Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict

Arab-Israeli conflict over a century old?

How can the conflict be over a centuriy old if isreal was created in the 40's Please do not try and make this conflict a historical conflict as a more than century ago there was very little conflict between the arabs and jews, this conflict started with the palastinian exodus and the creation of Isreal81.154.98.169 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it started with the riots and murders the Arabs perpetrated on Jews in Palestine, like the 1929 Hebron massacre. The history section explains this. okedem (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Even supposing that were so: it's still not over a century. Why this gross negligence to detail? --ganjadi (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, if your claims were true, it would make it an "Arab-Jewsih conflict" and NOT and "Arab-Israeli Conflict." No matter how you slice it, Israel still did not exist. Otherwise, we should also have a page on "Christian-Israeli Conflict", "European-Israeli Conflict" and/or "Western World-Israeli Conflict" that each lasted over 2000 years. Take your pick. Biraqleet (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Since 1929 is less than a century ago, and this article doesn't mention any hostilities before World War 1 at the earliest, I also think this claim should be corrected. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

violence has been going on since at least 1921. Diplomatic conflict has been going one since at least 1915. Both ought to be documented here, IMNSHO. I wouldn't be surprised if there were incidents before those dates that which I am unaware of. As far as the naming goes, I think that Arab-Israeli is preferable. Articles should be named by their present day common names, without regard to the names that were in use at the time. A similar situation exists in the History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article and many other places. I'll note that Isreal isn't the only word that had changed while this conflict has been ongoing. "Palestinian" has changed its meaning as well. In all cases, I think that articles should be named by their modern common names, even if those names postdate the actual thing that they refer to.Jsolinsky (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"incidents... of which I am unaware of" that isn't an argument that holds any relevence. Its pretty streight forward - Israel has only existed since the war, ie less than 100 years. Previous clashes between Arabs and Jews is a different context, and although relevant in understanding the background of conflict in the region, is not justification to claim "over 100 years of conflict" especially since the earliest examples of such conflict are less than 100 years ago anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.114.149.162 (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What we call the Israeli-Arab conflict today is the same conflict that existed between Arabs and Zionists at the beginning of the last century. There is no shortage of sources that say as much. Similarly, the Palestinian people existed before the 1948, not withstanding the fact that the phrase "Palestinian" changed meaning at approximately that time. The time frame of a conflict (or of a people) is not necessarily coterminous with the time frame of the presently accepted naming convention. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There can be no conflict with a nation that won't exist for 40 years. That is the only fact that matters, and to say otherwise is puerile. The article needs to be changed if Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and historically accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Relates (talk • contribs) 02:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Arab–Israeli conflict

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Arab–Israeli conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "haaretz-at least":

• From Gaza flotilla raid: Amos Harel; Avi Issacharoff, Anshel Pfeffer and News Agencies (May 31, 2010). "Israel Navy commandos: Gaza flotilla activists tried to lynch us". Haaretz. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/at-least-10-activists-killed-in-israel-navy-clashes-onboard-gaza-aid-flotilla-1.293089. 
• From 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip: Amos Harel; Avi Issacharoff, Anshel Pfeffer and News Agencies (31 May 2010). "Israel Navy commandos: Gaza flotilla activists tried to lynch us". Haaretz. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/at-least-10-activists-killed-in-israel-navy-clashes-onboard-gaza-aid-flotilla-1.293089. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Name

This article should be named the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for the following reasons: 1) We do not call the Korean War the "Chinese American War". Other than a few very specific instances, the entire conflict has taken place in either Palestine or Israel 2) Today Israel has peaceful relations which most Arab governments - only Syria and Iran are openly hostile, and Iran is not even an Arab country. So the Arab-Israel nature of the war ended in 1979-80, after the Iranian revolution and the Camp David Accords 3) Showing a map of the entire Arab world is not representative of the real situation - only a few of the Arab countries have ever been directly involved in the conflict 95.21.74.221 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also an article on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, most of the conflict in the first forty years was between Israeli and Arab governments. It was only in the late 1980s/early 1990s that the conflict began to focus more on the Palestinians. Most Arab governments do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Only Egypt and Jordan do. Thus, there is clearly tension between most of the Arab world and Israel, which opens up the possibility of war in the future. I agree that not all Arab countries went to war against Israel, but all or almost all Arab governments supported the wars against Israel (even if they were not directly involved). Finally, there is a separate article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and thus for the reasons stated above this article should have its current name kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.235.186.219 (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the name is not a good one. After all there are Israeli Arabs. As for the above comment that claims it was only in the 80's that it started to be a conflict between Palestinians and israelis; that is just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.25.170 (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the above comment carefully. It did not say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict started in the 1980s. It said that the Arab-Israeli conflict began to focus more on the Palestinians since the 1980s. After all, between 1948 and 1987 the main points of conflict and tension were between Israel and other Arab states/armies, NOT between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian issue only became prominent in the late 1980s after the Palestinians began the First Intifada. And the name of the article is a good one. A large part of the fighting of the Arab-Israeli conflict occurred not between Israelis and Palestinians, but between Israelis and other Arabs. Even as recently as five years ago there was outright war between Israel and Hezbollah. Renaming this conflict as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be misleading and an insult to history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.208.63 (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

israel GDP per capita

"the average Israeli citizen would be earning over $44,000 instead of $23,000 in 2010"

the GDP per capita of israel is 29,500$ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.111.205 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Blank space at top

Why is there so much unsightly white space at the top of this article? It looks like at least two blank lines. I tried to edit it, but the extra space is not apparent in the edit box. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the whole question anyways give palestine its independance and it will respect israels.

One thing i was taught from a very young age is that if you want to be respected you have to give mutual respect which has not be accorded to palestine why is the question i am forced to ask throughout this ongoing conflict. What i see is palestine asking to be reconized as an independant state and israel saying that it some how some way affects their security which they know is bull, either that or they really beleive that in which case they are sadly mistaken. To summarize i think peace can only be acheived on equal ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.100.136 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not continue this discussion here unless relating it to editing & improving the article. As it says at top of page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Hertz1888 (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

did nableezy really make 2 rv within 90 minutes despite the 1rv rule per 24 hours?

nableezy - really? care to self-rv or what? please explain so we can understand....thanks. Soosim (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did, and no I do not care to self-revert. Any more questions for a specific user can be directed to that user's talk page. In the meantime, please refactor the title of this section. nableezy - 19:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit war in progress

There is a minor edit war in progress with neither side using discussion. Both versions of the text seem reasonable. If one side decides to discuss what they are doing, and the other does not, I'll support that side. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Socks of banned/blocked users are trying to change the article. That's what happening. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

On the substance, the line is a user's personal editorializing meant to contradict sourced content. The sentence is about those who trace the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict to the start of large-scale immigration of Jews into Palestine. A Wikipedia user wishes to qualify that with Although religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia. That is, a user is making an argument against sources. That isnt acceptable here, and this sort of editorializing, if allowed to stand, opens the door to endless possibilities that no serious editor should accept. nableezy - 20:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Which of the sources contradicts "religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia"? I also view the Arab Israeli conflict as beginning with the rise of Zionism and Arab Nationalism in the closing years of the 19th century. But it is hardly uncommon to find sources that trace it back to antiquity. A line that acknowledges this, and then dismisses it, could plausibly improve the article. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think I said that a source disputes that religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia, I dont think that is under dispute. The problem is not that the material is or is not true, the problem is that its placement and wording is meant to rebut what the sources do say about the Arab-Israeli conflict specifically, not about religious conflict in general. This is purely editorializing by an random person on the internet, and unless a source can be brought that connects that line to the argument that this conflict began with the rise of massive Jewish immigration to Palestine it has no place here. nableezy - 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I don't understand. What is being rebutted? Jsolinsky (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument that the conflict began with large-scale Jewish immigration in to Palestine. You really dont understand how starting the sentence with Although religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia does this? Really? Can you tell me why the sentence on sources tracing the start of the conflict should be prefaced with that clause? And are there any sources connecting the two thoughts? nableezy - 21:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as sources, three of the first four books I pulled up on Google Books trace the conflict back to ancient times. I think that most comprehensive treatments of the struggle mention events predating the past two centuries.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, the use of the world "although" suggests that this is a minority view, and not one endorsed by the article. If anything, I think the use of the word "some" is a bit weak. What if we used something like this: "Although religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia, the modern Arab-Israeli conflict began with the rise of Zionism and Arab Nationalism towards the end of the last nineteenth century." Such a statement clearly acknowledges AND DISMISSES the ties to ancient civilizations as part of the modern conflict. Jsolinsky (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just implemented this. Let me emphasize that I have no problem with representing the broad range of opinion concerning the scope and reasons for the conflict within the body of the article. But I think that the Lede should very quickly get around to stating what the article is about. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that I think it would be good for the introduction to clearly state a time frame for its contents. While we can surely find individual books that place a wide variety of time bounds on the conflict (and we may wish to cover this in the body of the article), readers of the article's introduction need to know which events are covered (so they can look elsewhere for anything outside of the time period we choose). In other words, we are not just informing users about what the literature says, we are also informing them about the scope of this Wikipedia entry. Jsolinsky (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but that remains unsourced editorializing. Are there any sources that counter the view that the conflict began with large scale Jewish immigration in to Palestine with religious conflict that dates back centuries? If not then the article cannot contrast those arguments. nableezy - 16:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of quick comments. Firstly, the statement "religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia" is a banality. Is there any place in the world where religious conflict doesn't date back millenia? It adds nothing to the reader's understanding. Secondly, regardlesss of what "religious conflicts" may or may not have occurred over "millenia", that tells us nothing about the origins of the modern Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the topic of this article. Thirdly, one is obliged to point out the obvious, that the statement is unsourced and thereby violates wiki policy. Gatoclass (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

BC vs. BCE

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, date conventions are not to be changed except through discussion and consensus. Accordingly, I am going to revert the recent change to BC. If somebody wishes to make arguments supporting a change, please use this space. In my opinion, discussing biblical times using a nomenclature that is tied to one particular religion, is probably not an optimal choice. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Too few dead

You report 90,000 in all the arab-israelian war since the start. Are you serious or what? There have been at least the same deaths only in the last Lebanon war and the total estimates are at least 2 million deaths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.153.253 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious

Those numbers are directly from your head — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.178.6 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)