative over the other.

Off the top of my head, possible events which could be included (which are currently missing) are: the Suez Crisis, Yom Kippur War, Camp David Accords (and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty), the 1982 Lebanon War, the First and Second Intifadas. What might be helpful is if we could collectively agree on a timeline of crucial events, which can then be formulated into prose by somebody. Suicup (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its better if I just formulate what I think would make good prose and whoever doesn't like it can change it in the article. I don't think we should have a months long debate about it before we just do it. --GHcool (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be months. We can say that for the next week (for example) all effort should go into the Historical Outline. While your method works in theory (and on WP in general) due to the history of this article, and the high incidence of edit wars etc, I don't think it will work. How about before you start, list the rough timeline of events you are going to include. Suicup (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Too late. It seems to be working fine. --GHcool (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you don't know yet, it has only been a day since the article was unlocked. I strongly feel there will be edit wars over this section unless motives and plans (even in a very rough sense) are outlined here first. Just because you don't want to, or don't think it is necessary doesn't mean you shouldn't. I might add, i am not referring to the merging of the History section into the Outline, which you have already done, but the expansion of the Outline so that it doesn't have any holes left in it. You seemed keen to have a go at that. Suicup (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicup's comment is right. The "basic historical outline" was a part of the introduction which i sectioned off because the lead was getting too long. I also moved the table of contents to be after the BHO section, to make clear the BHO was part of the introduction. then when things were getting a bit heated here, one editor moved the TOC without discussing it first. so then that's how the two sections ended up like that. I would have suggested keeping them as they were, as my intent had not been to eliminate either section. both sections were the result of many editors; my own insertion of a new section break was only to make the lead more readable. so i will abide by whatever people may decide here, but I did want to explain the context. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. If there are any specific complaints, questions, or comments this is the place to make them, and I will gladly read and consider them. So far, there seem to be none, so I'm not going to lose sleep over being bold. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my point. You haven't done anything controversial yet (ie merge history with outline), however when/if you start adding new material I strongly urge you to give a rough outline here first, as going by past experience, it is a pretty controversial area. Its all very well to be bold, however on articles like this, being bold can spark an edit war and get the article locked, which helps nobody. Suicup (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicup, I am familiar with your argument. The only part of Wikipedia relevant to this debate is WP:SUMMARY. For those unfamiliar with this guideline, the summary article here is Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the main article is History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. WP:SUMMARY is, unfortunately, only a guideline, not a policy. There is no WP policy against duplication of contents. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the key pieces are now in place for this section, all that remains is a tightening of the language. I admit I added new content without consulting here, however it was minimal and it was simply because IMO nobody seems keen to properly edit this section. Suicup (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy places

GHcool, Can you please provide the text for the last reference you added? the tone of the paragraph seems really harsh and un-encyclopedic: "Palestinian mob looted and burned the building". Imad marie (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference I added (Footnote #131) talks about Waqf's control over the Temple Mount. --GHcool (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found a good citation for the sentence in question as well:

"Following gun battles around Joseph's Tomb—the burial site of the biblical figure—Israeli troops withdrew from the area on October 7 [2000] after Palestinian police officials promised to protect the tomb. The policemen then stood aside and watched as a Palestinian mob looted and demolished the shrine" (Gold 5-6).

--GHcool (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The JVL implies that a Palestinian mob systematically destroyed all traces of the Jewish presence, but that the shrine itself was, in the immediate aftermath of the attack, intact: "October 2000, six Palestinians and one Israeli were killed in fighting around the tomb. ... Palestinian Police stood by as a mob ransacked the site, burned books and destroyed reading stands; the mob also burned down the army outpost. ... Conflicting views exist as to whether or not the patriarch Joseph was buried there; nevertheless, the tomb is recognized as a Jewish shrine, albeit a minor one. ... Some archeologists believe that the site is only a few centuries old and may contain the remains of a Muslim sheikh named Yossef ... Workers were seen fixing the damage, however, they were also painting the top of the dome green ..." [9] (Another source we use says that 17 Palestinians were killed).

From other reports, it would appear that the dome may have finally been demolished after the May 2007 shooting of another Palestinian.

The JVL is hardly sympathetic to the Palestinians but it does aim to be factual. By comparison, Dore Gold (already referenced 3 times) apparently specialises in opinions - eg this reference we're using "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories" which defies all International usage.

The fact that this incident is much used to fan hatred (by sources that are often careless of the facts) doesn't mean we should treat it the same way, unless it is our aim to inflame Islamophobia. PR^talk 10:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If anybody suspects that Dore Gold is not telling the truth (and I see no reason why anybody would suspect this), they are welcome to find an alternate reliable source. If none can/will be found, then Dore Gold stays. --GHcool (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, the reason the entry should say the shrine was destroyed is that it actually was. I saw footage of people prying away concrete with crowbars. unless you think the footage was video animation. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

2003 to present

Doesn't this section give undue weight? this section almost mentions every single clash between Hamas in Gaza and Israel. Clashes there are ongoing and never-ending, and don't deserve this long detailed section relatively to the long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IMO this section should be shortened and summarized, and the main article of the section can be Israel-Gaza conflict.

I believe there are more significant details to be mentioned here, like the severe hostiles that happened between Israel and Palestinians in the mid and late 90's that some believe devastated the peace process. Imad marie (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your points. Go for it. Suicup (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I might add that I recommend that this section be completely removed and partially merged into 'Basic Historical Outline', as we already have a 'current status' section down the bottom. I suspect the reason '2003 to present' is still here is because it was deemed too difficult to merge into the history section (it is the last remaining section of the old history part). Suicup (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There, I removed the section, and added some other significant events. Imad marie (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The question of Palestinian refugees

Within this section of the artcile there are arguments for and against the return of Palestinian refugees. Amongst them, we can find the following paragraph:

Historical legal precedent from the Middle East supports this contention. Since none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders—a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them.[43]

This paragraph (argument) fails to take into account the fact that Palestinian refugees wish to return to their former homeland while Jewish exiles and Olim have made no request for a right of return. Therefore, the two experiences (jewish and palestinian exile) cannot be properly compared and put in a antithetical relationship. I think we should amend this paragraph, or if not possible, even remove it, for it does no good to either side of the argument and it is illogical. Sufitul (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not in the business of evaluating arguments. Rather, it is in the business of reporting verifiable facts from reliable sources. --GHcool (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. That's why the sentence "Historical legal precedent from the Middle East supports this contention," in the example given above, is wholly inappropriate. Qworty (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have one more paragraph that I want to point out:

Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state, their return into Israel would be a great danger for the stability of the Jewish state; an influx of Palestinian refugees would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel. [58] Because a right of return would make Arabs the majority within Israel, this would essentially seal the fate of the Jewish state.

I believe the first part ("Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state,") should be removed. This is illogical since the whole section mentions reasons for Israeli opposition to the return of Palestinian refugees and gives no citation to support this claim. If Israel does indeed support the right of Palestinians to return, then there should not be a "The question of Palestinian refugees" section, since there wouldn't be any debate. However, since it presents Israel's arguments against a return of refugees (with many sources cited), that paragraph is misleading with regards to the Israeli position. Sufitul (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sufitu, thanks for keeping an eye on these things, but you subtlety misunderstand the sentence. The sentence specifies a "return into a new Palestinian state" (emphasis added). This is not the same as a Palestinian right of return into the current Israeli state. See here. --GHcool (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The does paragraph go on to say "Because a right of return would make Arabs the majority within Israel". So, the paragraph starts talking about refugee 'right of return' to a Palestinian state and then it goes to say about overflowing Israel. If the paragraph is indeed about the right of return to Palestine, and not Israel, then it makes no sense to mention a possible Palestinian majority in Israel, since the right of return would specifically be for Palestinians returning to the Palestinian state, not the Israeli one. 86.122.95.117 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(I added the previous post, I had some issues with my browser). Since the paragraph begins claiming that the return of the Palestinian people into a Palestinian state would not be an issue, but goes on to say that it would threaten Israels Jewish demographics, makes it utter nonsense. Palestinians returning to Palestine could not possibly affect Israels demographics, since there would be two separate states. I believe the prasing of the whole paragraph leaves room for a very high degree of misinterpretation and should therefore be edited. Sufitul (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing a future Palestinian state with the current Israeli state. The paragraph begins, "Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state, their return into Israel would be a great danger for the stability of the Jewish state ...". This makes perfect sense. Palestinians should return to the future Palestinian state, but not into Israel. --GHcool (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you're right on that one. It was my mistake, sorry. I guess editing well past midnight finally caught up with me. 86.122.95.117 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have received some input from some other users and I have reviewed the paragraph. I still believe it misleads the reader by initally saying that Israel does not oppose a right of return to Palestine, but that that migration to Israel would destabilise the jewish state. That is utter nonsense and should be reworded. Most likely, the person that wrote the paragraph does not have a very good grasp of the English language, since there should be only one idea per paragraph, and that paragraph suddenly changes its meaning. Therefore, I reinstate my objection and would like to receive feedback from some other users too.
Sufitul (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph sounds like a lot of commentary, and is not very encyclopedic. The following would require citations, but I think it would be more accurate to say something like: "In negotiations the Israeli government has accepted the return of Palestinian refugees to the territory of a future Palestinian state. The question of return to the state of Israel itself is controversial, and many Israelis fear such a return would undermine the present Jewish majority, while many Palestinians feel that anything less would be unacceptable. A return for only a select number of Palestinian refugees and/or financial compensation have also been suggested." Gershonw (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I support Gershonw's wording. --GHcool (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also support Gershonw's wording. Seems to represent all perspectives in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why we'd give the impression that Israel could or would or should control which peoples a new PA would allow to live in or "return to" a new Palestinian state.

Coming to this article with a "fresh eye", it would seem desirable to use the word "Return" only in the context of "Law of Return" (ie Israel immigration policy) or "Right of Return" (ie a Palestinian position). PR^talk 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

SP, this paragraph is from a section in the main article on Israeli opinions against Palestinian return, so I believe what the Israeli govt does/does not support is indeed relevant. I don't believe the above wording mentions anything about 'control' as you state, but presently the Israeli government does have a lot of say over who comes into the Palestinian territories, and therefore it is relevant. If you think it is ambiguously worded, how about the phrasing "..the Israeli government supports the return of Palestinian refugees..." Does that make it less ambiguous? This phrasing also draws into contrast the opinion regarding refugee return to a future Palestinian state vs. to Israel, one of the major sticking points in negotiations.Gershonw (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming rather late in the debate, I feel you guys are taking the wrong route. Wikipedia, as stated in the WP:NOR and WP:VER guidelines, is merely a guide to published authors & their opinions, not an exercise in diplomacy. This text should ideally consist of a series of quotes on the subject, attempting to portray all the significant opinions. In other words, the exact wording of the debate does not belong to Wikipedians, it belongs to the actual players (primary source) or to commentators (secondary source, preferred in Wikipedia). Emmanuelm (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire section in question consists of paraphrases of other people's positions on the subject. If that is the policy as you state, then the whole section needs to be reworked. It seems appropriate to me to include succinct and accurate summaries as long as there are citations.Gershonw (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where this belongs...

I happened across a video that shows a Palestinian being shot at close range by an Israeli soldier, while the Palestinian is handcuffed and blindfolded. You can see the soldier take aim quite decisively from time interval 0:20 to 0:25. I don't follow the articles involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I suspect that there's probably an article somewhere that discusses allegations and accounts of abuse of Palestinians in custody by Israeli soldiers, I just have no idea where that would be. I thought I would leave a message here with a link to the video, so editors more familiar with the subject matter could determine where best to place it. Cheers. ← George^[talk] 06:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The incident has been reported. However, as per WP:NOTNEWS, I suggest we wait for indication of long term notability. Cheers. -- Nudve (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

I suggest adding {{Israel-Palestinian peace process}} to this page, instead of the map, since that template includes the same map. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Western Wailing Wall

This article states: "When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, no Jews were allowed to visit the Western Wall." without any reference to back this up -- however this is claimed in many places.

When I was living in Beirut in 1963, my girlfriend and I visited Syria, Jordan, and Israel. (Very exciting time b/c Kim Philby had just 'disappeared' from Beirut with our Brit friends amazed he kept secrets although an alcoholic, and Christine Keeler was making headlines.) We went to Jerusalem (sorry to say I had not read much history about the region before going there, my excuse is that I was very young and not enough time) to visit the holy places. We stayed in the Lutheran hostel. We came across a place, high wall, with some men in what looked like top hats, hair in ringlets, citing/chanting?, and swaying toward it. As you can imagine, to us this was a strange unexpected sight so we asked what was happening. That's how we learned it was the wailing wall, they were praying, and that dress was of orthodox Jews.

That's why when it is claimed Jews were not allowed to visit I know it was not true, UNLESS the law said they cd not visit and they just did and the Jordanians allowed it.

At that time it was also the regulation that if you had an Israeli stamp in your passport, you cd not enter some Arab countries. What was done to get around this was a loose piece of paper was put in your passport obligingly by the Israeli authorities, and you simply took it out going into the Arab country. Then the Jordanians didn't see it (even when it's obvious that's where you were coming from) so no rule was broken. Smiles from both Israelis and Jordanians b/c we all knew what was going on.

In view of this, perhaps this sentence shd be qualified or rewritten: "When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, apparently officially Jews were not allowed to visit the Western Wall although some did." That of course, depends on someone finding that official 'rule' wch of course we were not aware of, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. Daedalexa (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just added a source for the statement as it is currently written. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This has to be entirely rewritten.

Jerusalem is the holiest site in the world for Judiasm. The two Divine Temples were built on what is called the Temple Mount, the first over three thousand years ago. Archaelogical evidence has proven that the Divine Temple of the Jews was built at that time^{[citation needed]}, and the second built a few centuries after its destruction. Jerusalem was the capital city of the Israeli Empire, established right before the construction of the First Temple. For Muslims, Jerusalem is the third holiest (after Meccah and Medina), where Mohamud/allegedly tied his horse, el'Baruck, meaning lightning in a Arabic. The Al-Aksa Mosque was built on the Temple Mount several centuries ago. Israel controls Jerusalem today. However, Muslims are almost exclusively allowed on the Temple Mount site. Jews are rarely allowed onto the Temple Mount, even though it is their holiest site, and for the Muslims it is the third holiest site.

This is all wrong, tilted to a unilateral POV, not linked, bad spelling, wild claims (Israeli 'empire' preceding the First Temple), no attribution for claims, and in the final sentence, the innuendo is that it is only Muslims that disallow Jews to go on the Temnple Mount (they discriminate against us on our holiest of holies, while to them it is only relatively holy). There have been halakhic judgements by the chief rabbinate on this, access is complex not only because it is a Muslim site, but also because of halakhic rulings that forbid open untrammeled access to Jews themselves. It's almost satirical. Buraq is made out to be Baruch. Both Spinoza and Baruch Goldstein would turn in their graves. etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy management on wikipedia

Controversies must be detailled and all pov's must be pointed out.
If they cannot be detailled (too long, undue weight) or if too many pov's should be explained (undue weight for the article), they should not be introduced but only their existence pointed out and readers sent towards more detailled article.
Any editor who having know-how of the controversies and who tries to put forward only one side systematically is called a pov-pusher and should refrain editing wikipedia which is not the appropriate battleground for these matters. Ceedjee (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do insist. I have just reverted a "but Finkelstein considers that..." Ceedjee (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein refers to a consensus among serious scholars.

You want the article to state your pov, namely that the causes are controversial, while there is another pov that says there is a consensus on one part of the causes, namely that it was an ethnic cleansing and that the controverse is on whether there was a deliberate policy to that effect.

You are pushing your pov, I'm pushing Finkelstein's. According to Wikipedia policy, both should be in (at least if yours is reliably sourced).

Certainly Finkelsteins observation is not given undue weight. This is an article on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The exodus is the major cause of the conflict! --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How can Finkelstien refers to a consensus among serious scholars when none of them agree.

More what he calls consensus would be ethnic cleansing. Don't make fun of us.

I don't push any pov. There is no consensus : this is something extremely factual !

The only pov-pusher here is you ! Addtionnaly you are a problematic editor who wants to writes Finkelstein comments on all articles related to Israel. Nobody agrees with you.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please conform to wikipedia policy. In your pov there is no consensus, but you are not a source for wikipedia articles. Finkelstein is a RS saying there is consensus in some respect. It's relevant and reliable, so I add it.

Please stop pushing your pov, i.e. that it's all controversial. I will leave that pov in, although I don't agree with it. So I expect you to respect Finkelstein's pov. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply adding a relevant statement from a reliable source. The fact that you don't agree with the statement is no reason to remove it! --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You ADD one pov where there are many.

It is clear they are many pov on the matter.

You keep not respecting NPoV in only focusing on 1 pov.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should explain it again: there are 'povs on the causes of the exodus' and there are 'povs on the debate on the causes of the exodus'. You are referring to povs in the first category, but Finkelsteins pov is in the second category, like your pov that there is only controversy. You are pushing the pov that there is a controversy, while a reliable source says that, at leasst in some respect, there is not. Please think .... . --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I write before too :

If Einstein would write that the "water boils at 95°" but other scientists would write "water boils at 100°", "water boils at 90°" or "water boils at 105°".

Quoting "Einstein writes that all serious scientists think water boils at 95°" is pov.

Stop making fun of us now. Ceedjee (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh... But I have a solution :

Many scholars debate around the causes of the 1948 exodus (we can give 5 differents ones in reference with Karsh - Gelber - Morris - Flahan and Masalha) nevertheless Finkelstein thinks all serious historians share his mind. You can add this on Finkelstein article if you like.

Would this fit your mind ?

Ceedjee (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) i reverted because finklstein is not a reliable source - even more so when he subjectively talks about his perceptions of other scholars. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is a very reliable source. He's been attacked ad hominem, but his attackers have always been powerless against his arguments. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, You would be correct about finklstein being an extremely reliable source... if we were to live in a holocaust revisionistic space-time continuum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot answering me just above, concerning these powerless arguments. Ceedjee (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, you are the only one here claiming Finkelstein is a "very reliable source". That hardly makes for a consensus. His writings are grotesquely against the mainstream and thus especially subject to what we call "undue weight" when and if we cite him. He is a reliable source not of solid, constructive scholarship but generally of attacks on the work of others. Contrary to your statement that "his attackers have always been powerless", I seem to recall that he lost his last academic job on account of questionable scholarship, and that it was not the first time. When you insist on quoting what he thinks of others' work, you are telling readers of this article nothing useful about what actually happened in history. Worse, you are misleading them, since any view other than Finkelstein's is branded, tendentiously, as coming from a scholar who is not serious. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Finkelstein is a reliable source, by the standards of wp:rs. He has published several books which have been controversial and gotten both favorable and unfavorable reviews. If Finkelstein claims that serious scholars concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, that's a legitimate claim of consensus by WP rules. I think it should stay in, unless you can come up with serious scholars who do not concede that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. If there's a controversy over whether Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, we should add to Finkelstein's assessment the names of some of the scholars who agree, along with the names of some of the scholars who don't agree.

I don't agree that Finkelstein's writings are "grotesque," whatever that means. They may go against the mainstream among the American Jewish fundraising establishment, but they don't go against the mainstream among Israeli Jews, where it is a subject of vigorous debate, or even among American Jews, many of whom agree with him. Nbauman (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nbauman, they don't go against mainstream israeli views? you have any reliable sources saying this? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the citation, he claims that all serious scholars concede the point. He is not qualified to represent all serious scholars (perhaps no one is); "serious" is tendentious, and so is "concede". I think you will find, upon looking closely, that he is not widely respected for balanced views or scholarship. Why would you want to use him as a source, other than to steer the article away from objectivity? Hertz1888 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, who are the scholars that Finkelstein cites who concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed? Nbauman (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ilan Pappe for one. Suicup (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Some people think that Finkelstein represents a minority pov. Maybe this is so if the general public is considered. But the general public's opinion is not what should guide us here. We should be guided by reliable sources. By the consensus of scholars, not by public opinion. If 51% of Americans believe they found WMD in Iraq should we write that here?

@Hertz: You are misquoting me: I said his attackers have always been powerless against his arguments . Apparently you can't argue with that. His reliability has not even been scratched!

I'm not required to argue pro or con their powerlessness, and decline to be drawn into that highly subjective side issue. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore you acuse me of saying all other scholars are not serious. I've never said, nor implied that. If you can find a reliable source having another pov you're free to put it in the article.

You don't have to say it; the wording "all serious scholars concede" implies that anyone who doesn't concede is not a serious scholar. I am certain I am not the only one who would read it that way. Also, since to concede is to recognize a truth, use of that word "concede" is very sneaky -- implying that a truth has been established for the "serious scholars" of Finkelstein's choosing (and yours) to recognize. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Finkelstein is qualified to judge on the consensus of scholars on this subject. He has followed the discussion for twenty years, and he is a good scientist, as was confirmed by DePaul University.

That must be why they denied him tenure. Maybe it is time for you to find yourself a new hero. Please stop wasting our time here, and your own. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not specifying who he means with all serious scholars, but I can imagine he means

Flapan: the Jewish army […] under the leadership of Ben-Gurion, planned and executed the expulsion (Simha Flapan , 1987, ‘The Palestinian Exodus of 1948’, J. Palestine Studies 16 (4), p. 3-26.),

Morris: There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing. That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them [[10]],

Pappe: The ethnic cleansing of Palestine,

Masalha: Expulsion of the Palestinians,

Walid Khalidi: Plan Dalet: master plan for the conquest of Palestine, J. Palestine Studies 18 (1), 1988, p. 4-33.

I think he also means Gelber: The local deportations of May-June 1948 appeared both militarily vital and morally justified., ... These later refugees were sometimes literally deported across the lines. In certain cases, IDF units terrorized them to hasten their flight, and isolated massacres - particularly during the liberation of Galilee and the Negev in October 1948 - expedited the flight. ... The vast majority of Israelis did not think that the Palestinians should fare better [and be allowed to return] and wanted to apply this principle to the Middle East [[11]], but I'm not sure of that. As you can read in the source, Gelber seems to be especially concerned with justifying Zionist behavior, and I'm not sure how serious Finkelstein thinks he is. Anyway, based on what Gelber says he can hardly deny that it wasn't at least partially an ethnic cleansing.

It seems quite clear to me that at least five of these serious historians now concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed and that Gelber probably also falls into this category.

Finkelsteins statement isn't as strange as you might have thought. In fact its true! --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The question was : how do you know he refers to them !??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceedjee (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Gelber and Morris do not. (your misquotation of Morris is explained in other topic).

Nor do Masalha. Expulsion is not ethnic cleansing. Read Pappe to understand the difference.

I don't know concerning Khalidi but he does not in the article about Plan Daleth.

And remain traditionnal historians such as Shabtai Teveth, Anita Shapira, Efraim Karsh and Laqueur. New historians such as Tom Segev and Avi Shlaim who do not use that for the whole exodus (Segev does for Dani and Hiram, referring to Morris). What about David Tal and Uri Millstein ? And Dan Kurzman ? And I can also refert to French historian Henry Laurens and up to now Dominique Vidal (but he has just published a book about that).

Ceedjee (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein refers to what scholars concede now. If your interpretation is different from Finkelstein's its probably OR (or you should find a RS confirming your interpretation).

Also your 'moral' appeals to me to stop putting in my (relevant and sourced) edits is totally unconvincing: each time you do this you accompany it by an edit reversing me. Shouldn't you give the good example if you want to be convincing? --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop talking about my interpretation and Finkelstein's one.

The only issue here is your interpretation of Morris, of Finkelstein and all others.

You have been answered on many talk pages.

concede now... now when ? Flapan died in 1987. Khalidi wrote his article in 1961. Stop making fun of us.

Ceedjee (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is dissapointing indeed. First JaapBoBo tried to add some of Finkelstein's pseudo-research into the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. When he failed, he asked me to participate in [mediation]. I agreed, but JaapBoBo apparently lost interest in the mediation once we both agreed that unreliable scholars/scholarship were not to be allowed in the article. Then JaapBoBo asked an unknown entity (me? the mediator? the wikipedia community in general?) to provide a list of my arguments for why Finkelstein shouldn't be in the article so that he can rip the arguments to shreads. In fact, since it is he who wants to change the status quo, the exact opposite is true: he must provide the arguments and I am obligated to rip them to shreds. Now he's trying to add Finkelstein trash into other articles without continuing the mediation. Shame on you, JaapBoBo, for your dishonorable behavior. --GHcool (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, please behave properly. You are twisting my words. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If I am twisting JaapBoBo's words, and I deny that I am, then I think we can all agree that JaapBoBo's time and energy would be better spent clarifying his words at the mediation rather than shoving Finkelstein's pseudo-research down everybody's throats. --GHcool (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo *you* are twisting scholars'words. Ceedjee (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

@GHcool - your feelings about Finkelstein are obviously extremely strong. However, you've failed to make any dent in his scholarship, which most everyone agrees to be really very good. Not only does his book "The Holocaust Industry" get a hugely respectable score of 69 citations in "Google Scholar", but his thesis is now being tested in Israeli courts and the first conviction for fraud has just come through. If you have real objections to his work, and are not just sounding off, now is the time to present them. PR^talk 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This si a real fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.141 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

I find the Casualties section to be somewhat one-sided, whereby it mentions various means by which Israeli actions have yielded Palestinian casualties (eg, artillery sheeling, settler violence, etc), yet it gives no examples of the types of terrorism used to infict Israeli casualties, particularly the universally-condemned massive use of Palestinian suicide bombers targeting Israeli civilians. Although a subtle point, the result of the current account is that the naive reader is presented with various ways in which to visualize Israeli violence, yet Palestinian aggression remains seemingly abstract, thereby implicitly giving the obviously-POV imprssion of aggressor-victim. I think that suicide bombers, at the very least, should be mentioned in this section as a popular means of inflicting Israeli casualties. Rabend (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --GHcool (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm the guy who originally inserted the data. In the sources used, there was no break-down of types of actions that lead to Israeli casualties, which is why this wasn't added. If you can find a reliable source with an adequate break-down (e.g. number due to suicide bombing, shooting, missiles, etc...), then please, add it! Cheers, pedrito - talk - 01.09.2008 06:42

There is a new edition of The Humanitarian Monitor now with the 2008 casualty numbers. [2008 edition]. Plbogen (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant information to be removed

Curently, the section Core issues features some irrelevant information. Specifically, the subsection entitled Palestinian refugees goes at length to describe the works of "New Historians", which claim that Arabs were forcibly expelled by the Jews back in 1948. Without even touching on validity of their claims, I doubt it is appropriate to mention "New Historians" at all in this particular section at least. The point of negotiations between Israelis and Paletinians is the future of refugees, not their history. Discussing the history of Palestinian dispora has never been regarded as part of Israeli–Palestinian conflict, nor does it representthe "core issue that needs to be resolved". The whole nature of negotiations between Israel and PA is very much political, rather than academic. In this light books of "New Historians" and "Old Historians" appear to be irrelevant to this section. Keverich1 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Israelis-Palestinians

"dispute between Israelis and Palestinians" - in my opinion, this wording is more consistent and better reflects the ethnic side of the conflict. We know that conflict has started long before State of Israel came into existence, so to reduce the conflict to the dispute between the State and the people would be massively inaccurate.Keverich1 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Before the state of Israel existed, there were no Israelis (next thing you say: No Israelis, no conflict - solved?). And: today the state is occupying the occupied territories. I propose undo -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Israelis and Palestinians" is how the BBC uses them. That's good enough for me. --GHcool (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, BBC writes: "Jewish people of Israel" [A History of Conflict:introduction, BBC (this is currently reference 1)], which might be more accurate. Do the Israeli arabs have a conflict with the Palestinians too, then? So, lets change the title into Jewish people of Israel—Palestinian conflict. If that's good enough for you. -DePiep (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the same reference also writes the Arab-Israeli conflict (note the inversion of sequence)). Three descriptions in just over 150 words. You can pick anyone you like. But for wikipedia we can say: since the BBC is not defining, we can ignore that source. At least we should not exclude the state of Israel. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why we don't use people's own descriptions for themselves, viz Zionists and Palestinians. The second of those words is either debatable or inaccurate (would people prefer Arab?), but the first fits the case exactly. Please feel free to move this question out of the way else if it needs answering at length. PR^talk 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The immense majority of the reliable sources talk of "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict/dispute. Stop the OR speculation, this is inserting novel ideas into the narrative, a huge break of pretty much every basic policy on content.

That said, there are plenty of articles on the conflicts before the founding of Israel between Zionist organizations and the local population of the British Mandate - perhaps we need a Palestinian-Yishuv conflict article, but it is beyond the scope of this article. On the Palestinian side, since they lack a widely recognized State, we must be more vague, but sources overwhelmingly support calling for describe Palestinian as such. Lets not be anachronistic: Zionists have a widely recognized State, called Israel, and are no longer a bunch of guerrillas fighting the British and the Palestinian Arabs; that said the period between the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the establishment of Israel can be included in this conflict as the pre-history of this conflict. Why is such a basic, widely embraced, fact is even under debate is beyond me.

BTW, Zionists overwhelmingly describe themselves as Israelis, so we are actually using the self-description. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be a little tricky when considering the conflict prior to the founding of the State of Israel. Before that time, both sides of the conflict were called "Palestinians," i.e. citizens of the British Mandate for Palestine. In that regard, the pre-State of Israel conflict was a kind of civil war. The way it is worded now ("dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians") is an accurate description of the 2008 reality of the conflict. It would be too cumbersome to start explaining the difference between an Israeli and a Jewish citizen of Mandatory Palestine, a Palestinian and an Arab citizen of Mandatory Palestine, etc etc. For this reason, I suggest that we keep it as it. --GHcool (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For this very same reason I suggest we (re)change the title to like Israel and the Palatinians. What would be ok in say 19xx, should be described, but not be decisive. Today is the fact, the rest is (to be described as) hstory. Now let s change the title. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea at all. Most scholarly works refer to the conflict as the "Israeli-Palestinian" or "Palestinian-Israeli" "conflict" or "issue" etc. I've personally heard it described most often as the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." "Israeli" is spoken first because it is alphabetically before "Palestinian" (just as "Arab" is alphabetically before "Israeli" in "Arab-Israeli conflict"). --GHcool (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

GHcool writes ("dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians") is an accurate description. Still that excludes the state of Israel, which is obviously involved. And it does not dicriminate between jewish and Arab Israelis. So, accurate: no. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I fear that a one sentence summary of anything as complex as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will never include every little nook and cranny of detail. The point is, broadly speaking, the Israelis believe they have a right to sovereignty and security over what is now known as the State of Israel and Palestinians believe that they have the right to sovereignty over at least some of what is now known as the State of Israel and they have shown little concern over the past 60 years over Israel's security. Again, that is the conflict in a nutshell: two people want the same land. The details are obviously very important, but the first sentence has to be short and punchy. --GHcool (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I object to this possible diminishment of the objective description of this specific topic. the conflict is not between individuals; it is between a state on one side which seeks to advance its views and principles, and on the other side a group of people who seek to advance their views as they see fit in accordance with their priniciples. So I feel the current phrasing should remain; it is Israel vs the Palestinians. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't entirely accurate, either. It used to be Israel vs. the Palestinian Authority. Now it is Israel vs. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a bunch of other Palestinian terrorist organizations. These organizations are hardly individual or helpless, and they've taken the rest of the Palestinian population hostage. ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, we can debate all day long about the different subgroups of "Israelis" and "Palestinians" and where they lie in relation to the greater conflict. The point is that one group, Israel or the Israelis, supports the sovereignty and security of the modern State of Israel in the specified geographical area ahead of the Palestinians' rights at least some of the land while the other group, the Palestinians, supports Palestinian rights to at least some of the land ahead of the State of Israel's security and sovereignty. Each of the dozens of subgroups on both sides only support their nation's position by a matter of degrees. --GHcool (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RE GHcool, who writes here, in sequence, about the title: (1) is how the BBC uses them. That's good enough for me. (2)is an accurate description of the 2008 reality, (3) the Israelis believe ... and Palestinians believe ... (4) subgroups of "Israelis": the argument is changing along the way. Please make up your mind. Since (4) is the most recent one (at this moment), I can say: it's not about subgroups. The topic is: the state of Israel should be included in the title. Who is bombing Gaza today? -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me if the first sentence is, "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing dispute between the State of Israel and the Palestinians" (emphasis added). It means virtually the same thing. --GHcool (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Vitually? What are we doing here? Aren't we trying to write an encyclopedia? If it gets near a point, any point, you jump out of the answer. We do not need a delusive introduction, but as you suggest: the title should be: Israel–Palestinian_conflict. Thanx. Looking forward to your next pose (not really). -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Simplistic? (changed from section to bold. See 1srt reaction -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ) In the article it says "Essentially, it is a dispute between two national identities with claims over the same area of land." Don't you think that this simplifies the conflict too much? I feel that it should be removed because it doesn't fully represent the conflict. First of all this statement makes it seem as if Palestinians and Israelis are on equal terms, however Israel occupies Palestine and the land that is disputed. Secondly, most of the land Israel currently resides on land that was taken either by creating new laws which allowed it^[1], or by forcefully and illegally taking over the land (such as illegal Israeli settlements^[2] and the illegal wall^[3]), the only claim they had to the land before 1948 was religious, and not everyone on earth is a Jew, therefore its not everyone's belief that its the "promised land." There are many issues entailing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as shown by this article) which have not been included in this overly simplistic sentence, and so I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo Alem (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a new subsection required. Changed into a re-no-indent remark DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What remains: the title should be "Israel-Palestinian coflict" (i.e. the state, not the peple). No serious remarks above on this. (Clearly, as pointed: text-related or, bad habit, changing view along the way does GHcool). -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I might have written a rebuttal to Jo Alem's argument if I could understand it. The diction and syntax are making me scratch my head. Perhaps English is not Jo Alem's first language. :shrug: --GHcool (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This talk is useless. Title canot be changed. Why talk then? I wish you a white phosfor. -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reporting DePiep's threat to here. --GHcool (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing subject again, (User:GHcool)? Lets change the title. That is the topic. It´s am Israel-Palestinian conflict. The white phosfor (you spell it as you like, they receive it as it is) is dropped by the state of Israel. Why do you take this personally? By the way, you forgot to mention the war. -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Current status and POV

I find the latter part of the Current Status section, marked by this week's operation in Gaza, to be rather blatantly POV.
Reducing about 8 years of rockets from Gaza directed almost exclusively into Israeli towns and villages into "rockets into fairly empty Israeli territory", followed by "bombing Gaza" and the quotation marks around the "Hamas militants" is an out-of-context, one-sided account. Rabend (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

PMW

This girl's opinion is insignificant in this article, who is this girl exactly? is she the spokeswoman for the Palestinian people?
Abbas quote was: "We ask of you, don't stop the ceasefire" ... etc. This does not mean that he lays responsibility for Hamas on what has happened, Israel takes blame too and Abbas has criticized Israel for it.
PMW reliability has been discussed at length here, here and here. There is really no point of discussing this over and over again. Imad marie (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced by the previous arguments that PMW's translators are somehow less reliable than any other translator of Arabic anywhere else in the world, however, this seems a moot point since Abbas was quoted on Al-Jazeera as blaming Hamas for the troubles in Gaza. --GHcool (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of the tables in the Casualties section

I propose that the Casualties section is re-structured such that the tables arrange the information starting with the most recent. Right now it's kind of just random. I think it makes sense to start with the most recent because that more likely to be the information people are after. I also proposed to move the "numbers in brakets represent casualties under the age of 18" phrase from the titles of the tables to footnotes (perhaps in a new bottom row). The phrase is too long, is repeated too many times so it clutters up the article, especially when printed. I will wait a while for other opinions but if nobody offers any I will just go ahead and make the change at some point in a week or two. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jason,

I originally added the casualty figures. The tables are already ordered in reverse chronology, starting with the latest figures from the OCHAoPt. The following two tables con==tain the figures from B'Tselem for the First and Second Intifada, in that order. The final table contains some historical data.

As for the "numbers in brackets", on my browser the title breaks anyway and it doesn't make the page any wider. I wouldn't remove them.

Do you want to move the tables around or the data within the tables? What do you want to change exactly?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 05.01.2009 15:28

Hi, perdrio. The tables go in the order, 1) post 2005, 2) First Intifada, 3) Second Intifada, and 4) 1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt. So, the first and second intifadas are not chronological. I am suggesting that they go 1) post 2005, 2) Second Intifada, 3) First Intifada, and 4) 1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt. Also I propose the individual rows of the tables start with the most recent and go back in time (2008 first, then 2007, 2006, etc.) Currently, the flow of the section is go forward in time, jump way back in time, go forward in time, jump way way back in time. My suggestions, I think, would make the section more lucid. What do you think? Jason Quinn (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading my first post, I see I wasn't very clear what I meant. Sorry. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Academic Boycotts

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3623714,00.html

Perhaps there needs to be a section discussing the collective punishment nature of the academic boycotts of Israeli academics?

121.44.214.65 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support something short on this subject. --GHcool (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I changed my mind. This phenomenon is not an important factor in a broad, general understanding of the conflict. --GHcool (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish "exodus" from Arab countries

I have an issue with this paragraph:

"Since none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders—a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them.[60]"

How convenient to select a number higher than the corresponding number for Palestinian refugees. And how convenient that a "solution" has been offered for the issue of |right of return."

Though I scoured the Internet for days trying to find a site which would support this mythical and latest Jewish exodus I am pressed to find one.

Citing one source is insufficient evidence for a tragedy of this scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.213.115 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of citing two other sources.[12][13] Thank you for your concern. --GHcool (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 conflict

The information on the most recent round of violence is already out of date. May I suggest using the casualty figures and references from the wikipedia page for "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict"? 173.32.62.74 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

i.e. 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict -DePiep (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A handful of academics

I don't think it is solely or even mostly academics who support a one-state solution. A number of political parties and a large number of civil society groups also support the one state solution. I think we need to reconsider the sources and not only include Alan Dershowitz as a source for the "majority" support of a two state solution.--TM 14:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At present, Dershowitz is not cited as a source for the majority support of the two state solution. The two sources are here and here and I just added a third one. --GHcool (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Economic cost dispute

I read through the reference (number 130) that the section titled Economic Cost came from, and I'm not sure that all the figures are entirely true. The primary dispute I have is the final sentence, quoted below.

In other words had there been peace and cooperation in the Middle East since 1991, every Palestinian citizen would be earning over $2,400 instead of the $1,200 in 2010. Every Israeli citizen would be earning over $44,000 instead of the $23,000 in 2010.

Where are those figures from? The total opportunity cost of conflict numbers I agree with, though I'm just not sure how the above figures were calculated. This should be mentioned in the section, because they're not mentioned in the reference. Please explain? Cybersteel8 (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians initiated by Irgun

Could Ashley kennedy3 provide the quote from Morris to support the claim that "Attacks on civilians was initiated by Irgun and Lehi." In Lapierre and Collins's O Jerusalem, its pretty clear that the Palestinian Arabs began the violence on Jewish civilians. I don't have own O Jerusalem, but I could get my hands on it if asked (it may take a few days). --GHcool (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ref was already supplied..and the use of hasbara sites is not exactly RS in Israel-palestinian conflict areas...please use acceptable references...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your removal of "intellectuals such as Judah Leon Magnes of Brit Shalom and president of the Hebrew University" here seems a tad like politically motivated POV and rather strange...as is your adherence to Israeli founding Myths that have been exposed some time ago....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

why the adherence to falsity of "the Yishuv acted as one unit" within the article.....I think you'll find that the Yishuv had many parts all with their own ideas...quite similar to the Palestinian Arabs in that respect....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, let's stick to one topic at a time. The topic is the claim that the Irgun attacks preceded the Arab attacks. Secondly, I'll ask that Ashley leave the ad hominems alone as they are not helpful.

I reserved Morris's book from the library. I haven't picked it up in a while, but I would be shocked to find that he doesn't mention the Arabs starting the attacks on civilians. If and when I find such information in the book, I intend on adding those details for context as I have with many of Ashley's edits.

he mentions individual snipers in Haifa snipping at each other but doesn't say who fired the first shot. surprisingly enough the hasbara myths that the "Arabs wot dun it" has been challenged on many occasions. I was initially surprised to see it still lingering around on wiki but I have since found that many wiki editors prefer to use outdated Hasbara myths to actual facts. Very similar to claiming that the Yishuv accepted the partition plan with no reservations or caveats. Where the actual speech by Shertok does nothing of the sort...rejects parts and adds caveats so as to accept partition in principal but not the details of the UN plan....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I did note the removal of Irgun and Lehi when the actual quote from morris says Irgun and Lehi...Is there a reason for "adding the context" by removing the actual words used in Morris's book? such as Irgun and Lehi attacks on civilians and Arab retaliation...because obviously removal of actual words used in the book seems more like POV than "adding the context"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Acceptance of partition plan

AK - you are attempting to push the POV that the Yishuv didn't "really" accept the plan. I have removed a source you added, which does not talk about opposition to the partition plan at all, but rather about the Biltmore program, and there are multiple direct quotes, one from an academic source, that say explicitly say the Yishuv accepted the plan. Please don't replace this with original research about Brit Shalom, which had been disbanded more than a decade earlier, or about Magnes, who was on his deathbed in NY and not part of the Yishuv at the time, all of this based on a source which does not mention the partition plan at all. You are also violating WP:UNDUE by inserting a lengthy quote from Silver. This article is an overview, and the section itself a summary of the historical a timeline - these details belong in the article about the partition plan, not here. NoCal100 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Yishuv is all the Jewish people of Palestine....it has been inferred that 100% of the Yishuv accepted...if this is true then would be best to supply a complete role call with signatures of the referendum...otherwise WP:OR and WP:POV has taken the place of accuracy and a nuanced article.

As there were identifiable sections of the Yishuv (the section known as the "organised Yishuv", LHI and ETZL and those pacifists at the other end of the spectrum represented by Judah Magnes) who dissented from the opinions of the "leadership" of the Yishuv it would appear that POV is being used to try to portray the Yishuv as a homogenous group with one mind....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Silver is to show that the israelophile blanket quote of the Yishuv accepted is at complete odds with the reality of the time and facts...The leadership of the Yishuv dissented on the fundamental principles of the Partition plan....Area, Economic union, and immigration...talking OR wise the Yishuv did not accept but diplomatically none rejected.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Map again

That map is distinctively odd. It gives the PA a majority control of the WB area, appears to confuse civilian and military control, and muddle the Oslo accord zonal agreement's complex details. Territory under the complete control of the PA is some 17% as far as I recall. Worth checking.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, it is the general tone lack of nuance, sloppy reasoning and incorrect "facts" that give the article the POV tag...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing topics

There are several areas that are noticeable by their complete absence.

Altalena Affair: seminal point where Ben Gurion goes from being leader of the Jewish Agency in Palestine to Leader of the Yishuv of a nascent Jewish state.
Border wars. big gap in 1948 to 1964....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What's this means?

'(17.5% of the 1921-1946 territory of the Mandate which included Transjordan)'

It looks like weaseling down the 78%, to say that Israel only got 17% of the territory Zionist originally aspired to. The fact is that from 1922-3 Transjordan was formally detached from Palestine, administered as a separate corpus, and was nominally independent by treaty from 1928. Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why there is a POV tag...the article is similar to History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict...Israelocentric hasbara (do we need 2 Hasbara articles covering the same events?)....the two articles should be combined and rewritten....with less hasbara with then dubious JVL POV removed and an NPOV article in its place.... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashley. Don't flog the hasbara word. That is an official operation to promote Israel's image. Many people who might otherwise genuinely entertain opinions diffused by hasbara, follow them up by scouring sources, usually on the net, may not even know much, if anything, about it as an organized thing. The scholarship on the area is written by independent minds, and available in books, and those scholars, even if their views coincide with an official line at times, write from personal conviction as it reads the historical evidence from archives.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

There is no consensus. and believe it or no I didn't do the major make over...check on the records...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

here is the culprit...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon's entry into the war

Can the claim that "The Israeli forces only came in contact with Lebanese forces when Israel invaded Lebanon" be verified? --GHcool (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Every where..where as your claim can only be "substantiated" with the use of none RS hasbara...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Everywhere is overkill let's start with one specific reference, as required by WP:V. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

would you prefer RS or the palestinian equivalent to the hasbara sites that many Israeliophile editors use?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V requires reliable sources, so please provide one. And let's keep the snarky commentary out of the talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If the claim cannot be verified by even one reliable source (hasbara or non-hasbara ... it doesn't matter as long as its reliable), I will remove the sentence by tomorrow. --GHcool (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is clumsy. If there is a concept behind it ('Israel, unprovoked, invaded Lebanon,' seems to be what is meant, though again what does 'Lebanese forces' mean? The PLO in the south was responsible for nearly all of the initial resistance, having a 'para-state' there), then that concept should be clarified in terms of a reliable source's language. I agree with GHcool and Canadian Monkey.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, the claim appears to be made with reference to the 1948 war, not the 1982 war. If it were the 1982 war, then the sentence would not be dubious. --GHcool (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks for the nudge. Not my area of expertise, but there is something wrong certainly in including Lebanon among the 'five Arab armies' invading Israel. I.e. as in the article's remark:

'Palestine's five Arab neighbor states - Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia - then attacked the newly self-declared state. '

At least Yoav Gelber's account (Palestine 1948) consistently denies that Lebanon was involved: the Maronites absolutely refused, Israeli intelligence reports attributed to Lebanese army units activities conducted by the ALA. The LA's only role was to provide logistics to the ALA which it couldn't manage anyhow; it was too small to contribute; it was, according to as Iraqi officer, incapable of anything but a 'defensive posture'.

Some quotes from that work seem to support Ashley's point. I.e.

'The Lebanese army remained passive throughout the campaign in Galilee. It made no attempt to relieve the IDF pressure on either the Syrians or the ALA. The prime reason for this inaction was the Maronites’ unrelenting and strenuous objection to Lebanon’s involvement in the war. Moreover, the Lebanese army was too small for significantly contributing to the Arab war effort'. p.167

‘The ALA spread from Galilee into south Lebanon to safeguard its lines of communications. But the Israelis, who had come to the conclusion that it came under the Lebanese army’s command, interpreted that ALA’s deployment as a Lebanese occupation of Galilee. According to this perception, Lebanon’s army was supervising ALA activities, Lebanon had allegedly introduced a civil administration in Galilee, the AlA had forward positions, and the Lebanese army was concentrated behind it as a reserve force. Taking what appeared to Israel to be an “annexation of Galilee” in all seriousness, Eitan alerted Shertok and Sasson in Paris that Riad al-Sulh was merging Galilee with Lebanon. These baseless assumptions also impacted on planning of the next campaign against the ALA. Believing the border had dissipated at the hands of the Lebanese, IDF planners, too, ignored it.' p.221

One ALA battalion withdrew across the Lebanese border. Lebanon’s army did not intervene and ignored Qawuqji’s appeals for artillery support to cover his troops’ retreat. The Lebanese also made no attempt to defend their own territory against the IDF incursion. Leaflets scattered by the IAF guaranteed the Lebanese army’s immunity, as long as it remained idle, but at the same time warned of grave ramifications should it intervene in combat. p.224

After HIRAM a Syrian brigade secure a flank in Lebanon against a possible Israeli thrust via that route to the Golan, and remained there for several months despite Lebanese protests. The IDF presence in south Lebanon was a thorn in the Lebanese government’s side and put pressure on Lebanese leaders to seek an outlet from a war in which the Lebanese army had not taken part but the country had paid a heavy price.p.228

Lebanon’s army did not take part in HIRAM’s battles and made no attempt to frustrate the IDF advance. . .After the operation, Lebanese units took up positions to block further Israeli (or other?) advance along the main routes leading to the country’s interior. p.228 (Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948:War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem,Sussex Academic Press, 2006)

Given this, the text would seem to requite adjustment, and I trust the point will be rediscussed. Ashley appears to be right historically, but his phrasing looks like a synthesis, and it was only, apparently, this that was problematical.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

the above text only shows the Lebanese army was incompetent, but does not at all support the false contention that Israeli forces only clashed with Lebanese forces after they invaded Lebanon, or that Lebanese forces did not invade Israel. Lebanese forces were part of the invasion on day one, they attacked and captured Malkiya on May 15th, as numerous sources attest.NoCal100 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

can any one identify the supposed Lebanese units that supposedly entered Palestine because the only Lebanese unitis that benny says IDF encountered were after the IDF invaded Lebanon. Benny does say the the ALA were in central Galilee, and that the ALA was made up of Lebanese Syrian and Iraqis but that is not the Lebanese army. There is the contention over Hunin as to being in Lebanon or Israel or even being in both but again the IDF only met local militia again not Lebanese army....It is on these points that Benny removes Lebanese army from his list. As Benny is the person who has had access to the archives he would be the one to have found the details of any Lebanese involvement and as a Zionist Benny would have put that information up. In the whole of his books he doesn't...I sorry by JVL just doesn't cut the mustard as a RS...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you and Prof. Morris are such close personal friends that you refer to him as "benny". That aside, Lebanese forces attacked and captured Malkiya, on the first day of the invasion. And no, there no dispute about the location of Hunin - it is not part of Lebanon, as UN resolutions show. NoCal100 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll say it. You're a bad faith editor, know almost nothing of the subjects you edit, but track people there to team up against them. You know nothing of the subject here because (1) Mal(i)kiya was a border village in the Galilee panhandle whose status territorially was and still is disputed (2) You insist against the best sources that Lebanese forces attacked it:-

(a)'The armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan (The Lebanese never crossed the border)invaded Palestine on 15 May’. Benny Morris,The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, I.B.Tauris, 2003 p.145

(b)‘we now know that, Israeli and Lebanese propaganda notwithstanding, Lebanon’s army never actually crossed the Israeli border in May 1948; Lebanon may have supplied the Arab Liberation Army, a volunteer force of irregulars, with some logistical and artillery support, but it refrained from taking part in the ‘pan-Arab’ invasion, whatever its radio stations proclaimed at the time,’ Morris, ibid. p.241

(c) 'On May 15, Yiftah brigade reported a fierce battle with invading Lebanese troops at Malkiya. These were, however, local combatants and remains of Shishakli’s Yarmuk battalion.’ Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Sussex Academic Press, 2006 p.139

Your only function appears to be to make life difficult for committed I/P editors from the 'wrong side' and make life easier for the other, while intruding smart comments. You won't go away, because you know the rules better than Ashley, who knows the subject better than you. The only thing one can do is sigh, and advise Ashley to give up on this page as well. I see that, without notifying him, you've tried for the nth time to catch him up in one of your little edit-war games. This page has been sequestered by a POV warrior, who discredits the goals of this encyclopedia, and cocks a snook at people who work hard to make it neutral,or more balanced and historically informed. Unless someone with the decency to see this, on your side, reins you in, any article you touch is doomed to POV imbalance.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's odd. Nishidani, can you explain the contradiction between Morris's and Gelber's claims that Lebanon had not taken part in the war and the claims by the majority of sources that claim the opposite? --GHcool (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, GHC, I know that a lot of earlier books claimed that, from desultory reading in the past. But both of these books are recent (2003,2006) from two of our best close historians of the area and period. And both appear to concur that what earlier reports made out to be Lebanese involvement refers to boasts on Lebanese radio, newspaper propaganda, rather than actual actions in the field. They both concur on this: that this was propaganda for which there is no field evidence. Of course, if soureces as recent as these two, the only ones I am familiar with, contradict by detailed evidenceMorris and Gelber, whose work I take as pretty authoritative factually, then I'll eat my words. Which reminds me, it's dinner time here.Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. This seems rather odd. I understand that Lebanon had comparably small force deployed in the war (perhaps the smallest of the five), but to say that the Lebanese military did not participate in the war seems dubious to the extreme. So many reliable sources on the web (BBC News is hardly a "hasbara" source) and in books have claimed the opposite. --GHcool (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I distrust most sources other than books. We'll have to scrounge round books dealing with revisionism on 48. If you come up with stuff from the last decade or so which contradicts them, by all means plunk it in. I don't think Morris and Gelber write frivolously when they say things like this.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look through my library, but do you distrust the U.S. Department of State? --GHcool (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On historical details, I think only academic sources, all through wikipedia, should be cited. I distrust government sources, except as historical documents. It's not that they lie through their teeth (well, in my adopted homeland, Italy, they do actually), but they simply aren't written by competent knowledgeable people, at least these days (this was less true before WW2). What that doc says, briefly is, Lebanon 'participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and signed an armistice with Israel on March 23, 1949'. Participate doesn't mean much (sources speak of logistic help, etc.)Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Al-Malkiyya considered to be part of Lebanon in 1948...it is on such details that very questionable blanket statements are made. ALA was made up of Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqis militiamen...It is on such details that very questionable blanket statements are made....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

GHcool's "evidence" U.S. Department of State quote Lebanon participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and signed an armistice with Israel on March 23, 1949. unquote where does it say that Lebanon fought in Palestine????? As I said Lebanon only fought after being invaded by Israel...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the BBC says, "The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel" (emphasis added) and Britannica includes the following: "The surrounding Arab countriesEgypt [sic], Jordan (then called Transjordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanonimmediately [sic] invaded Palestine to help the Palestinian Arabs and to try to crush the Jewish state." (emphasis added). --GHcool (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One can find anything one's wants to find, googling. If there is controversy on facts, it is an elementary procedure in the real world to resolve the doubt by going to the best specialist sources. Bad sources or old sources feed into one another. Many sources are still saying at Deir Yassin 240 people were massacred. The best sources say 110-120. A conscientious editor will not cite the old or the erroneous source. He will exercise his critical judgement and follow the best modern sources. It is a matter of ethics, as well as writing towards the goal of the encyclopedia. Could I prevail on your considered judgement to only contest Gelber and Morris if their recent analysis is contradicted by contrary information from their colleagues, in recent work? Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the US state department and BBC snippet have been entered to contradict what two of Israel's finest specialist historians have written. So, with great reluctance, I have removed those nugatory tidbits. We are supposed to privilege the best available sources, not to hunt for stuff we like and plug it in independently of any other consideration. Of course this is an indictable offence, but my scruples force me to remove crap. If anyone wants to take this to arbitration, they'll probably win, since no one looks at the content of a dispute. There is no dispute here, just good secondary sources against poor unspecialized tertiary sources.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Nishidani saying that Britannica got it wrong as well? Do I really have to make a trip to the library like that one time when Nishidani tried to insist that the capital of Israel wasn't Jerusalem. This is the easiest argument I've gotten into since that time. --GHcool (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what he's saying but I do know that GHcool has misrepresented the U.S. Department of State quote Lebanon participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and signed an armistice with Israel on March 23, 1949. unquote...and considering Israeli historian Morris, Yoav Gelber have access to the Israeli archives and Britannica does not I personally would go with Historians with archive access....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

PS Israel may have declared Jerusalem as a capital just that the rest of the world does not recognise that Jerusalem as the capital of Israel...Note on Jerusalem..[sic]note: Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv[sic] CIA world fact book a diplomatic way of saying no it isn't.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So, I see we've turned to playing the recency card. I'll play along: "On the same day Israel received de facto recognition from the United States, and the Arab states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq invaded Israel with their regular armies." This is from 'International History of the Twentieth Century and Beyond', by noted historians Antony Best, Jussi M Hanhimäki, Joseph A Maiolo & Kirsten E Schulze, and published by the academic imprint Routledge. It is from 2008. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, Canadian Monkey. One more nail in the coffin. Can you footnote it in the article please? --GHcool (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is so 'brilliant' that in the statement, '"On the same day Israel received de facto recognition from the United States, and the Arab states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq invaded Israel with their regular armies." it contains 2 errors. As proven (a)Lebanon did not invade that day (b) the other armies involved did not 'invade Israel', they entered on that day, largely, those parts of Palestine assigned in the UN partition plan for a future Arab state entity. Jordan's record of intent is explicit. It occupied, according to the best sources, those parts of Palestine designated by the UN as Arab, apart from Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Hughes wrote that the Lebanese army "fought one insignificant, symbolic half-day battle at the border village of Malikiyya in June 1948, advancing a short distance into Israel/Palestine, before settling down to await the outcome of the war" (in Rogan, Eugene L. (2007-11-19). The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 204. ISBN 0521699347. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) He later describes it in more detail. -- Nudve (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll cite it. I found another one too from The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. --GHcool (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note, however, that Hughes does agree with Gelber and Morris that the Lebanese army did not actually invade Israel on May 15. -- Nudve (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasted three hours writing out a five page analysis of this putative fact, according to Gelber, Morris (2 sources), Matthew Hughes, Guy Nathaniel Ma'ayan (’Burning the candle at Both Ends:Lebanon and the Palestine War, 1947-1949,’ in Elie Podeh, Asher Kaufman, Moshe Maʻoz,Arab-Jewish relations: from conflict to resolution? : essays in honour of Moshe Maʻoz,Sussex Academic Press, chapter 9 pp.154-168), Oren Barak (chapter 3 of his new book pp.45ff. included, which demolishes this crap as well), David Tal and one or two others. Then I thought, why be dragged into another idiotic argument with people who, if they don't like something, just frig about googling, and even if you do rake in solid evidence, wikilawyer it. So it goes into my notes, since I'm fucked if I am going to spend my time doing highschool level research for POV pushers who won't listen anyhow, and keep thrusting in googled junk from outdated BBC news and US State Department hits.

Since bad faith (I except Nudve, who provided a very good background source, but which does not bear on the edit) and team-editing are likely to prevail, I'll withdraw, and suggest Ashley does as well. Gentleman if you want to edit in crap, and violate, as the several cites now in for Lebanon do, WP:SYNTH, go ahead, privilege the BBC news and US state department handouts over what the best modern Israeli historians say, edit on your own responsibility, and snub the aim of this encyclopedia, i.e. to be reliable. Please note that you are pushing an outdated Zionist historiographica line ranking modern historians in Israel, working today, have demolished. So cui bono?

The text is talking about May 15, and events that 'precipitated the war'. All modern specialist sources, Hughes included who says there was no invasion by Lebanon and is referring to the battle that took place in Malikiyya in June, a month into the war. say the Lebanese army stuck by its orders to maintain only defensive positions. (b)the area is in the Galilee panhandle, a sliver of contested soil, dwelt by Lebanese Shiites at the time, once Lebanese then Palestine by British fiat, then recontested by Lebanon (c) occupied by the Palmach Yiftach brigade before the declaration of Israel (meaning that any Lebanese response cannot be put over as an unprovoked 'invasion' of Israel).

(d)'‘In Galilee to the north – the zone of operations for the Lebanese – the partition plan of 1947 had given most of the area to the Arabs, including Nazareth, and it was this central Galilee “finger” that Israel was keen to occupy so that it could extend its borders and clear a route through to the Israeli settlements in the upper Jordan region around Lake Tiberias and Metulla.' (Matthew Hughes).

(e) The word 'invasion' in English cannot support the description of one border skirmish, a month into the war, on contested territory, esp.when Israel itself was actively engaged in fighting to get as much territory assigned to the Arabs by the Partition Plan, before and after May 14. Use that word of invasion, and you warrant the many incursions into Jordananian territory by Sharon and co, over the 50s as 'invasions of Jordan'. But enough of this farce. Nailed in its coffin, my arse!Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite his/her indignant tone, Nishidani does make a fair point about the confusion that might arise if the reader assumes that Lebanon invaded Israel the same day that the other Arab nations did. I just added a footnote to clarify it. Thanks.

As an aside, the "nail in the coffin" comment was about the denial that Lebanon ever invaded, a demonstrably false claim that Ashley was originally advocating and I got the feeling that Nishidani was flirting with. I fully accept that Lebanon invaded Israel later than the other Arab armies. --GHcool (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel? Ashley was dead-right, and was punished for being so. His position is that of Benny Morris, Yoav Gelber, Guy Nathaniel Ma’ayan, Oren Barak /(2009 pp.45ff.), all front ranking specialists on the period, underline, and their analysis is shared by Matthew Hughes. Lebanon army orders were not to fight the IDF unless attacked, and they kept to this principle. Israeli forces invaded Lebanon quite frequently, whereas in the late incident referred to, what Oren calls a skirmish, Lebanon fought for a few hours, several hundred yards into not 'Israel' but 'Palestine/Israel' (the preferred term by the above). You are abusing the language to make out this was an 'invasion'. You prefer the BBC, the US state department snapshot reflecting old books, or one encyclopedia recycling sleepy outdated data? Fine. You're more comfortable with the myths of yesteryear, than the cutting edge of Israeli historiography. But I know the team won't be convinced. We do have to create this image of David being ganged up by several Goliaths Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Three encyclopedias, actually; two of which were published in the 2000s with the third one being online and presumably updated as new research becomes available. The Continuum Political Encyclopedia represents the most up-to-date research there is by scholars as familiar with the Israeli archives as Morris. The oldest book the information is cited to is from 2002. I'd appreciate it if Nishidani would keep false premises out of the talk page. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias count nothing against 6 specialist sources publishing the latest up-to-date research by Israeli scholars. This is amazing. You are going against what Israel's finest area specialists now hold to be the facts. As for false premises, I would be obliged if you removed the following from the page. I'll keep it going, to see if you are sincere in your commitment to editing to the facts, and not to just outdated sources you like. I will systematically show you the total bungled mess created in annotating Lebanon in the note sequence after it, 44,27,45,46,47,48,38.40,49,41. Please answer point by point.

(a) News The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel but were repulsed,

This is false, even from your own intransigent viewpoint, the Lebanese army cannot be said to have entered 'Israel' on the 15th of May.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 44 reads Lebanon joined the war some weeks after May 15. See The Continuum Political Encyclopedia and Rogan and Shlaim.

(a"The Arab-Israel Conflict." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 58-121 here is a 43 page article. Give the page number please.

(b) The second point is incorrect, Rogan and Shlaim in their timeline on p.ix say Lebanon’s army entered Palestine on May 15, 1948, and you cite them for saying 'some weeks after May 15'. They are wrong, and you are wrong in saying that they have Lebanon joining the war some weeks after May 15. In fact most essays in that books repeat the same wrong line. Of course, if the reference should be to Matthew Hughes’s essay from pp.204,then things change. But Hughes does not say ‘Lebanon’s army entered Palestine’. He says Lebanon was a ‘belligerent in name only’ and only fought a skirmish in the border village for several hours.'Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just took the liberty of contacting the BBC website to ask them to correct the error:

To whom it may concern: A minor error can be found in your article on the establishment of Israel. The article currently reads, 'The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel but were repulsed.' While four of the five Arab armies listed invaded Israel on the day after Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, Lebanon invaded some weeks later in June. Thanks.

--GHcool (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A civil and sensible thing to do. But you have only got them to correct one error, while advising them to insert another, since you are deliberately telling them to insert the idea that 'Lebanon invaded someweeks later' when this is, to say the least, controversial, as 5 Israeli scholars deny this.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 46 Britannica Online Encyclopedia note 46

in our footnote reads as follows:

Note 46 "Arab-Israeli wars." Britannica Online Encyclopedia. 18 March 2009. "The surrounding Arab countriesEgypt [sic], Jordan (then called Transjordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanonimmediately [sic] invaded Palestine to help the Palestinian Arabs and to try to crush the Jewish state."

However, if you click on the link to the Britannica, we get a totally different text which reads:-

'The first war immediately followed Israel’s proclamation of statehood on May 14, 1948. Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon occupied the areas in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews by the United Nations (UN) partition of Palestine and then captured east Jerusalem,'

How this fuck-up occurred is beyond me. I'll restrict my comments to what the Britannica site now says.

'Arab forces from Lebanon' here contextually, cannot refer to the Lebanese army but only to those Lebanese irregulars recruited (See Gelber pp.139ff. from memory) by the ALA's varying factions. The countries listed are for the origin of the cadres. Were the reference to official Lebanese forces (which is what our text is saying) then the subsequent 'occupied the area os southern and eastern Palestine' would be meaningless. No historian of note above maintains that the Lebanese Army occupied southern and eastern Palestine. In contradiction, the armies of Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria, did, as all sources note, enter into those regions. Note again that the text speaks of this not as an invasion of Israel as you insist, but 'the areas of southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews' by the UN 1947 Partition Plan. So this source again cannot be used to support the text, since it makes a very clear distinction the wiki article refuses to make, between Israel and the part of Palestine accorded to the Arabs by the UN partition plan

You have cited this text for including Lebanon as one of the parties in the war immediately after May 15, confusing a nation-state as historical actor with people recruited, independently of that state's decisions, to serve in armies. The ref mentions Arab forces from Lebanon, but these are the irregulars recruited from Lebanon to serve in non-Lebanese forces, not the Lebanese army You also ignore ‘occupied the area in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews by the United Nations partition plan’, and insist here that Israel was invaded. They did not invade Israel, according to this source..Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 27 "Arab-Israel Conflict." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 58-121.

As above the precise page number is lacking, and in addition,note that this is a source dating to 2002 (written therefore a year or two beforehand) whereas several books and articles, Morris, Gelber, etc., after that date, deconstructed this myth. It therefore, as an earlier source, must yield, where there is conflict of evidence, to the more recent research. This is and elementary, fundamental principle of all historical writing.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article reads, "Units from[2 sources] five[6 sources] Arab League countries (Egypt, Lebanon,[9 sources] Syria, Jordan and Iraq) then reluctantly[1 source] invaded[6 sources] precipitating the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." The article clearly says "Units from ... Lebanon," which completely nullifies Nishidani's first argument. The article also says "invaded," not "invaded Israel." There is no conflict with what is written in Britannica.

I have The Continuum Political Encyclopedia at home. Give me 48 hours and I'll find the page number. --GHcool (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It nullifies nothing. I have just quoted from your own range of sources the Enc Brit article used in the text you cite, which says:

'The first war immediately followed Israel’s proclamation of statehood on May 14, 1948. Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon occupied the areas in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews by the United Nations (UN) partition of Palestine

In English 'Arab forces . . from Lebanon' is ambiguous, and cannot be adduced, as you are trying to do, for evidence that Lebanon invaded wherever.

To cite one more of a dozen points, in this constructed story, units (that is a term used in armed forces: the Lebanese army did not supply any 'units'. Only four countries, according to Gelber and Morris, not the old 'five' entered Palestine. The Britannica article denies that they 'invaded', occupied the areas, creating dissonance with the other sources preferring invaded. This whole sorry sentence is as massive a violation of WP:SYNTH as I have ever witnessed, since you are stitching up from 24, mainly mediocre, sources bits and pieces to make an independent, wiki narrative. This stands out like dog's balls, and I am surprised no one objects. Even Blind Freddy and his mutt can see that when you insert 'reluctantly' with 1 source, it applies to all parties. Where is the source that says, as distinct from both Jordan and Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Syrias were 'reluctant' to invade? You'll find none, at least that I have checked through.

I'm still awaiting an explanation for the rest, the fact that the words in footnote 46 do not correspond with the source when you click on it. etc.etc. etc.

None of this tohu-bohu occurs when competent editors just stick to the best academic historians, instead of fishing round for scraps from the dog's dinner of second-rate teriary sources to make a POV hodge-podge. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 47 "Arab-Israeli Wars." Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia. 2003. p. 59.

As useless as tits on a bull, again, since it is a generic encyclopedia not up to date with the research illustrated by sources from 2003-2009 (save one)

Note 48 "Lebanon." U.S. Department of State. January 2009. 19 March 2009. The oneliner runs as follows:

'Lebanon participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and signed an armistice with Israel on March 23, 1949.

Note ‘participated’. Greece ‘participated’ in WW2. This does not mean it invaded Germany. It cannot be used in any statement suggesting Lebanon 'invaded'. In any case, again, why use the US Department of State doc when tons of specialized books exist?

Note 38 "Establishment of Israel." BBC News. 17 March 2009. 'The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel but were repulsed, and the Israeli army crushed pockets of resistance. Armistices established Israel's borders on the frontier of most of the earlier British Mandate Palestine.

As dealt with, this should be immediately eliminated because you and I know it to be false (on several counts, since those armies did not enter Israel). In any case with dozens of academic books on the period available, it’s a crummy source.

Note 40 "5 Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine - 15 May 1948."

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Again like the BBC snippet, this is a useless source since it gets an elementary fact wrong, as you and I agree. The Ministry of Hasbara says 'The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine.'

Note that for the Israeloi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the invasion of 5 countries, Lebanon included, occurred on the night of the 14-15th. For our text, using other dinky sources, prefers 15-16 May. Whoever wrote this rubbish has been picking and choosing tidbits from 24 sources, each contradicting the other on some point, and then synthesizing them all as though they were not in conflict.

Here Lebanon’s regular forces invaded Palestine (note, not the ‘Israel’ you earlier supported) on the night of 14-15. Untrue.

Note 49 Mitch Frank,Understanding the Holy Land: Answering Questions about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. New York: Viking, 2005. p. 50.

Oh fa Chrissake. Classified as ‘juvenile non-fiction'. Jeezus! And written, the blurb tells us, for sixth-graders. Hey, you won’t accept the modern consensus of Israel’s finest period historians, but a juvenile piece written for US toddlers constitutes better quality evidence. I retract my remarks about a farce. This is a hoax.

Note 41. Bard, Mitchell G. "Myths & Facts - The War of 1948." Jewish Virtual Library. 17 March 2009.

Mitchell Bard is an economist, with qualifications in political science. He is not an historian. <BLP Violation redacted> of no particular distinction except in the eyes of POV-pushers. He is not a reliable source (Jayjg’s own principles!) for the 1948 war.

In Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific revolutions, and his accompanying book on the Copernican Revolution you might take a tip on what happens when a flawed premise in a model is not fixed. It leads to touching up, adjustments, epicycles are added to the Ptolemaic system, subepicycles then patched in, until you get a huge cranking dinosaur of a system, when a few equations would collapse the lot, and cohere with observed realities more elegantly. This is what has happened throughout this article. Trash or trivial sources have been trawled in from everywhere except the best works on the period. This is not economical, and I suspect the only function of keeping up this charade is to make dopes like myself lose another day saying the obvious, and having it ignored, when I could have read another J.B.Priestley novel.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And after all that, Lebanon still joined the war some weeks after May 15 as the footnote I wrote indicated and as I informed the BBC to correct. --GHcool (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, at this point, I can only say that you too, GHcool, are willingly, knowingly and stubbornly editing false information, to your personal ideological taste, against the best sources in Israeli historiography, into wikipedia. Keep the page, violate WP:synth, use sources written for juveniles in the US in preference to Israel's best scholarship. Whatever. You can write all the footnotes you like, you are not an historian. Gelber, and Morris and their kith in the discipline are. But such appeals to authoritative scholarship invariably fail on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

~~I'm adding the page number from The Continuum Political Encyclopedia to the article. I may not be a historian, but the editors of the encyclopedia are.~~ I'll ask that Nishidani keep the ad hominems out of the talk page. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought The Continuum Political Encyclopedia said June. In actuality, it only mentions Malikiyya. I don't own a source at home for the June claim, but I'll leave the footnote in without a source. --GHcool (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can't source it, why leave the footnote in? The footnote came from a source, the source doesn't back it, you've admitted, and it goes to your credit, the source is defective, but the words drafted from it remain?Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I deleted the footnote. --GHcool (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If I've been discourteous, I apologize. I've never forgotten your remark about my walking the extra mile, and withdrawing your objection. We disagree profoundly. But in several key points, I have found you ready to see the objection raised. Thanks and again, please excuse my frustrated intemperance. Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My recent updates

First of all, I want to apologize for making too many updates to this article in the major revamping I made yesterday. From now on I’ll I am going to add smaller segments of information in order to make it easier for all the editors of the article to discuss new additions. In my latest update I divided the “Historical outline” section into the six periods which are listed in "The periods of the conflict” section so that there would be a place to add the important missing information which previously didn’t fit underneath the former headings. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I approve of these edits. Thanks! :) --GHcool (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest major revamping to the "Historical outline" section

I have tried to improve the Historical outline section as much as I could. It took me a few days to write the new version of the "Historical outline" which is based upon the original text with many important additions of the conflict – most of which I took from the articles History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Arab citizens of Israel, Palestine Liberation Organization, History of Israel and Palestinian refugee.

In my opinion, even though the "Historical outline" section is much bigger now, because I also merged the "current status" section in to this section – the whole article is only around 10,000 bytes bigger than before my major revamping (which isn't that bad).

I know my latest additions are far from being perfect and need many more improvements including adding the many missing references which I haven't copied here yet from the articles I mentioned above. I plan to continue improving the article and add much more information during the next weeks. In the meantime, I would appreciate any assistance with proofreading or any other important additions to the content in this section.

Sincerely, TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

apart from 16 years missing in the area of what morris calls border wars and missing fundamental areas not even mentioned I would slap a POV tag on it...your version is completely Israelocentric and one sided...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As hard as it is to do, my definite aim was to create a balanced article which would refrain from making any judgment or concealing the truth and bring the facts - I really do not want the text to be biased towards one party. Please be more specific in your description of what makes it "Israelocentric and one sided". TheCuriousGnome (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and what exactly do you mean by "Border wars" - please refer me to the article which elaborate on that part on Wikipedia . TheCuriousGnome (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is it : Israel's Border Wars 1949–1956

There were around 15,000 reported incidents at the borders from 49 to 56 with several thousands deaths... Unit 101 was founded to stop these infiltrations with several reprisal actions, such as the Qibya massacre Ceedjee (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but your aim has missed by a rather large amount....again (rather than a biased external link) please point to any use of biased links you seem to have confused me with those that use JVL and the Israeli MFA...."Border Wars" is the book by Benny Morris the covered the years missing from the article... I see that you've removed all the provided references to books note I use books not web articles....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Are there any other people here whom think that merging the "current status" section into the "Historical outline" section would be a wise idea? I myself do not see the point of having these two similar sections separated. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it ought to be a separate heading so that people can navigate straight to it, but perhaps it can be a sub-heading of the Historical outline section. --GHcool (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Message

GUYS, I AM HORRIFIED BY THE AGRESSIVITY AND IRONY ON THIS TALK PAGE ! PLEASE KEEP COOL AND BE CIVIL - WE DON'T MIND IF WE DISAGREE - WE CAN DISCUSS QUIETLY !

Ceedjee (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What's happening ?

What is the reason for such a number of references in this sentence (which seems to me no grammatically uncorrect - I would expect a name after "invaded") ?

On 14 May, the State of Israel was declared and the British left-and, on 15-16 May, the [four] armies of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Iraq [entered] Palestine.[32][33][34][35][36][37] [38][39] Units from[33][40] five[41][42][43][44][45][46] Arab League countries (Egypt, Lebanon,[30][47][48][49][50][41][43][51][44] Syria, Jordan and Iraq) then reluctantly[52] invaded[41][43][44][45][46][53] precipitating the 1948 Arab-Israeli War

May I suggest :

On 15 May, several Arab states sent expeditionary corps to Palestine to fight the Israelis.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thge obvious solution, Ceedjee. I've corrected 'corpses' (which is how many ended up being. or rather not being) to corps. One point. Jordan did not send its corps back from Jordan (the Arab Legion had been stationed west of the Jordan for a good deal of time under British supervision, and began a slow withdrawal, on technical grounds, from January 1948 which finished on May 14) to fight Israelis. An under-the-table ~~agreement~~ understanding existed, negotiated by Golda Meyerson. The Hashemite army re-entered that part of the Partition Plan, on what is now the West Bank, not to fight Israelis, but to secure it, eventually hoping to include it territorially. They only later fought Israelis over Jerusalem, which was assigned neither to Israel nor the future Arab state.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani,

There are some points to clarify :

the discussions on 10 May didn't lead to an agreement between Golda Meir and Abdallah; it is far more complex. Adballah didn't promise anything, emphasing situations had changed since october with Deir Yassin...
the intentions of the Arabs are not clear (did they want to destroy the Jews or just to parade, or prevent Abdallah from taking Palestine, or...) but I think it is clear they entered to fight the Israelis for what concerns Egypt, Syria and Irak. Concerning the Jordanians, they participated to the massacre of Kfar Etzion on 13 May (3 days after the "agreement"), they took Latroun on 17 May (blockading Jerusalem and therefore threathening its 100,000 Jews and they entered the corpus separatum on 19 May after being called by Palestinians and immediately bombed the Jewish quarters... I think these 10 days of "ambiguity" do not deserve long discussions -> the fight the Israelis (to defend the Palestinians or for other reasons...)

Ceedjee (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Meyerson came back with a clear understanding of Jordanian reluctance to get involved, and her impressions influenced Israeli planning.

Israel wanted to secure Jerusalem, and so did Jordan: they clashed. Latrun was a primary objective of the Haganah, as it was, and was retaken, by Glubb. Both realized its strategic centrality. The massacre of Kfar Etzion involves far more complex factors than just Jordan, and it was motivated in part by Deir Yassin. The whole history of the area is one of eye for eye, nothing forgotten, you kill me, I kill you. Moralizing is useless, since this logic is shared by all parties. Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That is why, we can say, with neutrality, that Arab armies entered Palestine to fight the Israelis

FYI : According to Morris and Gelber, Kfar Etzion *battle* was not motivated by Deir Yassin but by the fact the settlements unsecured the road from Hebron to Jerusalem, which sounds very logical. The massacre that followed, for what concerns the Palestinians, was motivated by Deir Yassin. For the Arab Legion, well, history doesn't give the answer... Note that I don't want to "harm" the image of the Arab Legion; I am quite convince by what Morris says here. Ceedjee (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See Morris, The Road to Jerusalem pp.139f. citing the IDF official history which has local villagers participating in the massacre yelling 'Deit Yassin'. Of course, the Kfar Etzion battle goes back to the settlement's continuous harassment of Arab movements, military and otherwise, on the road throughout April and early May, before the Declaration of Independence. Like you, I prefer the facts to get in the way of any bias I might entertain. One admires Morris and Gelber for their mastery of evidence. Agreeing with his evaluations, of course, is another matter. His record on this is mixed.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee, the problem with your suggestion is (a) we have multiple reliable sources explicitly saying these Arab armies invaded (which is not surprising, since when a country sends its armed forces to fight across its borders, that's an invasion) and (b) "Palestine" did not exist at that point - the British Mandate of Palestine had ended. NoCal100 (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Palestine is a geographic area :-)

I have many recent (2006, 2008) that indicate that "Arab armies invaded Palestine" (an geographic area in the Middle East); other points out that it was not the Arab armies but small parts of them...

About the choice of sources : secondary sources from historians specialized on that period will always be better than tertiary sources from encyclopaedia (and even historians) who deal with the whole I-P conflict.

Eg, Benny Morris, 1948:A History of the First Arab-Israeli War is more reliable than Benny Morris, Victims or than Howard Sachar, A History of Zionism.

And recent studies on the topic are more reliable than older ones, simply because authors have access to more information and can draw a better picture.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If people are interested in working this page, they should get the weeding fork out and just grub up all of the junk sourcing. For every section, two or three standard period specific sources are sufficient. It wouldn't affect the text much, which is of course pretty poor, but a different problem.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My latest additions to the "Historical outline" section

I just added another important segment of information into the Historical outline section. I know some of you might disagree with the information I just added or the way I phrased it. As I have mentioned before, my aim is that the article would be well balanced. if you disagree with any of my latest updates, please calm down first and discuss it here in a civil manner.

I will add more information to the "Historical outline" section in a couple of days. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NoCal100 disagrees with the Israeli MFA

Funny how me and the Israeli MFA agree on October 2 as the acceptance speech to the UN, maybe the article is incorrect factually? On 2 October 1947 Dr Abba Hillel Silver, Chairman of the American Section of the Jewish Agency partially accepted the Partition plan in a speech to the Ad Hoc committee on Palestine announces acceptance of 10 of the eleven unanimous recommendations rejection of the non-unanimous recommendation of the UN partition plan, rejects the 12 non-unanimous recommendation and rejection of the minority report. Of the Majority report (the Partition Plan areas) Dr Able Hillel Silver vacillates saying that he was prepared to “recommend to the Jewish people acceptance subject to further discussion of the constitutional and territorial provisions”.^[4]^[5]^[6]

"On the majority proposals [the partition plan]...These proposals", said Dr. Silver, "did not represent satisfaction of the rights of the Jewish people. They were a serious attenuation of these rights."

"The first partition of Palestine," Dr Silver Declared; "took place in 1922 when Transjordan, representing three-fourths of the original area of Palestine, was cut off and was afterwards set up by the British as an Arab Kingdom."

"It is now proposed to carve a second Arab state out of the remainder of the country, said Dr Silver. In other words," he said, "the Jewish National home is now to be confined to less than one-eighth of the territory originally set aside for it. This, he declared, was a sacrifice which the Jewish people should not be asked to make."^[4]

If anyone has a problem with the date of 2 October being the acceptance date please, by all means, take it up with the Israeli MFA...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove it because of the date. I removed it because of your original research that this was "partial" acceptance, which contradicts what is written (and sourced) earlier in this section, which is that the Yishuv accepted the plan. Your use of primary documents to perform original research that contradicts what secondary sources say is really getting old - we discussed this exact issue last week. NoCal100 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What's original about the Israeli MFA saying 2nd October and putting parts of the 2 October speech up supplying a link to said acceptance speech referred to by the Israeli MFA?...quote unquote how is that original research? Is it being suggested that wikipaedia stop using all quotes?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

NoCal100's point that new edits can be challenged because they 'contradict what is written (and sourced) earlier in this section' is, to put it kindly, queer. Everything here is written from poor sources, badly organized, and POV to the nth degree. Essentially he appears opposed to any new sources destabilising the junk in here.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that was not my point. My point was that it was WP:OR and [{WP:UNDUE]]. which also happens to create a contradiction between previously sourced material. Please review our very basic policies of WP:OR and WP:V. NoCal100 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The previously sourced material is badly sourced, and is not authoritative for judging the merits of new material. Much of this text is untrue, or so simplistic, it is misleading. See below. In saying that a new piece of information cannot be included because it contradicts previously sourced material is not wiki policy. Editorially it means there is a conflict in sources, and serious editors, as opposed to POV warriors, examine the two sources to iron out the conflict in them. You have a record for going after AK. The fact that you've been successful does not justify your rverting him wherever he edits. He knows much more about these things than you do. Negotiate, don't expunge automatically. Punto e basta.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The material I removed was not well sourced - it was WP:OR based on primary documents, and additionally represented undue weight - both of these reasons were highlighted for you, twice now. That it also contradicts previously sourced material is just gravy. What is really puzzling here is that you agree that the material violated WP:UNDUE when GHcool says it, yet find in appropriate to ignore my very same comments, and instead launch a personal attack on me. It is quite obvious that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia, but to harrass me. NoCal100 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter. I removed it because it represented a violation of WP:Undue weight. Some of the information is helpful and solid, but it does not belong in a summary article on the conflict as a whole. I might be able to see an argument for its inclusion in the UN Partition Plan article where all the nitty-gritty of the partition plan's acceptance may be discussed. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

GHcool's call on this is correct, and his advice sound. However, the intransigence with which AK's editing here has been countered, collectively, is not justifiable by the many arbitrary appeals to policy. Too many of you are focused on Ashley and not on the text to be edited, which is a travesty of clear, properly sourced composition (see my notes on the notes, all bad and unreliable sources). He is absolutely correct that the phrasing:-

The Jewish leadership of the Yishuv accepted the plan,[14]

requires nuancing, since several senior figures of the Yishuv dissented.

The phrasing:The Jewish leadership of the Yishuv accepted the plan is grounded in Bar-Tal and Teichman's study of stereotypes and conflict p.106. That book is a reliable source, but it is not the reliable source (any number of a dozen RS exist on this period) required.

(2)p.106 says:'The Yishuv accepted the UN resolution with great satisfaction and joy'. The phrasing used in the wiki article does not come from p.106 but from the preceding page, which reads:leaders of the Jewish Yishuv principally accepted the partition plan. However this phrasing relates to the Yishuv's acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission Plan, not to the 1947 Plan. What has happened? Whoever drafted this, used the phrasing for the Yishuv's 1937 acceptance of partition on p.105 while sourcing it to p.106, which properly deals with the 1947 Resolution.

(3)This is a slip. Solution. Forget Teichman, and just use Gelber, Palestine 1948 p.16 ('the Yishuv rejoiced while the Palestinians condemned the UN decision'), which is what Teichman and Bar-Tal say on p.106.

There is no point in using the mass of mediocre sources or sources only indirectly commenting on the period, when major historical sources of fine quality, several, could be used to finesse this section, and enable you to get rich of that shocking necklace of useless notes in passages that, I repeat, violate WP:SYNTH. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with using Gelber for this, rather than Teichman. NoCal100 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

the yishuv may have rejoiced but the leadership of the Yishuv didn't...as previously put in by myself with reference...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Additionally, the war led[citation needed][dubious – discuss] to the arrival of about 900,000[citation needed] of Jews who were expelled from or fled Arab lands to Israel and to the fleeing and deportation of about 750,000 of Arab population of Palestine (see also Palestinian refugees and 1948 Palestinian exodus) whom were not allowed to return to Israel and most of which, with the exception of Transjordan, denied granting them - or their descendants - citizenship. As of today, most of them, and their offspring, still live in refugee camps. The question of how their situation should be resolved remains one of the main issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

so they all arrived in 1948??????....someone is reading JVL and not getting accuracy in...By all means add the lavon affair and say why Egypt expelled but at present context is missing to achieve a JVL POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The para is simplistic devoid factual context...and nothing more than Israeli propaganda...Did all the "900,000" go to Israel? ...did the the Jews of Algeria emigrate due to French/Algerian civil war?...did the Iraqi Jews get recruited get expelled or fled...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I just fixed it. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamas-Fatah conflict -- the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

During this last Gaza war against Hamas, Israel was apparently aided by Fatah. Can we still call this an Israeli-Palestinian conflict? There should be a separate paragraph discussing this. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sometimes intersects with the Hamas-Fatah conflict, it is not one and the same. An analogy could be made with the Iraq War and the sectarian violence in Iraq. --GHcool (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, but I think there should be a paragraph explaining this. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Isreali occupation is not going anywhere from the article because that is the correct term for what they are doing!84.13.85.90 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundant information in the historical outline section

First of all I must say that I'm very glad that a lot of valuable information has been added to the article recently which helps the readers understand the conflict much better now - well done to all the contributors!

Nevertheless, I wanted to state that even though I agree with the user Ashley Kennedy that in several occasions we need to provide additional background information in order to have a more balanced article, I still think that we need to refrain from providing too much background information. Currently there are still several occasions in the "Historical outline" section in which too much elaborated redundant information is given (for example, the sentence - "The last Jewish wedding in Egypt took place in 1984") or too many references are given (in my opinion, in most cases, providing three good references are good enough) and unnecessary quotations are given (in my opinion since its purpose is to be an shorter outline section, in most cases, it is more important to stick to a short, simple, balanced and summarized text than to provide quotations).

Therefore, in order to keep the historical outline section summarized, balanced and simple and in order for us the contributors to refrain from getting carried away with the amount of information we provide, I think it is important that we keep the historical outline section only separated into the main six time periods of the conflict (mentioned within the article) as Level 3 headlines only - not more than that. Therefore, I think the sub headlines "Lavon affair" and "Border wars" should be removed and instead the text they contain should be summarized and appear as a paragraph within the "1949 - 1967" section. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent plan, TheCuriousGnome. I'll get started little by little. --GHcool (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting the Lavon Affair completely since it has to do with Israeli-Egyptian relations and not with Israeli-Palestinian relations. --GHcool (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned since the Lavon Affair led Egypt to retaliate against its Jewish community and eventually to actively sponsor fedayeen raids into Israel. I am currently working on a shorter version. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also made some important additions to the 1993-2000 period - please review them. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

After a cursory look, it seems fine to me. However, I do think the "Historical outline" section is getting too long. We have an entire history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article already. Maybe we should trim the fat in the "Historical outline" section of this article. I'll put a tag and perhaps work on trimming the fat in the morning. --GHcool (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That’s defiantly a good idea. I think that we should start by merging the "Current status" section with the "2000 – until today" – that way we could get rid of duplicate information and trim the article a bit. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. --GHcool (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

^ [Land and Property Laws in Israel]
^ [Israeli settlement]
^ [Israeli West Bank barrier]
^ ^a ^b UN Doc Fourth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee Abba Hillel Silver address to the Ad Hoc Committee of 2 October 1947
^ Israeli MFA Highlights of Main Events- 1947-1974
^ Stereotypes and Prejudice in Conflict, Daniel Bar-Tal & Yona Teichman, p. 106, Cambridge University Press, 2004

[property_law-1] [Land and Property Laws in Israel]

[settlement-2] [Israeli settlement]

[wall-3] [Israeli West Bank barrier]

[UNSPEECH-4] UN Doc Fourth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee Abba Hillel Silver address to the Ad Hoc Committee of 2 October 1947

[5] Israeli MFA Highlights of Main Events- 1947-1974

[6] Stereotypes and Prejudice in Conflict, Daniel Bar-Tal & Yona Teichman, p. 106, Cambridge University Press, 2004

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]