Talk:History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Latest additions

During the last couple of days I've spent a lot of time in merging the information Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Historical outline into this article. I haven't finished merging all the information, nevertheless, I wanted to point out that any feedback you could give to my latest additions would be gladly appreciated. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The merge is finally finished. please help me improve the article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you were finished before posting on your talk page. Great job! --GHcool (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

looks pretty good. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Osher Twito picture

I'm sorry User:Mbz1, but Osher Twito is not notable enough to go in this article. Normally I would give you the benefit of the doubt, however your insertion of this picture/caption into at least 2 other articles says to me you are trying to use Wikipedia to make a point. Please don't. Regards Suicup (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Everybody, who was hurt by hamas Qassam rocket as much as this boy was is notable enough to go in this article. It is not me, but you who is making a point by removing the image for the third time in half-an-hour.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rockets don't discriminate between notables and non-notables. Victims often become noteworthy through being attacked. The photo appropriately illustrates the text in this section. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --GHcool (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The picture is not notable, it is blatantly POV, and has not been individually chosen for this article, but rather spammed into any article the editor deems he should be making his point. However, why am I not surprised the usual suspects come to its defence. Indeed, this page has just undergone a massive revision to remove so-called cruft, the bloated factoids of each individual editors whim. And here we have exactly the same thing occurring, only this time it is a picture, not a sentence. The hypocrisy is damning. Suicup (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. --GHcool (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that it? What a copout. Suicup (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If we really are going to play this game, i'd like to have my arguments against the picture/caption refuted...that is unless you can't refute them and hence agree that the picture should be deleted. Regards Suicup (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Already answered. Please read, really read, what three editors have been trying to tell you. It's not a game. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Suicup (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

there have been many victims on both sides during the last century why should we only show this image? this is why I believe that it would be much better to refrain from adding any images in the future of Israeli victims or Palestinian victims to this article and rather add this specific image to an article which focuses on the victims of the conflict. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I might agree with TheCuriousGnome, however, there are two grusome pictures of Palestinian victims in the Cast Lead article without any complaints. To censor this picture of an Israeli victim would be an application of a double standard. --GHcool (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about a different article though. If someone did it over there doesn't make it right to do it over here. As I said, the conflict has led to many victims on both sides during the last century, why should we only show this image of an Israeli victim in one period of the conflict? Please answer this question before you put the image back. If this image would stay, the next step would be edit wars which would included the insertion of many other different gruesome images would be added to this article which would include images of big terror attacks made within civilian areas, images of exploding buses, images of Muhammad al-Durrah, images of dead children, etc.. You must see that there would be no end to this and that these types of images would make the article unbalanced. I beg you to refrain from adding the picture in the future or else I would be forced to have the administrators involved and reach a decision about the inclusion of the picture. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: You guys really should all stop, take a deep breath, and pursue Dispute Resolution because I don't think you can resolve this on your own. shirulashem (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I see TheCuriousGnome's reasoning. I am going to suggest that the same standard be applied to the Cast Lead article though.

Also, as a side note, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Muhammad al-Durrah thing was a hoax, so I suggest that it not be lumped into a list which contains legitimate civilian casualties. --GHcool (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The population statistics

In my opinion it is essential that population statistics charts of the Arab and the Jewish population in Palestine/Israel would be included to this article for our readers to better understand the history of the conflict. Even though I just added population statistics to all periods of the conflict, I need your help in adding even more sources which would confirm the charts I just added and the population statistics charts in the two time periods period to 1948. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of TheCuriousGnome's edit here, I cannot accept the ambiguous way the data is presented. The tables after 1948 does not make any distinction between population within and outside the borders of the State of Israel, citizens and non-citizens of the State of Israel, or Arab and Jewish control over the Palestinian territories. I suggest that if the tables are added again, they make these distinctions clear. --GHcool (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're right - it's better to make that distinction in those charts. For now I added empty charts though. I'll do my best to find the missing data for these charts as soon as possible (you are more than welcome to help me out). Do you approve of the way the empty charts are currently built? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a major improvement, to be sure. The only thing I disapprove of is the way the table is laid out in the 1948-1967 section. At that time, the West Bank was Jordanian territory (not Palestinian territory) and the Gaza Strip was under the control of Egypt, not Israel. The table currently implies that the situation is similar to the situation in 2009 by putting the populations next to each other. Furthermore, the number of Arabs in the West Bank could imply Jordanian Arabs and Palestinian Arabs. We must not include non-Palestinian Arabs in this table. For this case, I think there should be three categories: Jews and Arabs in Israel, Jews and Palestinian Arabs in the Egyptian occupied Gaza Strip, and Jews and Palestinian Arabs in the Jordanian West Bank. --GHcool (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved all of the demographics charts to a new section within this article. I believe that just from looking at them one can learn a lot about the history of the conflict - therefore I think it works much better now that all the charts are next to each other. Nevertheless, some important data is still missing in the charts and I am currently trying to find it. You are all more than welcome to try and help me find the missing data in the charts. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked all the books I own for population statistics. Unfortunately, most either state the statistics that are already in the article or do not differentiate between Jews and Arabs and just show the total population of Israel/Palestine/Palestinian territories. I may add one for the UN Partition Plan if I get a chance. --GHcool (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. In my opinion though, the UN Partition Plan chart you added does not belong to the demographic history section because while all of the other charts presented in this section attempt to give our readers the closest actual historic demographics - the UN Partition Plan data is not trying to present actual historic demographics but rather how the demographics would have looked like if the plan would have been actually implemented. Therefore this chart is confusing to our readers and in my opinion should be removed from this specific section. Please share your opinion of this matter. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've removed it including the section of the Demographics of Jerusalem which in my opinion shouldn't be elaborated on here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

While I see your point, I am inclined to disagree. Without the UN Partition demographics for context, the 1947 demographics could lead readers to believe that the 1948 war was a coup, that the Jewish state was a gift from the UN, or that the Palestinian exodus and occupation of the Palestinian territories was inevitable. Is there a wording, perhaps, that would make it more clear to readers than the one I wrote for the table that this is what was proposed and rejected by the Arabs and therefore did not become a reality?

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would not remove the Jerusalem demographics. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Demographic history section is not intended to fucos on various cities, therefore, in my opinion The inclusion of the Jerusalem demographics is not necessary at all - it is enough to add a link to the Jersualem demographics article in the see also link on the top of the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCuriousGnome (talk • contribs)

I disagree. The status of Jerusalem has been and continues to be a constant source of conflict. Demographic data for Jerusalem is highly relevant in ways that demographic data for Haifa or Tel Aviv is not. --GHcool (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

we already have a article for Jerusalem's demographics. This article is big enough as it is, in my opinion a link to that article would be enough. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also added a note which explains that the decrease in the Arab population between 1947 and 1949 is due to the rejection of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the subsequent 1948 war and the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I hope you would be satisfied with my latest changes. Please help me add the current important missing data (see section below). 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, but it still does not address the UN partition demographics. I'd appreciate it if you would not remove this necessary and relevant table. As for Jerusalem, I am unsure why you are so against having this data considering how contentious the status of Jerusalem is and how relevant it is to the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Certainly you don't believe that Jerusalem is just a city like any other in the context of the history of the conflict. --GHcool (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If we'll have too many different charts added to this section, eventually it would become a giant mess and with time it would only be skewed and biased. You must know that. Therefore, in my opinion, it is much better to focus on the basic demographic comparison and add a link to the extended articles instead of putting all the charts in this section. You could add the UN Partition Plan chart to the UN Partition Plan article and add a link to it from the side note. Same goes with the Jerusalem charts. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think we have "too many different charts added to this section." I do not plan on adding any more charts and, assuming you do not add any more charts either, I think the fear that will become "a giant mess" and "skewed and biased" is unfounded. If we're going to have a section for population statistics, I am going to insist that these charts be included. I am not asking you to remove the other populations of Israel charts and add them to the demographics of Israel article and so I would appreciate it if you do not ask me to remove the other vital charts and add them to their main articles. --GHcool (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I appreciate the way you organized the section into "Jewish and Arab populations" and "Demographics of Jerusalem." It looks much better.  :) --GHcool (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The missing demographic data

The missing data which we seek is availble at the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. please help me obtain it. If nobody manages to find it on their website, we should try requesting the data from them through an email. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Section tag explanation

I put an NPOV tag on the Mandate section. It deserves a FACT tag as well, but I don't like multiple tags. Examples:

• Neither the San Remo agreement nor the Treaty of Sevres called for the establishment of a Jewish Agency. That came with the Mandate for Palestine. However, not even the Mandate for Palestine called for an "independent" Jewish Agency. Actually its role was "advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine..subject always to the control of the Administration" (Article 4).
• "Arab gangs committed terrorism and murder against Jewish convoys and Jewish residents." What about the hundreds of Arab civilians killed by Etzel?
• [Grand Mufti] "played a key role in inciting religious riots", this is the Jewish claim not supported by others until the 1936 rebellion which was not a religious riot.
• "He tried to gain control of the Western Wall (the Kotel), saying that it was sacred to the Muslims.". No, the Muslim Waqf already had control of it by law. And why are two Jewish names used but no Muslim names?
• "Jews were massacred in Hebron, and the survivors expelled from the town." The first part is true but the second part is false.
• "The Peel Commission of 1937 was the first to propose a two-state solution to the conflict, whereby Palestine would be divided into two states according to its population." Wrong, it was not according to its population.
• (Peel Commision): "Arab state would include ...most of the Galilee", no the Jewish state would include all of the Galilee and the Jezreel Valley.
• "These restrictions remained until the end of the mandate period, a period which occurred in parallel with World War II and the Holocaust, during which many Jewish refugees tried to escape from Europe." - a common but disgraceful distortion. Actually the Nazis closed the gates so that the immigration certificates were not even all taken up.
• "During the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine ties were made between the Arab leadership in Palestine and the Nazi movement in Germany.", actually hardly any ties at all.
• "These connections led to cooperation between the Palestinian national movement and the Axis powers later on during World War II.", a grotesque lie!
• "During the war Amin al-Husayni joined the Nazis, serving with the Waffen SS in Bosnia.", this is a joke, right?
• Why do we need a Mufti+Hitler photo in yet another article? Actually the effect it had on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was nil.
• "In addition, during the war a joint Palestinian-Nazi military operation was held in the region of Palestine. These factors caused a deterioration.." Actually it was kept secret (try finding it in the newspapers of the time) and didn't cause anything at all.
• "the Jewish Resistance Movement was disassembled in 1946", nonsense, only a temporary pause happened
• "the Council of the United Nations", no such body

Zero^talk 12:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I helped with a few of your concerns. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So, I added sources to the facts which Zero doubted were true. The following concerns remain to be dealt with at a future time:

• Zero claims, "Neither the San Remo agreement nor the Treaty of Sevres called for the establishment of a Jewish Agency." I believe he is correct, though that is just a hunch.
• Zero claims that Jews were not expelled from Hebron following the Hebron massacre. I am unsure if this is correct or not.
• Zero claims that the Peel Commission did not divide the two states according to population. I'm unclear about what is meant by this claim. Surely, the Peel Commission calls for an Arab state and a Jewish state.
• Zero claims that the Jewish Resistance Movement was only temporarily dissasembled in 1946. I do not know if this is true or not.
• Zero claims that there is "no such body" as "the Council of the United Nations." I do not know if this is true or not. --GHcool (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

All of the concerns have been addressed. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)