Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Should Iran be included?

I realize Iran is not an Arab country but in light of the ongoing conflict (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the latest), their support of Hizballah, the Karine A affair, etc., should we replace the map with ? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you should concentrate on the Arab factor, but mention the Iranian connection, in much the same way that you don't make it "America, Israel - Arab, Iran conflict" as America has traditionally been an outspoken ally of Israel. -- Tomhab 00:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. Should other Muslim countries be mentioned too? Preaky 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've long thought that the map is blatant pro-Israel POV and should be removed. The idea is to show "tiny Israel" surrounded in a sea of Arab states, but anyone even remotely acquainted with geopolitical reality would include the United States on the map and give it the same color as Israel. Certainly the billions of dollars in aid, the advanced military hardware, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic support (including the UN Security Council veto) the U.S. gives to Israel far outweighs, for example, the support of Mauritania or Somalia to the Palestinian cause. The arguments put forth above supporting the inclusion of Iran and other non-Arab countries settles the matter. Brian Tvedt 13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The map isn't POV, it shows the direct actors in the conflict. The US doesn't and hasn't fought in any of the wars in the conflict. Similarly, the Soviet Union was a major player in the conflict, and the EU is today, but in a supporting role. Iran is a direct party to the conflict due to its military involvement and the fact that it has gone to the trouble to cultivate a distinct role in the conflict.

It's a fine line, and definitely cause for debate when it comes to discussing involvement; levels of influence follow a sliding scale so it's hard to make a definitive line. However, the map itself is perfectly appropriate-- it is illustrative of the region and the participants likely to send troops. If we try to include every possible partisan in the conflict, you'll have a world map in every article on every regional issue. The map is fine. Removing it just because it looks bad for one side or another isn't the solution.

Wellspring 16:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The US doesn't and hasn't fought in any of the wars in the conflict. Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates haven't fought in any of the wars in the conflict, either, yet they are on the map. Great Britain and France did fight in one of the wars (on Israel's side), yet they are not on the map.
Iran is a direct party to the conflict due to its military involvement... What you mean by military involvement? Iran has never sent its own troops to fight in any of the wars. If by involvement you mean sending arms, well the U.S. has certainly sent plenty of arms to Israel, including advanced fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships.
...and the fact that it has gone to the trouble to cultivate a distinct role in the conflict. The U.S. has gone out of its way to cultivate a distinct role in the conflict.
levels of influence follow a sliding scale so it's hard to make a definitive line. True, but by any reasonable measure the influence of the U.S. has been far greater than many of the countries colored green on the map, who are apparently included only because they belong to the Arab League and whose practical involvement is limited to voting against Israel in the UN General Assembly (easily outweighed the the U.S. Security Council veto), and the Arab boycott (mostly moribund and ineffectual, easily outweighed by the billions of dollars of aid annualy provided to Israel by the U.S.)
[the map] is illustrative of the region and the participants likely to send troops. Most of the countries listed in item 1 are very, very unlikely ever to send troops in any future Arab-Israel war. In fact there is unlikely ever to be another Arab-Israel war like the ones in 48/56/67/73, as Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties and Israel has attained an overwhelming military advantage. The Arab-Israeli conflict, today, is mostly about the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the ongoing dispute with Syria over the Golan Heights.

The map should be removed, not because it makes anyone "look bad", but because it has nothing to do with reality. Brian Tvedt 02:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The conflict is much more than overt wars, the Khartoum Resolution is a good evidence. The compromise was reached (but of course not set in stone) that neither the US nor Iran are included on the map.

Yemen was one of many (if not most) Arab League states that sent their troops to fight in 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

"there is unlikely ever to be another Arab-Israel war like the ones in 48/56/67/73, as Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties" - I do hope that there won't be a next major war but peace treaties is not a reliable sign. Many wars broke out between the parties that signed peace treaties. As you may know, the situation is very far from true peace, and both Jordan and Egypt are unstable dictatorships. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 09:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The map doesn't look to me like something that was worked out as a compromise. It looks like something that was produced unilaterally by the pro-Israel side. Care to point out where in the Talk archives where such a compromise was negotiated? If there was such a compromise, why did you not mention it when you recently proposed adding Iran to the map?

I've never heard of Yemen sending troops in 1948. For example, Chaim Herzog's Arab-Israeli Wars, hardly a pro-Arab source, doesn't mention Yemeni troops in that war. But even if we scratch off Yemen, we still have 9 countries shown on the map that have NEVER participated as combatants in ANY of the Arab-Israeli wars--and two countries that did participate as compatants, Britain and France, are not on the map. This is clearly misleading. The participation of the former imperialist powers on Israeli's side was a huge factor in the animosity towards Israel in the early 1960s.

You say the conflict is much more than overt wars, and I agree, but that if anything is a stronger argument for including the U.S. on the map. Since 1967, the most powerful nation on Earth has consistently backed Israel financially, diplomatically, and militarily. Clearly that is one of the most important facts about the conflict, for more important, for example, then the fact that Sudan is in the Arab League. Brian Tvedt 00:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the consensus, please check the archives, the map has been in the article for months now. Re: Iran, see the beginning of this section. For Yemen, look in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and see Yom Kippur War#Participation by other Arab states. As they say, never say "NEVER".

The title of this article is the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the map are the conflicting sides: Israel and the official representative organization of the Arab states, the Arab League.

There were cases when the US did not support Israel. Also their closeness with Saudi Arabia, Quwait, Egypt and Jordan do not help your case. You are welcome to write United States and the Arab-Israeli conflict, the same goes for the UK & France (which in 1956 fought for their lost colonial posessions, and it would be misleading to call either of them pro-Israel). Even if we decide to include the US, it would be wrong not to include the USSR and its satellites. Should we paint them the same color as the conflicting sides? I think not. Sorry, I am with User:Wellspring against showing the world map here. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 12:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking through the archived talk-pages, it is hard to find anything resembling a "consensus". I'd like to quote Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC): "the first map is particularly bizarre, giving as it does a very misleading impression of the relative strengths of Israel and its enemies, as well as the impression that every member of the Arab League is involved in the conflict in the same way", a point as relevant today as when it was raised. It seems the main purpose of this map is to give a misleading impression of relative strength, not to present to conflict in an objective manner. Many states outside this map, the US in particular, are much more involved than states such as Mauritania, and will continue to be for all foreseeable future. The only reality the map reflects is that of those who like to present Israel as a tiny weak state contrasted by vast Arab lands, disregarding much more important factors than Arab vs Jew and geography. --Cybbe 14:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Humus, like Cybbe I looked through the archives to look for the 'consensus' you mention and didn't find any record. I'm willing to grant that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Now to respond to your arguments:

the map has been in the article for months now. Doesn't mean anything. This article is full of patent nonsense, and it will likely be years before it comes even close to the NPOV standard.
Participation in the 1948 and 1973 wars. OK, I checked Righteous Victims and apparently Yemen sent a "small expeditionary force" in 1948, and Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Sudan, and Kuwait each sent some forces in 1973. However, according to Morris, in most cases those forces did not arrive until after the fighting had already ended, mainly because Sadat didn't tell them when the war was going to start! Anyway, if the map is supposed to be a depiction of the countries that sent troops to one of the wars, you still have to remove Oman, UAE, Mauritania, and Somalia, and add Britain and France.
There were cases when the US did not support Israel. So? There were cases when it definitely did. Some instances, like the airlift of materiél in the 1973 war, were decisive in their influence on events.
[US] closeness with Saudi Arabia, Quwait, Egypt and Jordan [does] not help your case. The large U.S. aid grants to Egypt and Jordan are pegged to US-Israel aid levels and are openly acknowledged to be in exchange for those countries signing peace treaties with Israel. So I think that does help my case. As for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, U.S. military sales to those countries are definitely influenced by Israeli concerns - remember the controversy over the F-15s in the 1980s? In any case US military cooperation with those regimes in the 1990s was necessary for the US campaign against the Baathist regime in Iraq, a campaign that Israel was hardly opposed to.
On the map are the conflicting sides: Israel and the official representative organization of the Arab states, the Arab League. First of all, you yourself undermined the notion that the map is simply a depiction of Arab League countries by arguing for Iran's inclusion. But the basic assumption is wrong to begin with: It is NOT called the 'Israel-Arab League conflict' and the Arab League is NOT an anti-Israel pact. It is simply an organization formed to advance the common interests of the Arab countries. This is why Egypt and Jordan are allowed to remain in the League, even though they have signed peace treaties with Israel.
You are welcome to write United States and the Arab-Israeli conflict. You are welcome to write Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict, but instead seemed to feel that the role of Iran should be included in THIS article, prominently, in the map at the very beginning.
UK & France...in 1956 fought for their lost colonial posessions, and it would be misleading to call either of them pro-Israel. It is a fact that Britain and France entered into a secret pact with Israel to cooperate in the invasion of Egypt. This means the British and French soldiers that fought in that war were fighting on the side of Israel. The fact that Britain and France had agendas of their own doesn't change the fact that they were in miltary alliance with Israel, and differing motivations among members is a common feature of all military alliances, including those which have been formed by Arab states.
if we decide to include the US, it would be wrong not to include the USSR and its satellites Oh, you're right about that.
I am...against showing the world map here Ah, but this is what happens when you start to include countries like Somalia that have had very little influence on the conflict. If we are going to include Somalia, then we should include all countries that have had at least as much influence on the conflict as Somalia, and that would certainly be a big map indeed. A more reasonable approach, in my opinion, is to include just Israel and those Arab countries which were major players in the wars - Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and (arguably) Saudi Arabia.

Brian Tvedt 03:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've asked for the opinion on Iran because Ahmadinejad's statements, Karine A affair, Hizballah hardly make it an outsider. I accepted the compromise to keep Iran and other supporting/inconsistent sides out of the picture. This article is Arab-Israeli conflict; the official representatives of the sides are the Arab League and Israel. The AL's actions (boycotts, voting record) and announcements (e.g. Khartoum Resolutions, Azzam Pasha's 1948 quote, etc.) evidence that they act together as a block in regard to the conflict. I assume that when you said that the AL tolerated Egypt's deviation from the official block policy by signing the peace treaty, you didn't know that this was the reason for Egypt's expulsion from the AL for 10 years, no doubt "to advance the common interests of the Arab countries".

Unless there is a better official representation the Arab side in the conflict than the AL, the map stays. I hope you do realize that picking and choosing is POV & OR. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 07:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You repeatedly make reference to a "compromise", even though it has been pointed out by me and Cybbe that there is no record of such a compromise in the Talk archives. Up to now I have been willing to treat it as an innocent mistake, but if you continue to make reference to this nonexistent "compromise", it's going to raise questions about your honesty.

Of course I am aware that Egypt was suspended from the Arab League for 10 years for signing the Camp David Accords. That fact remains that they were let back in, and Jordan was never expelled. This proves that membership in the Arab League does not, by itself, prove that a country is in a state of belligerency with regards to Israel. And by the way Egypt and Jordan do not participate in the boycott, which would be a violation of the accords they signed.

There is plenty of evidence that the League does not act as a bloc, such as the fact (already mentioned) that Egypt and Syria did not reveal their plans to the other members before the 1973 war. But if you believe that the Arab League does constitute a "bloc" a la the Warsaw Pact, what does it say that the United States invaded and occupied one of the countries of the "bloc", Iraq? Doesn't that automatically put the U.S. in the opposing "bloc"?

You still haven't responded to the strongest argument I made: The map implies that Somalia (for example) has had more influence on the conflict than countries that are not on the map, such as the United States. Clearly that is POV and OR. Brian Tvedt 12:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with User:Tomhab and User:Preaky in the beginning of this section to exclude Iran. Was the phrase "I accepted the compromise to keep Iran and other supporting/inconsistent sides out of the picture." not clear? Or did you expect to see a dotted line with the word "compromise" written underneath? If you are making a personal judgment just because we disagree, fine with me. I don't need your approval.

I was frustrated with you not because you disagree with me, but because you sent me on a wild goose chase. I asked you a very direct question: Care to point out where in the Talk archives where such a compromise was negotiated? You gave a vague answer Regarding the consensus, please check the archives, the map has been in the article for months now. After wasting time looking through FIVE pages of archives only to find nothing, you now tell me that all along, you were referring to something on the CURRENT talk page. I never imagined that you were seriously proposing that the brief exchange between you, Tomhab, and Preaky represent a "consensus" of all the editors that have worked on this page.Brian Tvedt 12:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead you. I remember a discussion about the map, though. Let me try to find it, perhaps I'll be more lucky. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 02:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply. Sorry for the heated rhetoric, I'll try to cool it down from now on. Brian Tvedt 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Somalia is your "strongest argument"?! Is it a part of the bloc representing the Arab states? Yes. Who says that all the parts must be equally involved? Who says that policies don't change with time, or with changing political situation (such as readmission of Egypt in 89)? A failed state, Warlords Dominate the Country, Political Violence And Banditry Have Been Endemic Since 1991, No National Judicial System, 80 to 90% of the School-Age Population Don't Attend School, Virtually All Females Genitally Mutilated During Childhood but not to worry: they do what they can to align with the AL in the UN: "There are those who violate these lofty principles with impunity. Israel is an example in this regard. The continued Israeli occupation of Arab lands, seized by war, denying the Palestinian people their dignity, daily killings of Palestinian children, siege of the legitimate leader of the Palestinian people and calls by Israeli officials for his killing, the suffering and daily humiliations inflicted on the Palestinian people are of great concern to the international community." [1]. I'm sure they signed all the anti-Israeli paperwork the AL produces "to advance the common interests of the Arab countries".

Somalia has said some harsh words about Israel. So what? Lots of countries we haven't even mentioned have said similar things in the UN. Are these words from Somalia more imporant than the billions in aid and advanced military hardware that the US sends to Israel every year? Do you think Israel would trade that support from the US to get Somalia on its side? I don't know why you bother linking to an article that shows Somalia is a backwater, that only strengthens my case. Brian Tvedt 12:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Somalia is a part of the AL and did not dissent from the bloc's policies. Considering their own internal troubles, I assume they gave all they could to align with the block to denigrate Israel. "Other countries" were not representing the Arab side. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 02:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can offer an official representative of the Arab side other than the Arab League, this talk goes nowhere. I am not interested in discussing US-Iraq relations here, or anything not directly related to the title of this page. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 02:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Arab League is not the official representative of the Arab side. The Arab League was not asked to participate in the Rhodes Armistice negotiations, nor was it invited to the Geneva Conference in the role of representative of the Arab states. Strictly speaking there is no "official" representative of the Arab side, because Israel refuses to recognize one; Israel has always insisted in negotiating one-one with individual Arab states. Brian Tvedt 12:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, the issue is not in the level of participation. The 1948 announcement by Azzam Pasha (among others), the Khartoum Resolution, the Arab League boycott, the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 clearly show that the AL acts as a block representing the Arab side. If we deviate from the official AL members, we will end up with the world map here, and that would be wrong. I don't see how Israel's negotiating position is relevant, unless again you interpret "conflict" as "overt wars". ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 02:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Shall we beat this to death? :-) First of all, the map does *not* represent the whole arab league. See Arab_League. In regards to the Khartoum Resolution, boycotts, etc, while it can be argued that many member states *have* participated in group actions against Israel, it hasn't been consistent and universal. Ronabop 07:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with the map. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 11:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my. Okay...

The map has *nothing* to do with states who have gone to war with Israel.
The map has *nothing* to do with actual Arab populations, only arab led nations.
The map has *nothing* to do with the current Arab_league states, because it omits states.
The map shows *nothing* about population density.
The map implicates arab states who have had 30 years of peace with Israel in the same context as states calling for the elimination of the whole state.

What's wrong? Well, it's overtly racist. Ronabop 11:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Canada is too big while India is too small (replace with your own favorites), therefore the world map is "overtly racist"! Responding to your points seriously:

The conflict is much more than wars.
"actual Arab populations" - I don't see why this criteria should be considered, other than to muddle the issue. The conflict began well before WW2, when Iraq had 150,000 Jews. Eventually, most moved to Israel. Should Iraq be painted with a tint of blue?
As I said, I don't see what is wrong with the map. What are the omissions?
Why does "population density" even matter? WP:NOR please.
This is a good point. In addition to the current map of the conflict, I think it is a good idea to show a map with the Arab states that signed formal peace treaties with Israel. Let me work on that and thank you for the suggestion. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 02:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the conflict is about more than wars. The map does not reflect this.
The problem is the map is misleading, in that a large land area, with minimal inhabitation, is contrasted with a small land area with dense inhabitation. In addition, states with large arab populations, but small land mass, are depicted in the same way as states with small arab population, but small landmass.
Comoros is missing fom the map.
Population density amounts to projection of force. If you have 10 million goobacks living on 100 acres of land, and they want another acre from the 100 weebacks living on 1,000 acres of land, who decides what is right? The gooback soldiers can overwhelm the weebacks, with numbers alone. Hitler called it Lebensraum, Israelis call them settlements. It's illegal under geneva, no matter what it's called.
Thanks, a progression of GIF files, such as the one at 2005_Paris_suburb_riots might work, to explain the official recognition of the state, trade treaties, etc.

This, in my opinion, would make the map more misleading, not less, because not having signed a formal peace treaty with a country does not equal being in a state of conflict or belligerency with that country. There has never been the slightest initiative to get Israel and Algeria, for example, to sign a treaty. There are no issues between them to discuss. Once Israel signs treaties with Lebanon, Syria, and the PA, the conflict is over. All that Algeria, etc., are doing is using what little economic and diplomatic leverage they have to nudge Israel towards that direction, which is not any different from the United States using its economic and diplomatic leverage to encourage Egypt and Jordan to agree to Israel's conditions for the treaties they signed. Brian Tvedt 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So it seems like humus is the only one who doesn't understand the problems with the map even though the topic has been beaten to death in this forum. I suggest it is removed ASAP so as not to give readers a distorted image of the conflict. Discussions can continue on a replacement/alternative image if the need is felt. I also strongly suggest changing the wording of the introductory paragraph in which it is stated that the conflict concerns 'self-determination of the Jews in the Land of Israel'. This is clearly a misrepresentation of the issue and the words are chosen carefully in order to do so. The jews have been wanting 'self-determination' in the 'Land of Israel' throughout history, but the current conflict is not a result of their historic desires. It is a result of the Zionist movement and its agenda in Palestine. The word Palestine MUST be used when explaining the background behind the conflict because at the time the conflict began the land was known to the world as Palestine. Now this article clearly cannot simply take the view of an individual who wishes to maintain that the conflict is a result of millenia-long desires of jews to create a state in the 'Land of Israel'. It is stated that the conflict is a recent conflict - recent being a little over a century long - when compared with the millenia-long desires of the jewish people to establish their state. Hence it is clear that the conflict is directly related to the establishment of the Zionist Organization, its agenda in Palestine which was clearly expansionist (as even documented by Herzl himself in his memoirs), and the vast amounts of illegal immigrants arriving from Europe against not only the wishes of the indigenous Palestinians, but of the ruling mandate at the time - namely the British Empire. --Saads 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Jsolinsky and I have also advocated leaving the map, for reasons described below.

Rather than go point by point, I'd like to address something I'm noticing throughout this discussion. Saads does a decent job of summarizing his point of view-- and it reveals the central problem here. Each side seems to consider their beliefs to be grounded in sweet reason and pure facts. Well, that's a problem in writing an encyclopedia, because you've got two perspectives on reality (each armed with reams of well-researched history) that are mutually exclusive. Wikipedia encourages a neutral point of view. We're trying to report on the debate itself, not a particular perspective.

On that note, the protestations that the map is "misleading" seem to me to boil down to feelings that the map is biased. As Jsolinsky has pointed out, someone who wants to know about the Israeli-Arab conflict will want a map showing where the Israelis and Arabs are. Sure the issue is complicated, but varying degrees of participation, other interested parties, differing perspectives on the conflict itself-- they all belong in the body of the article.

There are facts that are very uncomfortable to Israelis, and facts that are uncomfortable to the Arabs. Each, I imagine, consider those facts to be "taken out of context" or "misleading". They still belong in an encyclopedia.

Wellspring 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is entitled Arab-Israeli conflict. A geographic depiction of where the "Arabs" are and where "Israel" is would seem an essential requirement.

Are Morrocans part of the Arab world and part of the Arab-Israeli conflict? The Morrocan government is a member of the Arab League (a key player in the conflict), and its citizens seem to believe that they are part of the conflict. Absent some compeling evidence to the contrary, I don't see how we can exclude them or any of the other countries mentioned. Surely some deference should be given to self-identification.

Does the enormous disparity between the size of the Arab world and Israel play an important role in the conflict? It unquestionably plays a central role in the mindset of Israelis and in the diplomatic aspect of the conflict. A strong case can be made, using only quotes from self identified Arabs, that this disparity has had a great influence on Arab views as well.

In summary, I don't see how the map could not be part of the article. The first thing I want to see in any X-Y conflict article is a map of X and Y. And the size disparity is not only a fact, but an insparable part of the history of the conflict. Jsolinsky 22:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This whole debate is generating a lot of acrimony, but I think that this is the best argument made so far. Whatever the map "implies" isn't really our purview. As for the rest, it's covered in the text. The map doesn't tell the whole story but it's illustrative of the geography, which is why we have illustrations. Wellspring 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To JSolinsky and Wellspring: The conflict is primarily between Israel and its neighbors and the Palestinian Arabs. It is called the Arab-Israeli conflict because the parties which have conflicts with Israel, involving concrete issues like borders, water, and refugees, are all Arab; use of the term doesn't imply that every Arab country is a party to the conflict. As to geography, the map is not designed to illustrate the important geography, but to obscure it: the critical pieces of land in the conflict, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, are hardly visible. The geography of countries like Somalia and Mauritania which are only peripherally involved in the conflict is irrelevent.

Jsolinky provides no evidence whatsoever for his claims about what Moroccan or Arab views of the conflict are, so that part of his comment can be completely ignored. Brian Tvedt 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope these editors will speak for themselves. BT, are you saying that Egypt Air Force bombed Tel-Aviv on May 15, 1948 to avenge for Israel's victory in 1967? Similarly, there was no West Bank issue (even the term did not exist until Trans-Jordan invaded it) and other territorial issues before 1948. What was the reason for 5 Arab armies, supported by a number of others, to invade Israel in 1948? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 02:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't understand the point you're making because I already agreed that those 5 countries should be on the map. If you're suggesting that the West Bank is unimportant to the conflict, that is definitely original research, because virtually all commentators do treat it as important. Brian Tvedt 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Brian's dismissal of Jsolinsky's argument is a little high-handed. Again, I think Jsolinsky's point has a great deal of merit.

The "critical pieces of land" are central to the question of the occupied territories. If the Israeli-Palestinian dispute had its own page, then we could include a map of Israel and the disputed territories. Hey, what do you know? We do: Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And sure enough, it has such a map. Trying to characterize some countries as "irrelevant" and some as "relevant" is fraught with POV, if for no other reason because many of the countries you try to hand-wave out of existence consider themselves to be direct participants. As you point out, a true picture of the whole conflict with all participants at any level of involvement would be a world map. I originally agreed that Iran should be included but was persuaded that you need some hard criteria to keep the map useful for encyclopedic purposes.

The conflict described in this article existed prior to the 1967 war, and prior to the 1948 war, as Humus sapiens points out. This conflict in this article is tightly intertwined with the territorial dispute, but so are most of the other conflicts in the region.

So far I'm seeing is a lot of highly ideological banter back and forth, but the point still stands: an article about the Israel-Arab conflict should have a map showing where Israel is and where the Arab countries are. It's not racist, and it's not propaganda, it's geography. I can't believe we're still debating this.

Wellspring 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Many members of the Arab League have never been directly involved in the conflict

The phrase in question: The map shows the nations of the Middle East and Africa that are members of the Arab League, including many that have never been directly involved in the conflict, and Israel. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 02:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If the map stays, so does the description that has been around for months. Yuber^(talk) 23:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The description is misleading, see above. Please name "many" Arab league coutries that did not take part in the conflict. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Mauritania, Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros, Qatar, UAE. Need I go on? Yuber^(talk) 00:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrase is misleading: 6 out of 22 would be few, not many. Apart of boycotting Israel and voting for its destruction, did they do anything to advance "the peace cause"? I know Qatar made some careful moves in 2005. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 00:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A country has to do something to "advance the peace cause" in order to not be part of the conflict?Yuber^(talk) 00:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is the Arab Peace Initiative. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have separated the discussion of the phrase in the text describing the map into a subsection. What does this mean: "directly involved in the conflict"? Military participation? In any case, the number is few - not many. And they are aligned with the rest of the AL in regard to the conflict. Therefore the phrase in the beginning of this subsection is misleading. The Saudi "peace initiative" 2002 should be discussed elsewhere: it is irrelevant to this subject. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 02:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that this line does represent an important fact. Can we perhaps re-phrase to satisfy everyone? The map shows the nations of the Middle East and Africa that are members of the Arab League (including several that have never been militarily involved in the conflict) and Israel. This addresses the point that several of them have not participated in a meaningful way in the wars, but without implying that they are disinterested or inactive in the economic and diplomatic conflict. I'd like to hear thoughts from Yuber and Humus Sapiens before I actually change anything.

Wellspring 04:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for that phrase. If someone insists, we could say "A few members of the Arab League have never been militarily involved in the conflict", but first please explain why do we need this phrase at all. Who implies that conflict equals overt war? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 06:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I have no objection to clearly stating which nations have and have not been involved in the conflict militarily, there should be no question that a large portion of the conflict (and not surprisingly, this entry) has been non-military in nature. Certainly many statements by the Arab league (such as refusing to negotiate with Israel after the 1967 war) and statements by Arab nations in the UN (Iraq's 1948 statement stands out in my mind) have played an essential role in the conflict.

If people think it is important, then perhaps there should be a section in which each contry's participation in the conflict is detailed: have they fought a war? have they provided military support? have they imposed economic sanctions? have they supported terrorists? have they supported the families of terrorists? have they been a base for terrorists? have they been the source of mass emigrations (voluntary or not)? have they absorbed mass emigrations (vountary or not)? have they had a territorial dispute? have they taken other actions?

If the precise nature of each Arab countries participation is important, then it should be communicated directly, and not added into a caption as an afterthought. Jsolinsky 20:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see this already is a long discussion, but I also see it has the potential to become even longer. Actually I think we should start with a map of the world and color every country according to how much it helped each side of the conflict. Some countries are helping both sides, but the Optics offer a solution as green and blue may easily be combined to become this for equally strong support for both sides. For example:

Soviet Union did support establishment of Israel, but later went to war against it. Green, but a small touch of blue.
Somalia is kinda against Israel, but doesn't really care. Very dark green, almost black.
Saddam's Iraq is (ehm was) a strong supporter. But really only made things worse for others. Some even say that Saddam only bombed Israel to make a WP:Point against the international force. So I added red to the blue, to be sure.
Germany is definitly blue. I mean, Holocaust Shmolocaust. What matters is that now they feel quilty and send cash.

On a seriouse note, the article is titled "Arab-Israeli Conflict", and this is how the conflict is refered to in the media and in diplomatic circuits. The map represents this, and really should be left as it is.-- Heptor _talk 03:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A suggested compromise

May I suggest removing the colors from the map and identify the contries by name instead? (The map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Middle_east.jpg may be an appropriate replacement) It would then allow the reader to identify the countries when they are discussed in the article and the article text can explain the involvement of each country. The Arab League countries are identified and mapped on the Arab League page. Nloth 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with those above who want to leave the map as it is. It goes with the title to show where the "Arab" and where the "Israeli" part of the geography of the conflict is. I think that coloring each country differently would not add information in this regard, but would take it away. That being said, the article has many points of information in them; this is just one of them. elizmr 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If the map is to be left, then perhaps it would be useful to date the entry of each country to the Arab League? For instance in 1948 all the member states were (Egypt, Iraq, (Trans)Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen) were involved in the 1948 war. However by 1973 there were a number of Arab League countries that had very limited involvement in the conflict at all (Oman for instance!). By the mid-1990s some of the Arab League countries had actually begun to remove restrictions on trade with Israel, and it seems unrealistic to paint them as in conflict with Israel, especially since they had never had any direct involvement in any Arab-Israeli war Nloth 03:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not that simple: for example, Jordan took part in every war against Israel but now they also signed a peace treaty and it is the only AL state that granted the Palestinian refugees citizenship. We do not say or imply that all the AL countries have had the same level of involvement in the conflict. Instead, we say: The map shows the nation of Israel as well as the nations of the Middle East and Africa that are members of the Arab League, including many that have never been directly involved in the conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So why is Arab League membership so important to the topic that the article leads off with a map showing it? (and The map shows the nation of Israel as well as the nations of the Middle East and Africa that are members of the Arab League, including many that have never been directly involved in the conflict. should really be in the caption, not the text of the article) Nloth 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How about replaing it with a map that shows countries that have - at one point or another - had a state of war with Israel? Nloth 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the earlier discussions, we already went through this. In short, a conflict is much more than simply wars. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (and I have read the earlier discussion). But this map doesn't show the conflict, either. For instance Jordan (which has long had reasonably friendly relations with Israel) is shown the same color as Syria. Oman (which has never had ANY involvement in the conflict) is marked green, while Iran is marked the same color as Spain, Greece and Italy. Either the coloring on the map should show countries that have been in conflict with Israel, or it should be removed. The only definition of "been in conflict" that is ever going to be agreeable is "been at war". Nloth 04:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any map can "show the conflict". This one is a tiny 336x188, 8 KB map to show where in the world is the region in question and a simplistic black/white outline of the sides. It seems that you conclude that the same color means the same level of involvement, but we do not imply that. If you can propose a better official representation for the Arab side in the conflict than the AL, please do.

I think it would be wrong to present only the present moment. On Jordan, I wrote just a few lines above. Non-Arab Iran today supports (or even leads) the Arab side but before 1979 it was a friend of Israel. The USSR voted for the establishment of Israel but supported the Arabs since 1948. This quickly gets hairy. Regarding Oman, quick search shows [2] and [3]. I'll spare you of long quotes here, but it seems that it keeps the official AL line.

You said The only definition of "been in conflict" that is ever going to be agreeable is "been at war". - sorry I have to disagree. See Khartoum Resolutions or Arab League boycott. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I have added text "Some members of the Arab League have never been militarily involved in the conflict." to the caption. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I second Humus sapiens's comments above regarding conflict vs. war as descriptive terms, and also the sense that the complexity of the individual Arab League countries and Israel over time is something the tiny map can't capture or express. I very much like the additional text in the caption. Would it address Nloth's concerns if something like this was also added: The details of each Arab league's relationship with Israel have varied over time. elizmr 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, sorry I would vote against that sentence, but I cannot come up with a better one. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to some extent. However, it still isn't a great representation of the conflict - for instance, it doesn't show Iran's involvement. I don't understand what the reasoning behind keeping it is - everyone seems to agree that it doesn't really show what countries were/are involved in the conflict and the map already exists for the entry on the Arab League. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nloth (talk • contribs) .

The map doesn't show Iran's involvement, as well as USSR's, USA's, British, etc. As it's been said earlier, it shows simplistic outline of the sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And the map of the Arab League alone doesn't show Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging History of Arab-Israeli Conflict

I agree with the proposal to merge. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- DONE - Upon review, I find this article more NPOV and better organized than HoAIC (tagged Totallydisputed). I didn't see any salvageable info there that is not either here or in its subarticles. Since no one volunteered to do it for 3 months, I've turned it into a redir. Please undo if you think it was wrong. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree to the proposal to merge since the contents are very similar. gidonb 12:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree also. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree. --Ian Pitchford 16:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree Ronabop 10:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: can I ask why? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Strongly agree 69.22.42.35 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Brian Tvedt 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Wellspring 16:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree. --Cybbe 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree.Matt White 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV Comic

I removed the "american bias" comic, such comics are inherently POV. Please don't use such material, they have no place in a NPOV encyclopedia.

This has been discussed to death; see Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict/Archive 5#Regarding maps and caricatures and Image talk:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg. Images illustrating a point of view that is described in a neutral fashion are perfectly acceptable. The comparison drawn earlier to the illustrations of propaganda and anti-Semitism remain valid; the images there show a much stronger (and much nastier) POV than this one, but they illustrate this or that POV very well. —Charles P. (Mirv) 10:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What makes the propoganda and anti-semitism articles different is that they are about specific POVs. This article is not about a specific POV, it is about a conflict involving many different POVs. If you can find cartoons representing all the different POVs regarding US bias, no matter how obvious that bias may be, and include them, I might let this slide (although even then I would still disagree). But as it is including the cartoon is giving the article a positively anti-Israel bias. Whoever is for including this seriously needs to think hard about how one is to achieve NPOV standards before editing any other articles they may feel strongly about (I guarantee you that wasn't added by somebody that did not have a strong anti-Israel bias, its an obvious case of POV pushing.) --Brentt 07:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I still hold my position that this image contributes to dehumanization of Jews. Whether this was intentional or just a Freudian slip, doesn't matter. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 12:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't go so far as to say that. Its not an attack on Jews, its an attack on policy. I think there is even some truth to the cartoon, but political cartoons are necessarily simplified expressions of a POV. And it's just not appropriate here. --Brentt 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I just finished writing a sentence about setting precedents on another talk page, and I'm wondering if the above logic would also apply to the cartoon on the left hand side here, even though I can't deny that there is some truth to this one as well... Ramallite ^(talk) 22:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, aside from the fact that the cartoon on the Six Day War page has a gross and dehumanizing stereo-typical carticature of a Jew, it is still just depicting events as they might have turned out, as opposed to presenting a POV of events (aside from the way the Jew is depicted, for that reason I might say that cartoon shouldn't be there). --Brentt 22:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some truth" is a terrible criterion, not even worth discussing. IMHO, some propaganda cartoons DO belong in encyclopedia, on certain conditions:

they have to be clearly marked as such, otherwise we risk to be seen as amplifting their POV;
they have to be veryiable. State-controlled press is the best, because it typically reflects official policies;
they have to chosen carefully and judiciously.

Now let's take the case of the pre-Six Day War cartoon (disclosure: submitted by me): 1) if it isn't clear that this is a propaganda cartoon, I have no problem saying it in the caption. 2) A verifyable and reputable source is provided and 3) "throw Jews into the sea" was a famous rallying cry. BTW, the same source contains another, much more sickening cartoon with a pile of Jewish skulls among ruins. I chose not to submit it (can do it upon request). ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is nuts. The comic is there to describe a point of view... You saying we cannot describe a point of view because its POV?? -- Tomhab 00:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that what you wrote is nuts, but that is not what I wrote. Take a look at the article Propaganda. We describe POVs but we do not amplify them by taking sides. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 11:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What you don't seem to get is adding a caricature isn't supporting it!! Ever heard the statement that "a picture is worth 1000 words"? That picture sums up EXACTLY how the author felt 40 years ago, and what the political feeling in the Arab world was of the time. That picture happened, and deleting it would be a travesty. Feel free to add any statements that you feel would make it less POV but this page is here to document common Arab and Israeli sentiments - and thats what the image does better than anything on this article. -- Tomhab 12:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you are arguing with someone else, because these not my arguments. See my post above: "IMHO, some propaganda cartoons DO belong in encyclopedia", etc. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 22:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Point taken... but I'm still not sure how adding a picture is taking sides --Tomhab 00:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the current comic is a different one or a new one, but I don't think it adds much to the article POV aside. If you are going to present a comic with a point of view, it should at least be presented in a way that does not purport to be in the same tone as the rest of the article and perhaps balanced by comics from other points of view. Vote on this? 69.22.42.35 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, its nutz that people don't see this as POV. I don't think the people editing this article have any idea what it means to be NPOV.--Brentt 07:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, if you insist on having it, I added some text to higlight its anti-semetic overtones. If you guys don't see this as NPOV then you really shouldn't be editing this article. --Brentt 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

With the added text, I don't see any POV problems (the cartoon obviously has a POV but theres no reason we can't have cartoons in an encyclopedia). However, there are balance issues. This article is not just about Arab views of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It seems like there should also be a cartoon from a pro-Israeli point of view. Anyone have a decent one? Savidan 06:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with Savidan. Racist or anti-semetic literature is perfectly appropriate in Wikipedia if it's being used to illustrate racist or anti-semetic perspectives in an NPOV manner. We can't just refuse to report in detail on points of view that are topical or historically important just because we personally find them offensive. A cartoon illustrative of the pro-Israeli position or some subset of it would be a good addition as well.

Wellspring 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As an idea to resolve this problem - how about adding a section (or even a new article): Arab-Israeli conflict and the Media. It would provide a great read and would be a good place to put POV items such as comics/propaganda but in an environment that will offend people least and be NPOV. It also resolve the question about whether this comic is the sentiments of every Arab/Jew worldwide. -- Tomhab 20:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its Talk page. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 21:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the comic should be removed, or balancing material added. However, I'd like to complain that the caption itself is POV. Obviously as a political cartoon it represents a point of view. This can and should be noted in the caption. However, the inference that the "gross caricature" is one sided (check out the nose on that Arab fergodssake!) or that it is anti-semitic is wildly POV in my opinion. --Russell E 20:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Russell E Pro-Israeli cartoons of Arafat played on similar stereotypes about Arab features. [4]Dothivalla 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The best description of the comic comes from the image's description on the file itself. "President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, backed by Arab states, kicks Israel into the Gulf of Aqaba." This directly ties to the text appearing directly next ot it which describe "Nasserism." The Anti-Semitic mention is a bit silly when you notice that Nasser is equally given Arab features like a huge nose.Dothivalla 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that a cartoon that borne this discussion has been removed somewhere in November. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification requested

This article states that "The Arabs had rejected the November 1947 UN Partition Plan, which proposed the establishment of Arab and Jewish states in Palestine." This implies that there was conflict between Arabs and Jews since before the UN Partition Plan. If this is the case, what was it about and why is it not referenced in this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There is Israeli-Palestinian conflict timeline. There's been plenty of violence: Riots in Palestine of 1920, Jaffa riots, Riots in Palestine of 1929, Great Uprising (the latter should be renamed, IMHO) and alongside of that, no shortage of peace proposals, conferences, etc. Perhaps we should we add a small section. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 03:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The connection between the Jewish-Arab conflict in the days of Muhammad to the Arab-Israeli conflict

Why are you hiding the connection between the Jewish-Arab conflict in the days of Muhammad to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Read the article Jewish-Arab conflict, especially this section, and see that there is a connection! Toya 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense for Jewish-Arab conflict article, but not for Arab-Israeli conflict article. - Jgritz 05:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

THE LINK that Toya mentions, above, is gone. Elizabeth M Ross 21:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A state based on racism

=====A state based on racism===== Some groups, including some Arabs, call Zionism, and hence any Zionist state, racist insofar as they claim it privileges Jews over non-Jews (see [[Zionism and racism]]) - for example, the 2001 U.N. World Conference on Racism's NGO Forum called Israel a "racist apartheid state", and [[Bashar al-Assad]] called it a "racist society"[http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/article.php?voir%5B%5D=666&voir%5B%5D=4798] - and see this as one among many reasons to fight it. Critics of this position argue that Israel is not racist, or is more just in this respect than a Palestinian state would be, or that critics in Arab states are. They also argue that the practices which those groups consider to privilege Jews over non-Jews are either non-legislated, or, when existing (such as the [[Law of Return]]), are both legal under international law, and what some ethnic-based states grant to members of their ethnicity. Many Arab-Israelis complain of discrimination and being treated as second class citizens.[http://www.irac.org/article_e.asp?artid=199]

I have moved the above section to talk. To stay, it needs a complete rewrite:

The NGO Forum was parallel[5] to the UN conference and not a part of it.
Why do we quote Bashar al-Assad? Is he an expert on racism or a reputable human rights authority?
The Arab Israelis are already covered elsewhere in the article

Instead, why don't we describe state-sponsored antisemitism permeating "Some groups, including some Arabs" and their state-sponsored education systems: Lebanon's Largest Government University Hosts Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV Symposium Calling to Wipe Israel Off The Map: ‘Just Like Hitler Fought The Jews…We Too Should Fight The Jews and Burn Them’. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 10:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Although they definitely have a discriminatory system, it is emphatically not racism. They do not discriminate based on race, they discriminate based on citizenship, of which preference is given to Jews of course--which is of course a religous preference, not a racist preference. (Although there is a significant population of non-Jewish Arab Israelis with full citizenship, but that doesn't make much of a difference to the issue at hand since there is a definite preference.) There are many different races in Israel with full citizenship and all the privleges that come with it. There have been problems with racism, as there are in almost all countries, as when it was questioned whether Ethiopian Jews should have been allowed to emigrate, because some people held that they couldn't really be Jews apparently for no other reason than their skin color--fortunately the racist side of that debate lost though. But the discrimination being reffered to in this section is not racist in nature, its discrimination of some kind, but it is not about race and therefore should not be called racism. --Brentt 04:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody got ideas for a better term than racism? Dhimmtude would work as a conceptual concept, but using it in this context (Israel's practices) would be... uhm... pretty messed up. As far as mentioning either the discriminatory practices of Israel, *or* the discriminatory practices of Arab states, we can and should include *both* for NPOV. As to the *characterization* of the discriminatory practices of Israel by Arabs as "racism", we should probably have that data point, as well, even if we choose to note that it is not "racism" in the context of the regular usage of that word. Ronabop 06:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Both Israelis and Palestinians are ethnically/racially diverse. I think "racism" came into the picture for 2 reasons: 1) it is a typical Marxist cliché and 2) a case of psychological projection by those who look for any dirt on the Jewish state.

What is the evidence that internal Israel's policies concerning Israeli Arabs really impact the AIC? Bashar Assad's babble? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 22:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Historical treatment of Jews in the Arab World

Sorry to revert you, Yuber. The first change you made (commenting out the accusation of anti-semitism in Arab countries pre-Israel pending a source citation) was I think a fair request. Changing it to a "some Jews accuse them of" is to my mind not really valid until a week or two has gone by for a source citation to emerge-- and it's definitely not a minor edit by any definition.

Wellspring 16:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire section is unsourced, so I thought it was a bit unfair to only comment out the pro-Israeli opinion. I agree though that we should find sources for the entire paragraph. Yuber^(talk) 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it will be commented out for long. We have to remember that institutionalized discrimination was the rule rather than the exception in history. Certainly, the Arab world (and many of the Islamic empires that occupied the region) were mostly more benevolent than their Christian equivalents-- but the conflict was still there. Anyway, it's moot until we can source it. Leaving it commented our for the brief time it will take to resolve factually is the best course IMHO.

Wellspring 18:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph's cite is an online essay that can be found at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html This essay is extremely biased, which can be shown in its misuse of scholastic comments. For example the essay cites Bernard Lewis stating, "The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam." The essay purports that this line (along with several others), shows that Jews were not treated well by Muslims. It is true that Bernard Lewis says that in his book. But look at how he sums up the treatment in page 1. "To put the two stereotypes in Jewish terms, in one version classical islam is like modern day America, only better; in the other its like Hitler's Germany, only worse.....Both images are of course wildly distorted." The reality is that Lewis's work paints a complex relationship between Jews and Muslims that is neither bad, nor perfect, but better than anywhere else in the world until today. As Bernard Lewis says later on page 8 of the same book[6]

"Persecution, that is to say violent and active repression was rare and atypical. Jews and Christians under Muslim rule were not normally called upon to suffer martyrdom for their faith. They were not obliged to make the choice...between exile apostasy and death. They were not subject to major territorial or occupational restrictions, such as were the common lot of Jews in premodern Europe. There are some exceptions to these statements, but they do not affect the broad pattern until comparitively modern times, and even then only in special areas, periods and cases."

What annoys me most about this essay is that is summarily lists out each of the exceptions and then cites the Lewis book as supporting its thesis that Jews were normally treated poorly in Muslim lands when the book obvious disagrees with this point.I don't think we can allow this cite to remain, and should modify the paragraph to reflect the views of its less biased sources.Dothivalla 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To be sure, Jewish Virtual Library has a point of view, but it is scrupulous about its use of sources. You and others employ a strawman argument, claiming that since Arab treatment of Jews rarely reached the level of atrocities seen more often in Europe, then it can be inferred that Jews had no reason to flee Arab lands. This is rather like saying that just because blacks were rarely lynched in the 20th century, Martin Luther King had no case. There are many many levels of persecution and discrimination that fall short of Nazi Germany but still justify fleeing, as was clearly evidenced. --Leifern 15:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As my entry above shows, Jewish Virtual Library isn't very scrupulous about its use of sources. The linked essay clearly falls into what Bernard Lewis would characterize as the second type of Jewish view, which he then calls "wildly distorted." Please remember that I am not trying to make the article say that this argument is correct. This argument comes in a neatly labeled section that says "Arab View" in clear letters on top of it. As I have explained below in the commentary about outdated claims, I am trying to clean up the arab section and am confused by why some of the Israeli counter-arguments appear within them. In this case the Israeli counter-argument is extremely poorly sourced and probably should probably be rewritten. No one is disputing that the persecution occured, but the primary source that JVL is using (the Lewis book) puts a huge disclaimer on the events saying that they were non-systemic and isolated incidents. The para as currently written gives the impression that they were systemic and that persecution was commonplace. This needs to be changed and the JVL cite sould be removed in favor of their primary source, the Lewis book.Dothivalla 16:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC) NB: I accidentally omitted the word not from the Lewis quote. It is much more Muslim-sympathetic now. Please read the actual chapter that I hyperlinked before the quote. Dothivalla 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we agreed then that the Jewish Virtual Library cite is hopelessly disingenuous via its contradictions with its primary sources?Dothivalla 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dothivalla. I am a newcomer here. I read the above and have a real appreciation for your great efforts to make sure citations and what citations cite are honest. I wanted to say, however, that I don’t agree that the JVL cite is “hopelessly disingenuous via its contradictions with its primary sources”. Let me sketch this out, going back to the text of the JVL site and your comments above. The JVL cite, as you linked to it, contains a section discussing the statement “Jews who lived in Islamic countries were well-treated by the Arabs.” What the essay calls a “myth” is countered by this opening statement, “While Jewish communities in Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs”. The section supports this thesis by citing 13 different sources. Lewis is quoted twice. The first quote is the one you refer to is not from Lewis’ 1984 book (the one you link to on Amazon), but a 1968 essay entitled "The Pro-Islamic Jews.” The sentence you cite from Lewis (as you probably very rightly point out) may not be representative of Lewis’s overall thesis, but the cite is not about Lewis’ thesis. In the context of the JVL cite, this Lewis quote is only used to raise a question of the origins of what they are calling a “myth” was, not to support any factual point of how Jews were or weren’t treated. The cite goes on to provide factual information about the historical treatment if Jews under Arab administrations. The Lewis book you link to is actually cited later in a discussion a 1465 incident in Fez and Morocco, along with three other sources. The first Lewis quote doesn’t really represent “disingenuous use of primary sources” and the JVL essay could well make its point without it. elizmr 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A state based on outdated claims

I made two quick changes to the outdated claims section.

I changed the vague "1800 years" to a specific reference to the lack of jews following the third jewish revolt and tied it to the wiki page on the event. The wiki page is great in establishing the end of Jewish rule in the area, and the heavy handed Roman tactics that forced the center of Judaism to switch to the Babylonians
I added a "citation needed" next to the counter of 3000 years of continuous jewish presence. Thats a pretty bold claim and isn't cited. The wiki page on Bar Kochba's revolt references a jewish presence that was maintained in Safed following 135 CE, but the wiki on Safed shows a gap in records on the town from about 135 to 1289. So where was the continuous presence? It wasn't in Jerusalem because the wiki on History of Jerusalem shows that Jews were forbidden from the city for "400 years [sic]", from 137 to 638. Can someone please cite this claim?Dothivalla 05:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The point that needs to be proven is the opposite: is there an evidence the continuous Jewish presence in the region was interrupted in the last 3,000 years? The Jewish sovereignty ended in 6 BCE, and after the revolts in 70 and then in 135 the Romans killed and enslaved masses of Judeans. Is there a proof that all of them disappeared?

True, religious centers moved to a more tolerant places but considering that the Land of Israel is central in Judaism, much more realistic assumption is that there were at least some Jewish individuals/communities rather than none at all. E.g. in 360s, Julian the Apostate invited Jews to restore the Temple. I'm sure some responded. The Jerusalem Talmud was completed around the year 400. Who's done it? In 1099, the first Crusaders slaughtered Jerusalem's Muslims and Jews. Only in the 12th century, Jerusalem visited Yehuda Halevi (1141), Maimonides (1165) and Benjamin of Tudela (1173). I don't know for how long they stayed, but it is on the record. Please note that the region is much more than Jerusalem.

The entire question of "A state based on outdated claims" is completely ridiculous and bigoted. What other nation is required to be held to such demands? What claims do the Hashemites have for Jordan? Or the Russians for Koenigsberg? Or Americans for Arizona, California, Texas, etc.? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has two seperate sections within "Reasons for conflict." An "Israeli View" and an "Arab View." As currently written the "Israeli View" presents Israeli views 'as is' with no criticism. The "Arab View" section has each view juxtaposed with pro-Israeli commentary. I can understand why this is necessary if the Arab View is clearly historically wrong. Currently the Palestinian view claims that "During the subsequent 1,800 years almost all Jews lived elsewhere" Which makes room for the trace Jewish presences you are describing. I originally put the "citation needed" to see evidence of continued major presence that would have deemed the "Arab View" outright false. Remember, this article isn't saying the Arab view is right, but simply presenting what it is, just like the Israeli one. In view of the article makeup, and the entire section devoted to provide Israeli viewpoints, I don't understand why we need the Israeli counter in this particular paragraph.Dothivalla 15:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am giving my comments another day to be absorbed, but I am pretty convinced that the Israeli counter-argument inside of the "Arab View" section has got to go. Please remember that I am not advocating any removal of Israeli views from the "Israeli View" section, but a deletion of an "Israeli view" that appears within the "Arab View" section. I am also not saying that the "Arab View" is correct, but I am saying that it isn't critically flawed enough to have an Israeli counter appearing directly after it. Remember, this article is summarizing each side's basic positions, not presenting an in-depth debate.Dothivalla 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what others say, I am afraid that a day for your proposed drastic changes in an article this sensitive is not going to fly. I would suggest you add relevant information instead of removing, especially when it is encyclopedic and sourced. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather than removing the information, shall we shift the relevent paragraphs to the "Israeli View" section? Generally speaking I have no issue with the info, just that it is in the wrong place. Dothivalla 14:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It might make more sense to mix all the arguments together, so that both sides can be seen. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It might, but to do so would mean completely re-writing the majority of the page. the editing process could get ugly.Dothivalla 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we OK with shifting then?Dothivalla 04:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved the paragraph. Pending reaction, I would like to repeat this process for each of the Israeli counter-arguments embedded in the "Arab View" section. Dothivalla 20:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gonna do the same thing to the "International Law" section. Migrating the relevent Pro-Israeli Text to the "Israeli View" "Refugee" "Settlement" and "Self Defense" <-- For the text referring to Six Day War lands. Seems like the most obvious fits. Dothivalla 08:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't go through all the latest edits but I noticed a lot of factually wrong information (as well as some correct info missing, such as mentioning Sinai in the list of territories). I had to fix at least some facts (not views) in the "International Law" section.

IMHO, the idea of the Views... section with completely separate Jewish only from Arab only is unencyclopedic. I would prefer to sort out the arguments somehow better, so that we don't leave the reader with dangling assertion without giving the other side an opportunity to respond. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sinai terrotory missing was an obvious oversight. Thanks for including it! The ultimate problem with integrating all of the content is that there are very different interpretations of the events listed. A good example is the section on the 1967 war. Did the Egyptians start it by closing the straits or did the Israelis start it with their attacks? The page has flipped back and forth on what caused and will continue to do so as long as a number of people hold different ideas on what the objective truth is. Is there a project page or other place where we can play with different attempts at integrating content?Dothivalla 16:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph of the entry states that the conflict is cocnerning the "self-determination of the Jews in the Land of Israel and, after the establishment of the state of Israel, its relations with the Arab states and the Palestinian population (see Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I think this statement is erroneously summarizing the pre 48 arab position. The Palestinian Mandate wiki is extremely clear that Arabs were unhappy about Jewish migration, not voting. A better opening would state: "migration of Jews into the Palestinian Mandate and, after the establishment of the State of Israel, its relations with the Arab states and the Palestinian population" Dothivalla 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the introduction to incorporate both concepts; certainly many people now claim there is no issue with Jews living in Israel, but rather that they take issue with them having their own state. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks great :-)Dothivalla 20:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, also language-wise something seemed not to work before. gidonb 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Legit of war against Israel

This section claims that majorities in Palestinian polls support attacks on Israeli civilians. No cite is given. Here are the three polling bodies that regularly poll the Palestinian population. None support the statement. http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/opinion.html http://home.birzeit.edu/dsp/DSPNEW/polls/opinion_polls.htm http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/survey.html Interestingly over 69% of Palestinians favored Negotiations in December of 2004. Only 41% favor any military operations in 2005. Thats a far cry from the current article which makes the uncited claim that the majority of Palestinians are for attacking civilians. I am commenting out the claim until someone can cite it with a reputable poll.Dothivalla 04:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure the source must be given. Doesn't e.g. Fig.6 in [7] look convincing enough? I would love to believe that the Palestinian attitudes became more peaceful lately, but the victory of Hamas in the elections of Jan. 2006 proves me wrong. You chose really unfortunate time to paint them peace-loving. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You can be assured that the victory of Hamas had very little to do with the movement's attitude towards Israel and was more disgust with both Fatah's corruption and the suffocating status quo in general. Support for bombings has decreased significantly since 2003 (which Figure 6 doesn't go beyond), as seen in this more recent JMCC study. It is probably even lower now. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that they are unreservedly pro-peace as well. Thats why when I made my change I took away the qualifiers saying most palestinians have one position over another and left it as three simple positions. Lets also remember that the statement is about attack on civilians versus military targert. Over time all of the ratios spike and fall back down (figure 6 was in the high 20s until it spiked to 76% before beginning its gradual decline again). I might play with some of hte language a bit...but won't mess with the content until checking back in. Dothivalla 19:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If Americans Knew website

Originally no explanation was given for deleting the link to "http://www.ifamericansknew.org/". The page cites a slew of casualty figures from both the Palestinian and Israeli sides. The page has an extremely pro-Palestinian bent to it, highlighting statistics that make Palestinians appear to suffer fgreater than Israelis. I re-added the page as a cite with an Arab-POV. The page was deleted again, apparently because its a "propaganda page." Well of course its a propaganda page, thats why we have it listed with all of the other pro-Arab propaganda pages. We do the same thing with the Israeli propaganda pages. What criteria are we using for listed pages in the Israeli/Arab POV sections? Dothivalla 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Expressing a POV and being a propaganda page are different things; if a website expresses a pro-Arab POV, but is itself well-written or reasonably encyclopedic, and provides significant content which cannot be found in the article, then it's worth linking. If, on the other hand, it's pure propaganda that provides little valuable content, then it shouldn't be added. A good rule of thumb might be "If I added this information to the article itself, would it improve it"? In this case the answer is clearly "No". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On both counts I think the site should be included. Its got heavy spin to be sure, but everythng it cites is factual (just selectively drawn). At the end of the day it is presenting a case that says that its not in America's interest to support Israel. It does it by showing the disproportionate suffering of Palestinians in the conflict. It cites all of its statistics, and provides links to other pro-Palestinian opinions. Its about as valuable as the pro-Israeli [8]. I really don't see the difference between the two.Dothivalla 06:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"everythng it cites is factual (just selectively drawn)" is a terrible argument. Please take a look at this Site Analysis. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's actually not very likely that everything it says is factual; there are some obvious factual errors (intentional or otherwise) in the page linked to. Furthermore, the degree of selectivity in its choices moves this page from the "pro-Palestinian" camp into the "propaganda" camp. It simply does not qualify as a reliable source, and so could not be used to add any information to this article. It would be an appropriate link in an article about the IfAmericansNew website, and it might well be an appropriate link as an example in an article about propaganda, but it is certainly not an encyclopedic source, and so not appropriate for this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

B'Tselem is a good site for statistics as they explain each entry included[9], which makes it easier to see how different advocacy groups choose the present the figures. --Ian Pitchford 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

B'Tselem is an advocacy group, and their statistics is flawed as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The site analysis that Humus sapiens is a joke right? Have we been reduced to discrediting Palestinian POV sites by pointing at Israeli POV sites? No one is claiming the cite is neutral and without spin, thats why I am trying to get it categorized as "Arab POV." The [10] site looks better sourced and providing more comprehensive info, but I am very disturbed by the tendency to automatically discredit Arab POV by invoking Israeli POV. The two are obviously in conflict with each other, thats what the whole page is about. Using the Israeli lens to filter the Arab POV is destroying the POV of the article as a whole. Dothivalla 18:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the issue. It is not about Arab POV vs. Israeli POV, but rather about encyclopedic links vs. non-encylopedic links. Links should be to citeable sites which contain information which might be included in the article, but is currently not in there. The "IfAmericansNew" site is not citeable, therefore it should not be included. There are good pro-Palestinian sites (and articles) around, and they can certainly be included. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, that page presents child-killing as a freaking competition! :-0 Heptor _talk 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One that the Israelis are winning. Exactly why sites like that should be included and Pro-Israeli members don't want to see itDothivalla 21:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of politics I don't think the website is very good quality. I didn't learn anything there that I could have learnt by reading the BBC link. Overall I'd like to see the link list trimmed down to about 4 or 5 links. Maybe BBC, The Guardian, the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government. Otherwise it becomes a linking content and wikipedia is not a link directory. I don't see why we need newspaper links here. We could just put a link to DMOZ Israel-Palestine section and cut out the rest. Any takers?? --Jgritz 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dothivalla, please clarify wht do you mean by saying "the Israelis are winning" the "child-killing ... competition". That the IDF intentionally targets Palestinian civilians for mass killing? So far I assumed good faith, but you make it difficult. Here's another one to your collection of "jokes": [11]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dothivalla, you seem to have misunderstood a number of policies, among them WP:AGF. The site should not be included because it is a poor quality site. Period. There are at least 5 other pro-Palestinian links of higher quality in the article already, far more than the 2 pro-Israel sites. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said on my post on "18:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)", I agree there are better sites out there that should be included. I am disturbed by the ambiguity of criteria being used to outright reject the site, as Jewish Virtual Library (which as I showed during the Jewish treatment discussion engages in the same kind of propaganda tactics) does the same thing. What is our bright-line criteria to determine something is encyclopedic for this page. The wiki page is a bit vague on the subject.Dothivalla 18:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Concern about re-organization

I'm concerned about the re-organization of the arguments here. The information being moved to the Israeli area is often placed in sections not all that strongly related to it. A better article would have sub-sections on the same topic, e.g. International law. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When you say subsection do you meant having an "Israeli View" sections devoted to "International Law"? That sounds great. Dothivalla 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Clash of civilizations between the Western World and the Arab or Muslim world?

"Some groups fear that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a part of (or precursor to) a wider clash of civilizations between the Western World and the Arab or Muslim world"

How are we defining Western World here? Does it refer to European Christian countries? But then Japan is considered a part of the Western World, and is neither European nor Christian. Is Japan also "clashing" head to head with the "Arab or Muslm world" in this percieved war of civilizations? Religiously, Israel is predominantly Jewish (just under 80%) not Chritsian, and over 50% is culturally Arab (and I do include Arab Christians, Arab Muslims and Arab Jews), so how is Israel a part of the Western World and how could its conflict be a part of the perceived clash of civilizations? (I will concede the people and the culture that run Israel are European (ie. Ashkenazi.) Then there is the mistake of equating Arab with Muslim. And finally, some Arab countries are now considered a part of the Western World, at least by economic and living standards (UAE.)

Maybe we could say the clash between the Muslim world and Judeao-Christian world, but that's assuming Jews (were even here too there are ethnic division) and Christians (including Arab Christians) see themselves as a "world", and that's also assuming that Judeao-Christian could be the only team up, as if there were no Judaeo-Muslim or Islamo-Christian world view (at least for some people). Maybe you could say the clash between the Arab world and Jewish world, but that's assuming these two categories are exclusive of one another, ignoring the existance of Arab Jews

Maybe we could forget religion all together, and concentrate on culture and say between the Western World and Eastern World, but that's if we count Israel as a Western country because of the Jews from Europe and their European Western culture and values, but again by doing this we deny the other half of Israel's Jews, the Jews of the Middle East (Mizrahim) and their Middle Eastern culture and values. Is there also a clash of civilizations between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim/Sephardim? Some would agree that there is. Why not mention that too, seeing that it'd add just as much to the article as the sentence in question.

Now really, what really is the point of the sentence? It stinks of POV and adds absolutely nothing to the article. Al-Andalus 05:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

You personal views are predictible, if nothing else. Nevertheless, some groups, likely affected by Huntingdon's Clash of civilizations, see the Arab-Israeli conflict is a pre-cursor to a wider clash of civilizations between the Western World and the Arab or Muslim world. No need to remove fact from an article simply because of your personal views regarding Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi Jews etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As predictible as the apathy you have towards any view other than your own. Al-Andalus 08:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Relocate the two "refugee issues" sections to "mutual claims"??

I propose putting "refugee issues" under mutual claims with both points of view. The separate sections in "Israeli views" and "Palestinian views" repeat each other a little bit and it might make more sense to have one section with all of the issues documented, like textbooks, etc What do others think? elizmr 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, I think that separating views into Israeli/Jewish and Palestinian/Arab sections is not encyclopedic because this leaves a reader who didn't go through the entire article with a dangling assertion without giving the other side an opportunity to respond. IMHO, it would be better either to consolidate arguments by subject, or at least provide internal links. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on article

With the many controversial facets of this conflict, not to the mention the myriad explanations for each and every one of them, I'm proud of the Wikipedia community and all of the editors involved for the maturity, responsibility, and general goodwill they have shown towards one another. These kinds of debates can get heated, and here as on any other controversial article, but the lack of edit-protection or a "Disputed NPOV" tag is very heartening. Busy as I am with projects "IRL," I can't contribute much to this article, let alone read it in its entirety for quite some time. I just wanted to stop by for now and congratulate everyone on the fantastic job they've done in handling the article so delicately. Keep up the great work! Red1 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Article Is Not Neutral

This Is Not by anyways a neutral article it's clearly leaning towards Israel. The Whole Article must be rewritten.

Hi, I am new to this article, but it looks like many editors have contributed many viewpoints. I especially like the way views are presented with intros saying there are many points of view on both sides. I learned a great deal from reading. It might be more helpful than the above if you could say exactly what you object to and sign and maybe also read previous discussion which may have addressed some of the issues that you feel are important. Also, I think Wikipedia would like us to sign our comments. elizmr 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It's important that editors raise specific points to allow discussion and resolution of any problems. There are falsehoods in the article, but they can be addressed one by one using the best sources available. --Ian Pitchford 17:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, but I would venture to say, "if there are falsehoods," rather than state that there are falsehoods. If the sections are to inform others, just stating an opinion(even if one really really really believes it is right from a moral, ethical, or historical point of view) isn't all that helpful since these sections are written as a community project and don't in themselves have an "authorative" stamp, as a textbook written by a recognized authority might. Good articles here need to rest on citation of credible sources. That being said, one of the things I like about Wikipedia, and the reason I'm contributing, is that unlike a text written by one source, there IS an opportunity for many differences of opinion to be expressed side by side. These articles have the potential to be "truer" than (and superior to) other sources of information because of this. elizmr 17:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Map removal by Lokiloki

Map removed... irrelevant and biased. Lokiloki 08:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. The map stays. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Map goes. Lokiloki 08:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Lokiloki, you are new here. Welcome, and please read the previous dicussion and come up with something new. Hollow "arguments" such as "the map is biased, racist, and irrelevant" won't work here, and I'd hate to engage in edit war with you. The map belongs to the article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read the previous arguments. I am being "bold", as wikipedia suggests. My edit summary was simply a way of highlighting what I read on the discussion page: time and again, people disputed the map.

The map is clearly designed to show how "little" Israel is compared to the surrounding "Arab" lands. The large "Arab" lands suggest some great threat to Israel, without a detailed understanding of the components of those lands, their policies and actions towards Israel, or even their ability to do so. Clearly the purpose of this map is one of particular bias. The fact that so many people have disputed it should presumably prompt the editors, particularly those supposedly representing under-represented groups (which Israel is not), to either delete it or offer maps that show that the outsized "Arab" land mass does not necessarily equal outsized military power.

Might we couple this with a graph which, for example, compares the military power of Israel with its neighbors? Lokiloki 09:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and add relevant facts to any article, this is how WP works. "The large "Arab" lands suggest some great threat to Israel" - Where did you get this from? I think you misread the map completely. It shows where in the world is the region and outlines the sides in the conflict that is much more than just wars. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on, don't be ridiculous. If the purpose of the map was just to provide some visual "context", then why aren't the names of the states included on the map? How would the average person know Egypt from Libya, for example? As well, many of these "Arab" countries have no current dispute with Israel, and have had no armed incursion with them... ever. So what's the purpose? Somalia? As you know, this has been discussed. And I certainly won't change your quite clearly biased viewpoint. You are the lictor of this topic, and no doubt anything which is even the slightest bit fair, balanced, or objective would be rejected. This map IS biased, as the dispute over this map demonstrates: isn't that clear to you? The fact that so many people have complained about this map: does that mean nothing to you? Or do you think that your opinion is so beyond reproach that you shall decide evermore? "I think you misread the map completely." -- This in itself shows your disingenous edits: you of course KNOW why people view this map as biased, yet you ignore that, and are "shocked" when I suggest it is biased. Lokiloki 09:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Equally many people defended the existence of the map here. For the rest of your post, read WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not many people have defended that map (going back over the discussion Humus sapiens seems to be its primary proponant), and I continue to believe that it is misleading. For instance, Humus sapiens suggested adding Iran to the map "in light of the ongoing conflict". Clearly, that shows a great deal of confusion about what the map is showing - at the moment it shows Israel and the Arab League without reference to if they are involved in the conflict or not. Nloth 03:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Capture of the image was pretty clear. Your image is misleading. and of poore quality. --tasc 15:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is clearly in dispute, and that has been added to the top of the article itself.

Why maps can be horribly POV... lets look at some maps from an issue outside of this conflict *entirely*, please examine and note these three maps are of the exact *same* geographic area, and merely portray the same data set (votes from people) in different ways: [12][13][14]. Note that each map can be used to support a different aspect of the arguments involved, or, relevant to this discussion, to argue (or insinuate) a specific POV about the issue. My ideal "best resolution" for the map issue would be to have similar maps to these, so countries with poor resources and limited foreign aid aren't uniformly predicted in the same way as wealthy, big military countries, with much larger amounts of money flowing in. Countries could be displayed based on population, military spending, overt or covert funds spent against eachother in warfare and spying, or any other demographics relevant to the conflict. Ronabop 11:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome that. Also, it would be good to show all that data over the years. What you propose seems more like a table or a diagram. I don't see how is this related to the map in the intro. Note that we have a series of maps here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all of the maps suggested by Ronabop would be interesting. It would be interesting to see a map outlining how various governmental entities in the region spend the money they do have and how they have historically. That said, I don't think that these other more sophisticated maps replace the very basic and straightforward map which shows where Israel is and where the Arab world is at the beginning of the page. elizmr 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The new map is not an improvement. It is hard to see where Israel is, and many non "Arab" countries are shown. The article is "ARAB-ISRAELI" conflict. We need a map showing these parties and where they are. elizmr 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This conflict is perhaps best represented as a dispute between different peoples, not between different countries. Lokiloki 15:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying that all those wars were minor personal misunderstanding? I'll revert to original image untill it settled. --tasc 15:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lokiloki, I realize that the whole article does not conform to your point of view on the conflict or reflect your theories regarding its origins. It doesn't reflect mine either. But that is ok, and in fact better as an overall representation of the greater truth. Regarding your personal theories on the conflict and trying to create an article to reflect them, please see Why do we exclude original research? in Wikipedia:No original research. REgarding the tendency you've demonstrated here to remove stuff that doesn't confirm to your point of view--like the map--please see Reasoning behind NPOV in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please see Wikipedia as an opportunity to work together with those who might not agree with you to build something greater than any single opinion, rather than an opportunity to annihilate their opinions and insert yours instead. If we expect the Israelis and the Palestinians to get along, can't we at least try to do the same in the Wikiverse :=)??????? elizmr 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look through the edit history, you will notice that I never removed the map. I am not trying to "conform" this page to my personal views or personal research. I am simply trying to represent this conflict in a NPOV. I do not feel that this article currently does that. Lokiloki 15:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we carefully will look into history than it's easy to note that you've delete the whole new section with the newly moved map. And didn't restore map on the top, as you should've. --tasc 15:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. You are correct. I was wrong when I said I didn't remove the map. I deleted the new section as it didn't seem to fit in, and the map was included in that. Lokiloki 15:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[15] and not only that time. :-\ --tasc 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true also. I had forgotten about that. I suppose I should have looked at the subheader I was writing under. Lokiloki 16:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lokiloki--I do not for a second doubt that you are trying to do the right thing and that you are working hard here. Please just remember that NPOV means that many POVs are presented in a neutral way on Wikipedia. It may be more helpful for you to work on enhancing the stuff that agrees with your POV or adding stuff rather than mass rewriting or deleting of stuff that expresses another POV. elizmr 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why have talk pages?

I am baffled by today's sweeping changes in the middle of the discussion. Why engage in talk then? Perhaps you didn't like the way it is heading, so you decided to help yourself and rushed to make your edits anyway. On the newly added map I can see Turkey and Iran but Israel is hard to find. If your idea was to muddle up the article, you've done it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk pages is to discuss different presentations of fact in the article, and to, as best as possible, present as fair and balanced conveyance of those facts in the article itself. As you know, there has been extensive disagreement and controversy about the use of the Arab League and Israel highlighted map as the primary lede. A map which neutrally highlights the general region is displayed. I don't think the changes are sweeping, as no data has been deleted.

This article is about the Arab/Israeli conflict: indeed, the conflict could be characterized as a conflict of Arabs as a people, not as individual countries who happen to belong to the Arab League. "Arab" is defined several ways, and, as the Wikipedia article itself states, the definition that focuses on country is overly simplistic: "Political: someone who is a resident or citizen of a country where Arabic is an official or national language, or is a member of the Arab League or is part of the wider Arab world; this definition would cover more than 300 million people, but it is rather simplistic and rigid in that it excludes the entire Diaspora but includes indigenous or migrant minorities".

The use of the political definition of Arab is not the best data point to use in the leading map. Indeed, for example, the Arab-Israelis (or Israeli-Arabs?) are very much a part of this conflict, and do not align themselves in this conflict with the majority of Israelis. As such, the use of a more general map which highlights the region where this conflict occurs, rather than one that presents political divisions and therefore suggests that those divisions are paramount when understanding this conflict is more appropriate.

I would also note that this issue has been discussed extensively, with many people supporting the removal of the Arab League map entirely, and many people supporting keeping it. In compromise, that map is retained. But a map that more neutrally presents the region of the conflict, and recognizes the sensitivity and problems when defining the actors in this conflict as simply members of country A, B, or C, was used as the leading graphic.

I agree with your point that it is hard to find Israel. Perhaps a better solution would be to use the general regional map, followed by a separate map, immediately below the first, that zooms-into Israel itself?

I also don't really know what the new Background section conveys or its value, and it might be better absorbing any new facts there into the History section?

Lokiloki 14:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what baffled you about it? I was adding new, relevant infomation to the article and you'll note I was very careful not to delete anything. I certainly didn't rush into anything - I've been actively discussing changes to this page for nearly 2 weeks without doing a single edit. When I did this edit I was deliberately bold, but I was careful to preserve NPOV. Nloth 02:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New Background Section

I am unclear on the value of the new background section. It seems as though much of this data is (or should be) presented in the History or Reasons for the Conflict section. Dor example, the role of the superpowers is already included in the page. I am going to delete this new addition -- if there is a strong case for it, please let me know and it can be restored.

Lokiloki 14:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually explained the idea at the top of this page (I guess it should have gone at the bottom?). Anyway, the idea was to discuss some of the main groups involved in the conflict outside the limited scope of a historical timeline. I do like the discussion of the role of the superpowers that is currently in the article, but I believe that the order of the article is awkward. Nloth 02:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Map of Jewish settlements in the West Bank

Does anyone know of a publicly available map of the West Bank, its existing settlements, and fragementation of Palestinian Autonmous zones? Something like this, for example [16].

Loloki's moving around of sections

I really can't see why it is necessary to move all of these paragraphs around. I really can't see what it is adding to the article or anything, I don't see it as changing a POV or anything, I merely think it is a tremendous distraction, accomplishes little, and is really kinda irritating.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Which ones, in particular, do you have issues with? There is a lot of redundant information presented and I am trying to either group it together or reduce it. I worked as an editor (in real life) for some time, so I suppose it is just my way of adding value. As you probably saw, I also added additional information besides just moving things around. Lokiloki 06:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your other additions, while there are a few that I disagree with, I mostly take issue with your rearrangment of the entire article, I do not see it as necessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I know... which rearrangements do you have issues with? I can't really address your concerns without an example. I didn't move much. It may look like I moved a lot, but I think that Wikipedia shows something as moved when, for instance, I simply insert a paragraph break, or add an additional comment. Lokiloki 07:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a few other ones, but I thought this edit : [17], was the most superfluous and I didn't understand your interpretation of why the paragraph belonged elsewere.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Heheh...; well, check out the edit immediately before that one [18]. I actually ADDED that paragraph myself... and then immediately after adding it, decided it was better in the section I finally moved it to and which you are commenting on. Next time, I will try to make sure that my additions are in the place that I ultimately feel that they best reside. Editing, at least for me, often means adding content, reading it several times afterwards, and deciding that it might be better somewhere else, or deciding that I need to edit my contribution. I was taught that to revise, revise, revise, revise, and revise again is always the best strategy. Lokiloki 08:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No you don't need to be final after every edit, I change stuff around too, I think some of your previous edits look like more than they actually were, so don't worry- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian refugees?

Why do they belong to this article? Could someone explain? And where is 276,000 of them in Israel? --tasc 10:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this data point belongs, as there are multiple extant references in the article to Arab/Palestinian refugees. Why does life expectancy belong? Or birth rates? Why not complain about them too? Refugees are central to this conflict, as indicated by the multiple references in the article, and these statistics should be included. Lokiloki 11:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Refugees are central to the Palestiniane-israeli conflict. They belong there - not here. I don't see btw jewish refugees info! --tasc 11:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Humus is currently adding that data, or you are welcome to add that data from a reliable, neutral source. I disagree in your characterization that Palestinian refugees are not central to the Arab/Israeli conflict: they quite clearly are, not least in their representation in the larger Arab media, and the fact that these refugees are a touchstone for Arabs generally, and the fact that the refugee situation is mentioned several times specifically in this article. There is also a section on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and yet many of the facts there are repeated here. I do encourage you, however, to reproduce the Palestinian refugee data in the section you propose, too. Lokiloki 11:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

2 questions: I have not been following this article closely, so please forgive me if these questions repeat others above or points already settled.

1. Aren't the "Palestinian Refugees" inside Israel aka "Arab Israelis"? I am most likely missing somethingn here.

2. The last column, titled something like" Jewish population, would benefit from fleshing out. Maybe it could be split into two columns--one as it stands, and one for "Jewish refugees" with numbers living in various countries now.

One thing that strikes me about the media, is how often we hear about the Palestinian refugees while the issue of the Jewish refugees is almost universally ignored, although numbers are about equal. The Wiki article needs to fill in this blank, rather than just perpetuating the view that is already reported an nauseum elsewhere. elizmr 12:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Answers:

1. The refugees inside Israel are technically "internally displaced persons", and, according to the CIA factbook: "IDPs: 276,000 (Arab villagers displaced from homes in northern Israel) (2004)". This should be footnoted or otherwise noted in the chart.

2. It is inappropriate to call them current refugees, as we are for pal. refugees, as they are not active refugees: as well, even according to the source material itself, many Jews left voluntarily due to Israeli emigration promotion, etc, and were never actual refugees. The figures for Palestinian refugees are CURRENT refugees. This is why it is not valid to force a comparison between the data points.

3. I disagree that we don't universally hear about Jewish refugees on Wikipedia (in the general media, yes, but this perhaps reflects the reality of the situation that pal. refugees are currently living in refugee camps, while jews who fled, were forced out, or left arab countries are not... and yes, i know, the lack of host arab countries absorbing pal refugees also figures in, as is mentioned in the article): in any case, in this article at least, there is comparable refernence to jewish refugees as to pal. refugees. I personally think this is POV, as the current status of both are significantly different.

Lokiloki 12:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon

My point about the cartoon is that it is quite clearly provocative and inflammatory and the POV of a single cartoonist in 1967. You complain when I provide well-sourced statistics (from the CIA and the UN) that somehow they need to be balanced out or it is POV. I suggested that a true example of balancing out would be to either remove that cartoon or provide a caricatured Arab from an Israeli newspaper.

As an example, the abortion section used to contain highly provocative photographs of the abortion procedure and its aftermath. These were removed due to a variety of reasons, not least in that they were felt to present POV. The cartoon is CLEARLY the POV of a cartoonist. The image is in the factual documentation of the war section, and this is a POV cartoon that belongs in the "views" section, if at all.

Images are far more powerful than words, and if the cartoon is meant to show Arab attacks against Israel, well, it does so in a crude and incendiary manner. It is highly POV and should be removed, OR, in this case, quite clearly if it is not removed there should be proportional representation of the conflict by cartoons in Israeli newspapers at the time.

What are your thoughts on the cartoon?

Lokiloki 20:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been already discussed. You are wrong, ~~saying~~ screaming that it "is CLEARLY the POV of a cartoonist". This cartoon reflects the pre-1967 mainstream Arab attitude. As a matter of fact, I can provide more gruesome examples. Lokiloki, I know some Palestinians more neutral than you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Humus, it like saying we have to balance an anti-american speech of Mahmud Ajhamedje (dont know how to spell this) with an rascist white supremist islamiphobe website from the United States, one is mainstream in Iran, the other is on the fringe of American life.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I believe the cartoon is representative of the pre-1967 mainstream Arab attitude as Humus says. It is not pretty, but it is real. It doesn't help to sanitize the past. I hope you will forgive me for saying that I think your suggestion that a similar cartoon be found and posted expressing some derogatory view of Arabs by Israelis may be oversimplifying the equation that could ultimately lead to NPOV on this overall topic. The request seems informed by the kind of thinking that suggests that "everytime the Israelis mention military agression of Arab states against them in '48, the Palestinians should mention the the military agression of the Israelis against Palestinian citizens happening every day on the West Bank" and so forth. This kind of technique is being taught all over college campuses these days by the "boycott Israel" movement, and is very much in play in all of the mainstream media. The problem is, the issues aren't really equivalent and framing them as such in this facile way doesn't make them so. I think real NPOV comes when legitimate relevant issues on all sides are aired honestly. Lok, I think it is fair to say that you have a very antiIsraeliPOV on the issues discussed in this article. This is fine; there is nothing wrong with that and I am very interested to read your contributions, but working on Wikipedia means accepting that other POVs have a right to be aired as well as long as they do so in a neutral way. You clearly are very intelligent and talented have a lot to add here. YOu and I are both relatively new to Wikipedia, and this page has been around a long time. There are many archived talk pages. Stuff like the cartoon and the map have been debated already (even on this current talk page). I think we both need to respect the stuff that is here (or at least read the past debates before starting new ones) and work on developing the quality of the issues we feel are important to the conflict rather than trying to do away with stuff we see as expressing an opinion contrary to our own. OK, that's what I think about the map. Over and out. elizmr 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. I absolutely do not have "a very anti-Israeli POV", not lease because I am married to an Israeli-American Jew. It is both inappropriate and inartful for you to suggest such and make such attacks.

You will find that virtually every addition I have made to this page has been backed by verifiable, neutrally-sourced, and well-established references. My concern is that this page inaccurately presents the facts from a pro-Israeli POV, by including assertions without reference, by including POV graphics and maps, and by denying the display of verified statistics in an attempt to "balance" the facts.

I am disinterested in this issue: that is to say, I am impartial, and have no concern for anything but the truth. As I have stated, I do not feel that this article presents the facts in an impartial manner. I have read much of the prior discussion, and, simply because others in the past have agreed on issues, doesn't mean that they should remain immune from later discussion, analysis, and revision. Editing, and writing, is about continual improvement, and continual analysis.

Thanks, Lokiloki 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Lok

I am sure I did not in any way denigrate the quality of your edits (actually I think I praised the quality you bring to the project). To be perfectly honest I did not realize that you had read prior discussions on the map and the cartoon since it seemed you were repeating some of the prior arguments, but I probably did not read carefully enough to appreciate the new points you were making--please accept my apologies on this front.

More than anything, I did not intend any personal attack at all when I said, "I think it is fair to say that you have a very antiIsraeliPOV on the issues discussed in this article. This is fine; there is nothing wrong with that," I was basing my statement on my read of your comments and edits. If you took this as an attack, please understand that I did not mean it as one and consider forgiving me.

I would also venture to point out that when asking me to refrain from personal attacks (and not giving me the benefit of the doubt regarding good intentions), it is not helpful to simultaneously be making them towards me by calling my comments "inappropriate" and "inartful".

I am withdrawing from this discussion now. elizmr 00:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My use of the terms inappropriate and inartful was not a description of your comments generally, but specifically of the description of me as "very anti-Israeli". I'm sure you know that such statements are often viewed as synonymous with being "anti-Semetic", and I feel that such comments, even by suggestion, are not appropriate. Humus has also described me as being far less neutral than even the average Palestinian.

Both descriptions are inappropriate, especially when you actually LOOK at the contributions I have made to the article. Everything I have added has been documented, neutrally-sourced, and well-established. I am not asserting any hair-brained conspiracy concepts, and I do not believe in such. I have complained that the article contains many pro-Israel assertions that are not documented, yet I have not deleted them.

I feel that the barrage of criticism to relatively minor additions of well-established facts sourced directly from the CIA factbook and UN is indicative that the Wikipedia experiment for this article is not working. Most Palestinians feel that the USA (and therefore CIA) is pro-Israel biased, and yet when I am accused of pro-Palestinian bias by using CIA facts... what more do you want?

I am not perfect, and I have made edits, particularly in my first few days here, that were poor: when others pointed them out, I admitted my mistakes and apologized. However, when I am adding information that is sourced, in contrast to so many other assertions here that are NOT, and I must take a barrage like this... I mean, come on.

Lokiloki 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Loki, I am sorry but you are wrong to suggest that saying one has an anti- Israel POV is a personal attack especially when one makes it on the basis on your previous edits. Also just because your married to a Jew doesn't mean you can't be anti- Israel, it doesn't mean anything.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said it did, I said "not least because". So, if calling me anti-Israeli is not an insult and not wrong, then, from analysis of you, Elizmr, and particularly Humus' edits, here and elsewhere, it would not be an insult to call you, each anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab? Lokiloki 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re, the Cartoon: I don't think that including the cartoon in the article is bad - as has been pointed out it does portray what was a widely held view at that time, and it is impossible to discuss the 1967 war without also looking at the rhetoric of Arab leaders (especially Nasser) prior to that conflict. Personally I don't think it needs "balancing" as the majority Israeli view has usually been a lot less extreme. OTOH, something like http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/terror-bombings-1996.html is a reasonably widely help view amongst Israelis and could be worked in later in the article. I'm sure that there are better examples, though - if I had time I'd start looking for some during Gulf War 1 aimed at Saddam Hussain, or possibly post Gulf War 2 aimed at Syria. Nloth 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Lok, one more comment because you sound so sad. I don't think anyone is saying you made any bad edits and even if you did it wouldn't be a big deal. Really. But even if you are making the best edits in the world, it doesn't earn you the right to be nasty to others.

I am really sorry if you found the comment that I thought you had an "anti-IsraeliPOV" offensive. I did not mean it to be, and I certainly did not by any means mean to suggest that you have antipathy towards the Jewish people. (And yes, I do have an anti-ArabPOV on the issue of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This does not mean I am antiArab people---that is strongly untrue. I'll tell you why, but please don't accuse me of presenting unsourced material or doing original resarch--this is just my opinion. I have not seen much evidence that the Arab governments have distinguished themselves by their behavior throughout this mess. I certainly believe that Israel has not always made the right decisions either, but on balance I am more critical of the Arab responses to what they have been presented with. I make a distinction between the Arabs and the Palestinians in the sense that I think the Palestinians have been caught in the middle, used as pawns, and in a very real way lost what they had and didn't get anything in return.) I think it is ok to have a point of view on a topic, as long as one writes in a neutral tone and allows and encourages conflicting views to be voiced. elizmr 02:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

There are clear concerns about NPOV of ths article. Please discuss removing NPOV before doing it. Nloth 01:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You inserted that POV tag without consulting anyone, and now you have the gall to accuse the editor who removed it of doing so without talking to anyone, It is you sir, that must explain yourself not him.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank's for the title ("sir") - it isn't often I get that! :-). I didn't insert the NPOV tag originally, and I'm not sure why you think that I did. It looks like it was added in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-Israeli_conflict&diff=43926927&oldid=43914754 (not by me), although it may also have been there earlier (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-Israeli_conflict&oldid=43577510). I've re-added it twice since then, once when it was deleted without explaination and once when Lokiloki deleted it with a somewhat confusing edit comment.

My edit comment was in reply to Lokiloki, who did two edits in a row (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-Israeli_conflict&diff=44042510&oldid=44042458 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-Israeli_conflict&diff=44042630&oldid=44042510) which had the comments "NPOV disputed -- see talk" and "NPOV dispute removed for now". I'm not quite sure what the aim of those edits was.

Does anyone seriously think that NPOV isn't in dispute for this article?

No I would probably agree with putting it in, the reason I made the last comment was because I thought that you had added it without consulting anyone.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Sometimes you'll find that saying sir can add a remarkable amount of emphasis and make it sound like you *really* mean business.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll have to give the sir thing a go myself!

I've readded NPOV Nloth 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for NPOV tag

Could just someone explain what is the reason for having NPOV tag. I don't care about who added it and who removed. Just tell me why! --tasc 09:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Please, reply - otherwise i'll remove this tag. --tasc 18:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The big problem I have with it is the emphasis given to the map of the Arab League. I'm quite happy for that map to continue to be in the article, but not for it to (a) be the first thing you see when you open this article and (b) to exist without an explaination of the role of the Arab League in the conflict. I know I'm not alone in this view - look through talk and you'll see a lot of different people raising problems with the map, and the same few people defending it. I made an attempt in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-Israeli_conflict&oldid=43850317#The_Arab_League, but it was removed by LokiLoki. I'm quite happy for someone to do a better job that what I did, but I continue to believe that showing the map in the way we are at the moment gives a misleading impression of the conflict. LokiLoki has removed the NPOV at the moment anyway (for reasons unrelated to this discussion), but I'm inclided to add it back. I'm very happy to discuss first, though! Nloth 06:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the NPOV dispute is slightly more complicated. I never removed the one you applied... Veriditas did. I took no opinion on your POV claim because you never spelled it out clearly. Anyway, I then re-added NPOV dispute while Moshi and I were in another conflict, and then after that was ameliorated I removed it.

I agree that the map is POV, as has been argued many times here, because it shows Arab League nations. This article is called "Arab-Israeli conflict"... NOT "Arab League-Israel conflict": this conflict extends itself to both diasporas, particularly in the United States, France (with recent anti-semitic attacks), and even Arab populations WITHIN Israel itself. The map IS POV for these reasons, and I support your assertion as such.

If the POV map is retained, it should be balanced with another map at the top of the page which shows the "Arab view". Indeed, the current map shows the "Israeli view", that Israel is under grave threat from massive surrounding hostile Arab countries. Arabs don't see it this way: their focus, instead, is on the issue of the Occupied Territories and the Israeli treatment of Palestinians... as such, to balance this: either, i) the map is removed, ii) the map is replaced with one that reflects that this conflict is between Arabs generally, and Israelis generally (rather than specific countries, which is best represented in the various War-specific articles... THIS article is not about a specific war, but about the "arab-israeli" conflict generally), or iii) the West Bank settlement map is moved up to the top of the page.

Lokiloki 07:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly states few things.

arab-israeli is a long-running conflict between certain countries
original members (founders) of Arab League have attacked Israel
some people feel involved: Many more people in other countries feel involvement in the conflict, for reasons such as cultural and religious ties with Islam and/or Arab culture, Christianity, Judaism, or for ideological or strategic reasons; these include countries such as Iran, the European Union, and the United States.

The reason why don't see conflict that way is that they do focus on palestinian issues. Map with West Bank settements cannot be moved to the top by technical reasons: it's in German. But anyway - it has little to do with general conflict itself. Map proposed by Nloth is of poor visual quality, and most definitely wasn't intended as political map. --tasc 09:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If we could find a better quality political map would you support moving the current one furhter down the article and putting the new one in? Nloth 05:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Better quality political map showing completely Egipt, saudi arabia, jordan, siria and lebanon? hm, will be hard to find. --tasc 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the map should stay, but I wouldn't have a problem with changing it, for instance we could show all the Arab nations in one color, then we could also have like lines or dots or something in the nations that have contributed to the conflicts against Israel- (Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Saudia Arabia) and then another different set of lines through the nations who have only nominally contributed to the conflict- (Algeria, Morroco, Sudan, Tunisia, Yemen, and Oman). Anyone agree, and does anyone know how to do this in photoshop?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way although I agree with Loki about the complexitites of the conflict involving many people in many nations, but I also think it should be obvious that that would be impossible to show on a simple map, and that it is practical to show the nations involved.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggestion on an alternative map, there are already plenty of maps below that show various arrows into Israel. Furthermore, as I said, this is NOT a country versus country conflict, but more accurately a people versus a people conflict.

Lokiloki 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Loki, this is country-country conflict in a first place. --tasc 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will get rights to an English version... Lokiloki 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Replacing it with a map of the west bank settlements won't help. I'll continue to argue that isn't NPOV, because it shows more than the basic, agreed geographical and political facts. I think a plain map of the geography of the region is the way to go (or no map at all above the article contents) Nloth 05:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is here, that there is no such thing as agreed geographical and political facts. Plane geographical map is totally useless. --tasc 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you could just say its a people vs people and not nations vs. nation. I'm sorry but I think it is rather silly to suggest we shouldn't show a map of the nation's involved at all.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed. --tasc 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed: Citations needed

Can someone please provide verifiable, well-sourced, and concrete citations for the following:

i. That the State of Israel "has maintained that an exchange of population had occurred, and that the Jews fleeing Arab countries constitute refugees equivalent in status to the estimated 750,000 Palestinian refugees forced to live in refugee camps in the Middle Eastern countries." (under Jewish refugees section)

ii. "Some, but not Israel itself, consider that Israel complied with this sense of the resolution when it returned the Sinai to Egypt in 1982." (under Israel is forced to fight in self-defense). As well, please clarify if "some" indicates other states, as this sentence suggests, or just "some people".

iii. "Israel's refusal to consider large-scale resettlement of Palestinian refugees is also based on the continued refusal of Arab nations to compensate Israeli Jews of Arab origin."

Please provide verifiable citations for the previous statements, particularly those that are characterized as being actions or policies of the State of Israel (rather than just some people within the state).

I haven't found any documents that suggest that Israel currently maintains that a population exchange occurred, that Israelis or other states believe that compliance with UN resolutions was fulfilled by returning Sinai to Egypt, and that Israel bases the Palestinian refugee refusals on Arab nations not compensating Israeli Jews (how is that possible, given that Palestinians have no control/influence/say over what other Arab nations do).

Given the sensitive nature of this topic, it is incumbent on all statements of controverted facts to include verifiable references.

Lokiloki 10:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to reference it myself but I will say that I find your selection somwhat odd, as most of what you are disputing is considered common knowledge among historinas of the period. Right wing Israelis constantly refer to the events following the 1948 war as a population exchange, that Arab nations were no more justified (or even less so) gin forcing the Jews out, as the Israelis were to force the Palestinians out. Probably most Israelis think that UN opposition to many of their policies are unjustified considering various steps they have taken towards implementing peace. and for your thrid point You could also say that Jews don't have influence over what Israel does, in a wider scope it is an ethnic conflict between Jew and Arab, just like Greece absorbed emigrant Greeks, and Turkey absorbed emirgrant turks following various conflicts between those two nations.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Right wing Israelis" is quite different than the State of Israel, as the reference claims.

Again, for all of these points, I am disputing their factual basis. "You could say" and "probably" is insufficient evidence. It may be the case that all of these points are correct, but I imagine, as you say, that it will be, for example, "right wing Israelis" and not Israel itself that makes some of these assertions. So, once citations are provided we can better reflect the facts of these claims rather than unsubstantiated blanket assertions such as these. To know that, for example, these assertions are borne from right-wing settlers, for example, presents these arguments in a very different light than saying that "Israel" asserts them.

I think we can all agree that we want to deal in facts. I am careful to fully document all of the additions I make, and we must insist that all other claims herein that are controverted are also documented.

Lokiloki 11:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the disputed tag to a citation needed tag as you are really the only one who has raised doubt, and I think it would be more appropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That is inappropriate. Please keep the tags that I have included and please read the reference for the criteria [19]: it says "if you [singular] come across a statement which seems or is inaccurate". I came across 3, and I am disputing them.

Please also note the criteria for removing those warnings on that page: "Don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it."

If you wish to remove them, please follow the instructions and first verify them.

Lokiloki 11:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm stepping in with some Wiki policy here, see WP:CITE, quoting:

When there is a factual dispute
Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place ^{[citation needed]} after the relevant passage. This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many instances of ^{[citation needed]} is unlikely to be beneficial.

Using {{Fact}} might be a little more polite than what you are doing. I know that you are likely to say that the passages you are disputing are not "harmless", but I would ask you to ask yourself what harm they will cause by being there with a little citation requested tag??? elizmr 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please refer to the top section of the link you pointed to [Wikipedia:Disputed statement] which reads:

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:
* It contains unlikely information, without providing references. * It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. * It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

I do not think the things you are tagging are meeting these criteria.

The information is felt to be "common knowledge" by another editor here, and has been here a long time on a very contentious page; it may not be properly cited, but it is not clearly "unlikely"
The information is not likely to be particularly difficult to veryify
No evidence that it was inserted by a user known to write inaccurately on the topic

This is another reason I would argue that the less severe request for citations would be a more collegial to ask for citations rather than using the tags you are using. elizmr 14:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elizmr:

Today I am very tired. Ugh. I needed more sleep.

Anyway, I do think that 2 of the statements contain unlikely information: namely, that Israel itself maintains that a population transfer occured. This may be an opinion of the the right-wing, but not of the State itself. Same for the other one. Yesterday, I did indicate one of these statements as {{Fact}} rather than ^{[dubious – discuss]}

Lokiloki 19:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lok. Sorry you are tired. I would only say (as I said above) that although you disagree there is not a consensus among editors that these are unlikely points of information. Given this, you might have considered taking a less extreme and approach. It is not a big deal. There are cites for this stuff and editors will supply them. I just want to say that I have been watching this page for a few months and I have been really impressed by the overall tenor of the discussions here and the degree to which conversation rather than confrontation has been used to improve the article. There usually hasn't been an NPOV tag on the article. elizmr 20:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are not watching closely enough. I did not place the NPOV and do not consider these these to be POV but consider them to be dubious, uncited assertions. There is no need to right with me day after day like this. Lokiloki 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

L--Hey, I never said you put a NPOV on the article. I am just saying that things have been non-contentious on this page for the most part and that makes it pleasant to contribute here. I'm suggesting the way you are tagging stuff "dubious" is more confrontational than it really needs to be to get the job done. elizmr 21:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Man, Wikipedia is slow today. I understand your point, but at the same time I don't really see questioning the validity of claims to be confrotational, per se... well confrontational to the assertions, but not to any editor. There is a reason that the {dubious} tag exists: I want to impress upon others the veracity of the assertions themselves, and indicate that I am not simply requesting a citation, but proof, for example, that Israel has those policies. The Sinai point is probably accurate, so I marked it as {fact} needed... but the other two do not appear to be valid and therefore I used those tags to indicate such. I think this is helpful for other editors adding the citations...

I will also point out that an even more confontational approach would have been if I had deleted the assertions immediately, as is warranted under the {dubious} policy, and as many editors and admins regularly do elsewhere. I didn't do this, but marked them as such (nhot at the top of the page, but after each sentence itself), and brought the discussion here.

I don't know how much more can be obtained from continuing to debate this editing policy, rather than the facts themselves. Look at the amount of text and argument that these edits have generated... I followed the guidelines clearly. Let's find some citations and discuss those, or lets remove the assertions in time... but let's not wallow so much in editing that is used without (too much) controversy pretty much everywhere by many others, and which is a policy according to the {dubious} page itself.

Please don't assume that I am operating in anything but good faith.

Lokiloki 21:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Lokiloki, I think you misunderstood my edits when you reverted them. I never meant to suggest that many Jews didn't leave arab nations voluntarily, they chose to leave because of the hostile climate. I also thought I made it clear that part of their reason to leave was because of hope of prosperity in Israel, although since 1/3 didn't go to Israel it should be clear that that wasn't the only reason they left. I re-inserted my edit but with some modifications to make it clear that it was voluntary.

Also when I said right wing Israelis bring the population exchange thing up I didn't mean they were the only ones, also I also didn't mean radical right wing, but I also meant even moderate right wing which would include many governments, (but even labour governments support ths position I found out).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it really doesn't seem as though you indicated that sometimes the exodus was really voluntary when you indicated that this volunteering was coerced. "Coerced into volutary leaving" is a contradiction. To change the section to read that the "Jewish population in Arab countries fled, were expelled, or were coerced into voluntarily leaving their homes" indicates that it was one of 3 reasons why Jews left: It is POV to characterize all Jewish exodus as only consisting of fleeing, expulsion, or coercion. Even the data at Jewish exodus from Arab lands indicates, for instance, that Bahrain Jews "left"; in Morocco, where Jews maintained ministerships, etc, they "emigrated". It is POV to characterize ALL leaving Jews has having done so under fleeing, explusion, or coercion. I am characterizing this as disputed until we can clear up the language.

As for the population exchange, the way it currently reads is that the state of Israel maintains this position. I doubt this, and, if it is an official position, it should be cited.

I also find significant bias in that you just changed the Palestinian refugees section to read that they "left" Israel. Come on, can you please try to be NPOV? Here you are claiming that all Jews fled, were expelled, or coerced, and then you change the Palestinian refugees as having "left" Israel. Please.

Lokiloki 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to

"were coerced by the Arab governments, or voluntarily left their homes because of an increasing climate of hostility"

But I disagree that is a a contradiction to be coerced into leaving voluntarily. Coerced doesn't mean you were forced to leave per se just encouraged, the final decision still rests with you. Know what I mean?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

I am hereby classifying this article as POV. Moshe's continual assertion and editing to indicate that Palestinians "left Israel" is POV. It is POV to represent the expulsion and flight of Palestinians as having "left Israel". This article will remain as disputed until this statement properly reflects the fact of the eviction and flight of Palestinians after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. To somehow make this eviction more benign by using words like "left" would be akin to saying that the Cherokee's left along the trail of tears.- Loki

I sorry Loki but you are clearly confused in this situation, The only place I added "left" is in reference to the absentee property act, I dont believe that the Palestinans simply left Israel and I'm not asserting it. The law however doesn't only include Palestinans who fled Israel, but also Palestinans who simply "left" at any point in the nations history. If your going to make a fuss over it I will add remove it until you calm down and realize what I actually am saying.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay... I have removed the NPOV and changed the wording of the sentence to reflect what you are saying. Lokiloki 01:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, in the future maybe you could ask me to clarify before you jump to a conlusion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay... just realize it came on the heels of another editing issue. Lokiloki 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

LokiLoki, could you please take more care with your editing - including reading other bits of talk? Moshe and I had been having a discussion about NPOV of this article for a day or so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab-Israeli_conflict#NPOV) and you've made it very difficult to figure out exactly what we are both trying to say because of your large number of (somewhat confusing) edit. Thanks. Nloth 06:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why Comparative statistics?

The "Comparative statistics" table is interesting, but I'm unsure why those statisitcs are relevant to the conflict?

GDP/capita seems somewhat relevant to the potential of each country to sustain themselves in a war, but surely things like "size of armed forces" and "% of GDP spent on armed forces" are more relevant than "Freedom House Rating"?

I'd like to see the whole section removed, or perhaps moved o a page comparing the geo-political development of various middle-eastern countries. It just doesn't seem to add much to this article. Nloth 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to replace it with a graph comparing military power between Israel and Arab neighbors, particularly to ameliorate the POV geo-political map (which makes Israel look very "small"). Lokiloki 21:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are trying to impose your own POV. Are you claiming that the map is inaccurate? —Viriditas | Talk 22:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The map is misleading, as many others have suggested below. And, yes, it is inaccurate in that several of the highlighted countries are not party, nor have they ever been, to this conflict. To rectify, and since this is a discussion of an often armed conflict, it would be helpful to include comparisons of military capabilities. Lokiloki 22:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The map illustrates the geography of the region. You'll have to be specific in regards to your points, as I can't read your mind. —Viriditas | Talk 22:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are upset. The map highlights the parties to the conflict; in this regard, it is inaccurate, as several highlighted Arab league countries are not party to the conflict. Please read the extensive existing discussion below under "should Iran be included". If you have further points to make, you may make them there below the more detailed arguments. It is unnecessary for me to repeat them all here. Lokiloki 22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the discussion, and I've been following it for some time. Perhaps you should move your comments to that section? —Viriditas | Talk 22:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, as I added my talk comments to this section for a reason. It's great to see the "small world" that we occupy here on Wikipedia. Who would have thought that when I first encountered you yesterday by editing your comments on peak oil that you are also closely following, like me, whether a map should appear or not on the talk page of the Arab-Israeli conflict section? And it's also pretty neat that you were also apparently closely following the Tibet page, and the Human Rights in China page, as you either reverted or commented on my edits there. We share a lot of the same interests. Lokiloki 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in reviewing Help:Watching pages. On any given day, I watch about 4000 pages, as well as peruse contribution histories. In addition to my personal watchlist, I also maintain separate watchlists on my user page. BTW, I answered your question about reverts over at User talk:Ian Pitchford. —Viriditas | Talk 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well I guess I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia to look through the edit history of the Arab-Israeli conflict section to see that you have edited these pages before. I went back several months and didn't see anything: it just seemed as though you were following me around in "revenge" for my edit of your peak oil statement yesterday. Thanks for the explanation -- Ian actually answered directly on my talk page. Lokiloki 23:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can save yourself some time, and look at each users contribution history using a number of different tools. Most of them allow you to see all the articles the user has edited (see Wikipedia:Edit count for links). But, one doesn't have to edit an article to add it to a watchlist. Back to the map: aside from outright replacing it, are there any compromise solutions (such as the ones offered below) that you might support? —Viriditas | Talk 23:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As I have said, the current map unintentionally gives the impression that Israel is dwarfed by an Arab threat. While this might be the case in terms of sheer landmass: it ignores the fact that many highlighted Arab states are not currently involved in this conflict, that many diasporas and other countries are even more engaged and involved than some of the highlighted countries, and that relative military spending is much greater, in absolute dollars, for Israel, than for the highlighted Arab regions. As even the author below suggests to include Iran (which is not Arab), it makes sense to either present a realistic global map, to scrap this one, or to offer maps which offer other comparisons besides land mass, for example military spending, GDP, advanced weapons systems, and so on. Lokiloki 23:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we can't present other maps in addition to this one -- in the appropriate context. Do you have access to such maps and/or tables? —Viriditas | Talk 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. Lokiloki 00:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Any comments on removing this table? Nloth 02:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Lokiloki 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove the table or the map. Both are relevant to the subject (which is, again, much more than simply overt wars). Also, new topics go in the bottom of Talk pages in WP. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the table? It seems to bear little relevance. Lokiloki 10:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Both sides maintain that they stand for human rights, justice, freedoms, peace and prosperity. The table reflects the status of these values. Also, it would be useful to include treatment of women and minorities, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article that I can see which discusses how "both sides maintain that they stand for human rights, justice, freedoms, peace and prosperity". If the article had that discussion then the table could make some sense in that context. Nloth 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to add the statistics and perspectives to the country pages for Israel and the various Arab League countries. They are inappropriate on this page, which is meant to describe the current conflict, not various attributes related to these countries. We could also presumably include soccer team comparisons between Israel and Arab countries, but, like the issues you mention, they are not relevant to the conflict at hand and are better represented in other topics. Lokiloki 03:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Until we can make a decision whether or not it should be removed, I have added some additional statistics, sourced from the CIA factbook, to the table. Lokiloki 16:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A few points regarding the "additional statistics": 1) a half-truth: you included the numbers of the Palestinian refugees but not the Jewish refugees from the Arab lands; 2) we need to show the number of refugees absorbed/naturalized into the countries where they live for generations; 3) the conflict began before the Palestinian exodus and it would be wrong to imply otherwise. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lokiliko, at least the table looks a lot more relevant now. (I'm actually a little surprised that no one has argued previously that it was not NPOV - previously it made Israel look like a rich country bullying its poorer neighbours. The number of Palestinian refugees within its borders makes Israel look a lot better, now.) I disagree with the issues Humus sapiens has raised - the number of Palestinian refugees is a hard fact that is directly relevant to the conflict (unlike, say fertility rate). If we are going to keep the table, then we probably should put in things like population growth rates (and especially since - say - 1989) since the population pressure in Israel is a direct contributing factor to the West Bank settlements issue. I'd still prefer to see the table removed though. Nloth 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain, why would we count the Palestinian refugees as a part of the conflict but not count the Jewish refugees? To pick a single country, the Iraqi Jews lived there since the Babylonian captivity, were thrown out of their houses and were absorbed by the Jewish state. See Jewish exodus from Arab lands and Austerity in Israel.

I'm trying to catch up with your logic. Were "the West Bank settlements" of post-1967 a reason why the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The table uses a variety of datapoints from the CIA factbook. The list of Palestinian refugees counts is directly referenced in the country tables from that factbook. If there is a reliable source for the list of Jews who were declared refugees (and not simply before-and-after population numbers) than it probably makes sense to include that. I see nothing of that nature in the CIA factbook. Lokiloki 04:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

From Palestinian refugee: The term Palestinian refugee as used by UNRWA was never formally defined by the United Nations. The definition used in practice evolved independently of the UNHCR definition, which was established by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. UNRWA definition of refugee is as a person "whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict", though it is applied only to those who took refuge in one of the countries where UNRWA provides relief. The UNRWA also registers as refugees descendants in the male line of Palestinian refugees, and persons in need of support who first became refugees as a result of the 1967 conflict. The Jewish refugees were absorbed into Israel and other countries they fled to. Who "declared" them? Not the UNRWA. Seems like a double standard, no? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have linked to Palestinian Refugee from the column header so that people can read further on this issue. Lokiloki 05:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that this link would solve the problems with the table? This is what needs to be done, IMHO: 1) add Jewish refugees; 2) reflect refugee population changes over the years (growth, absorbed, etc); 3) The table requires extensive notes: 3a) explain discrepancy in defininions & inclusion of descendents; 3b) Reflect the fact that the Arab-Jewish conflict began before the refugee exodus and before the occupation. 4) For the lack of space, I would remove the uninformative life expectancy column. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The table data is directly from the CIA factbook, as are the other facts and statistics presented. The history of the conflict is already well-represted in the article, and there is no need for redundancy in terms of notations. These data, again, are directly from the CIA factbook. Where do you propose we find reliable and neutral sources for the other data you suggest? Lokiloki 01:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The exact numbers and their sources can be a separate discussion, first I'd like to come up with a better table - as per above. In the first cut, I'm going to use the numbers from Jewish exodus from Arab lands. BTW, as we know by now, even the CIA makes mistakes once in a while. But this should not stop us from proceeding in a balanced manner. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do include that datapoint, please include it in a single column as possibly Jewish population declines, or something such, rather than spreading it out to two columns as on that page. Lokiloki 10:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope you'll be happy with the end result. There is still much to fill: notes, numbers, but that will have to wait till tomorrow. Sorry I had to undo some of your minor changes. Later. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I didn't revert, I simply moved the data into two separate columns, as the Palestinian refugees are officially declared via the main data source (CIA factbook), while the Jewish population declines cannot be presented as 100% refugees, as the column heading indicated. The data are all still there, and I have included a suggested column header for the time being. I am sure you can think of something better. Thanks, Lokiloki 12:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Humus it is not appropriate to continually revert my changes so that the Palestinian refugees are presented in the same column as the Jewish population change from 1948 to current. They are totally different. For one thing, the Pal refugee column shows CURRENT refugees as defined by CIA factbook; if you keep the columns as you want them, that means that there are 0 Jewish refugees in, say, Tunisia, since the population declined... do you see my point? These are totally different numbers we are dealing with, and it is POV to force them together. Thanks Lokiloki 12:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To show one phenomenon without the other (as you did) is POV. They are in separate columns - not forced together. I loved your euphemism "the population declined". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Per our earlier dicussions, I've compiled some notes & sources. Also, I've added total population and area columns. It'd be great to replace the latter with arable land though. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. By the way, in regard to my supposed euphemism which I just now saw, I simply meant that combining the two sets of statistics in a single column was inaccurate, because the Palestinian column shows current refugees, while the Jewish column showed population in 1948 and later population: since the column was headed as "Refugees" the different datapoints suggested, for example, that all Jews in Tunisia IN 1948 were refugees IN 1948. Lokiloki 00:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect figures in graph

The figures in the graph entitled "Israel's resources as a % of Arab states" are doubtful (and unreferenced). I did the "Area" calculation (based on country areas from Wikipedia) and I found that Israel is either 0.160% or 0.161% (not 0.15%) the area of the Arab League (depending on if you include Eritrea or not). By my calulations, the area of Arab League is 12,853,029 (without Eritrea) or 12,974,349 (with Eritrea included). Israel's area is listed as 20,770 sq. km. Nloth 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This bar graph is redundant and apparently factually incorrect, and should probably be removed. Lokiloki 04:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Background

I've added a section called "Background" (anyone have a better name) to discuss some of the main actors in the conflict. I've also moved the map of the Arab League to that section and replaced it with a more detailed map of the middle east. Please feel free to fill in more background - I'd especially like a discussion of the change from Arab nationalism to militant Islam as a primary motivation of groups in the conflict after the end of the cold war. I believe that is widely accepted, but isn't discussed in this article. Nloth 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)