Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wontonotnow (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC) The timeline was becoming asynchronous around 2003-2005 because of a tag for "recent events". This was causing people to add items in 2 different areas. I pasted the items in their proper places. "Recent" is relative and can cause confusion, so I took "recent events" out completely. I do NOT agree that a timeline of this detail is "not appropriate for an encyclopedia". We just need to evolve our definition of Encyclopedia that fits the information age.

Ed, the problem I see with this solution is that we now have an entry that probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. At best, this list will be a level of detail about the recent violence in that region that is unmatched in any other entry (WWII Dresden, genocide, concentration camp, Hiroshima, etc.)

At worst, it's going to be a constant source of advocacy.

Marknau

Hum -- I never did like this timeline and now it has its own article. I have to agree with Marknau and state my opinion that this level of detail is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and this particular timeline does show a bias of omission by not stating the daily hardships imposed on Palestinians by occupying Israeli troops and periodic more severe actions (it is also incomplete and very inconsistent on what is actually included). I know, current events has similar issues, but current events doesn't pretend to be an encyclopedia article. --mav

I'm not sure if I've breached etiquette by doing this, but I've added this page to the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page. Are we supposed to take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, now? GrahamN

Actually, could you please read the wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages. Being POV is not a reason to delete a page, its contents and its history (some may call that censorship). --mav

Actually, my reason for nominating it for deletion wasn't that it is PoV, but that it is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia, and people who feel strongly about the topic will be distracted from working on proper articles by the need to purge it of propaganda for one side or the other. Obvious bias in an article will inevitably undermine people's confidence in the whole thing, but it will be continuous hard work for somebody to keep this absurd "article" neutral. Since I seem to one of only a few contributors here who aren't clearly biased towards Israel, it looks like this task will fall largely to me. I don't want to have to do this, and I will not do this. It isn't what I thought Wikipedia was about. Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus that this article should be deleted, you will no doubt be delighted to hear that I will be unable to contribute further to the project. I predict, indeed I hope, that if this kind of blatant abuse is allowed to continue then Wikipedia will fail. This is a terrible shame because if you were to stick to the original idea of being an encyclopaedia then within a few years it would probably have become the most respected source of information in the world. Goodbye. Please delete my home pages and my login account. GrahamN 20:17 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

Response will be forthcoming on your talk page. --mav

Graham, I know that just yesterday we did not see eye to eye on something at first, but in just a short while we were able to come to some solution that was satisfactory to both of us--and I think we did it in a friendly, rationale manner, devoid of personal insults, abuses, or rants. I hope you feel the same. I enjoyed the give and take, and felt that your concern for a proper portrayal of the issues was reflected in what you wrote. Frankly, I was looking forward to more discussions that would help us make the articles on this subject as good as possible. I ask you to please reconsider. Your contributions are invaluable in this and other areas as well. Please don't let the heated passion of this topic sway you otherwise. I hope you will stay and continue to contribute to this and many other topics. Danny

---

Mav, I moved the timeline here because (a) I like chronologies and (b) I thought it was better to have it here than in a talk page. Perhaps this article will develop into two main sections: (1) a relatively dispassionate list of violent incidents and (2) accurate representation of the various POVs about the violence.

Just an idea. Peace, brother. Ed Poor

---

My main concern is that political events that happened only months ago are way to young to be included in an encyclopedia. It is almost impossible to weed out the facts from the propaganda. As it is now, most events is about suicide bombings which is understandable as they get more airtime than for example, Israeli roadblocks and killings. I think that would be hard to change as a timeline would detail the most extreme, the largest suicide bomging, the Israeli offense inflicting the most casualties and so on. It is hard to catch the normal. --BL

---

As an outsider, I think either present a longer timeline, or present none at all. (however, this might be hard to do without pissing anyone off) A short timeline of just 2002 doesn't seem worth having here.

---

I would not consider this to be POV. As stated, this would be a description of violent events, but if that were a consideration for pages to be kept or not many pages would not be in Wiki. I disagree with the NPOV header on this page. Ntm 09:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where is Jewish migration in this time line?

Where is Jewish migration in this timeline? All it says is when it was stoped but never says when it started! "Thank God Marne had lunch or she's eat ur hair."-Marne's Dad. "Period...In your pants"-Marne's dumb ass Zain 14:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV Tag

I am removing the POV tags from articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict which no longer have active editorial and Talk disputes. If someone has a any further problems not already covered in Talk then by all means restore the tag but please start a new section and bring forth your concerns for consensus building. These perpetual NPOV tags are unreasonable.--AladdinSE 08:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

References

I moved them from Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_external_references to Talk:Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict/references. They are not supposed to be a separate article. bogdan 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Immigration information

I placed in some information on the Jewish immigration to Palestine, I put down the first two Aliyah's, and they were deleted? I think this is fairly criticial information to understanding this conflict, it is the foundation of this conflict, it provides context to the conflict. Reading this timeline, you wouldn't even know that Jews immigrated to Palestine in the first place?

The Aliyah's are the roots of this conflict started: At first, it was localized conflicts between Jewish immigrant groups, and Arabs over small plots of land.

Leaving this stuff out is just deliberatly cutting out important facts about this conflict for people's understanding. It's not biased one way or another, it's just explaining how these two people ended up living side by side in the first place. That's fairly important, no?

A student of history 22:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems this page suffers from systematic bias. Israeli actions are always placed in context and qualified, providing some background information as to "why" such action was taken, while Arab ones are not. Arab attrocities are described, while Israeli ones are glossed over or omitted. It's not acceptable from a NPOV. I'm not saying this timeline shouldn't provide detail about actions and war crimes, or "terrorism", but it should be at least balanced.

from Pink: The statement "There had been a continuous Jewish presence in the Holy Land since Biblical times, as well as smaller waves of immigration throughout history" really needs a reference. So does "At that time, the Jewish presence in Palestine was roughly 6% of the total population, the rest consisting of Arabs (90% of whom were Muslim, 10% Christian)" and "Judaism had been the predominant religion in Jerusalem, and from the 1870s on, the city again maintains a Jewish majority." In addition, the second statement needs explanation: "at that time" should be defined with a date or time period. I must agree with others who have raised concerns over bias in this article and concur with them and others who have stated that this is not encyclopedia-worthy material. I am sorry that I am not able at this time to do muhc about it. 66.112.51.45 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Pink

Major differences of opinion

1) Deir Yassin background: I have no problem providing background information for events like this, AS LONG AS IT IS BALANCED. Meaning, it is unbalanced, and slanted to provide critical background information to give sympathetic context to Israeli actions but refuse to do the same for Arab actions. So we either remain consistent and provide reasoning for Arab acts as well, or we don't do it for either. (willing to let this go)

2) The unnecessary description of the Hadassah massacre. Why provide such a level of description for this and not for any massacres of Arabs? It seems to me this would bias the reader, making Israeli tragedies seems more personal, tragic and barbaric, while not giving the same level of description to massacres of Arabs. This is bias, we don't need a "play by play" when Jews are massacred if we're not going to give the same consideration to Arab tragedies.

3) Causes of the exodus. I think we have a serious fundamental difference of opinion. You claim something is a fact, I claim it is not. You can post a dozen sources which agree with you, I could get a dozen sources to agree with me, hence the DISPUTE! It is not a fact, if you read Morris for example, his research would seriously contend that claim. I suggest we simply state that refugees were created, add that the causes/reasons for the exodus are debated, and link to the "palestinian exodus" page. But your edit very clearly gives favour to one POV, and this timeline shouldn't contain full arguments/descriptions, it should only "note" important events. In other words, I don't simply want to "add on" to what you've written, because then we would go back and forth and end up with an entry way, way too long for this timeline. In order to explain even in basic detail the theories for the exodus and the causes of it, the entry would end up being far too long. As such, I don't see any point in even getting into it. It's not that I want to "omit facts", it's precisely because I DON'T want to omit anything, that I don't want to get into the details of the exodus on this timeline. Your edit, no offense, is over-simplistic, obviously sympathetic towards pro-Israeli theories and opinions, and omits a great deal. This timeline shouldn't include an argument about the exodus, it should simply state that there was an exodus, and then provide a link to the page where the reader can fill himself in. Can we agree?

4) Israeli casualties in the '50s with Egypt. If we're going to start listing all these Israeli casualties, we need to list all the Egyptian/Palestinian casualties as well for this period as well. Otherwise, the timeline cherry picks information. But as I've said before, this timeline should only be a list of "major/notable/important" events, not every damn minor skirmish or raid. So for the sake of balance, we either list all the casualties on both sides, or agree that this is trivial information not suitable for this timeline.

5) Perhaps you didn't notice this, but I think Arafat's appointed to Chairman of the PLO in '69, and the creation of Hamas in '87 are important to have on the timeline. (resolved)

6) Camp David, the reason why I don't want to get into details here is again, this timeline is not a page for long arguments and lots of details. Your edit cherry picks information as well, for the sake of balance I would want to add that the WB would be chopped into two sections, the settlements would remain under Israeli authority, Israel would retain control over resources and borders...... I could go on and on. So you see the uselessness of doing so on this page? I feel this page should only note that negotiations took place, and the reasons for the collapse are disputed, because they are. Many people blame Arafat, but many others place more blame on the Americans and Israeli's. Hence, disputed or controversial. It is simply not a "fact" that Arafat single-handedly scuttled a generous offer, that is one narrow POV.

7) You statistics for the second intifada are rubbish:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3694350.stm http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=336075 http://hrw.org/wr2k6/pdf/israelopt.pdf http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/israel2/israel0402-02.htm http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iopt0605/iopt0605text.pdf#search=%22civilians%20killed%20second%20intifada%22

But I'm not going to post these sources or their numbers, claiming they are "facts" because your sources obviously dispute them. Hence, we should list total casualty figures, making it clear they encompass both civilian and combatant deaths, and note that the exact figures of civilians/combatants are disputed or difficult to calculate. But your edit clearly implies that Palestinian civilian deaths are infrequent and Israel lacks any culpability, which is only one POV.

I hope we can work this out to achieve a NEUTRAL telling of MAJOR events. Not one which depicts aggressive Arabs and a reactionary Israel.

Ensure a NPOV is not simply a matter of stating facts. Stating "facts" is only one part of it. Choosing which facts to present, and which to omit, providing context and choice of language are all even more important. So we shouldn't think in terms of "just stating facts", Mitchell Bard and Norman Finkelstein both state many facts, often the same facts, but they portray completely different versions of events. You see where I'm going with this?

A student of history 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This timeline is not a place to list every goddamn suicide bombing or Israeli casualty. Why? Because then for the sake of being balanced and NEUTRAL, we would have to do the same for Arab and Palestinian casualties. This timeline is a place to list "major" or "notable" events. So just as I'm not going to start listing all the incidents where Israeli air strikes killed Palestinian civilians, we shouldn't be listing all these incidents of suicide bombings. It's appropriate to note that they are taking place, list some of the big ones, and ones which had a significant impact/effect, otherwise you're just cherry picking.

All I want to do is list events that happened, and provide some statistics. That is what a timeline is for, not a battle-ground of conflicting arguments and statistics. I'm trying to keep this neutral, and you insist on inserting an unbalanced presentation of facts to favour Israel, there is no doubt about it. You want to give human character to, and describe Jewish victims, but you refuse to do the same for Arabs. That is SYSTEMATIC BIAS!

As well, this timeline very clearly gives the impression that "Arabs act", "Israel reacts". That is one POV, and it is most definitely not neutral, some people may regard this as the "truth", but there are a great many people who would argue against it. I think something needs to be done about it. And I don't care who writes it, we're not using the word "terrorist" here.

A student of history 16:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

-

Here are some excerpts from your talk page. Sorry you felt that way. I did not mean to shed more information on Palestinian acts of terror against Israelis. I remember not writing additional info for Qibya, because there was tons of information on the events and background information that I thought it would be better for the reader to actually click the link and learn from there. In regards to the offer Arafat declined to accept, everything I had written was true, and before I edited it, that line was almost exactly the same except it said "over 95% of the West Bank" rather than "97% of the West Bank". I would also like to assure you, my knowledge of history is quite advanced, and I am currently studying history and political science in university. Also, rather than, "Jewish immigration begins" is fairly incorrect, as Jews have maintained a presence and have been immigrating to the Land of Israel even before the birth of Muhammad. However, I do see relevance to include the Aliyot (plural of Aliyah). I am glad we can come to terms and edit together. Keep in touch. Thanks. --Shamir1 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I only included any 'justification' you mentioned if the main article does indeed say so. And as for that Gaza disengagement, those words are not mine, but were part of the article long before I got to it. I do appreciate the communication we are having, though. --Shamir1 05:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No one will ever find a statement clearly unbiased. So while you may still have that feeling, I get messages thanking me for clean-up effort of POV. I also hear of complaints of people unable to add information to the Palestinian exodus article, which is unarguably POV to the max. (I, by the way, have yet to even touch the artice). So if you think some of the events have some bias, well, I cannot say any of it is not true. My stance is already controversial, as an Iranian-American who supports Israel. Believe me, I am trying to clean up the article to the best of my ability. Thanks. --Shamir1 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that you insist on removing any slightest possibility of sympathy for Israel, even when it is truth. That link is the 1st or 2nd resource when you Google Palestinian Refugees, and is thus very reliable. I have included aspects on both sides. I removed a statement that mentioned an attack was done in response to Deir Yassin. That is not true. It does not say that anywhere.

You cannot just remove something because you feel it is a "justification". I state what each groups motives were, and that information is written in the main article. Secondly it is not just Jewish Virtual Library but MANY MANY sources. and that is not the point. The point is that the Palestinians were encouraged to leave by their leaders, and their are quotes to support that on that page. Quotes are not written by the author you mentioned, and therefore bear no POV. I really do not see what you are doing anymore. You are removing key information. And as for the East Jer offer, it is a fact and not debated and I have read it many times before hand and I stress it was written in this timeline long before I touched it. So please, for both of our edits, let that date be. Thanks. --Shamir1 21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC) You are NOT getting it. All you keep saying is I am putting an Israeli excuse. I am not. I write that it is a claim, and ALL these claims are WRITTEN IN THE MAIN ARTICLE. Truth. I did not write any for Arab ones because they DID NOT EXIST, not because of POV. When it comes to Palestinian refugees, you do not just put a period. It is a serious and vital part of the history and its cause is just as important. That again is NOT a matter of opinion. There are numerous sources to show the reasons of their leaving, with many quotations of Arab leaders showing encouragement. So don't give me this baloney that I am making up my own opinion, because it is not my opinion, it is a historical fact. --Shamir1 01:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

All I have done is add motives and causes. Please stop arguing with the truth, none of any of those sources are fraud. It seems to me that you are pushing your own POV when removing sourced material. There are even quotes from Palestinians who acknowledge leaving for those reasons, and besides that, ALL REASONS ARE GIVEN SPACE. It states clearly that many left for avoidance of crossfire, anticipation of war, and expulsion. All claims were given consideration and all have evidence to back it up. For you to just dismiss these facts and say it's biased, it's biased, is RIDICULOUS. Do your research. It is known how much land was offered to Arafat ALL OVER THE INTERNET. IT IS NOT DISPUTED. THAT IS WHY, again, IT WAS WRITTEN HERE ON WIKIPEDIA BEFORE EITHER OF US TOUCHED IT. Listen, stop this nonsense about every damn source being biased. There are plenty of resources to show each claim. To say that all these very many quotes by Arab leader and Arab refugees themselves are all wrong, yeah, ok. I really have been nice and have taken all your edits into consideration. Facts are facts, whether you think they may support one side or not, a fact is a fact. STOP REMOVING SOURCED, RELEVANT, AND TRUE INFORMATION. --Shamir1 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

All sources I have added are reliable. Secondly, the Camp David Summit is not a debate. Even in the main article the major debate is the reason why Arafat declined to accept the offer, FEEL FREE TO ADD IT. I do not see why we should disregard the basic and primary aspects of the offer. And as for the Palestinian refs, many sources say they had all been willing to leave, but I am not writing that. I am writing each reason, that takes in both sides. Some left because of this, some because of that. The big deal is not the language it is in, but that the fact is included. I can even find more sources if you want. If, after the reason for their leaving, you wish to include that their reasons are controversial, fine; but I do not like to disregard actual essential parts of history. Thanks.

oh please, i can easily say your sources are POV, but unlike you, I do not remove sourced and relevant material. Human Rights Watch has been known to have a strong anti-Israel bias, once even criticizing Israel for a massacre that never took place! I am keeping it, because it is a source and deserves a spot on the timeline. I am convinced that it is you who keeps pushing POV every chance you get, not me. You try to add your own little justifications as well, so shove it. --Shamir1 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what you think you can "see". It doesnt change the fact that I think you are wrong and misunderstand what information should be included. I think you should delete the fact that al-Qaeda attacked Americans in the WTC and Pentagon, it may evoke some pro-American sympathy. --Shamir1 21:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is one little problem pertaining to POV. When it comes to Camp David, that sovereignty thing is definitely POV. Nothing even close to it is mentioned. Now while I am sure you can find something on the Internet that will say something like that, obviously it was not enough of a 'biggy' to be in the timeline, nor the opinion of whether it would be sovereignty or not, nor the opinions of others (majority blame Arafat, even Clayton Swisher blames both). Luckily, I think we are close to the final status of our edits. =) --Shamir1 03:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that user A student in history removes actual facts that are just written, arguing over POV. He removes major events that lead up to another major event. He argues a POV whenever he can just remove real facts that are very relevant. He has deleted material that was written on this timeline long before either of us had begun editing, claiming it is too pro-Israel. I am convinced it is A student in history who is trying to remove any slightest hint of Israel sympathy, to push his own POV. Everything I have kept on this timeline is very important, and Wikipedia devotes an entire main article on most of them. I hope this user can get over removing true, sourced, and relevant material and move on. Maybe this user should work on some contribution to the September 11, 2001 attacks article and remove that America's invasion of Afghanistan was a reaction to the attack. It probably evokes too much pro-U.S. sympathy. --Shamir1 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues with this timeline

My problem with this timeline, regardless of who created certain entries, whether it was shamir1 or not, is that many of these entries display a qualitative and quantitative bias in favour of pro-israeli POV's. The information here may be true and sourced, that is not the issue I raise. The point I'm making is that when facts are presented in such a way (facts as they may be) that they quantitatively and qualitatively promote one POV over others, this is not NPOV.

1) Systematic bias, quantitative and qualitative differences in use of facts:

a) Providing detail of Jewish deaths (which may be facts), evoking sympathy and compassion, while relegating Arab deaths to mere statistics. b) Cherry picking facts and events in such a way to make it appear that the Arabs are always the aggressors, and Israel always the one who "reacts". c) Providing casualty statistics for Israeli's for periods of time (which may be factual), while ignoring Arab deaths for that same period. d) Providing context for Israeli actions to provide reasoning for them (which may be facts), while refusing to do the same for Arab actions.

2) Minor and trivial events:

This should not be a place to list every suicide bombing or air strike. Those are not major or notable events. So for the period of the second intifada (for example) there is no need to make an entry for dozens of suicide bombings, or dozens of israeli air strikes that killed civilians. Unless an event had a "notable" impact on the conflict, it shouldn't be here.

3)

This timeline SHOULD NOT BE A BATTLEGROUND for arguments, contradictory statistics, pov's and so forth. That is what more specific articles are for, and where all the different POV's can be expressed, conflicting statistics presented and arguments made. But on this "TIMELINE OF NOTABLE EVENTS" it should only be stated that an event took place, (ie. Camp David Summit), because this is simply not the place to get into the details and arguments surrounding it, that would take up far too much space and make for a needlessly complex timeline.

Shamir1 and I have differing opinions on the conflict, which is understandable. I am seeking a neutral timeline, which hopefully, does not give portray either actor to be the one who acts or reacts, because that is a subject of debate.

A student of history 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Timeline conflict

I am seeking to create a fair and neutral article. I dont see why A student in history removes material that he acknowledges is true and then accuses me of POV. That is ridiculous. 1) Hadassah massacre has been shortened

2) The wave of infiltrations is very important, as it lead up to a particular event and the casualties of deaths are undoubtably essential

3) a. The Six-Day War is a very complex war, as any war, and I am not sure if the amount of troops Iraq sent is really necessary in the timeline b. Arguably, the people in the West Bank and Gaza could be considered Jordanians and Egyptians, respectively. Arabs would be a better more politically correct term. Point still comes across.

4) Operation Litani. The words "terrorist attacks" were used before our editing, taking them out would not only be POV but it would flush the definition of terrorism down the toilet. It very much annoys me when a user removes something that had been on Wikipedia so long before.

5) Operation Peace for Galilee - artillery attacks were launched by the PLO, it was also written before, do your research, read the article

6) Sabra and Shatila. I will keep that almost all were civilians.

7) Camp David 2000 Summit - come on! A student in history has been removing actual very important, noteworthy information that has been written here (again) long before I or him touched it. The original timeline said over 95% of the West Bank, and included the rest which I keep and I let him get away with his over 90%. He has also added his POV to make it sound like some sort of bad deal, although the majority (including many Palestinians) blame Arafat (which I do not include). Mr. student, please stop with this one, it's just really not fair.

8) Passover massacre shortened.

9) West Bank Wall put in. When I reverted the page it was not included last time, but it definitely should be.

10) These suicide bombings hit international headlines and many broke cease-fires. Each one of them has an impact on the government and people of Israel. I dont see why it would be "minor" when Wikipedia devotes an entire article to it, and world leaders make speeches specifically mentioning the attack.

11) 2000-2006. The source is baloney, and known for cracking up shit. It is from the people of wwww.whatreallyhappened.com. I am not saying that is your fault, just the site is illegitimate.

12) Operation Summer Rains. I agree that casualties should be listed but it can change everyday and probably should not be on the timeline until the operation/conflict has ended. Not a matter of POV, each death toll can rise (or even decline if they find that less had died, like in Houla).

13) I really do not believe that is a good link (ifamericans) for people (not because of POV) but I guess I will let it in.

--Shamir1 05:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

my stance

i have changed my stance when it comes to that site. I do believe the pro-Pal link should very well be included. --Shamir1 06:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Shamir1's points:

1) The details of the Hadassah massacre are unecessary. It is cherry picking to describe them in detail, and then ignore or refuse similar details for say Qibya or Kafr Kassem. For these events I simply listed the number of Arab deaths, and that's all. I don't see the need to give a play by play of Hadassah. The way it is now looks absolutely identical to the detail given to massacres of Arabs, that to me is neutral. It does not emphasize one over the other.

2) Yes, the wave of infiltrations is important. I agree that it should be included, however, I do not agree to listing only Israeli casualties. Arabs died too, including civilians living in the Sinai. Including only Israeli casualties is clearly cherry picking, that is not "fair" or "neutral" at all. So we either find casualty stats for both, including civilians, or we leave the statistics alone here. Fair enough?

3) It's fine with me if you want to call them "Arabs" instead of "Palestinians". Just FYI, if you read books such as Tom Segev's "One Palestine Complete", or Moshe Dayan's autobiography, you will find that the term "Palestinian" had been used to describe Arabs living in Palestine since before the British Mandate, but it doesn't matter. But with the details (ie. troop numbers) we should leave that for the main article.

4) I don't care who wrote it or how long it's been there. What does that matter? The point is, not all these violations were terrorist attacks. Many of them were attacks against the IDF, which ARGUABLY is not terrorism, it is a POV.

5) During the 11 months cease-fire preceding the war, there were no artillery attacks that you speak of. These preceded the cease-fire which came into effecct in 1981. During the cease-fire, along the Israeli-lebanon border, the PLO actually did refrain from such activity, do YOUR research.

6) Agreed.

7) See that's the point about this entry, inserting only the information you want makes it sound like a "good deal", which is a POV. The information I inserted does make it sound like a bad deal, which is another POV. Which is why I don't want to include any of these details and just leave them for the main page, because we can't cherry pick info here to support our views. You obviously think Camp David was a good deal for Arafat, I obviously disagree. So we should just leave our opinions out of it all together, and simply state that the summit took place, and Arafat rejected the proposal. Deal?

8) Agreed.

9) Thank you.

10) I know that some of these make international headlines, but so do Israeli strikes into Gaza and the WB. Does that mean I should include all of them? As I said, unless they have a significant or notable impact on the conflict, it shouldn't be here. Otherwise, you'll insert entries for 50 suicide bombings, and I'll insert entries to 50 Israeli air strikes and bombardments. And yet, it will all be relatively pointless and trivial information.

How about this: You put in something like 5-6 of the most notable suicide bombings, and I insert some of the more notable Israeli strikes? That way the timeline is still balanced, and readers get the impression. However, we keep the detail the same in both and neither of us write "in response to", because that is a POV. Is that acceptable?

11) Are you talking about www.ifamericansonlyknew.org? Yeah, well that site's not "baloney" but it is very biased, just as biased as www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org, (that's why I chose it) I would say that site is "baloney" too. The difference between the stats and numbers on those sites really shows how clearly biased they both are. If you use the "library" as a source, I get to use this one. Or we could agree to both use slightly more credible, fair sources. See, this is just our opposite opinions comming into play. But I'm not going to compare either of them to crackshit like "whatreallyhappened.com".

12) Good point, agreed.

13) I think, at the bottom under "external links", we should create two clearly seperate categories. One under a "pro-Israeli" heading, and another under a "pro-Palestinian" heading. It should be made clear at the outset which site adhere's to which POV. This way, we don't have to argue about excluding sites or not, because it is clearly established which opinion they favour to begin with... agreed?

A student of history 17:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Back

1) The siege was very important, no excuse to take it out 2) Hadassah massacre. It is short, just mentions they were not ordinary civilians, and mentions that road attacks did not end. 3) While it is debated how many Palestinians left for each reason, it is agreed that there were different reasons among them. 4) The infiltrations are vital, like you said. The Wikipedia article did not mention ANY Palestinian casualties, let alone civilians. It's a fact, it's not POV, it's important. 5) a. Six-Day War edited and ordered. b. I am not going to say Iraq sent a little, Egypt sent a lot, Syria sent a little, Yemen sent this much,... 6) Operation Entebbe edited. 7) So soldiers are not innocent? Who says an unprovoked attack on innocent people and soldiers is not terrorist. Wikipedia doesnt think so. They included this word here without any problem. 8) Peace for Galilee. Did my research. There were numerous attacks including artillery. "Israeli strikes and commando raids were unable to stem the growth of this PLO army. The situation in the Galilee became intolerable as the frequency of attacks forced thousands of residents to flee their homes or to spend large amounts of time in bomb shelters. Israel was not prepared to wait for more deadly attacks to be launched against its civilian population before acting against the terrorists.

The final provocation occurred in June 1982 when a Palestinian terrorist group led by Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israel's Ambassador to Great Britain, Shlomo Argov. The IDF subsequently attacked Lebanon again on June 4-5, 1982. The PLO responded with a massive artillery and mortar attack on the Israeli population of the Galilee. On June 6, the IDF moved into Lebanon to drive out the terrorists in "Operation Peace for Galilee."

Wikipedia also includes it in the first paragraph! No POV there.

9) I worded the Afula bombing this way because there have been suicide bombings against Israel before. It is really the same point but worded more correctly.

10) Camp David Summit. Despite the fact that YOU think it was a bad deal apparently, the majority do not. That is irrelevant anyway, because neither opinion is added to begin with. When it comes to this one, let it be how it has always been written before you. Simple/basic/principle parts of the agreement. You also cannot argue when it comes to the counter-offer. Let it be.

11) Wait, you think it is wrong to include what I include but okay to include Palestinian homes from anti-Israel sources? Amnesty International is biased, check the main article. We are not talking about damage to infrasture or how much it took to rebuild bombed cities, buildings,...

12) Unil disengagement. Many Bedouin were evacuated as they are largely pro-Israel. See Arad for some info.

13) I have no problem with the external links (sorry about the ifamericans site, I confused it with another of a similar name, it stands). First of all, Jewish Virtual Library is not baloney and is deemed very reliable, and pops up as the first or one of the first in a Google search for many different topics. Secondly, I am afraid we might run into some trouble by naming a site pro this or that. I thought it might be better to just write the name of the site, but the edits stand and I'll let it.

Thanks. --Shamir1 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

my edits

All my edits were fair. Here are some explanations for my additional edits.

1) The siege of Jerusalem was important, STOP.

2) Hadassah massacre. Shortened just to get the gist of who the civilians were, and what they were doing. It is short, don't complain.

3) Palestinian refugees. a. While it is debated how many left and for each cause, it is agreed that different Palestinians left for different reasons. I just don't see your reason for removing it. No stats are given for any of the reasons, nor opinions on other side. It is fair. b. The unfavoring book I am reading calls the people there in that time "Palestinian Arabs," so I will keep the word Palestinian. Do not exaggerate and say "millions". Besides the fact that it sounds like something you read on an advertisement, the population was not even 2 million, which would not account for the multiple of the word "millions". We are not counting all the ones there to say Israel assumed control of this many of them, because ALL of them in the WB and Gaza were now under Israeli rule. Also, you cannot say they come under "military occupation." They were all offered citizenship, and it would be just the same like saying Tel Aviv was under military occupation. It was just another part of Israel then. The book says this: "And so Israel...found itself governing Palestinian Arabs in [the West Bank and Gaza] whose allies were sworn enemies of the Jewish state." The word governing is much more neutral and correct.

4) Infiltrations existed only on the Palestinian side. The Wikipedia article (I will repeat) did not mention ANYTHING about any Palestinians killed because of it. It lead up to an action and should stay put.

5) Six-Day War. If Iraq sends a small force, I am not going to sit there and have written well Egypt sent a lot and Syria sent this much and Jordan blah blah blah. The point is the combined forces.

6) Operation Entebbe. I edited the last sentence, no biggy.

7) Are you that sick to disagree with even the fair and mighty Wikipedia to rename terrorist attacks as skirmishes? Ugh.

8) Added some short, interesting details of the impact of the Israel-Egypt peace.

9) I explained the artillery attacks on N Israel, on my previous comment, read that. Besides it was already on the timeline before my edit.

10) While some claim Israel was responsible somehow for Sabra and Shatila, it is established that no Israeli soldier was directly involved in fighting in the massacre. They were not present.

11) I explained my very minor Afula bombing edit earlier. More correct words.

12) In addition to my previous comment, it is terribly wrong of you to remove information that is true and principle and has lived on this timeline forever. You say you think it was a bad deal, well keep your POV aside. Besides the fact that most do not, it doesnt MATTER. Neither opinion is showed but the FACTS which has in short been written here deserve to stay.

13) When it comes to bombings, raids, attacks, let's put it this way. For a lot of them not only did it reach international headlines but world leaders took the time to mention (mostly condemn) the action. No president comes out to make a speech about a 'minor' incident. So here is how we will have it for this: If Wikipedia has the main article, we can add it, and you can add what you said.

14) Passover massacre. What is up with that? It is short. Just let it be.

15) Battle of Jenin. Added most were militants and kept civilian number. No argument.

16) Your adding of the demolition just yells hypocrite. It really does not belong. Find a stat that mentions the harm and damage done to Israeli cities.

17) Basically it, added Bedouin issue too. You can see on Arad, Israel.

--Shamir1 05:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Systematic problems with this page

First, this is not supposed to be a collection of random acts of violence. I noticed many, many suicide bombing incidents have been added here, which seems odd and inappropriate, considering the context. This is supposed to be merely a timeline noting important events in this conflict, such as wars, peace conferences, major policy decisions...... and so on. (Take a look at timelines on other pages or encyclopedia's, they list only MAJOR events, not trivial acts of violence) Not a history of suicide bombings. If we're going to list all these suicide bombings, should we justly list every Israeli air strike or bombardment? I think that in order to maintain a NPOV, we would have to, thus this "timeline" degenerates into a casualty list.

Events like the Lod airport massacre, ma'alot, munich and so forth should very well stay... but do we really need a list of every explosion during the intifada's? I suppose what bothers me the most is the fact that while Palestinian violence is emphasized here, Israeli violence is relegated and ignored. This so-called "timeline" is pathetic at best. No NPOV at all.

The bias here is unacceptable. Arab deaths are dealt with as figures and numbers and often completely ignored (see 1950-1954 Egyptian-Israeli border clashes), Jewish deaths get a whole write up. Israeli actions are put in proper context, Arab ones are not given that consideration, giving justification and background for Israeli actions, while making it appear as though Arab ones are mindless. "Facts" are cherry picked from pro-Israeli sources (which may be acceptable if we allowed "facts" from pro-Arab sources in alongside, but then again, turning this "timeline" into a battleground for arguments).

Just because something makes headlines doesn't mean it belongs here, some users (Shamir1) want to turn this page into a collection of every wrong done to Israel by an Arab.

One editor here feels that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are too "biased" to be used, but feels free to use www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org, claiming this is more "neutral".

The quality of this page is so far from acceptable.

A student of history 23:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all the Jewish Virtual Library has never been accused of any anti-Palestinian agenda. In fact, they are often one of the first sites to pop up when you Google a word or phrase related to this conflict. This can not be said of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, whose comments and resolutions have pinpointed Israel and have long ignored or have not paid much attention to the conflicts in Sudan, Rwanda, Chechnya, etc. But I did not say any of their comments are illegitimate. Also, the JVL site has only been used there for the page that has the quotations from Arab leaders who encouraged Arabs to flee, as well as from the Arabs who fled. It also is not the only source anyway, so I don't see any argument.

OF COURSE suicide bombings are part of the conflict. I already explained it, but in addition it is a setback to the peace process and leads up to controversial matters such as the West Bank Wall. Wikipedia devotes entire articles to them. MOST OF THEM HAVENT EVEN BEEN ADDED YET.

If you find a Wikipedia article on such Israeli air strike, be my guest, but when is the last time an air strike targeted civilians? Israel's strikes target militants (to use the neutral-sounding word) and terrorist strongholds. Unfortunately, civilians can be victims, but note when it comes militants trying to blur themselves in the midst of civilians--such as the strike where a van carrying rockets was driving through a population center of Gaza. Even Human Rights Watch has reported that Palestinian gunmen endanger the lives of Palestinian civilians.

Funny how you call a suicide bombing a "trivial act of violence" (which is very sad) when it reaches international headlines, world leaders take their time to condemn it, it often breaks brokered cease-fires, and also President Bush and others have attempted to change the actual phrase to homicide bombing.

A student in history says I am trying to add "everything wrong done to Israel by an Arab", so I guess we should delete the entire September 11 article. If you are getting the impression (like you said before) that Arabs act and Israel reacts, well good for you but that is not the intent at all; it just seems that you are figuring out a pattern. By the way, when was the last time you heard of a war where Israel's actions were the casus belli? 1947? No. 1948? No. 1967? No. 1973? No. 1982? No. 2006? No. I use fair and balanced language to explain each event, don't push it.

You say: "Arab ones are not given that consideration, giving justification and background for Israeli actions, while making it appear as though Arab ones are mindless." Um yeah, I told you if you find any "background" or "justification" feel free to add it. I'm not stopping you. Not my fault you couldn't find one. (By the way, there seems to be a reason nearly every Palestinian political party is designated a terrorist organization and meanwhile terrorist groups in Israel are banned and membership is illegal). Also, how "trivial" would Rachel Corrie or the conspired school bombing be to this conflict timeline? Hmm... I don't see you removing them (cough, POV, cough). (Also, when was the last time you saw a Palestinian group try to eradicate violence and pursue those who conspire against Israelis?)

There are not any facts that are "cherry-picked". Get over it, don't make excuses.

--Shamir1 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Shamir, you are displaying blatant POV, not assuming good faith of other editors, and you have not been very civil in the discussion that I have seen. Please try to treat this as a collaborative effort encompassing all points of view, and not just a personal essay with yours and yours alone included. You have no more power than any other editor, regardless of your personal views (in fact, one would think a person so vehemently passionate about these issues would recuse himself on general principle from articles dealing with them - I have, in fact, on articles with which I know I am biased). Please reconsider not only your obstinance, but your tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuviya (talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Shamir...

Your comments on this board, and your user page make it patently obvious that you have no sense of neutrality whatsoever on this issue. None whatsoever... You are so far to one side that you see neutrality as biased.

You want to create a timeline which portrays Israeli actions as always defensive, justified and retaliatory, because you believe this to be the "truth", well that is simply one POV, you just don't see this.

With regards to your "well sourced information" about the Palestinian exodus, you have very cleary worded the phrase to emphasize the voluntary fleeing theory and orders from the AHC (a widely discreditted theory I might add) over others, then you cherry pick sources to back up that POV.

If I wrote a bunch of information here all about an ethnic cleansing during the '48 war, and then cited some internet sources of a pro-pal leaning, wouldn't you consider it just gibbrish?

A student of history 03:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My user page is absolutely none of your business. It seems that you prejudge my edits just because of it. Let me remind you that I am an Iranian-American. Secondly, LOL ethnic cleansing my @#$! Is that a joke? Do you know what statistics are? Forget Israeli Arabs, have you seen how rapidly the Palestinians are increasing in Israel? What a joke.

It is absolutely NOT a widely discredited theory. Maybe it is has been discredited with Arab propaganda that has spread into the Western world, maybe. But some sources even say that is the only reason. Whether or not is irrelevant. The fact is the Arab leaders did, in fact, encourage them to leave for a "quick and easy victory." Period.

What do you think, that Israel is "occupying" these lands for fun? that they have nothing better to do but build up a wall for pure enjoyment? Yeah, ok. Israel has always fought a defensive war. A fact, not "one POV."

There are anti-Israel and anti-Semitic ideas and cartoons published and distributed everyday, especially in the Arab world. The Pope says something some Muslims don't like and they go on a worldwide rampage, including Palestinians attacking half a dozen churches in the West Bank and Gaza. Look at how each group handles it. That should say something about each character.

I greatly admire the Israelis for achieving statehood without violent means. Don't give any baloney of Palestinian "skirmishes" as a result of Israel's "occupation" or "oppression". I agree with Syrian Arab Wafa Sultan when she says, "The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people." Of course, Al Jazeera calls her a "heretic."

--Shamir1 01:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So-called "facts"...

1: It is not a fact that Jerusalem maintained a Jewish majority since 1870's, I've read conflicting accounts of this, all from credible texts and sources.

actually that IS a fact. pretty basic and not possible to dispute either. Amoruso 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

edit: can we agree on these figures provided here then? http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm, giving Jerusalem a Jewish majority in 1896? I'll enter this for now.A student of history

2: It is not a fact that the British were warned prior to the bombing of the King David Hotel in '46. I've read books supporting this view point, and I've read scholars who dismiss it, as you all know, the British maintain they were never warned. It's a "he said, she said" really, not a "fact".

this is an important fact to note. there's no doubt warnings were given. and btw, Begin didn't participate in the attack obviously. Amoruso 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is doubt, the British maintain to this day that absolutely no warnings were given. To claim on this timeline that the British "ignored warnings" is to push a single POV. Perhaps you aren't aware of the controversy, but the British maintain that they received no warning, that is a fact. Therefore, there is a conflict of claims and opinions. Don't push your POV here. And BTW, Begin was the Commander in Chief of the Irgun at this time, and oversaw the planning and implementation of the attack in tacit cooperation with the Haganah and Lehi, do your research.A student of history

3: Minor point, but one somebody keeps getting wrong, Israel was declared by Ben-Gurion on May 14th, not 7th.

the only important date is the hebrew one. Amoruso 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you want to change the dates for the rest of this timeline to the Hebrew calander too then? Don't be rediculous, leave the dates as they are, and as they are read by the rest of the world and wikipedians. Israel came into being on

May 14th, 1947. A student of history

not that it matters but both dates are relevant to this event. Amoruso 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

4: The wording of the Palestinian exodus event is unacceptable. The "orders from AHC" theory is marginal, discreditted and should not be presented in such a way as to emphasize it, or convey the notion that it was a major factor. Further more, I don't believe the reasons for the exodus are necessary on this timeline, otherwise it will become a battleground and the entry will be far longer than is appropriate for a timeline. If readers wish to learn more about it, and read about all the conflicting claims, they can read the main article. You are POV pushing, hard, leaving the arguments out is entirely neutral and you know it.

I agree, this section needs to be small and left for the article. this goes for some other events too. Amoruso 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed then, the claims about "why" refugees will be left for the main article.A student of history

5: About the Six-Days War. Firstly, it has been widely documented, exposed, and accepted that the Israeli housing ministry, Knesset members and Cabinet members (in particular Ariel Sharon) were very active in building the settlements and getting the project going. This is an established fact, no longer hidden, Ha'aretz had some extensive coverage of it last year. Secondly, as a result of the war, the Palestinians in Gaza and the WB came under occupation, this is also not in dispute, I can cite UN sources, US State-Department sources, ICJ rulings... anything you want. Disputing this is simply absurd.

6: It is a fact, that during the ceasefire before the '82 invasion of lebanon, the PLO refrained from cross-border activity between Lebanon and Israel. The attacks you speak of came in response to Israeli actions. The casus belli was the assasination attempt.

7: Camp David, the "offered 95% of WB"... is simply not factual. Second, it is cherry picking. If we add this "detail", then for the sake of balance I would want to include many other facets of those negotiations, such as the carving up of the WB by Israeli security zones and roads... But for the sake of neutrality, we should both avoid all these pitfalls.

this is the official proposal, also the U.S confirmed this. Amoruso 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Show me then, get a source. If you're going to add in some details that make this appear like a "good deal" (ie. one POV), then I will have to add in details you ignored which make it appear like a "bad deal" (another POV). The point is, you can't cherry pick info from this proposal for this timeline. This was a complex proposal, involving many aspects of the new Palestinian "State" such as resources, economy, borders, airspace, travel, settlements... You guys are simply cherry picking and you know it, leave these claims for the main article.A student of history

if this was your only problem then you should have revereted only this, but it was part of larger vandalism by your part. Amoruso 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

8: The beginnings of the Gaza-israeli "conflict" are disputed. Some say it began with the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, others say it began with the kidnapping of Osama and Mustafa Muamar. Again, we should leave these arguments for the main article, and not a timeline, which is not meant to be a battleground.

9: The very fact that some of you want to include these "conceptwizard.com" pages as references is absolute proof of your POV pushing. If we're going to include asinine links like this, then we should demarcate a "pro-Palestinian" section and a "pro-Israeli" section, so that people understand that these pages are simply not intended to be neutral, which they are not.

One last comment about this page. This is not, I repeat is not supposed to be, nor will I allow it to turn into, a list of terrorist attacks against Israel. I do not insert every airstrike or shelling of Gaza or the WB because these are not major events in this history of the conflict, even if they kill 10 or 20 civilians. I can think of a dozen such incidents off the top of my head, but I'm not going to write them up here, because they simply don't belong. Wars, peace conferences, major policy shifts, annexations, major massacres/attrocities perhaps (Munich, Qibya)... these are notable events that belong on a timeline, not petty incidents of violence on either side. Shamir, you need to understand that. You don't seem to get what is appropriate for a timeline and what is not, I suggest you check out Brittanica's timeline's.

Shamir, please respond to these points A student of history 05:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Major terrorist acts or infamous terrorist acts are important for the timeline. Do not blank them out. That's vandalism. On the contrary, more will be added. If you think there are major acts of Israel that should be noted, feel free to add them. Amoruso 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, MAJOR incidents are noteworthy, but things like "A Jewish woman and her infant son were killed by a Palestinian rocket" is not a MAJOR incident that belongs on a timeline of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You need to understand that this is not a list of suicide attacks against Israel, it is a timeline of major events. To reduce this to a list of every Arab or Israeli attack denegrates this timeline, we can't have that.A student of history 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts constitute vandalism. You are first putting wrong info like "first suicide bombing" and links that don't work etc. Secondly, you're deleting notable events like huge suicide attacks that have killed more than 20 israelis and had a major impact on the conflict - these are not small incidents but famous incidients which had impacts. Listing small incidents will make the list much bigger but it wasn't done, so your accusation is simply false. The events listed are the famous ones which influenced the conflict - many of these events are terror attacks - that's undeniable, whether you like that history or not, this is what it constitutes, and what WP:RS have also regarded as notable through the years. For example, the events of attacks before the Israeli elections being so important to note, the first time bombing went in Tel Aviv, the Samir Quntar of course is something that led to conflicts with Hizballah, the relevant Netanyahu period and so on - it's all noted events. You simply want to make it seem that there were hardly any notable suicide attacks but that's not true, so please cease blanking out, it's not being helpful.Amoruso 04:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you really want this timeline to turn into a competition to see which side can list more attacks, then you are taking this "timeline" in the wrong direction. It turns into a listing of petty murders, instead of a list of major events. The "timeline" will get so filled up with these things that people will have to sift through them all just to get to the actual major events. You'll notice I haven't added in Israeli strikes which killed many civilians through the second intifada and 1990's, because I just don't think they belong here. But I'll tell you what, if you want to even pretend to adhere to a NPOV, why don't you add some of them in yourself while you're adding all suicide bombing incidents.A student of history

You're adding sin to crime, and in addition to the vandalism, you have violated 3RR. You also didn't relate to anything what I said and massed reverted factual important events again. Amoruso 05:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A student in history, what is all this "this isn't a fact" "that isn't a fact" crap. Are you a fan of conspiracy theories? You tell me about promoting "widely discreditted theories" while you are reading Noam Chomsky's work. What a comedian. --Shamir1 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Shamir1, perhaps your knowledge of this conflict isn't as "advanced" as you'd like to think. Morris' as well as Childer's research has effectively shown that the "orders" theory from the AHC is highly unlikely (of course, in history, you can't really prove a negative). To paraphrase Morris: had this in fact been the case, had the AHC issued such orders, there would be a) evidence of it in the radio broadcasts that were monitored and documented, b) paper orders in Arab or Israeli archives, c) echoes of such orders in countless documents from the AHC during the war. However, none of this has ever been found. You can find a great many secondary sources claiming this (Bard, Peters...), but you will find no primary sources. But, there is plenty of room for this discussion in the main article for this event, but not on the timeline. Refugees were created, period. I'm not going to claim Walid Khalidi's "transfer" theory as "fact" on this timeline, because this is no place for POV pushing.

I don't have to defend Chomsky to you, I read him among a wide variety of authors, he's one of the most influential and respected intellectuals alive, if you don't agree with his politics, fine, it really doesn't matter. But with respect to some other points you dismissed, 1) it is not a fact that Jerusalem maintained a Jewish majority, that is disputed. Why don't you prove you point with cencus figures, if you do then I'll acknowledge it as a "fact", but I have read contradictory claims on this. 2) it is not a fact that the British were warned, as they continue to deny it. Again, if you want to claim it's a "fact", then get me the documentation to prove it, not some opinionated secondary source, we could both find plenty of those, get me something irrefutable and I will conceed. Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't, it really does boil down to a he said, she said.A student of history 04:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

1) Yes it is a fact, and it is written on other Wikipedia articles. 2) Yes it is a fact, again read Wikipedia. Whether you find this "highly unlikely" that they followed orders is irrelevant. I read a very pro-Palestinian site, actually let me rephrase, a Palestinian site that says, "Exile was supposed to be temporary, but with the political impasse that followed the ceasefire, a resolution to the Palestinian refugee problem was not forthcoming and to this day remains elusive." Hmmm.. even they don't deny it, even though they word it more subtly. Arab leaders insisted it would be a temporary move for them until the Israel is defeated. Also, there are Arab civilians who fled who admit it. Want those quotes too? You're in denial. And don't tell me about Noam Chomsky being so influential and goody goody. Louis Farrakhan is also influential, and guess what? Both of them promote "widely discredited theories." --Shamir1 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Again A student of history, if you want to argue these parts then those will be argued, but don't blank out any events like you did. Amoruso 05:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I will delete matter from this article which is not appropriate. In other words, incidents of MAJOR suicide bombings (because minor/trivial matters don't belong here) are fine. But statements like "A Jewish woman and her son were killed by a rocket" are trivial/minor matters, and don't belong here. This isn't a place for you to list every suicide attack, though I'm sure you'll try. If something is not a major or notable incident that had a significant impact on this conflict, then it does not belong here, if something of that nature appears, I will delete it, because it simply is irrelevent. And you can assure yourself that if someone else wrote up "Two Palestinian children killed by Israeli rocket attack in Gaza", I would delete that too, because it's trivial. Stick to what's pertinent and relevant and we'll have no problems. A student of history

You have deleted the major suicide attacks yet you keep claiming that lie. Also I'm waiting on your self revert. Amoruso 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is because of people like you, who, day after day push their own petty POV's that wikipedia lacks credibility. You have absolutely no interest in ensuring your information is reliable, balanced or sourced, you just want it to reflect your own POV because you see this as the "truth" of the conflict. But I will give you one thing, I will not take out information regarding MAJOR terrorist attacks again. But you have opened the door to ruin for this "timeline", it is now free to become a collection of violence, instead of a proper and legitimate timeline. A student of history

I think you will find it is you who is violating NPOV and all other wikipedia conventions by your blanking of material. You are trying to whitewash the non pleasent events of the timeline and that's wrong. Your further allegations are non factual. Btw, major events are not necessarily the ones with large number of deaths. For instance, the first deaths by qassam rockets if listed is important to note. Amoruso 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete any of your worthless entries for suicide bombings this time, and I won't again. However, you will come to see what I mean when this timeline becomes flooded with petty acts of violence. Anyways, if you're going to change any of my edits that I recently made, get sources for your changes, because I have removed no facts, I have changed the POV's here, that is all. Give sources for you so-called facts. A student of history 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Worthless edits ? I'm hurt. :( Your recent edits while some totally pov and false are an improvement, seeing your previous edits were pure vandalism. Cheers friend.Amoruso 17:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm sick of your ranting. If you have an issue with something I've written, provide a credible, preferably primary source, that contradicts it. I can source absolutely everything I've editted. A student of history

You should stay cool. Amoruso 17:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start over here on the left again... But as I said, if you want to claim my edits are falso, then get a primary or credible source to back it up. But you should be aware of your own bias. A student of history

Ditto. Very ditto. --Shamir1 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Shamir, Amoruso... it's this simple. If you claim something is a "fact", ie. warnings of bombs in the King David Hotel incident, or the AHC orders to flee, then get credible, preferably primary sources to prove it. A student of history

As I said, all of your revisions, adding in completely unsourced POV's is unacceptable. If you claim something is a "fact", get a primary source, or a non-partisan credible one. You've not done that, so I'm removing these POV's. It's not vandalism, it's enforcing the NPOV policy. It's just this simple, if you claim it's a "fact", you should have no problem getting a good source for it. **note, Mitchell Bard is not a reliable, credible, objective source anymore than, say, Norman Finkelstein is. Secondary sources which offer OPINION is not a verifiable "fact", unless they cite primary material. So stop putting in meaningly POV's. If you can get a primary source for it, fine, otherwise, it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Do you understand how this works now? I'll source anything you want me to, I would only expect that serious students of history should want reliable sources to be used. I don't know about you, but I'm big on getting good, primary sources. If you want me to get a source for something I consider to be a "fact", I will do so. But I expect the same consideration from you. Afterall, this is "supposed" to be an encyclopedia "facts", not opinions or points of view.

ex. The West Bank is in fact, occupied territory. This is a fact, because the US State Department, Israeli Supreme Court, Israeli Prime Ministers, UN, ICJ, every encyclopedia out there... and others, have asserted it to be so. You might be of the opinion that it is "disputed" territory, but in fact, according to any and all political and legal bodies that matter, it is occupied. That is a fact. A student of history 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits

1) Who says Lehi attacked Arab civilians?

Ever? Or in General? Documents from the British mandate period, or documented quotations from people like Yitzach (sp?) Shamir, Je'ev Jabotinsky... Or books like "Righteous Victims", "Gun and the Olive Branch". Primary sources, from the British mandate are the best.74.106.199.125

I havent found any records indicating Lehi attacked Arab civilians anywhere until Deir Yassin, which is stated.

Palestine Post July 26, 1938 - Revisionist Zionists plant a bomb in a Arab market, which kills 53 Arabs and one Jew, civilians. You can also read about an incident that took place on the 5th of July, 1938, in which Jewish bombs killed 18 Arabs in this same market in the Palestine Post, Davar or Ha'aretz, if you do a little research. Benny Morris also shows this in his "Righteous Victims", David Hirst in "The Gun and the Olive Branch". Look Shamir, I don't know if you just haven't done the research or if you've restricted your reading to Joan Peters, Mitchell Bard and Alan Dershowitz... but the fringe extremist Zionists in the late 1930's and 40's (like the Lehi, Irgun and followers of Je'ev Jabotinsky) did conduct terrorist activities against the British and Arabs. If you consider yourself to have 'quite advanced" knowledge of this conflict, I would have assumed you knew this. Yes there was Arab terrorism against Jewish civilians back then, but if you do some reading, you will find that there was Jewish terrorism against the Arabs at this time too. I've given you primary and secondary sources... it's a fact. A student of history

2) King David Hotel - "A young woman telephoned the British with a warning to leave the building. The British paid no attention."

Source? Secondary or Primary? I've read a couple books on this particular incident, one arguing they did, in fact, make the call. Thurston Clark I think. But he had no primary, documentary evidence, and he pointed out in his argument that the British maintain, to this day, that they never received a call. No primary documentation (at best, contradictory testimony) = no "fact" about the matter. Only conflicting reports. A student of history

3) Deir Yassin - Hazam Nusseibi, who worked for the Palestine Broadcasting Service in 1948, admitted being told by Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate the atrocity claims. Abu Mahmud, a Deir Yassin resident in 1948 told Khalidi "there was no rape," but Khalidi replied, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews." Nusseibeh told the BBC 50 years later, "This was our biggest mistake. We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror."[14]

Yes. But, hold on a second. Deir Yassin was used by propoganda by both sides. Some of the Arab leaders used it as an attempt to inflame the Arabs, to invigorate them and make them angry. The easier to recruit people if they are pissed at the enemy right? But, it did have the opposite effect, causing panic and further fleeing ahead of Israeli troops. (The Palmach and Haganah used a similar tactic, telling the Arabs to flee or be massacred like at Deir Yassin). But, the Arab leaders were attempting to get them to stay put and fight. But, speaking of primary sources, can you provide a transcript of one of these supposed radio orders? Or, paper documentation speaking about the orders, operation? Without primary evidence, nothing is factual, it's argument or opinion.74.106.199.125

Sure, I'll give it to you.

4) Arab-Israeli War - not even going to get into it. its well-known, admitted by Arabs, and on wikipedia.

which war?74.106.199.125

1948

5) Israel never had an official settlement "program". The fact that some settled or resettled in land now part of Israel is written.

Ha'aretz had a big story on this about 15 months ago. Investigations turned out that Knesset memebers, Sharon, government subsidies, payments and planning, did go into the settlement developement. Just recently the ministry of housing gave authorization for 690 new housing units in the West Bank. I'll get the reports and documented quotations for you, it's only fair I provide decent evidence, before I edit it again though. 74.106.199.125 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I believe you. I'm sure many of them encouraged them to do so. That doesn't make it an official program. This statement is more correct.

It wasn't a matter of 'encouraging', the Israeli government was directly involved in building the settlements, financing them, protecting them, transporting the settlers... to say that "Israelis settle there", implies that the government had nothing to do with it, which is patently false. It is a fact that the government was pulling the strings, this needs to be there. A student of history

6) Palestinian Arabs had been "occupied", it infers that they werent beforehand besides the fact that it is disputed whether they are occupied today. Unlike Egypt, social insurance was available under Israeli rule. Besides it would be WP:POINT.

Palestinians were given Jordanian citizenship, representation, municipal level funding... in short, democratic representation in government. And there was no functioning Palestinian polity at the time, sufficiently supported or organized enough, to claim to be representative of the Palestinian people, not internationally or diplomatically at least. But legally, I believe, the territory was a part of Jordan, annexed no? But you could say they were occupied, it doesn't really matter. According to any political and legal bodies that matter, including the US government, the Israeli government, UN, ICJ and so on, they are occupied. 74.106.199.125 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) - "A student of history", posting from another computer.

There are heavy conflicting arguments. Yes, Jordan annexed the West Bank but did not allow self-determination. (They would later expel the PLO and kill 3,000-5,000 Palestinians in 10 days.) That doesnt change the fact it is WP:POINT.

see below. A student of history

7) Peace for Galilee - true statement. It was an attack on civilians and a concern.

What is not true is that the artillery attacks accross the Lebanon border preceded Israeli strikes. During the previous 11 months, there were simply no such attacks accross the Leb-Israeli border. Look, Bard here (because you will listen to him)(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf11.html) has a PLO document showing they shelled Israel on July 1981, but he does not show or even claim, that this shelling continued during the cease-fire from July 1981 - June 1982. Your edit makes it appear as though the PLO shelling accross the Leb-Israeli border during the ceasefire, and prior to the Israeli strikes, which is simply false. A student of history

8) Qana is not even close to notable in this conflict

106 civilians dead, 116 wounded isn't "notable"? But "On October 12, a Jewish mother and her two children are killed by Jordanian infiltrators" is?? Come on. Don't be absurd. A student of history

Uh yeah. One is directly involved with this conflict, the other isn't. Don't be absurd. --Shamir1 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the dead at Qana were Palestinian, they were not all Lebanese. Secondly, the comment I mentioned above simply doesn't belong on a timeline, why? Because it's so trivial. A student of history

It wasn't an attack on Palestinians, and also then why don't you add the Damour massacre? --Shamir1 00:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

9) Camp David - stop. It is true, true, true, true, true. Stop with the conspiracies made up later on.

1) The details of this proposal are numerous and relatively complicated. You can't cherry pick the ones you want and leave out the rest. What is a fact, is that Israel would retain control over the airspace, water, "external security" (ie. borders), settlements... which means that the new Palestinian "state" would have been de facto, not sovereign. But I'm not going to put this here, because there is not the room on this timeline for argument.

2) If that's a "fact", then get a reliable source.

Still waiting for you to get me sources here Shamir. A student of history

10) West Bank Wall - written fine, stat there, nothing wrong.

No Shamir, there is no source for that stat. "Terrorist attacks drop by 90%", says who? Where did you get that from? This isn't a POV issue, I just think that if we are going to write stats like this, we ought to have sources for them. Now where did you get that stat? A student of history

Many sources. 2 for instance: [1][2]

Good enough. In areas where the fence has been completed, attacks drop by 90%. A student of history

11) 3,723 Palestinians and 1009 . These are the numbers I see. In addition I have sources going in to depth about how many civilians, whose responsibility, and who endangered who but I am sure you dont want me to add it.

I have sources dealing with the details of these stats too, many of them. I saw the "source" you tried to put in a while back btw, you won't find a single human rights organization or IGO that supports those "stats". Lets stick to mainstream human rights organizations, government and UN reports for this one. And if you actually the Bt'Selem page and do the math, my addition is correct. You need to read that chart, understand that the "3733" (updated) figure is not a total figure. And the Israeli deaths total 1011, not 1009, just do the math. A student of history

More than you think and I don't care about those organizations.

Just read the Bt'Selem chart, and do the addition yourself, I'm not going to argue arithmatic with you. But, when we're counting dead and so forth, mainstream human rights organizations, government reports, Red Cross and UN reports are the sources to use. They are the most widely recognized as credible in the international and scholarly community. It doesn't matter what you think, these are what is accepted, therefore this is what we'll use. A student of history

12) You can't say this many Palestinian homes were demolished when you dont mention, a) the amount that were built illegally, b) the amount illegally storing arms/rockets/weapons, c) the amount providing cover for terrorists, d) the amount abandoned, e) without any mention of the cost or amount of damage on Israeli infrasture.

That's absurd, I'm stating a fact "x" many homes were demolished. But, we can work something out regarding certain arguments. I know the IDF usually has a "security" excuse, not always, but we can work something out here. There are many reasons why the demolish homes, 1) lack of permit (even if it's impossible to get one), 2) home of a terrorist (whether he lives there or not, regardless of his family ie. collective punishment), 3) to build settlements, 4) to build the wall, 5) excercise collective punishment for an attack, 6) no valid security concern at all... Look, I'm open to discussion about anything, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A SOURCE. I can get dozens from human rights organizations and the UN which state that in many, even the majority of cases, destroying these homes served absolutely no valid security purpose. Get back to me on this issue when you've got a good source, then we'll talk. A student of history

You're not getting it. It infers that Israelis are living freely in their homes and around while they are out demolishing poor little homes for fun. That's misleading. We put Israeli casualties and then Palestinian. Thats how it is, that's fair. --Shamir1 05:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not infering anything, it's stating a fact that 'x' many Palestinian homes are demolished. As you keep saying to me, if you want to find a stat for Israeli homes, be my guest. The demolitin of homes is an important aspect of this conflict, and you can't keep it out of this timeline because you think it reflects poorly on Israel. A student of history

13) Gaza beach blast - Read the sources. Even Human rights watch took back their stance. the fact that someone says an investigation (there were numerous ones) was "whitewash" does not change the fact it was not their responsibility. its like finding a site that would say water isnt that good for you, im sure its out there.

I had not read the recent HRW story, thank you. So then we'll settle on the report that it was not an Israeli shell, and was (apparently, according the Jpost story) an unexploded Israeli ordinance?

13) Um excuse me, I added the Gaza counter-offensive, I read the article, i saw the news. that removing is pure POV.

14) Operation Summer Rains - that was already written on wikipedia. the op didnt come out of nowhere, we have to say what instigated it.

We should, but did the 2006 Gaza-Israeli "conflict" start with the abduction of Gilad Shalit, or those two Palestinian brothers earlier? They're both POV's.

No, actually. Shalit's kidnapping sparked the operation. That's objective. The Palestinian brothers part is a matter of POV and dispute.

So what "sparked" Shalit's kidnapping? A student of history

15) "Others blame the constant and indefinite Israeli closures of key border crossings, such as those at Karni and Rafah, preventing produce from being exported, and preventing emergency aid from getting to the Palestinians." Not true. They have jurisdiction and full control of their border with Egypt, where Rafah is.

see below.

16) Why would you delete "Israeli aid". I'm hoping that was a mistake, otherwise you're an idiot. read every news site out there. in fact, theyve spent more money on aid than arab states. --Shamir1 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Have they? I'm unaware of this, source it for me and I'll acknowledge that I simply didn't know this. But if you're referring to the 55$ million per/month that is currently being witheld, this is not "aid". It is customs taxes that Israel collects "on behalf" of the PA, in other words, it is Palestinian money that Israel collects for them as stipulated under Oslo. It is not "aid", it is Palestinian money that Israel is keeping right now. But if you're talking about something else, then just gimme something to read about it, thanks. A student of history

Uh yeah, they have. I'm surprised in you. [3]

Did you even read that story? It doesn't say anything about Israeli "aid" to the Palestinians. Try again... A student of history

PS - This just in the paper! Calling Norman Finkelstein "notorious" and saying, "Dr. Norman Finkelstein, whose work has been condemned by the scholarly community as 'the hate campaign of a zealot,' for its 'indifference to historical facts' ... Unable to get tenure at universities, Finkelstein has also been rejected by the Princeton faculty, where he trained for his Ph.D. Finkelstein's mentor, Noam Chomsky, remarked that he 'literally could not get the faculty to read his thesis or to come to his thesis's defense [and] they will not even write a letter for him saying that he was student.'" Doesn't sound too reliable to me.

I only have time to comment on this one issue briefly. I don't consider Norman Finkelstein "reliable" either. His books (which I have read) are as unbalanced, and selective and one sided as any I've ever read. He is a hardliner, not "reliable" from a NPOV. He comes under so much criticism from his "Holocaust Industry", more than anything on the Arab-Israeli issue. I've also read Bard, and he's dichotomous with Finkelstein. They both analyze, essentially, the same set of facts and historical events, and they come to polar opposite conclusions. Which is why simply quoting from them is meaningless, from a NPOV standpoint. Unless they cite a primary source, and we can get those primary sources, then it is merely an OPINION of theirs, not a "fact. Just because someone (both of them) has a Ph.D is a logical fallacy, I think it's 'appeal to authority' or something...

Bard's work is sourced by every word. His analysis of events is excellent. He uses multiple resources to come to a conclusion. He is a prominent historian while Finkelstein is a "notorious" douche bag. Unfortunately, we have many of them and the world who still each a level of fame or popularity.

Anyways, I think all this edit warring is pointless. If we can agree that in order to admit something to this timeline as a "fact", we have to be able to come up with a primary source to prove it; this is, afterall, is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia', ie. facts and events, not arguments and quarrels. I think that would solve a lot of our problems if we agree to put in a little more work on sourcing. As history students (you are too Shamir1 aren't you?) we should both strive to do a little more actual research here, than simply argue.

I won't make any more edits, at all, until we get to some sort of agreement here on the framework of our editting

I will remind you, my edits have been fair, balanced, and true. (I, in fact, added Israeli strikes). Also, the Rafah crossing is with Gaza and Egypt and it has been closed/monitored/whatever by the European Union for illegal smuggling, possible weapons transfers and uninhibited return of exiled extremist leaders and terrorists. Not my words by the way. As I said before, I am happy to read your comments. --Shamir1 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Shamir, you still just don't get it. You cannot claim something is a "fact" unless you have proof that it is so. Proof, is not the OPINION of a scholar, because opinions vary, even (almost always) among respected scholars. If you want to admit something to this timeline as a "fact", then come up with a primary source, or a secondary source that we can both agree to. But so long as you keep on sticking back in your claims, either entirely unsourced, or simply using opinionated secondary, or tiertiery sources, they are not facts, they are merely opinions.

It's this simple, if you claim it's a "fact", then prove it. The whole source of our problems is that you and I claim things are "facts" that the other says are not. So we can solve 90% of our disputes by getting reliable sources. That means either a primary source, or a secondary source that we can both live with. Don't put back in your claims unless you can prove them. And please remember, for every "fact" of Bard's, I can get a "fact" of Chomsky's or Said's. These men are all world renowned scholars teaching at Ivy League schools (until Said's unfortunate death), and so no ad hominem attacks against them here will serve any constructive purpose. But quoting from any of them remains opinion, not "fact". Facts are primary sources and so forth, not scholarly opinion. Ok?

A student of history 06:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it. That's all I have to say. I have sourced material from BBC smashing the Deir Yassin rape myth, and then you add it again. That's not a dispute, that's idiotic. --Shamir1 04:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't added anything about rapes at Deir Yassin, what are you talking about? Look, its this simple, if you say something is a "fact", this is an encyclopedia, and you need to be able to prove it. Don't add anymore of your claims unless you have a reliable source to back it up. I don't know who you're used to dealing with, but you don't seem to be a person in the habit of sourcing your claims. Well this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and you are going to have to do better than that. So once again, I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to a child, if you say something is a "fact", then you need to get a source for it. End of discussion. A student of history 15:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I will use two examples here of what I am talking about.

1) "Occupied" vs. "Dispute" territory. You may be of the opinion that they are not "occupied", certain legal scholars may be of the opinion that they are no "occupied", but you, and they, don't matter. According to the UN security council, UN general assembly, US government, Israeli government, International Court of Justice and Israeli supreme court, they are "occupied" territories, not "disputed". Ipso facto, they are "occupied". You may have a different interpretation, some prof. somewhere may have a different interpretation, but that doesn't matter. According to any and all relevent legal and political bodies, they are, in fact, occupied. So that is a fact. Just like Hezbollah is a terrorist organization is a fact. Why? Because you go to any political or legal body that matters, (ie. all of the above mentioned) and they state, as a fact, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. It might be the "opinion" of some Lebanese legal scholar that they are not, but his opinion doesn't matter. Do you understand? This is a fact. If you insist, which you have every right to do, I will get a source from every one of the organizations I mentioned above testifying to the fact that they consider the territories occupied.

If you want to remain neutral, "disputed" is the way to go, even Wikipedia does not normally write occupied. Then we would have to answer, occupying whose territory? Egypt? They never annexed the Strip. Jordan? They eventually relinquish their claim. Israel is the only state with claims to it. --Shamir1 04:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Egypt and Jordan did relinquish you're right. But every organization in the world INCLUDING THE STATE OF ISRAEL considers it occupied, therefore, it's occupied. Until '67, Gaza was under Israeli administration and WB annexed. Israel never annexed these territories after, they occupied them. In the case of the WB, which was Jordanian territory, the occupation status is clear. In Gaza, because Egypt never formally annexed it, it's less clear who's territory it is legally, what is clear though, is that Israel has no legal claim to it, other than that of an occupying power. Now that Egypt and Jordan have withdrawn claims, all IGO's and governments (INCLUDING THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT) recognize the status as "occupied". It is Palestinian territory now, occupied by Israel. It's a fact, and I will add it as a fact, and I will get half a dozen sources from the US, Israel, UN and ICJ to verify it. A student of history

The WB was never Jordanian territory, it was illegaly annexed by Jordan, and the annexation was not internationally recognized. It is not now Palestinian territory, so its exact legal status is disputed. It is not a FACT, no matter how many times you repeat it. Isarig 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is not a fact because I say so, it is a fact because the US government, Israeli supreme court, International Court of Justice, United Nations General assembly and Security council say it is. I have there 5 or 6 sources from these organizations testifying to the fact that it is occupied territory. This is not my opinion, and it's not a matter of repeating myself, the sources I've attached are authoritative, these are the organizations that determine things like this; you'll notice I didn't use something like 'www.freepalestine.org'. Let me ask you something... why is Hezbollah a "terrorist" organization? How would one go about proving that? Well, you'd go to the UN, or ICJ or US State Department and get a list of terrorist organizations, and on that list, you'd find Hezbollah. It wouldn't matter of some Lebanese legal scholar disputed that, his opinion would be irrelevent. This makes it a fact does it not? So, if we are to determine "is the territory in question occupied?" we go to these same sources, and they all say "yes"; ipso facto, occupied. A student of history 17:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

2) Rafah crossing is still de facto controlled by Israel. Although on-the-ground soldiers are PA and Egyptian instead of Israeli, Israel retains sovereign (ie. final word) control over it. They have excercised this control recently. EU "observers" do not decide when it closes, they are observers, they have no absolute authority. The links I provided don't discuss the Karni crossing, because we both know that Israel closes this key crossing almost all day, every day, there are hundreds of reports and stories I could get for this one if you want to talk about Israeli closures destrying Gaza's economy. This is one of the most widely cited reasons by commentators and analysts for the collapse of Gaza's economy. (if you want, I'll get sources for that too) These are facts Shamir... do you know why? Because I have reliable, credible sources.

Rafah crossing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5370266.stm http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/765848.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4780259.stm http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/

Now, if you want to start getting sources for your claims, be my guest. But don't expect me to allow you to write in your opinion on this timeline, trying to pass it off as fact.

BTW, I've been looking for stats regarding Israeli/Palestinian/Egyptian casualties during the border wars in the early 50s. I'm having trouble finding reliable numbers, and as such, I kind of want to know where you got your numbers. So could you source those for me? Thanks.

A student of history 06:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My name is not Shamir, so don't call me that. Secondly I have hundrends of reports and stories about the security reasons for which Israel and the EU have closed them, pretty serious stuff. The numbers, by the way, are on Wikipedia. --Shamir1 04:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they always cite security concerns, we can add this. Never the less, all my points stand, you didn't argue them at all.

You said above that you greatly admire the Jews for achieving statehood without resorting to violent means, this troubles me. If you were really as well read on the subject as you claim, then you would be well aware of the revisionists and extremist tactics in the late 30's and 40's. There was a lot of blood shed between the Jews, Arabs and British during this time. Bombs were planted in markets, grenades were lobbed into crowds, gunmen opened fire on civilians, people were beaten, stabbed, raped, mobs were a plenty... you can read all about these incidents in a variety of secondary sources. But, as I've been saying, primary ones are best. The Palestine Post (discontinued after 1950) has an online archive that you can search actually. This paper documents much of the violence throughout the period, and is used as a reference by scholars a lot. In short, if you really believe the Jews didn't resort to "violent means", then you are very ill-informed. And it's not my job to spoon-feed you information and research that you ought to have done yourself before proclaiming your knowledge to be "quite advanced". A student of history

Actually, sounds like you are ill-informed and pigheaded. Listen smart one, the League of Nations appointed the British full rule of the area and they declared it to be "a national home for the Jewish people". They got that declaration without violent means, let me rephrase, they got LESS than that without violent means. Dont be a smart a$$ about these "smirmishes", they achieved independence not as the attackers, but as the attackees, the way they have been throughout history and continue to be. It's that simple. --Shamir1 04:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, your ability to completely ignore what I say continues to astound me. It's becomming more and more apparent to me that you've never actually done a serious reading or research on this, I'll bet you've read a bunch of "Best Sellers" though... But all my points above stand again. Do some research and read some of the literature published about this period. The violent Zionist groups used violence to force the British, and then the Arabs out. A student of history

I don't know how many times I can say this. But you think that you can add whatever you want, claiming it's a fact, without having to source it. Do you think we should all just take your word for things? Is that how academia works? Is that how scholars work? NO! If you say something's a "fact", then you need to be able to prove it using a credible, reliable source. This is not a blog, this is an encyclopedia, facts and sources are all that matter here, not your opinions. Preferably a primary source, but in some cases this is unrealistic, so mutually agreed upon secondary sources will have to do. Now get to work.

P.S. since you think this timeline is a place to list every attack against civilians you can think of, I'm going to start adding Irgun/Lehi/IDF attacks against Palestinians all over the place. It seems only fair to me, considering there are dozens of Arab attacks recorded on this timeline. You see, I didn't want this timeline to turn into such a junkpile, but you've insisted. A student of history 15:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of things I don't do. That's all I have to say. And don't argue with the fact of achieving statehood defensively. The Irgun and Lehi have been dismantled, and today there is not even 1 terrorist organization operating in Israel.

More edits

1) 1948 War. Get over it. It's written VERY fairly and clearly documented.

2) 1953. I don't see your reasons for deleting, AT ALL.

3) 1956 Suez. Ditto.

4) No official "program", dont you get that? Nothing was official. Yes they supported it, contributed to it, but it was not an official program.

5) It says Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza, adding the rest is beyond WP:POINT, especially for a timeline. Its like saying: Louis bought the strawberry field. Now Louis owns the strawberries.

6) Camp David. That's so annoying. A fact is a fact is a fact. Don't give me this "it's not a matter of facts" rubbish. This was written before you or I got to it. Leave it alone.

7) Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis subsequently drops by 90%. - I gave you 2 sources already.

8) a. Numbers of victims. This is something I added and I'm getting close to just pulling it out. Adding "although the victims are overwhelmingly civilian on both sides" is controversial and is in our best interest to leave it out.

b. I already explained this to you. That line is about casualties, not houses. I am not going to repeat myself you can read it over again. And yes, a permit is possible, in fact, the city of Jerusalem provides Arab residents with free professional advice to assist with the house permit process and structural regulations, a service Jewish residents have to pay for. If you want to write x many houses were demolished as they were illegally built, storing arms or weapons, providing cover for terrorists, launching bombings, families of martyrs (who are then financially supported by Palestinian organizations), blah blah, then state the damage done to public and private Israeli homes and infrasture, then thats something to talk about. But something just like that, no.

9) a. The greenhouses is not at all a serious or impactful issue and has nothing to do with the desecration, nor with the approval of the PA. Would you like to add the desecration and vandalism of Jewish Jerusalem and the animal pen built on a Jewish holy site while in Arab hands?

b. Israel removed the Bedouins as the Palestinians are hostile towards them and see them as collaborators with Israel. There is some talk of it in Arad.

10) Israel launches a counter-offensive to deprive cover to militants firing rockets into Israel from Gaza. 23 Palestinians killed, at least 16 are identified militants, 76 wounded. COME ON. It states their intent and their reason. Such POV, what a hypocrite.

11) 59% of Palestinians. - Read the survey.

12) This writing on who to blame is such hypocritical POV nonsense. What does this timeline give about 160,000 civil servants? The previous edit is much more accurate and neutral. I read a pal site that was solely critical of the EU in the matter of Rafah. Also, read the general PLO article.

13) Your notes can stay.

--Shamir1 23:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS The Deir Yassin thing has been debunked by BBC. Morris may have relied on sources given to him, however this is the factual evidence.

Here's a list of the issues that we keep reverting back and forth

I'll make the most comprehensive list I can here by comparing the versions of our revisions; I'll try to make this as easy to read as possible, and explain why I find your edits unacceptable. Now Shamir, I have used a reliable source for everyone of my points here in the timeline, they are found in the version of the timeline I last editted.

1) 1936 - 1949, the Lehi and Irgun actually started attacking the Arabs and British in '36, you can read about these incidents in the Palestine Post. For the incidents that I wish to add to this timeline (those being the ones where at least 10 Arabs were killed) I have, and will continue, to provide a source to the original publication. And if we're going to have entries for dozens of suicide bombings and Arab attacks, it only seems fair to me that we include the incidents of Jewish extremist terrorism against the Arabs in the late 30's and 40's.

2) 1946 King David Hotel: I provided a link to the original newspaper story where the Irgun claimed they warned, and the British denied it. To this day, neither organization has changed their story. It's he said, she said, we should have both arguments there. But neither is a "fact", because it cannot be proven, contradictory testimony is all there is.

Forget it, take both out.

3) 1948 Deir Yassin: You have entered details for massacres perpetrated by Arabs, you have described the ages of victims, occupations, gender, and some background description of what they were doing. With Deir Yassin I'm only seeking to add some of that, that it's a fact that some prisoners were humiliatingly paraded around Jewish neighbourhoods afterward. If you insist on a certain level of detail for Arab atrocities, you have to give me this. And the Jewish Agency did describe it as 'barbarous', I have the original quote from the Palestine Post.

This is not a report of what newspapers call the situation. I don't describe ages, occupation, gender, or background. I usually just copy/paste what I find, with miny alterations.

The Palestine Post recorded a statement by the Jewish Agency on the matter, it's in. A student of history

4) 1948 Hadassah massacre - I just want it to be made clear that it wasn't a quick ambush event. There was a battle here that lasted for 7 hours, Hagannah troops intervened to try and fend off the Arabs with mortars and artillery and such. If you insist on giving all that background detail for Deir Yassin, implying that it was absolutely necessary to attack the village to save Jerusalem, then let this go.

I don't believe any Arabs died...so I dont see the relevance.

One Arab died, if you read the sources I posted, that's not the point. The point is, that it became a 7 hour battle. It was a massacre, no doubt, but you can't leave this out. It's in, it's a fact, it's not "biased" either way, it's in. You aren't giving a justifiable reason for keeping it out. A student of history

5) It's worth noting that the inhabitants of Ramla and Lydda were expelled, since it was the largest single expulsion of the war. This is probably one of the more important events on the timeline. I got this entry from the 'Palestinian exodus' page, but if you insist, I will get a better source. Don't hesitate to ask, I'm not holier than thou. But when I come back with one, the entry stays, it's a major, major event.

It already says many were expelled. Period.

This is a major event in the history of the conflict, there is no reason for keeping it out. It is a fact, it is sourced, it is a very significant event, it's in. You want it out because you want to push your "volunatry exodus" POV. Give a single reason why this major event shouldn't be in. A student of history

6) 1953 - "On October 12, a Jewish mother and her two children are killed by Jordanian infiltrators."... Come on... does this really belong on a timeline? I hope neither of us are this petty. My point here, is that it is such a minor and trivial thing, that it simply doesn't belong here. No one could argue that something like this belongs on a timeline of "notable" events.

Under normal circumstances, possibly, but because there were so many earlier infiltrations, and that was part of it, its included.

You don't understand at all. This is a) not sourced, and b) so minor, so trivial that it doesn't belong here. You need to understand that only MAJOR events belong here. This is just absurdity to note something like this. Please don't be this absurd. A student of history

7) Suez 1956 - I'll accept what's written here.

Then why did u revert it?

8) 1967 - To say "some Israelis settle there" is an unecessary euphemism. We could say something like "with the support and assistance of the Israeli government, Jews begin to construct settlements in the occupied territories", my point is that the fact that the government provided the impetus must be made. Secondly, I had 6 sources from authoritative bodies, including the Israeli supreme court, which stated that the territories are considered occupied. It is not a POV, it is the recognized assertion of all the legal and political bodies that matter. I'll use the Hezbollah example again: How would/could you prove to me that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization? Which sources are considered authoritative, and which sources have opinions that are not relevant? Answer: The UN, US government, ICJ are authoritative... you would show me that Hezbollah is considered a terr. organization by these bodies, and therefore, it's a fact. The Leb. government doesn't consider them such, but their opinion is irrelevant, you would say, and you'd be right. So now, we ask, "are the territories occupied"? We turn to those very same sources (plus Israeli supreme Court) and we find the answer is "yes". It doesn't matter if some legal scholars dispute this, because their OPINION is simply irrelevant.

They may title it "occupied" but that has different variations of definition and legality. This situation conflicts with the definition of occupation as they captured the land defensively. It is not a matter of a euphemism.

The authoritative sources I have say it's occupied, if you want to dispute this and make your "defensive" argument, get a source. Otherwise you have only your, insignificant, opinion. A student of history

9) 1982 - Seems good now, my point was that the distortion lay in the implication that the PLO shelling occuried a) during the cease-fire and b) prior to Israeli strikes, even Bard does not claim this. But I would like to add that there were violations on both sides. Just ask for a source, I'll do the reading and find one for you, if you want, again, don't hesitate.

I got it from Wikipedia, but I already removed it...

10) There were Palestinian victims at the Qana massacre, I'll get a source if you ask me to. But even if there weren't (there were though), I think this is just as relevant as saying "Egypt expels it's Jewish population".

Of course the latter is relevant. It was done in direct reaction to the crisis. It shows how 1 country tries to get back at the other. Qana, no, not at all.

It was done in reaction to, partly, the Lavon Affair and general anti-Semitism. Regardless, I'll get a source for Palestinian victims at Qana, and then it will stay. Until I get a source though, I'll leave it out. But once I do, it will become a fact that Pali's died here, making it de facto, part of this conflict. A student of history

11) Camp David: www.palestinefacts.org is not a credible source. I will accept most of www.mideastweb.org however. Now, the issue remains, what details to leave in, and which to leave out. If you want to enter that 95% of the WB was offered and rejected (show me where on that site it says this, because I do not believe that to be accurate, I have used this site a bit before and I think you're slightely confused about some details), then I'd feel compelled to write that the Palestinian state would not have been sovereign (see def. of sovereignty, it's not a POV), because that's also a fact, that Israel would have retained control of airspace, water, settlements, Jewish roads, ports, "external security", sovereignty over Jordan valley for decades... these are all facts that you can check at your own source. My problem is the cherry picking, we enter all the major ones, or we simply leave the arguments for the main page (which I would prefer). Let's simply state it happened, and move on. This timeline isn't supposed to be a place for arguments. But your edit is simplistic to the point of being false.

I just state the facts which I gave you, not the disputed. palestinefacts is credible is it is sourced and complete, either way mideastweb said it too, so I dont see your problem. It had nothing to do with sovereignty. It had to do of arafat rejecting it because he knew his terrorist campaign earned him millions. Dont believe me? ask his widow, currently living lavishly in paris. the borders were arranged so Israel could maintain security, according to multiple sources. Either way, who cares? I got the source/

You don't understand, you want to include only some simplistic (and false) details to push your POV. If we're going to include this (you still need to show me where on mideastweb it says this btw) we should enter a more complete representation of the details. Otherwise, it's cherry picking. You think your POV's are always the "truth" Shamir1, that's your problem. A student of history

12) West Bank Wall: I will continue to look into this, because one should always be weary of broad sweeping statistics like that, they are rarely accurate. But I have no problem with it for now. We should note though, that part of the reason for the drastic drop in attacks is also the fact that Hamas had a 16 month truce with Israel, and is now restraining itself as well. My point is that the construction of the wall is not entirely resonsible for this drop, not nearly as much as is implied.

You can add the note, but i think you should note hamas has never lived up 2 a cease-fire, so i dont see the relevance.

13) Palestinian Homes demolished: Facts are Facts, I'll get as many sources as you want. If you want to find out about damage done to Israeli structures, be my guest. But, we can work something out, like saying that there are a variety of reasons why these homes are demolished or something along those lines.

Listen. Neutral is neutral. Would it be fair to only write Israeli casualties and then not Palestinian? Facts are facts. But if we include one of one side, we have to include the other. Just showing 1 is a euphemism like you mentioned earlier.

You do this all the time. A student of history

14) First, if you think it's relevant to this timeline that the Palestinians vandalized the synagogues (which I don't because it's trivial, which is why I don't put in how the settlers vandalize Palestinian businesses and attack school children, but I'll let it go), then it's certainly relevant to add that Israeli farmers destroyed 500 dunams of greenhouses (economically/agriculturally important) and that the IDF razed the settlements to the ground. Second of all, your claim that the PA "approved" these actions is entirely false; none of the "sources" (I put quotation marks around them because one was a blog, which was removed, and the other two were www.wnd.com, a paper which reported Sharon had died months ago) claimed this. In fact, if you read them, they claimed the exact reverse, that the PA police and officials "could not prevent" them, or tried to stop them, from doing this. You manufactured this claim, bad form. Maybe you just don't expect me to read your sources, but I do.

Uh, no. I read the PA did not try to stop them. I heard about the synagogues on the news on tv, i never heard anything about the greenhouses. Nothing to do with reading sources. Besides that, you didnt mention much about this [4]

Then quote me a sentence from one of those sources which described the "approval" of the PA. Simple as that, I dare you, but you won't be able to, because it doesn't exist. That link also states that Abbas condemned those actions, but we can add this too if you want. A student of history

15) Gaza beach explosion: Fine with me.

16) July 26, 2006: My problem here is that you want to write that every single Israeli action is in retaliation for something. Well, would you allow me to write that every Palestinian attack is in retaliation for something? Because both Israelis and Palestinians feel this way, their papers report it this way, different scholars argue it this way. I know you want to justify every strike as "retaliatory" or as a "counter-offensive", but that is a POV. Equally, arguing that every Palestinian rocket attack was "in reponse" to an Israeli attack is a POV, nonetheless, that is exactly what Palestinian papers write, and what Palestinian militants claim. Both are POV's. Using the logic of "in response to", every action taken by either side is "in response" to aggression by the other side. My point, is that you think that the Arabs always act, Israel reacts. You think this is a truism, well it's not, it's a POV; Can we at least agree on this?

The fact that Arabs act and Israel reacts is something the world has accepted, despite the fact that you refuse to admit 2 see that pattern. We didnt write much about the earlier attacks so in no way is it POV. The fact that Israel launches the offensive to deprive cover, is clearly, by definition a counter-offensive. You say I am trying to justify everything? No, I just include the intent.

That is not a fact. If it is, get a source. It is a POV! You are writting that every Israeli action is "in reponse" to something, or "retaliatory", making it appear that the Arabs are ALWAYS the aggressors. This is not a "fact", it's a POV. Same as writting that the Arabs are always "reacting" to occupation, or shelling, or incursions, or kidnappings... POV Shamir, not fact. You may think it's the "truth", but it's simply your POV. A student of history

17) Summer Rains: Would you allow me to write that Shalit's kidnapping was in response to the abduction of the two Palestinian brothers?

Hamas never said it was, and Wikipedia does not consider it to be the casus belli.

18) September 2006, your survey is from 2003, with the fast-changing political situation in this conflict, it is way outdated.

Way outdated? Yeah ok. Same issues are going on. If want to add the survey was from earlier, fine, but its there.

"Yeah ok"? It's 3 years old! If you can find a current survey, then find one. But this is far too old to be accurate. Again, you don't seem to understand how to use sources at all. A student of history

19) The "source" you provided me about Israeli aid to the Palestinians, in fact, didn't mention anything to that effect at all; I do read what you give me man. So I'm still unaware of this "aid" you speak of. Second, the EU doesn't have anything to do with Karni, and Israel still retains overriding control of Rafah, the links I provided show this. If you claim otherwise, don't tell me "I read this and I read that", you have to show me. Third, given the financial/political crisis right now, it's important to note that 165,000 Palestinians in Gaza (something like a quarter of the workforce) haven't got paid in over 6 months; this is why there is rioting and so forth right now, you don't think it's important to note that the PA cannot afford to pay it's own employees for half a year? Last: you have not provided a source for your claim that commentators blame the PA for witholding billions of dollars, the one in your edit was about weapons smuggling, not PA money hoarding. But I do think we should definitely write here that weapons smuggling had increased dramatically since the disengagement.

I understand that. I am still looking for the site, as I know I saw it. Either way, the EU is monitoring Rafah and should be included. I will change the aid to just Western.

Here, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/770540.html, from today. Read it, you will see that Israel still controls the opening and closing of Rafah, and the EU can do nothing about it. Nobody blames the EU for "strictly monitoring" Rafah and for the problems caused by the closures there. If you want to put this in, get a source.

20) Those www.conceptwizard.com links make wikipedia look foolish. They are nothing but propoganda, there is no equivalent Arab propoganda link here, and I wouldn't accept it even if there was, these have to go, they insult the integrity and credibility of this site.

I don't see why. its just a timeline. it may try to prove a point but it is a virtual timeline of the conflict. --Shamir1 06:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the most biased site I've ever seen. If you insist on including, at least write that it's from a pro-Israeli point of view. It cannot be represented as neutral, balanced or objective. It's rediculous to say the least. A student of history

• note on sources: When you respond to my points, especially concerning points of fact, you must a good source as a part of your reply. Have you ever taken a "research methods" course or seminar? Perhaps you're just not used to working with sources, I don't know, but things like blogs are not reliable sources, you don't seem to be able to produce primary sources (which are necessary here), and many times the sources you've given don't support what you say at all. I'm doing my work here, you'll notice that every one of my sources is either a primary document, government/IGO report, notable historian or a newspaper of record. Try to get a) better quality sources and b) ones that actually confirm your claims. A student of history 01:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As for my leftist comment, I say that because (in America at least) we know anyone who would read Chomsky's work and honor it, would be far-left. Thats the way we perceive it. That also includes an anti-Israel or at least pro-Pal stance, however the American and Canadian public are both largely sympathetic of/pro-Israel. Our main liberal party (the Democrats, but you know that), have also been very supportive. Howard Dean, the chairman, refused to send billions of dollars to Iraq when they don't acknowledge "Israel's right to defend itself." Hillary Clinton (I think someone we can agree on) protested in front of the UN in favor of Israel. When asked if Israel overreacted to the conflict, John Kerry responded, "No, not at all. Israel was attacked by a terrorist organization and they responded." Those are all liberals. Alan Colmes, the liberal half of a political debate show, sees it the same way, as well as Bill O'Reilly (an independent). So at least here (and the US and canada are pretty similar), liberalism and support for Israel can come hand-in-hand. These are people who I (sometimes) admire, not authors whose work has been dismissed my the scholarly community.

As a moderate, I can tell you both the far-left and far-right are frowned upon, and I find them both to be annoying. My complaints with the left is that some of them sympathize with the enemy, underestimate the dangers of the enemy, the fact that many of them are fans of underground political conspiracies, or that many are overly critical of ourselves (which i guess can be a basic part of their philosophy, wanting change). The problems with the far-right are classic, I dont have to name them, im sure you can. I do, however, think the conservatives have got it generally with economic issues, and liberals with moral issues (again, generally). I voted against mandatory consent of a parent for a minor's abortion, for example. Thats my stance. Maybe that way you can understand me as I do not allign myself as right-wing, like u suggested earlier. --Shamir1 06:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1940-1949

Lehi (group) (also known as the Stern Gang) attacks British targets in Palestine. 1944-1948 the Irgun and then Haganah join in on anti-British attacks.

This a correct description. Simply adding a "book" is not a ref. Also you're mistaking with 1944 and 1945. If you want to talk about the period where both Arabs and Jews attacked each other, it's a differnet time... you can read the relevant articles. Amoruso 09:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

First, you didn't bring any sources to the table to support your counter arguments. Everything I wrote in the timeline recently has been supported by authoritative sources, and you ignored this when you deleted it, THAT is vandalism. You provided no sources at all here for your counter-arguments, something which I specifically asked you to do. This makes me believe that you are either a) lazy or b) incapable of doing so. Either way, your arguments remain simply opinions and not facts. A prof. of mine once said "you're only as good as your sources", and right now, you've got absolutely nothing. If you want to make a point, come back to me with a reliable, credible, primary (if possible) source. Otherwise, you are simply voicing opinion, not fact.

Second, read the Palestine Post from the late '30's. It is a fact, that the Irgun and Lehi and revisionist groups began attacking Arab civilians in the '30s, not 1940. Here's how we settle this, I have a primary and credible source for my point, you have nothing. If you claim your date is in fact correct, get a source. But right now, I have original articles from the Palestine Post proving my point to be a fact. And a "book" is a source/reference. What, are you trying to say that scholarly texts aren't "references"? A student of history

Shamir, this is absurd. You come back with nothing except arguments and POV's. You present absolutely no sources for you claims at all, in fact, you consistently refuse to do so. I'm asking something very basic of you, to source your claims, and you cannot do this. A student of history 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

very biased

This article suffers from bias due to a complete narrative of one side but almost zilch (comparatively) from the Palestinian side. For every attack on Israelis, there were 8767868798076434452345678909876543w4534563564675674435434564678567567845646745674657465745646546546464646464646464675674567465744534563456354634563456367456678909876 attacks on Palestinians give or take. That only Palestinian attacks are listed here like some sort of propaganda list is not very neutral. Also, some sentences are in the present tense, and others in the past. There are also many inaccuracies, such as the PLO sending a letter to Shamir in 1988 (never happened, it was a letter to Rabin in 1993). Needs a lot of fixing. -Scott

Timelines are generally written in the present tense, as the event is written under its date. Please also do not confuse attacks that target militants with those that intentionally target civilians. Other than that, you made a lot of edits without doing the simplest of research. Nothing here is a "propaganda list" it is a timeline of events showing the intent and goal of each and the result. I personally added Israeli attacks.

--Shamir1 01:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Proof of your ineptitude, and lack of respect as well as lack of knowledge, is that you reverted incorrect information, for example, that the PLO sent a letter to Israel in 1988. If you cannot verify your edits, don't re-add them. Either way, watch who you call an idiot, I'm new but I can learn fast, and report you if necessary. -Scott

You need to get your story straight. The 1988 issue has already been changed. Meanwhile I call an edit idiotic and you say I am attacking you personally? Okay. Great, I really could not care less what you think about my "lack of knowledge". You definitely are funny. I criticized an edit (which I had every right to do, it was baloney) and you say "Proof of your ineptitude, and lack of respect", lol, come on. Then you say, "Either way, watch who you call an idiot, I'm new but I can learn fast, and report you if necessary." Did I call someone an idiot? No, sorry. By the way though, what would you call a person who removes information without so much as clicking the generous hyperlink? Funny how you talk about "verifying edits" huh? Yeah. --Shamir1 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1- Before 1948, the place was called Palestine. Saying it was called Land of Israel (sometimes known as the region of Palestine) is distortion of fact and reads like the article was written by a militia group. 2- Since when have Palestinian rioters ever been referred to as "sunni Muslims" in lieu of being called "Palestinians"? What kind of nonsense is this? And Palestinian rioters very often include Christians, merely judging from the number of Christians that have been killed by the Israeli army.

It says that because they were in a Sunni mosque. Its not "in lieu" of anything. --Shamir1 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

3- The narrative for the Palestinian refugee problem differs depending on who you ask, and I tried to make that clear but you just reverted to the the militant zionist version - not the Israeli version, the militant zionist version. 4- Transjordan became Jordan in 1946, so it couldn't have been Transjordan that invaded Palestine in 1948. 5- The "local Arabs" were already at war with the Yishuv before 1948. 6- THere is no evidence that foreign Christians were banned from visiting Jerusalem - or foreign Jews for that matter - how would the Jordanian authorities even know the religion of the foreigners? 7- It is very very well known that Israeli soldiers were guarding the entrances to Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps - why else was Sharon found responsible for the massacre? Yet you chose to remove this clear-as-day fact from my edits. 8- Events attributed to December 14 1988 completely predate the actual events by 6-10 years, but you just changed it back to what it was previously with slight "merges" that still returned the section to complete nonsense. 9- How could the 1988 "first suicide attack" be called one when there was no knowledge if the attacker intended to die, notwithstanding the fact that he lived? 10- The fact that Sharon had 1000 policemen with him when he visited the mount was an overwhelming reason for the riots - he made his "visit" look like an incursion. Yet you conveniently removed mention of the 1000 policemen. 11- The Palestinian attacks in Israel declined by 90% NOT in 2002 when the wall was being built, but much later as Hamas signed a ceasefire (or agreed to one) with then prime minister Mahmoud Abbas. To state that "Wall was built, terror fell by 90%" just like that is incredibly misleading. -Scott

1: it was actually known as Palestina (Eretz Israel) during the mandate.

It was known as Palestine. Stamps, money, etc said "Palestine" in English, Hebrew, and Arabic, and aleph-yod initials in Hebrew as well. But it was not mainly called "Land of Israel" and only sometimes called Palestine, that's reversal of facts.

It was known exactly like I said on the stamps, official documents etc. Amoruso 21:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Palestine had no defined borders until the Balfour Declaration. --Shamir1 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

4: transjordan only became jordan in 1949.

Have to check, I was sure it was 1946

You were mistaken. Amoruso 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

6: jews were banned from their holy places in Jerusalem - Jordan desecrated these places or burned them down.

Yes, perhaps, but the article also mentions Christians and again, that can't be true because of tourist attractions and also, how would the Jordanians know the religion of tourists?

They built an animal pen in the ancient Avraham Avinu Synagogue, desecrated cemeteries, destroyed the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, among other things. NO one had access to the wall except Jordanians, and even that was somewhat restricted. --Shamir1 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Easy, they wouldnt let them in. There weren't too many American or European Muslim tourists.

7: Israel allegdly should have anticipated how they will react, that's why very minor partial indirect responsibility exists.

The fact that the camp was surrounded by Israeli soldiers is an integral part of the story. Omitting it is dishonest, whether you like it or not.

No Israeli soldier said they had heard or seen anything. The Sharon's responsibility is not only controversial but it could easily have just been a political statement. --Shamir1 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

8: WHAT events ? You mean Arafat making an apologetic self interest speech in the U.N ? It's not significant since the charter wasn't changed. He also made no explicit reference to the right of self determination of the Jews - or right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

It got the US to talk to him, which was a big deal back then.

True, but there was no official recognition. Amoruso 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

9: I'm not sure he lives actually. that was written into the article but I'm not sure. anyway, how will you call someone driving a bus into an abyss ? he expected to grow wings and escape in mid-air? If the 9/11 attackers survived the crush, you'd say it's not suicide attack either ?

Unless you have a source for this, I don't see how you can speculate.

On the contrary, it's you who's speculating. A person who takes a bus into an abyss performs a suicide attack obviously. Amoruso 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

10: not sure this number is true and the description of it. it's also wrong since obviously Sharon needed security so that he won't be murdered (remember king Abdallah?) . incursion talks are extremist propagandas. as if Israel needs to make "incursrions" into its own terrirtory.

The number is true and is in many reports of the incident. A thousand policeman guard was seen as very provocative. Again, whether you like it or not.

No it isn't and it's irelevant. Amoruso 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

11: actually it's the wall that prevented attacks. the hamas has nothing to do with it, since it was the wall that stopped the majority of attacks which were al aqsa martyrs brigade anyway.

Those organizations have a long history of breaking cease-fires. Besides that, it 1) says subsequently, 2) has sources to prove it. --Shamir1 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To scott learn how to sign comments if you wish further discussions. Amoruso 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The thousand policeman thing is very relevant, Palestine was known widely as just that - not EI except in initials on official documents next to "Mimshalat Falastin" in Hebrew, and since you were not kind enough to show me how to sign comments, I do not wish to continue discussions. With people of your bias around, Wikipedia is a joke anyway. Have fun with it. -Scott

Scott, I was previously asked to look over this article but haven't yet had the time to do so. But I wanted to apologize on behalf of other Wikipedians over the rather rude and uncivil treatment you got above and encourage you to stay. Most of your edits have merit, and I personally find it hard to dispute any of them except for WP:NPOV considerations. I remember when I first joined WP, I was sparring heavily with an administrator of an opposing POV but at least this person had the civility to say "Welcome to Wikipedia". I'm sorry about the nasty reception you got, but I hope you read this and decide to stay. Welcome to Wikipedia. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It may sound biased to someone who is biased themselves, but it's bad it isn't. you guys are both dont know what youre talking about. I am here staying on top of it, providing neutral terms, relevant facts, stating my reasons, adding Israel's attacks (neither one of you has), so I got more NPOV than anyone here. And okay if it means that much to anyone, WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA. --Shamir1 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Shamir, you have a distinctly uncivil way of discussing, and it makes people not assume good faith of you. You claim people don't know what they're talking about - they could easily make the same claim of you, and guess what? It does nothing to advance the article OR the discussion. The fact is, and I have seen it duplicated on many articles and talk pages on this issue (in which I have only a marginal interest), that you have a definitive and somewhat extreme point-of-view. I would suggest either tempering it, or recusing yourself from editing articles dealing with issues that you have blatant bias about. It is not about your ethnicity - it is about your beliefs, and your dogged defense of them, to the exclusion of oppositional sources, or even neutral sources. You may think you are doing good work to defend good people and good things, when in reality you are doing just the opposite. And you aren't even civil about it. Tuviya 06:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One issue with Irgun/Lehi attacks during British Mandate

I repeatedly posted sources for this. They did not begin in 1940, as currently claimed (and unsourced I might add), they began earlier in or around 1936-1937. I posted the links to a virtual archive of the Palestine Post, which documented these attacks. This is known as a primary source, bombs in Arab markets killed over 100 people in a single day on several occasions, these were major incidents that made headlines in many papers at the time. The links to the Palestine Post archive in above somewhere. I also noticed that someone removed these incidents from the Timeline. So, I suppose that "An Israeli woman is killed by Jordanian infiltrators" is worthwhile (for some asinine reason) to be on a timeline, but bombs killing over 100 Arabs is not? Is that the way this "timeline" is?

http://jic.tau.ac.il/Archive/skins/PalestineP/navigator.asp?AW=1169534055109 Here is one issue of the Palestine Post showing that attacks against Arabs began at least as early at 1938. I will try to find earlier issues showing they began earlier, because I know they did, but this involves me doing considerable research through these archives. I will do it at a later date.

I also have major issues with the sourcing here. There are several locations where statements are made and the sources attached to them have absolutely nothing to do with the statement, I removed one such instance earlier. Some people still don't understand at all how to use sources. First, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE! Just because something is writting on another wiki page, doesn't necessarily make it true. Get a source. Second, an opinion is not a source. So just because a scholar renders an opinion, doesn't make it a fact. Third, primary sources ARE factual. As in the issue I talked about in the above paragraph; I posted links to primary source from the Palestine Post which is primary evidence of Lehi/Irgun attacks occurring in the late 30's, and Shamir1 deleted them. I don't want to get into a war, but some people here need to understand some fundamentals of sourcing. If you don't know what a primary source is, do some reading. The best way for everybody here to resolve our issues is to set a standard for sourcing.

The standard for sources should be high, because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia remember? So, as in any print encyclopedia, we should restrict ourselves to 'scholarly' sources. That means primary sources where possible, if not things like good newspapers (like the NY Times or Ha'aretz for example). Opinions are not sources, even if the people rendering those opinions have Ph.D's. As well, sources need to be current. Example: A poll indicating public sentiments among Israelis or Palestinians; you can't take a poll taken back in 2000 or 2003 and use this as a current example. Anybody even removelty familiar with these sorts of things know how fickle public opinion is and how drastically it can change virtually overnight.A student of history 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell Report

Look Shamir, you have got to stop writing on this page if you refuse to keep on falsifying things. The Mitchell Report clearly states: "we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence ", You can read it here: http://www.nodo50.org/csca/english/informe_mitchel_5-01-eng.html. For someone who claims their knowledge to be "quite advanced", you ought to do a your research please. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, hold yourself to a higher standard. A student of history 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right. (I encourage you to practice what you preach.) --Shamir1 17:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Partition of Transjordan

Shamir, to say that the Balfour declaration promised the Jews all of Mandatory Palestine is one interpretation, and one which is not supported by hardly any literature. The declaration does not specify the size nor the area of the future "Jewish National Home". To say that when the British partitioned off Tranjordan was land "allocated for the Jewish state" is 1) a POV, and 2) a minority one at that.

This is interpreting the Balfour declaration in a very specific context. Your source from Jewishvirtuallibrary (ie. Mitchell Bard) is not something authoritative here. All you are sourcing is a particular interpretation and POV (that of Bard), ie. you are sourcing someone's opinion. Opinions are not facts, the Jewish virtual library can be used for sources like primary documents and stuff, but when you simply use it to reference an opinion, it does not work. One of the big issues under the Mandate was the extent of the "Jewish national home", how big it was going to be, and was it even going to be a sovereign state. You are claiming that a minority, narrow opinion is a fact, and it is not. Sorry, that line is not even close to being either factual, neutral or worth being on the timeline. 131.202.32.5 12:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (A student of history)

Literature, thank you, we are not looking at literature here (you are probably referring to Chomsky's work). What is it a "minority opinion" (Where are you getting this from? Chomsky?). Also consider: "According to Mr. Lloyd George, who had been Prime Minister at the time, the Balfour Declaration implied that the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan, should ultimately become a Jewish State. Yet Transjordan had been cut off from Palestine in 1922 and later set up as an Arab kingdom, and now a second Arab State was to be carved out of the remainder of the country. Thus the Jewish National Home would finally represent less than one eighth of the territory originally set aside for it."[5] and "While I am on the point of promises, may I be permitted to recall that Sir Henry McMahon himself stated that Palestine was never included in the promises made by him to the Arabs, and that this was well understood at the time by the late King Hussein, also that Transjordan, which was originally included in the Balfour Declaration, is today an Arab State."

Shamir1, please. This is my biggest problem with wiki, people don't know how to source properly. What you have there is an article about a speech by this Dr. Silver, representing his opinions and conclusions. Neither the article, nor Dr. Silver's opinions are supported by notes. The article states that Dr. Silver "recalled" that Lloyd George was of a certain opinion (again, not supported by any quotations, excerps or notes). This 'source' is merely a reference to someone's opinion. You seem bent on relying on secondary sources, which is un-historical of you. The same can be said for the McMahon correspondences, deliberately vague and ambiguous so that he could backtrack on any particular point in the future. The whole idea of these documents, in a historical context, is that they are wide open to interpretation, and deliberately so. That is the only generally accepted truth about these documents. If you have a primary source, then we can talk, I love primary sources. But all you are 'sourcing' is opinions; but I suppose when someone considers a user-submitted rant from "everything2.com" a "reliable source", primary sourcing may be too much to ask. A student of history 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that 18,000 Arabs in Lebanon died is a) not supported by any evidence, b) estimates have never been substanciated, c) there is no say on the proportion of civilians among the victims. Beirut newspaper An Nahar estimated that 5,515 people, military and civilian, were killed in the Beirut area only during the conflict, and 9,797 military personnel (PLO, Syrian, and others) and 2,513 civilians were killed outside of the Beirut area. That's it, but there are no reliable estimates. --Shamir1 17:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That same estimate gave a total of 17,800 (or so) total casualties on the Pal/Leb side. I will agree to looking for a most reliable source for this, but as you are so fond of saying, these are the figures that appear on the wiki main article for this event, with the proper reference. And while you are right that there are no exact figures, there are estimates. That is why they are called estimates, because they are not precise. If you are going to say we can't use estimates because they aren't precise, that's absurd. By that logic, you can't use any figures for the Holocaust entry because there is no precise figure, only estimates. A student of history 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the territory of Transjordan was not included in the original San remo mandate and the Zionist lobby didn't ask for it as part of a Jewish national home. The Churchill White Paper, 1922 made it clear that "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine." Herbert Samuel effectively annexed Transjordan without Foreign Office permission In August 1920 - after the San remo conference. Churchill and the Colonial Office only accepted the territory into the mandate in 1921 with the proviso that it would be administered by Abdullah and not Samuel. --Ian Pitchford 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's false. Article 25 of the mandate clearly discusses territories east of the Jordan river, and these territores were certainly requested by the Zionists. Isarig 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Article 25 is a section of the final League of Nations mandate, which was agreed in September 1922 and came into effect on 29 September 1923. It is nothing to do with meeting of the Allied Supreme Council in San Remo in 1920. The map of the territories within which the Zionists hoped to establish a Jewish national home was presented to the 1919 peace conferences and appears in the article on the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement. After San Remo Weizmann was clear in his report to colleagues in London that the land to the east formed part of "Arab Syria". --Ian Pitchford 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, we've all read the Balfour Declaration many times over. We all know it is vague, it is a well understood fact that the declaration was deliberately vague. It is true that some Zionists then (as some still do) interpreted it to mean a Jewish state in all of Mandatory Palestine (also left deliberately undefined), but that was a POV, and it still is. There is no contesting that particular fact, that it is nothing more than one particular interpretation of the declaration. Simply put, many scholars have rendered opinions on this question, some from the pro-Israel camp interpret it the way you do Shamir1, but I do believe that is still a minority opinion in academia. The mainstream idea is that the declaration was left vague for something like this very reason. Wartime promises were cheap for the British, and as in the McMahon letters, everything was left open to interpretation so the Brits could try and cover their asses later on. It is certainly true that many Zionists wanted Transjordan for their state, but that is meaningless, that was their particular interpretation. We cannot advance that here. To enter that POV would be equivalent to writting "The Balfour Declaration was a violation and betrayal of the McMahon letters to Hussein", which also is clearly just one POV. And as the Churchill White Paper in 1922 makes absolutely clear,(as mentioned above, well done btw), the Balfour Declaration certainly was never meant to mean a Jewish state in "all" of Palestine. Sorry Shamir1.A student of history 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It would behoove you to read what I actually wrote, and respond to that, rather than to some strawman. I am not talking about the Balfur declaration, which was not specific about territory, but about the San Remo mandate, which, in articl e25, discussed the area east of the Jordan river, as being a part of the mandate, which in the futre might be exempt from its provisions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I wasn't responding to your post specifically, I have no interest in what was said in the Sanremo text, that is not particularly relevent to this discussion, but I see you were responding to the post above yours, which brought it up. My point was about the Balfour Declaration, and Shamir1's claim. A student of history 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You have no interest in what was said in the San Remo text? The document that actually establishe the mandate? Perhaps you shlouldn't be editing this article, in that case. Isarig 04:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sanremo document has little bearing on the issue here, which is the partition of Transjordan. There are those here who want the entry to state that all of Palestine was designated for a future Jewish state. The 1922 White Paper well establishes this is not true, you are right about article 25 of the Sanremo text pertaining to Transjordan, however, I just don't think we need to get into a discussion about this document here is all.

Whoa whoa whoa A student of history, cool down... Yes its on the main article but all I meant is that that estimate has not been used by any official body or source. That wasnt even my primary concern, it was mostly your pov that most were civilians which is not supported by that source (which you did not use any way). --Shamir1 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find a reliable source for this, as I believe it to be true, I don't think it's a POV, different bodies have done studies confirming this, I just need to do a little research to find them again. But until I do, I will leave it out. Things should be sourced after all. A student of history 14:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If one were to take the Beirut newspaper seriously, it would not be possible. Even if the all of those killed in Beirut were civilians, they (8,023) would still be outnumbered by militants. And if we were to take the proportion of civilians of those outside of Beirut and apply it, it would be much less. However the bottom line is I dont see how its needed. Out of the several wars listed, none of them include the casualties in the timeline. --Shamir1 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, until I come up with a reliable source for the proportion of militants to civilians, that qualification will remain out. However, I do believe it's important to list casualties. You seem to think it's relevent to list the fact that "in 1952... xxx many Israelis were killed" without even sourcing it. I think its relevent that 20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese were killed in what was probably the most destructive of the Arab Israeli wars.A student of history 06:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

All of thoese xxx may Israelis that were killed were simply put out to show what lead up to war, not to count casualties. The Casualties of 1973 were high and Israel lost 1 percent of its total population in 1948. --Shamir1 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Context

Shamir1, another thing. You have to stop putting down "in response to" or "amidst constant rocket fire" and such. These statements qualify Israeli actions as retaliatory, while you (or anyone) never writes the same for Palestinian actions, such as "amidst Israeli raids" or "in response to recent incursions" and such. We simply state what happened. Because just as you can justify every Israeli action as being in response to something, so can others justify Palestinian actions as being in response to an Israeli attack. That is your POV Shamir1. It is your opinion that everything Israel does is "amidst rocket fire" and such, but other people see it differently. They, for instance, Palestinian rockets into Israeli "in response" to incursions, shelling, kidnappings, closures, and such... The point is, we do not let those opinions enter here. Thank you. A student of history 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)