Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Arab world (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Israel-Palestine articles and their overwhelmingly favorable bias towards the Jewish side versus Muslims makes you want to give up wikipedia due to frustrating pro-Western, pro-Israel bias[edit]

I've been a wikipedian for a while (check my join-date) and I've been watching many articles closely related to Zionism, Judaism, and Palestine to keep creeping bias from setting in. From being forced to quote Simon Wiesenthal's biography as a "valid cited source" to having any edit of mine reverted that brings to light unfavorable viewpoints on Holocaust survivors (of whom many have profited heavily from their tragedy, as per Finkelstein and Chomsky) to having to remove most of the weasel words from the "Press TV" article that frame it in the context of "Pro-Palestinian/Pro-Israeli" there is no doubt a heavy favorable bias towards Jews on Wikipedia.

I personally think this is not part of some "Jewish conspiracy" nonsense, but rather the fact that at least 80% of wiki's edits are from white college-educated western males, so they have the biases of that particular social class.

Anyway, as soon as I seen the title "Islamic terrorism" for an article, then "Jewish religious terrorism", I've come under the assumption that this encyclopedia will never fully reflect reality, or at least, accurately and report it in a non-biased fashion.

I'm going to step-up my patrol of "Israel-Palestine/Muslim-Jew" articles to be vigilant against the biases that often get ignored (or in fact, are there on purpose to portray a certain opinion) But if wikipedia becomes any more pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish (rather than non-biased) when it comes to dealing with Muslims or Israel, I may just throw in my towel.

Come on: Can we attempt to recruit more English speaking Muslims onto wiki, if that's the only way to counter this pro-western, pro-white, pro-jewish bias?

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To further my point, the original "Culture of Israel" article had not a single mention of Arabs, Palestinians, or Islam--despite these demographic groups taking up as much as >20% of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Israel

If you notice, all the additions on minorities and Palestinians in the first paragraph were originally put in by me.

Tell me how this isn't biased again?

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

..or maybe no-one bothered to add them until you did? It would only be bias if people were actively deleting the Arabic additions repeatedly. In reality nobody who knows about the Arabic section of Israel bothered to edit the page until you did. Also cut the rubbish about bias will you. Your entire post is riddled with your own bias. "80% of wiki's edits are from white college-educated western males", really do you have a source to back that up? Any facts? any extracted figures from the wiki database? No you don't you just attacked a section of the community because of your own chip against 'White College-Educated Western Males'. Try being less bigoted next time and maybe people will take you more seriously. Mishka Shaw (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


It's simply the nature of WP to ignore bias, under the grand notion that the world is not real and all knowledge is meaningless opinion and the prevailing edit is just about as good as any other edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.10.127 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents and Commanders in the infobox[edit]

In the "Belligerents" section in the infobox under the title "Palestinians" there is a short list of paramilitaries and organizations and "Gaza Strip". Shouldn't there be written ["Hamas" Hamas] and maybe even the "PIJ" instead, what about the involvement of Iran through Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria? In the "Commanders" section the list rarely includes commanders which did not participate in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I think the list better include some prominent leaders who were excluded (in both sides). Gamal Abdel Nasser, Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas (maybe Anwar Sadat, Hussein of Jordan and Hamas leaders such as Ahmed Yassin, Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashal too) on the Arab side, and Menachem Begin and Benjamin Netanyahu (maybe Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir too) on the Israeli side. Looking for suggestions. EitanTs (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas did not control the Gaza Strip since 1987 nor did it begin to attack then. Neither were Naser and Arafat military commanders. This is why no Israeli Prime Minister or President is mentioned in the infobox. The same is can be said about the War on Terrors infobox. AcidSnow (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion weren't military commanders but the 1st president and PM of Israel respectively. Haj Amin al-Husseini or King Farouk I weren't military commanders either. While you are right about the War on Terror's infobox the same doesn't applies to many other conflicts (WWII for example), is there a specific policy about the subject? Besides, most the commanders on both lists served in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War (I noticed only Ehud Barak who hasn't but I might have missed another person or two), while on other hand the list doesn't include Saad el-Shazly the Egyptian cheif of staff during the Yom Kippur/October War (which is considered by many Arabs and Israelis to be the biggest war between Israel and Arab countries after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War).
Hamas launched terrorist attacks against Israel since the 90's [1] as response to the Oslo Agreements and the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2006 [2] (won the elections in January and drove the PLO forces out in December). The Israeli disengagement from Gaza did occur before, in Jun-Aug 2005. I'll repeat the argument I gave before, Gaza Strip is a geographical region and not an organization (where the list under the title "Palestinians" includes different organizations beside Gaza Strip). It is not recognized or proclaimed as an independent sovereign entity, not by Hamas nor by PLO (or any other organizations) since it's only a part of the Palestinian territories. Why not list the West Bank if we list Gaza Strip? EitanTs (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No map in the Infobox?[edit]

Wikipedia in all the other languages has this useful map for the Arab–Israeli conflict (check "Global file usage"), but Oncenawhile removed it based on an old discussion without a clear result. I can't find logical objections to add this map, I guess Oncenawhile is just splitting hairs to find a reason to delete the map because Israel looks too small compared to its neighbors, which might give the impression that Israel is the "victim" or the "tiny country defending itself from more numerous enemies" (am I right?). How it is possible that all the other Wikipedias are wrong? I don't understand what's the problem. This map of the Middle East shows the countries belonging to the Arab League at the present (after all, this is the ARAB–Israeli conflict), and those which have been at war with Israel in the past. It seems pretty accurate to me. Egypt was at war against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1967-70 and 1973. Jordan fought against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973 (in the last case only indirectly, although it sent troops to the Golan during the Yom Kippur War). Lebanon had a limited participation in 1948. Syria fought in 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Iraq was involved in the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen sent troops in 1948. I really don't understand why this is the only Wikipedia which excludes such a practical map. I'm waiting for an answer and other users' opinions.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed replacement picture.
The proposed replacement map I have linked here is more accurate, and fits your description above, expect that you are incorrect re Yemen in 1948 (who were in the middle of their own internal conflict, and also re Saudi in 1948, where fighters which came were personal volunteers not representatives of the state (similar to the International Brigades in the Spanish civil war). The light green in the proposed map shows your point about Lebanon and Jordan. Both countries had then-secret pre-agreements with Israel in 1948; their participation was to defend the pre-agreed partition borders. And in 1967 Jordan was solely on the defensive.
With respect to the larger map, as is made very clear in the discussion above, the Arab League has never been at war with Israel. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya were French and British colonies in 1948 and did not participate in later conflicts either. As a result, the larger map is inaccurate and, as you correctly imply, propagandistic.
06:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with your proposal for several reasons. But let's clarify your incorrect information first. Jordan was on the defensive in 1967?? Yeah, right! On the contrary, Israel was too busy fighting the Egyptians, so it didn't want to open a second front. That's why the Israelis sent a message to king Hussein promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war (the king replied by saying "it's too late"). Only when the Jordanian army began shelling Israeli cities – based on the false assumption that Egypt was winning the war – Israel invaded the West Bank. Jordan not only fought fiercely against the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but in both cases this country initiated the hostilities (unlike the Egyptian front for example, which was initiated by Israel in 1967, after a series of threats and provocations). This is a conflict in which the Arab League has active participation, and even those North African countries sent troops and aid to the Arab side in the 1967 and 1973 wars (that's why they should be included, although not in the group of nations that have been "at war with Israel" directly). That's why this is called the Arab–Israeli conflict. Because of your stubborn rejection to recognize widely known facts, the most complete of the Wikipedias is the only one which has not a useful map in this article. I'm going to add proper references to restore it.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The onus is on you to build consensus here. Statements like "stubborn rejection to recognize widely known facts" do not resolve discussions, nor justify edit warring.
You are wrong about Jordan in 1967. Israel had destroyed their air force in Operation Focus by noon on the first day, before any fighting took place. As Hussein said after the Samu Incident: "if Israel launched another Samu-scale attack against Jordan he would have no alternative but to retaliate or face an internal revolt. If Jordan retaliates, asked Hussein, would not this give Israel a pretext to occupy and hold Jordanian or Occupied territory?". Jordan was never belligerent against Israel, and nor was Lebanon, hence the proposal to colour them differently from Egypt / Syria / Iraq. They are still highlighted on the map, as both countries government's were clearly very involved.
You are wrong about the North African countries. This has already been discussed above. Their governments sent no troops. If you want to include volunteers, then we need to also colour every country from whom Mahal volunteers came. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, apart from the threads above, this has also been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_124#How to summarise a 65+ year complex conflict in a single map? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The fact is that Operation Focus targeted only the Egyptian air force at the beginning. Israel carried out a preemptive strike only against Egypt. The Jordanians fired the first bullet (so to say), as well as the Syrians. Only then Israel responded against them (both from the air and on the ground). But I'm not going to enter in that discussion because that's not the main point. Why are you against including all the Arab League countries? Are you seriously doubting that the Arab League (all of their countries) were somehow involved in the Arab–Israeli conflict? Let's assume those North African countries didn't send troops... so what? I'm not suggesting to add them as belligerents! They are included in the map simply because they belong to the Arab League. It is really important if Jordan and Lebanon fought less than Iraq, Egypt or Syria? All of them sent units to fight Israel. And even Kuwait did it (although it's not included in the map). Saudi Arabia and Yemen are included because of the 1948 war. I can't understand why you oppose to this map. It's in all the other Wikipedias because is useful.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Your argument is WP:CIRCULAR. The "other wikipedias have it" argument is ridiculous. The linked file has changed over time, and has had the same concerns raised at wikicommons[3].
Unless you can prove that any of the light green countries in your map have been "at war" with Israel, then those countries have no more relevance that Britain and France (who fought alongside Israel in the second incarnation of the Arab Israeli war), and many other countries who have provided logistical, financial and volunteer support to Israel.
Oncenawhile (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I would rather agree with Wlglunight93 per WP:OR and agree with Oncenawhile on the historical and analytical point of view. But per wikipedia, we have to follow sources and not try to correct the "mistakes" of historians. So I think wolglunight93 is right.
Note anyway that even if this didn't concern huge contingents :
  • Saudi Arabia participated to the 1948 war and sent troops that fought alongside the Egyptians
  • Libyan and Algerian aircrafts participated to the Kippur war
  • this conflict is too complex to state there is an agressor and a defender particularly for Jordan 1967 whose troops were in the same chain of command as Egyptian ones.
Pluto2012 (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi User:Ykantor, please could you read the previous threads on this topic and then let us know your thoughts? To address your edit summary, the question is not just about deleting countries - we could instead add countries. In other words, Britain and France fought alongside Israel in 1956, the USA and other countries provided military and financial support to Israel in all the conflicts. Also Iran has been involved in a low level proxy fight on the other side since 1979. On the other hand, a number of the countries highlighted as being in the "Arab league" have no relevance to the conflict at all. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Middle East conflict"[edit]

For a few examples of the conflict being called the Middle East conflict, please see:

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a "Middle East conflict" (a conflict in the Middle East). Many other Mid-east conflicts are also named a "Middle East conflict". It can be also "the Middle East conflict", concerning a conflict discussed in an article:
"Middle East conflict: 500 women and children buried alive by Islamic extremists, claims Iraqi minister" [10] (about Iraqi ISIS conflict)
"Prolonged Middle East conflict could hit broader markets, say bond investors" [11] (about Arab Spring)
"Markets on edge as Middle East conflict escalates" [12] (about Syrian ISIS conflict)

GreyShark (dibra) 18:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli war[edit]

I have various issues with bias in this sub-section, which I would like to address, but before editing I want to present them for discussion in “Talk”. 1) The first paragraph states that a new state was declared with no mention of borders. While this is not disputed, the declaration of independence makes a justification link to the UN resolution (181) of November 27, in which borders were indeed defined. The current text creates the impression that there was nothing to govern the extent of the new Jewish state. This is therefore an inappropriate impression. I plan to draw attention to the reference to UN General Assembly resolution 181 in the Israeli declaration of independence with its definition of partition borders. 2) Paragraph two provides that the source of the depopulation of Arab settlements, i.e. refugee creation, is shared between the Arabs and Israel, without assigning decisive causes between the parties. In fact scholarly research is available which can provide a much more perspicacious definition of the reasons for flight. I believe that this should be substituted for the currently vague text. In this regard there is repetition with the subsequent sub-section, and I seek suggestions as to how to resolve this. 3) Paragraph 3 contains unsupported text of expulsions of Jews from Arab countries, and in the case of Algeria fails to explain that the expulsion was not just of Jews, but of all ‘pied noir’, creating the false impression that this expulsion was anti-Semitic. This is easily corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictheenquirer (talkcontribs) 11:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What is a "Jewish bus" (illustration)[edit]

"A Jewish bus equipped with wire screens to protect against rock, glass, and grenade throwing, late 1930s"

This needs source and explanation. It doesn't even say where it is. Was it like the Jewish-only buses operated by the State of the Jewish People today? Keith McClary (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The concept of "Jewish bus" was common in that period. There were buses that served locations where Jews lived or worked, and similarly "Arab buses". However the acceptability of this image is doubtful. It comes from a propagandistic book for children [13]. As well as that, the source does not identify the time period. The caption there reads "Jewish residents of Palestine developed some unusual methods of self-defense. To prevent Arabs from tossing grenades into crowded buses, they attached protective screens to the windows." Zerotalk 08:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Arab statements bellicosity[edit]

@Huldra: Yours editing :"totally one-sided arguments, cherry-picking every bellicose statement you can find is no way to write an article. Bring it to talk". What is one sided? Where is the cherry-picking? Ykantor (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Huldra's description is an understatement. According to your edits in multiple articles, Israel never did anything but react to Arab evil. The fact that you can find sources to support your thesis means nothing; as you know full well, you could easily find sources supporting different theses. Zerotalk 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Ykantor, what your edit described is known as a pretext. Decisions to go to war are always complex and multi-faceted. The idea that one factor such as "bellicose statements" was the crucial factor is preposterous. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You also silently removed cited text, such as the sentence "The UNEF was only deployed on the Egyptian side of the border, as Israel refused to allow them on its territory." Zerotalk 03:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
-@Zero0000 and Oncenawhile: So what is your alternative wording?
- Zero, yours:"According to your edits in multiple articles, Israel never did anything but react to Arab evil." The Fedayeen terror, the Egyptian blocking of the Suez Canal and Tiran straits, the huge eastern block modern arms deal, the concentration of Egyptian forces in Sinai, the bellicose statements, all of them were initiated by the Arab side, with no prior direct Israeli threat. The Arabs reasons were a revenge for the "Nakba" and the mere existence of Israel, as Nasser openly said.
Your version is like a Zionist coloring book. The fedayeen attacks were mostly launched in direct response to Israeli attacks on Gaza. Even rightist historians like Michael Oren have documented that. No direct Israeli threat? What about the Israeli attack on the Gaza market in April that killed 66 people, mostly civilians, and injured 135? But the most appalling distortion is the failure to credit the Sèvres protocol with contributing to the decision, when it is well known to have been the major reason. The French promise of air support and Britain's promise to renege on its defence treaty with Jordan had nothing to do with Israel's decision to initiate a war? B-G salivated over the prospect of Nasser being overthrown "without one Jew's falling in battle" and proposed to the French and British that the war be the first step of a major rearrangement of the Middle East that would see the dismemberment of Jordan and Israeli annexation of the West Bank and southern Lebanon in addition to bits of Egypt. Was it irrelevant that France offered to help Israel build a nuclear reactor in return for Israeli cooperation? The list of facts goes on and on, nothing at all like your one-dimensional text. Zerotalk 12:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- in my opinion, This deleted sentence is of very minor importance. Why should it be included in the article? Is it important at all? It does not expose an alleged Israeli dirty behavior since it was a part of detailed negotiations, in which each side tried to win. It does not show that Nasser was a peace lover, but rather might show (according to Morris) that the Israeli army was revealed as a sufficiently capable force and at that time Nasser did not want start again a military dispute. Isn't it? Ykantor (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
When Egypt ordered UNEF out of Sinai in 1967, it was regarded as one of the contributors to the war, but when Israel refused to accommodate UNEF at all, ever, that was of very minor importance? This is a common double standard but we don't need it. Zerotalk 12:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- If there is a double standard, then it's the historians double standard. The sources says that when "Egypt ordered UNEF out of Sinai in 1967, it was regarded as one of the contributors to the war". I am not aware of historians claiming such an importance for "when Israel refused to accommodate UNEF at all" at 1957. Why won't you provide a wp:rs that claims that this event is important?
-You mentioned killing of civilians in Gaza's market. Will you please supply more details? It is not listed in the Reprisal operations.
-yours: "The fedayeen attacks were mostly launched in direct response to Israeli attacks on Gaza.". I am not aware of that, and have to check it. I'll appreciate it if you have a link to a wp:rs (Oren?) who claim so.
"No longer able to resist pressure from within the army and from Gaza Palestinians to retaliate against Israeli attacks, but still incapable of mounting a conventional response, Nasser ordered the formation of Palestinian fidayeen..." (my emphasis), "The IDF responded on 5 April with a mortar barrage on the Gaza market: sixty-six Egyptians, most of them civilians, were killed and 135 wounded. The incident touched off a second wave of raids by the fidayeen..." (Michael Oren, Escalation to Suez: The Egypt-Israel Border War, 1949-56, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 24, No. 2, Studies on War. (Apr., 1989), pp. 347-373. We also find there that fidayeen attacks from Gaza had ceased by the summer of 1956, months before the 1956 war. Plus, the "massive shipments of arms from France" Israel received during the summer is seen as a factor (and absolutely must be mentioned if the Egyptian arms receipts are mentioned. You can read more about the market attack in Morris, Israel's Border Wars, pp. 387ff. Briefly, there had been no incidents for several months, then a series of border incidents then Israel shelled the center of Gaza "not closer than one kilometre to a military position". Then Nasser responded by ordering fedayeen attacks. Zerotalk 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
-yours: "failure to credit the Sèvres protocol". There are about 150 words only describing the 1956 Sinai war. I tried to minimize my added text size, and concentrated at the reasons, so "my" version had grown to about 220-230 words. It seems that relative to the war reasons, mentioning the Sèvres protocol is of secondary importance, since the Sèvres protocol was important in terms of timing, but was not a reason for the war. According to Morris, Before the Sèvres protocol, "Israel's leaders has set a course for war...During the summer of 1956, only 2 questions remained: When? and what target?" (Morris, Victims, p. 288-289). However, I accept adding it to the article. BTW Please note that my text did mentioned a beforehand agreement between the 3 allies.
Wars happen at a time and in some circumstances. It is very likely Ben-Gurion would have gone to war on his own, but only much later. He told his cabinet that he would have preferred another 6 months. A reason for the war to happen 6 months earlier than otherwise is obviously one of the major causes. Zerotalk 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
-Yours: "Was it irrelevant that France offered to help Israel build a nuclear reactor'. My contribution concerned the 1956 Sinai war, and has not dealt with other important issues, such as this one.
- As said, what about an alternative wording? Ykantor (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Pretext_or_trigger_event_guidance. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It isn´t only that User:Ykantor manage to come up with an astonishingly one-sided sentence ("In late 1956, the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat of the concentrated Egyptian forces in the Sinai, and Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai peninsula")..he then manage to spam exactly the same into the articles History of the Israel Defense Forces, Golda Meir, Israel–United States relations, Operation Musketeer (1956), in addition to this article. I´m removing it, until it is discussed, Huldra (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Huldra- It will be appreciated if you behave yourself. Although asked for your sources, you ignored it but you still dare to name a well supported text as a spam or astonishingly one-sided sentence. If you won't apologize, I will revert it back. As an experienced editor, you are expected to deal with the substance (e.g. provide alternative wording with a proper support) and not this kind of unsubstantiated dirt throwing. Please. Ykantor (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The people who lived in Palestine were never given a choice about their land being colonised, just as the Sudetenland was wished away by Great Power realpolitik and until self-determination is applied there can be no justice and therefore no peace, because occupation is a violent act. When some Palestinians had a vote of sorts and elected the Hamas party as the government of Palestine, the zionists and their US sponsors began another pogrom. An article which accepts the occupation or implies that it can be legitimate is inherently biased. Arguments about whose fault the Yom Kippur War is or who's to blame for the Sabra and Chatila massacres or the legitimacy of the occupation of the Golan Heights tend to miss the point, that if self-determination was applied and honoured, it's inevitable that the victims of the occupation would end it. Point-scoring about details misses the point.Keith-264 (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Keith-264:- I had a look in your contributions, and it seems that you are a valuable editor. I can understand the Palestinian's deep feeling of injustice, but is not it much better to look for a better future for all of us, Arabs and Israelis? Israelis should not rule Arabs, and Arabs should not rule Israelis. Let us stop the ongoing bloodshed. Ykantor (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Zionist racist imperialist antisemites can end the nightmare overnight, by offering to leave Palestine if the rightful owners want them to. If you are a zionist I want no more to do with you.Keith-264 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Keith-264:-Yes I live in Israel. I am very sorry to read your response. Ykantor (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Zero: Gaza market attack- Thank you for the info. I found it in Morris, Victims. p. 287. (the page is available here). This killing is horrible, and Moshe Sharet called the attack a crime. However, according Morris's previous rows, during the months before this cruel attack, the Egyptian troops use to fire at the Israeli soldiers almost daily, there were repeated mining attacks and ambushes to the IDF patrols, and in day day before they shot dead 3 Israeli soldiers. So at 5 April both armies were shooting each other, and Egyptians were bombarding Israeli settlements. So the Israeli army had to respond , but the trouble was the huge scale of the Israeli response and the chosen target.

The pattern of the events is typically an Egyptian attack, followed by an Israeli response.

Fedayeen- According to Morris's first lines, the Egyptian clamped down on civilian infiltration during Dec 1955 up to Febr 1956. Why haven't they stopped the infiltration during the previous years?
- Yours: "that fidayeen attacks from Gaza had ceased by the summer of 1956, months before the 1956 war. ". According to this Morris's page , This truce started at April 1956. However, An Egyptian ambush shot dead an Israel civilian at 29 April. It seems that that the truce hold on later, while Fedayeen continue to infiltrate and kill Israeli civilians, but the came from other Arab countries, mainly Jordan. Some sources claim that the Egyptians were behind those infiltration.
-"Yours:"massive shipments of arms from France". You are very experienced and if you want to add it to the article , it is fine. The Egyptian-Czech arms deal size was much bigger e.g. included 150 Jet fighters (Mig15) Vs Israel's 16 French made Mystere and 22 Oragan fighters. Ben Gurion wanted a pre-emptive war in order to beat the Egyptian army before it could absorb all these arms.[1]Ykantor (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You write: "The pattern of the events is typically an Egyptian attack, followed by an Israeli response". Do you honestly think this is correct? Do you think that Israel is always just reacting to aggression or threats? Or do you accept that right-wing elements in the Israeli military and government have often chosen to provoke situations for strategic gain?
Please try to look at these issues from a neutral perspective. World events are never simply a conflict between good and evil. The most frequent case is that both sides make mistakes, and war only happens if at least one party expects to gain from it.
Oncenawhile (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Keith-264: A reminder to AGF and of NPA seems to be called for here. This is a page for discussing edits, not editors. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Hertz1888: I look forward to you showing impartial behaviour under both policies. I would also remind you that an admission of zionism demonstrates the fact of bad faith. Keith-264 (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile: Yes, I agree with you that some influential elements in Israel wanted (and wanting) to initiate an Israeli aggression e.g. Ariel Sharon. However, during those times, they didn't have to be the first one to shoot at the other side. They just waited for the next Egyptian shooting/ Ambush/ bombardment and over reacted. Later I'll quote Arab sources concerning Nasser behavior. Ykantor (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, it sounds like we are broadly agreed then. They may not have "just waited" of course, patience is a virtue that not many of us share.
Either way, this is known as a pretext. Thus it is relevant but must be presented very carefully. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- "meeting on November 15 (1956) ... Amer also lashed out at Nasser, accusing him of provoking an unnecessary war and then blaming the military for the result.”[2]
- "the prominent historian and commentator Abd al-Azim Ramadan, In a series of articles published in AlWafd, subsequently compiled in a hook published in 2000, Ramadan criticized the Nasser cult, …. The events leading up to the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, as other events during Nasser’s rule, Ramadan wrote, showed Nasser to be far from a rational, responsible leader. … His decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was his alone, made without political or military consultation. … The source of all this evil. Ramadan noted, was Nasser’s inclination to solitary decision making… the revolutionary regime led by the same individual—Nasser— repeated its mistakes when it decided to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967. Both decisions led to a state of war with Israel, despite the lack of military preparedness"[3] Ykantor (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ykantor, one problem with you adding such statements on several pages are that when some of them gets reverted, they still stand on the other articles you have copied them too. For example, this statement still stands here and here. It it silly to make it like Israel "had to" attack Egypt in 1956 and though this has been rejected here, this still stands at other articles. Until this is solved, they should be removed from there too, which I will do now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I have removed it now. Surely you can understand why it is not a good situation to spread the text around to what seems to be every article you can find about the topic (like the one about Woodhead Commission, where 10 articles still contain the text inserted by you). I noticed something similar recently on these three when I was reading about the Egyptian-Israeli peace process: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jarring_Mission&diff=prev&oldid=650705210, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rogers_Plan&diff=prev&oldid=650705305 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golda_Meir&diff=prev&oldid=650705362. That was also a one-sided representation about another Arab-Israeli war. It is the same about the fedayeen attacks discussed here, where you keep copying the one-sided texts to other articles. Is this some kind of tactic? --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- to Zero. Yours: "that fidayeen attacks from Gaza had ceased by the summer of 1956, months before the 1956 war. " . It seems that this truce did not hold on until the war.
-"by late April (1956), Hammarskjold was able to bring about a cease-fire...The resulting calm along the demarcation lines proved only temporary. The situation deteriorated again for a few weeks in July and then improved for several months, Khouri1985p204[4]


@IRISZOOM: The edit about the reasons for the Israeli attack is well supported. If you oppose it, why don't you propose an alternative wording? why don't you find a source to support your claim that my edit is sided?
Please note that Zero's remarks here are not negating my edit, but adds some background. among the 5 mentioned Israeli attack reasons:

- there were 3 reasons that no one here opposed them: the Egyptian blocking of the Suez Canal and Tiran straits, the concentration of Egyptian forces in Sinai, the bellicose statements .

-reason: The Fedayeen terror. Zero's claim that "The fedayeen attacks were mostly launched in direct response to Israeli attacks on Gaza" is not correct. He probably meant that Nasser formalized the Fedayeen raids in response to a big scale Israeli retaliation attack. But the Egyptian side raids were there for years up to this step of Nasser. Zero said: " fidayeen attacks from Gaza had ceased by the summer of 1956, months before the 1956 war.". At April 1956 Egypt and Israel agreed to a truce. A couple of weeks later, Fedayeen shot dead a Jewish settler but Ben Gurion decided not to retaliate and to continue with the truce. Beginning at July there were more Fedayeen raids, that subsequently subsided. Moreover, at the same period there were a lot of Fedayeen raids originating in Jordan, and some historians claim that it was an Egyptian initiative.

-Reason: The huge eastern block modern arms deal. It is true that France supplied arms to Israel, but the scale of the Egyptian arms supply was much bigger.

- Zero's claim: "the most appalling distortion is the failure to credit the Sèvres protocol with contributing to the decision,". the Sèvres protocol was indeed important. However it was relevant for the war timing and was not a reason for the war. Besides, my edit mentioned a prior agreement .

- It seems that my initial edit was correct, but there are claims that the background was not explained properly in 2 of the 5 reasons plus the Sèvres protocol. (Should the context include al-Azim Ramadan and Amer notes also?.) I accept it, but since the 1956 war is just a small part of the article, there is a question mark about the size of the added background text.

-Concerning Woodhead commission, if you compare my initial edit that was reverted, and the final(?) edit that was not reverted (yet?), there is not much difference between them. Most of the claims against my edit have not influenced the final(?) edit.
-What is the problem with my edits concerning peace initiative before the 1973 war? Ykantor (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

A Reasons have already been told by three editors and I just told mine. The wording was better before your addition. You added that "the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat". It even looks like only one of the sources you added say so (Beyond Guns and Steel: A War Termination Strategy by Dominic Joseph Caraccilo) but it gives the look that all agrees. But what is most significant is that there are several others of authors who classify this is a "war of choice" but this of course is not mentioned by you. You just add sources that support the Israeli view and as others have said, you can find sources that say the total opposite.

B The part "it was impossible, whatever boundaries we might recommend, to set up an Arab State which should be self-supporting" was rejected and still stands in 10 articles. You didn't explain why you are adding similiar statements to many articles. Can't you see that this is unusual compared to other editors? I mean, you seem to copy sentences to every article about the topic.

C Your problem is that you fail to note that Israel was not ready to return all of occupied Egyptian territory, which Egypt could not accept, and that Israel was seen as the one who made the Jarring Mission fail. The article was and still a mess because it is mainly based on what the Israeli foreign ministry and their embassy in Washington write but then you added this part, which made it more one-sided, and you presented it as a fact when it was taken from Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

-As for your first passage, designated with A : yours: "You just add sources that support the Israeli view" is not true. My edit is valuable since it is well supported, there is no dispute over 3 of the war reasons, and the rest 2 reasons are correct but should be expanded according to Zero's supported notes. This process of upgrading is a normal Wikipedia practice. Instead of blaming me for a missing view, or if you do not agree with, why won't you find a wp:rs and add your view (e.g. "war of choice") to the article?.
-As for your's B passage: Please read again the relevant discussion and the sources. This sentence is written in the Woodhead report, so it could not be rejected. Moreover, the 1947 U.N partition report was the same, so they suggested that the planned Jewish state will have to subsidize the future Arab state. In my opinion instead of all this mutual fighting and killing, such a partition could have been a very good solution for both side, and the with the subsidies the Arab state could keep a relative good standard of education and health system, while developing the economy to a level of a modern and self sufficient state. Nasser, Israel greatest enemy ever, used to say that to attack Israel before the army is ready is a crime. It is a pity that On 1947-1948 the Mufti attacked the Jews although he did not prepare his people to a war.
-As for your's C passage: Again, why do you blame me for the article shortcomings? I am not the article owner. And again, If you do not agree with, why won't you add your supported view?. Concerning Rabin's memoirs, I'll find and add wp:rs. BTW yours " Israel was not ready to return all of occupied Egyptian territory, which Egypt could not accept" : accepting it is a matter of negotiations. What about Sadat 1971 peace proposal? Sadat demanded that Israel will return (or formally agree to) all the occupied territories to the 3 Arab countries and then, and only then Egypt would agree to start and negotiate a peace agreement but without a direct talk? Do you think that Israel had to accept this proposal? giving away the playing cards before any negotiations? You probably don't think that Nasser 1967 steps made the war inevitable (although lot of wp:rs think so), but Syria and Jordan attacked Israel in response to The Israeli attack on Egypt. was it justified to demand that Israel will return the occupied territories to them unilaterally while they refuse to have peace with Israel? Ykantor (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I and others should not have to make the article more neutral just because you fail to do so by presenting one particular view as the truth. Now that the text is not any longer there, it is not as a big issue as before but I could indeed add more about it soon. You did not respond to the other part. Which other sources speak about "the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat"? Was it one of the sources? A ref tag should come after a particular statement.
I have read it and you know very well that the discussion was not if the sentence was in the report but how you presented it and that you as usual copied it to many articles. Regarding the other part, Wikipedia is not a forum and I will only say that if it was only about Arab disavowal, it does not explain many actions taken by the Israeli side (including expulsions after the war).
First of all, I did say that you took something from Rabin's memoirs and presented it as a fact and that to an article that was already a mess. I think it is very clear that the Israeli refusal to return the occupied territories (including only the Sinai to the Egyptians as they were willing to agree to according to many sources) was there no matter what the Egyptian position were. Golda Meir even mocked Egyptian claims to some parts of the peninsula (as you can see for example here or here). That Israel said they could not return to the 1967 lines were stated clearly. Archives released two years ago also show that while Meir said Israel were willing to return most of the peninsula before the war, they were not willing to return all of it.
I did add what Finkelstein wrote about the Jarring Mission and there is also some more that could be added about the peace proposals, including the one in 1971. Chomsky has also written much about it. Shlomo Ben-Ami have also written about that. Here is parts about what Ben-Ami wrote and this is copied from a piece written by Finkelstein who compared his texts to Ben-Ami's, which can be cross-checked to see it matches what Ben-Ami wrote and many pages are accessible on Google Books:
Both Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan were forced to acknowledge the revolutionary change in Egypt's position. In an interview with the London Times the Prime Minister admitted that Sadat was 'the first Egyptian leader to say that he was ready to make peace'. Dayan believed that this was an entirely new situation that called for a 'careful assessment', one that was never made. In fact, Sadat's response to Jarring went even further: it indicated that Egypt wanted an Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab lands, but it did not link Egypt's readiness for peace with the withdrawal from other fronts. Sadat was in effect anticipating the premises upon which he would strike a separate deal with Israel at the Camp David summit.
Mrs. Meir's Cabinet did not rise to the dramatic challenge posed by Anwar Sadat. In the same interview where she recognised the boldness of Sadat's reply to Jarring, the Prime Minister continued to insist that Israel 'must have' Sharm-el-Sheikh, that Egypt 'could not return' to Gaza, and that the Golan Heights and much of the West Bank, including united Jerusalem, must remain under Israel's control. She also took the liberty on another occassion to say that 'Sharm-el-Sheikh is of absolutely no use to the Egyptians'. (Scars of War, p. 134)
The pages around that section are worth to read. Same with this from Israeli Peacemaking Since 1967: Factors Behind the Breakthroughs and Failures and this from The Global Offensive: The United States, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Making of the Post-Cold War Order too about the peace process. Furthermore, why do you pick and choose from Rabin's memoirs from what fits you? Don't you think the statement by Golda Meir in 1971 is relevant too, especially when we are discussing the Jarring Mission? Rabin reports (p. 210) the following and Galia Golan reports that too in the her book (p. 31):
"Israel's policy aims toward a considerable change in her border with Egypt. That means a change of sovereignty, not just an Israeli presence. We do not employ the term 'annexation' because of its negative connotation."
That was in 1971. Also the cabinet decision from 31 March 1971 are mentioned by Rabin (p. 211 and quoted by Galia Golan at p. 38):
"A secure border for Israel requires changes in the former international border, including retention of the Gaza Strip, continued Israeli control at Sharm el-Sheikh, and a territorial link to the State of Israel. Continued control does not signify a presence but rather concrete military control, though the Israeli position regarding the legal form of such control has yet to be formulated"
Rabin also told Kissinger a year later that Israel "demands border changes, and Dobrynin should be told that" (p. 211). Nothing of that is mentioned by you and you are cherry-picking to make it look like Israel wanted to compromise while Arabs did not want too.
Nothing of this is either mentioned at Yom Kippur War#Background and this must be solved, which I am going to go forward with. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


- Golda repeatedly said that Israel won't return all of the occupied territories and she probably meant it. According to Rabin memoirs, he himself was surprised when Golda accepted in principle the Egyptian sovereignty over Sinai on 1973 beginning. But she was very interested in advancing the arms deal with the U.S (e.g more Phantom fighters) and the U.S hinted that she had to bow toward the American policy before a further advance of the arms deal. (I might be mistaken because I recall the story from memory).
-In my opinion, concerning Sadat peace initiative on 1971, the main obstacle for a peace agreement were the Egypt's preconditions of returning Sinai before the negotiations. The basic give and take was peace Vs the occupied territories. For Israel the "give" was returning part of Sinai and the "take" was a peace agreement. If Israel was required to give away the main "playing card" before the negotiations, than it could be expected that the subsequent negotiations will be futile. Years later, Sadat openly said that recovering Sinai was his main motivation for the peace process.
- Israel had its share of faults, because it declared that only a part of Sinai will be returned to Egypt. But if negotiations would have started without preconditions, than this declared attitude could be changed with a proper American pressure, which is what happened to Menachem Begin's starting position while negotiating with Sadat and the Americans. To be continued. Ykantor (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
-Concerning the article neutrality, again: It is not "my" article and you are welcome to edit anything in the article. My edit refers to the war reasons, while the ""war of choice" refers to a different question - if the reasons justified the war.
-Yours: "you fail to do so by presenting one particular view as the truth". My edit is 100% true. No one here presented any error in this edit. Sometime it happens that wp:rs contradict each other but in this case, no one mentioned such a contradicting view. Please be careful next time and avoid such an accusation. My edit was valuable, and it should be expanded with Zero's comments. This is a normal process in Wikipedia.
- "bellicosity of recent Arab statements ": if you wish to move the reference to the middle of the sentence, you are welcome, although once I was told that a reference should be inserted at the sentence end only. BTW One hardly need a source for the very apparent Nasser's statements bellicosity.
- Concerning the "Golda accepted Egyptian sovereignty", I admit that initially I had to add the "according to Rabin" words. However, I in the meantime added more sources, so there is no need anymore to have this words.
- Yours "it does not explain many actions taken by the Israeli side (including expulsions after the war)." I am an Israeli but it is not my duty to defend Israel wrong actions. I agree with you in that sense.
- It will be very appreciated if editors won't quote the pseudo scientist Norman Finkelstein. He presents himself as a victim of the Jewish lobby(?)that devoid him of getting a job, but in fact he is just a poor researcher. There are other anti Israeli academics who hold a job with no problems. Some editors here said that Ephraim Karsh is too biased toward Israel, so I avoid using his interpretation (but using his factual sentences.)
- You have not replied yet if you agree to include the following views in the article:
--"meeting on November 15 (1956) ... Amer also lashed out at Nasser, accusing him of provoking an unnecessary war and then blaming the military for the result.”[2]
-- "the prominent historian and commentator Abd al-Azim Ramadan, In a series of articles published in AlWafd, subsequently compiled in a hook published in 2000, Ramadan criticized the Nasser cult, …. The events leading up to the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, as other events during Nasser’s rule, Ramadan wrote, showed Nasser to be far from a rational, responsible leader. … His decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was his alone, made without political or military consultation. … The source of all this evil. Ramadan noted, was Nasser’s inclination to solitary decision making… the revolutionary regime led by the same individual—Nasser— repeated its mistakes when it decided to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967. Both decisions led to a state of war with Israel, despite the lack of military preparedness"[3] Ykantor (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
-Concerning Woodhead commission, I repeat: if you compare my initial edit that was reverted, and the final(?) edit that was not reverted (yet?), there is not much difference between them. Most of the claims against my edit have not influenced the final(?) edit.
---The main claim was against my initial edit that "On November 9, 1938, it reported that "it was impossible, whatever boundaries we might recommend, to set up an Arab State which should be self-supporting. It proposed a modification of partition which, ...seems, subject to certain reservations, to form a satisfactory basis of settlement", if the U.K was prepared to provide a "sufficient assistance to enable the Arab State to balance its budget"'".
--- My final edit was : "It preferred a modification of the partition, which forms a satisfactory basis of settlement, if the United Kingdom government accept "the very considerable financial liability involved," that balances the Arab state budget...It found that "it is not possible, under our terms of reference, to recommend boundaries which will afford a reasonable prospect of the eventual establishment of a self-supporting Arab State. This conclusion is, in our opinion, equally valid under plan C, plan B, and any other plan of partition which does not involve the inclusion in the Arab State of an area containing a large number of Jews, whose contributions to tax-revenue would alone enable that state to balance its budget". They suggested that the Arab and Jewish states not be given fiscal independence but instead the UK government accept "the very considerable financial liability" and provide a sufficient assistance to enable the Arab State to balance its budget."
-Please see the relevant talkpage section too. It seems that my initial edit was correct. Ykantor (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, it was a grotesque distortion. Zerotalk 14:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
So Egypt demanding all of their territory back is the main problem and not that Israel insisted on keeping parts of it in opposition to the consensus it was occupied and therefore must be returned, though of course under certain conditions such as security solutions? As I said before, there are many who say that Sadat offered a peace agreement (and not only something less than such a treaty), including agreeing to Jarring's proposal unlike Israel. That view must also be there. My question about why you only added a certain part from Rabin's memoirs has nothing to do if it's "your" article or not so I don't understand why you keep bringing that up. Why not include Meir's and Israel's earlier statements, including their reply to Jarring, and only picking the position they stated in early 1973? Their insistence on refusing to withdraw to the 1967 lines, and seeking border changes, is highly relevant.
Finkelstein have written about Sadat's willingness to reach peace and I added that statement to Jarring Mission and more can be seen here and here. Chomsky has also written about it. Galia Golan writes about it here too. Shlomo Ben-Ami also writes about it here.
No, I stand behind what I said about your addition, which several other editors also objected to. You are trying to make it look like that Israel "had to" attack in 1956 and are looking up sources and statements (so no, those two quotes don't belong there) to support that view but that this is not how you build an encyclopedia. You start with looking at what different reliable sources report. As you know, it is easy to look on sources from the total opposite side and add that but that does not either make it better. The current wording, which in an accurate and neutral way describes the tensions, nationalization and the response to it etc., is much better. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion on why Finkelstein is an unacceptable source is not relevant. If you think he is not a WP:RS, go get consensus for that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the Woodhead Commission, I will later respond in that article's talk page, and my mention here was more about your habit to copy additions to many articles. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


It seems that you adapted a tactic to accuse me for what I have not said. e.g
- "So Egypt demanding all of their territory back is the main problem"
- "You are trying to make it look like that Israel "had to" attack in 1956"
- You have bizarre demands, that:
-- if I use a source (e.g. Rabin memoirs) I have to quote all the source's other statement , although not related to my edit.
-- I have to insert the reference in the middle of the sentence rather than in the end of the sentence. Really bizarre.
-You accuse me of inserting a bad edit in "Woodhead Report" and avoid verifying yourself that this initial edit of mine is correct . In my opinion you should apologize for your wrong accusation.
- You have not replied yet if you agree to include the Amer and Ramadan views in the article.
- yours " The current wording, which in an accurate and neutral way... is much better.". It is not disputed that my deleted edit is correct, relevant and important. The claims are that it had to be expanded with more background. Do you really mean that the current wording which is misleading and miss the Israeli reasons for the war, is good?

With this confronting behavior , should other editors wp:Assume good faith of yours ? Ykantor (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, many times you say other "accuse" you and should "apologize" etc. I think that is a confronting behaviour. Lets see what you write and how I interpretate it.
I said "So Egypt demanding all of their territory back is the main problem". What did you write? "In my opinion, concerning Sadat peace initiative on 1971, the main obstacle for a peace agreement were the Egypt's preconditions of returning Sinai before the negotiations".
I have said that "You are trying to make it look like that Israel 'had to' attack in 1956". What did you add and keep supporting? "In late 1956, the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat of the concentrated Egyptian forces in the Sinai, and Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956".
So in which way did I interpretate it wrongly? If I did, I will apologize.
You are saying that I have "bizarre demands". Well, I do find it hard to understand why someone who are going to describe Israel's view about giving back Sinai in the article about for example the Jarring Mission would narrow the history to only what happened in early 1973. I think the earlier rejections, which many saw as destroying the chance for peace, and others also as paving the way to the 1973 war, is very relevant. You don't even have to check other sources to know what had happened earlier. Rabin describes it himself in same book, some pages earlier. So why narrow it to what Meir had for view in early 1973? Was her demand two years earlier to keep parts of Sinai, and negative response to Jarring's proposal from the beginning, not worthy to mention?
What I am saying is to put a ref behind the statement it is meant to support. Otherwise, if you put several refs that support different things, it will be unclear what is supported by what and harder to check. I think that is reasonable and it does not take a second more to do, though I understand that this is something that is easy to not notice and I started by asking about which statement was supported by what and said how it should placed.
I looked at it and stand behind the claim that your first addition was a misrepresentation. Secondly, as I said just in my last response here, it was "my mention here was more about your habit to copy additions to many articles". In that response, I did also reply about the both statements you are asking if we should include: "so no, those two quotes don't belong there".
How is your addition that said "In late 1956, the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat of the concentrated Egyptian forces in the Sinai, and Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956" not disputed? I do think the current description is much better of the reasons I mentioned in my last reply ("which in an accurate and neutral way describes the tensions, nationalization and the response to it etc."). It also does mention that Egypt's closing of the straits and blockade. The point is if you want to improve it, do it without keep portraying the Israelis as just responding to Arab actions. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Yours:"On the contrary, it was a grotesque distortion." If it is distorted you should blame the 5 sources that my edit reflected faithfully: ShemeshTroen2005p5, Alteras1993p192, Caraccilo2011p113, Dowty2005p102, Bickerton2009p101. Your notes added important background, which should be added too. (although some are not accurate or missing relevant information). Ykantor (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Hasan Afif El-Hasan : "Israel was looking for war to pre-empt the potential threat of Egypt's arms purchase and to thwart Nasser's support for the Palestinian guerrillas. It found one by aligning himself with the french and the British"[5] Ykantor (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


The Arab statements bellicosity II[edit]

A proposed edit: (should be expanded)

The Arab statements bellicosity[edit]

During the years before the 1956 Suez crisis, Egyptian leaders talked openly about destruction of Israel. The Egyptian Foreign Minister, said early in 1954: "The Arab people will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East" [6]. Nasser said at 31.8.1955 that "There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." On October 14, Nasser said: "I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations."

Tiran straits block[edit]

Egypt blocked the Suez canal for shipping and refused to comply with the 1951 Security Council order that Egypt should open the Canal to Israeli shipping. On 12 Sept 1955 Egypt tightened the Tiran straits block for an Israeli shipping, and closed the airspace for Israeli flights over the Gulf of Acaba.

Fedayeen[edit]

During the early 50's , the infiltration from Gaza strip to Israel was mainly for economic reasons. Gradually, they developed into violent robbery and deliberate killing attacks. During those years, Israel responded by retaliation operations. On Apr 1954 The Egyptian military send an "official" Fedayeen across the borders. (morris,victims, p. 291). this infiltration posed a very serious problem for Israel in general and the border settlements in particular. Many of the inhabitants of the border settlements were new immigrants from Muslim countries. Infiltration from across the border placed their lives at risk, exacted a heavy economic price, and undermined their morale to the point where wholesale desertion became a real possibility. (shlaim, morris, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Israels%20Dirty%20War.html) . The Egyptians tried to stop the infiltration, but it continued. The Egyptian succeeded to clamp down on civilian infiltration during Dec 1955 up to Febr 1956.

On February 28, 1955 Israeli military raid of an Egyptian Army outpost in Gaza, in retaliation for recent fedayeen attacks on Israel. The Gaza Raid resulted in the deaths of 39 Egyptian. Nasser responded by ordering the formation of Palestinian fedayeen units and employed them as an official instrument of warfare against Israel. The amount of the Fedayeen raids increased. Egyptian troops use to fire at the Israeli soldiers almost daily, there were repeated mining attacks and ambushes to the IDF patrols. Egyptian agents recruited and armed Fedayeen in Jordan and Lebanon too. (morris,victims, p. 283). The Fedayeen attacks stopped after the Israeli destroyed Khan Yunis police fort on 31.8.1955 .


In 4 Apr 1956 the Egyptians shot dead 3 Israeli soldiers, and Egyptian troops use to fire at the Israeli soldiers almost daily, there were repeated mining attacks and ambushes to the IDF patrols. At 5 April both armies were shooting each other, and Egyptians bombarded Israeli settlements. The Israeli army responded by a mortar barrage on the Gaza market: sixty-six Egyptians were killed. The incident touched off a second wave of raids by the fedayeen..." (Michael Oren, Escalation to Suez: The Egypt-Israel Border War, 1949-56, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 24, No. 2, Studies on War. (Apr., 1989), pp. 347-373.

By late April (1956), Hammarskjold was able to bring about a cease-fire. An Egyptian ambush shot dead an Israel civilian at 29 April but Ben Gurion decided not to retaliate. The resulting calm along the demarcation lines proved only temporary. The situation deteriorated again for a few weeks in July and then improved for several months, ( Khouri 1985p204). During these months, Fedayeen continued to infiltrate and kill Israeli civilians, but they came from other Arab countries, mainly Jordan. Some sources claim that the Egyptians were behind those infiltration.


Arms supply[edit]

In September 1955 Nasser obtained the massive Soviet arms deal. This deal threatened to tip the military balance against Israel.

Israel received massive shipments of arms from France, although not in the scale of the Egyptian arms deal. E.g. The Egyptian-Czech arms deal included 150 Jet fighters (Mig15) Vs Israel's 16 French made Mystere and 22 Oragan fighters. On 18 March 1956, the Israeli Prime Minister had warned that 'war within a few months could not be avoided unless Israel obtained the arms needed to counter Egypt's weapons'. [7]

According to Hasan Afif El-Hasan : "Israel was looking for war to pre-empt the potential threat of Egypt's arms purchase and to thwart Nasser's support for the Palestinian guerrillas. It found one by aligning himself with the french and the British"

The Sèvres protocol[edit]

French promise of air support , Britain's promise to renege on its defence treaty with Jordan

The war reasons[edit]

In late 1956, the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat of the concentrated Egyptian forces in the Sinai, and Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956. Other Israeli aims were elimination of the Fedayeen incursions into Israel that made life unbearable for its southern population, and opening the blockaded Straits of Tiran for Israeli ships.[8][9][10][11][12][13]

According to Hazem Kandil, Israel was alarmed by the Czech arms deal, and believed it had only a narrow window of opportunity to hit Egypt's army.[14]

The war[edit]

Israel occupied much of the peninsula within a few days. As agreed, within a couple of days, Britain and France invaded too, aiming at regaining Western control of the Suez Canal and removing the Egyptian president Nasser.

After the war[edit]

--The United States and the United Nations soon pressured it into a ceasefire

Several months later Israel withdrew its forces from Sinai, following strong pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union. In return, Egypt agreed to the demilitarization of Sinai and the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was stationed in Sinai to prevent any further conflict in the Sinai.the Fedayeen murderous incursions into Israel were stopped.

Arab critics[edit]

meeting on November 15 (1956) ... Amer also lashed out at Nasser, accusing him of provoking an unnecessary war and then blaming the military for the result.”


The prominent historian and commentator Abd al-Azim Ramadan, In a series of articles published in AlWafd, subsequently compiled in a hook published in 2000, Ramadan criticized the Nasser cult, …. The events leading up to the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, as other events during Nasser’s rule, Ramadan wrote, showed Nasser to be far from a rational, responsible leader. … His decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was his alone, made without political or military consultation. … The source of all this evil. Ramadan noted, was Nasser’s inclination to solitary decision making… the revolutionary regime led by the same individual—Nasser— repeated its mistakes when it decided to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967. Both decisions led to a state of war with Israel, despite the lack of military preparedness

Notes[edit]

References

  1. ^ Derek Varble (2009). The Suez Crisis. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-4358-7497-8. "On the eve of 1956 Sinai campaign...16 Mystere...22 Ouragan fighters 
  2. ^ a b Hazem Kandil (13 November 2012). Soldiers, Spies and Statesmen: Egypt's Road to Revolt. Verso Books. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-84467-962-1. "meeting on November 15 (1956) ... Amer also lashed out at Nasser, accusing him of provoking an unnecessary war and then blaming the military for the result.” 
  3. ^ a b Elie Podeh; Onn Winckler (1 December 2004). Rethinking Nasserism: Revolution and Historical Memory in Modern Egypt. University Press of Florida. pp. 105, 106. ISBN 978-0-8130-3137-8. the prominent historian and commentator Abd al-Azim Ramadan, In a series of articles published in AlWafd, subsequently compiled in a hook published in 2000, Ramadan criticized the Nasser cult, …. The events leading up to the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, as other events during Nasser’s rule, Ramadan wrote, showed Nasser to be far from a rational, responsible leader. … His decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was his alone, made without political or military consultation. … The source of all this evil. Ramadan noted, was Nasser’s inclination to solitary decision making… the revolutionary regime led by the same individual—Nasser— repeated its mistakes when it decided to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967. Both decisions led to a state of war with Israel, despite the lack of military preparedness 
  4. ^ Fred John Khouri (1 January 1985). The Arab-Israeli Dilemma. Syracuse University Press. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8156-2340-3. by late April (1956), Hammarskjold was able to bring about a cease-fire...The resulting calm along the demarcation lines proved only temporary. The situation deteriorated again for a few weeks in July and then improved for several months 
  5. ^ Hasan Afif El-Hasan (1 January 2010). Israel Or Palestine? Is the Two-state Solution Already Dead?: A Political and Military History of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Algora Publishing. p. 118. ISBN 978-0-87586-794-6. Israel was looking for war to pre-empt the potential threat of Egypt's arms purchase and to thwart Nasser's support for the Palestinian guerrillas. It found one by aligning himself with the french and the British 
  6. ^ Matthew C. Price (2008). The Advancement of Liberty: How American Democratic Principles Transformed the Twentieth Century. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 122–. ISBN 978-0-313-34618-7. In early 1954 the Egyptian Foreign Minister declared that the Arab people will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East 
  7. ^ Prof Dr Simon C Smith (28 June 2013). Reassessing Suez 1956: New Perspectives on the Crisis and its Aftermath. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 101–. ISBN 978-1-4094-8013-6. On 18 March 1956, the Israeli Prime Minister had warned that 'war within a few months could not be avoided unless Israel obtained the arms needed to counter Egypt's weapons' 
  8. ^ Moshe Shemesh; Selwyn Illan Troen (5 October 2005). The Suez-Sinai Crisis: A Retrospective and Reappraisal. Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-135-77863-7. The aims were to be threefold: to remove the threat, wholly or partially, of the Egyptian rmy in the Sinai, to destroy the framework of the fedaiyyun, and to secure the freedom of navigation through the straits of Tiran. 
  9. ^ Isaac Alteras (1993). Eisenhower and Israel: U.S.-Israeli Relations, 1953-1960. University Press of Florida. pp. 192–. ISBN 978-0-8130-1205-6. the removal of the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran at the entrance of the Gulf of Aqaba. The blockade closed Israel’s sea lane to East Africa and the Far East, hindering the development of Israel’s southern port of Eilat and its hinterland, the Nege. Another important objective of the Israeli war plan was the elimination of the terrorist bases in the Gaza Strip, from which daily fedayeen incursions into Israel made life unbearable for its southern population. And last but not least, the concentration of the Egyptian forces in the Sinai Peninsula, armed with the newly acquired weapons from the Soviet bloc, prepared for an attack on Israel. Here, Ben-Gurion believed, was a time bomb that had to be defused before it was too late. Reaching the Suez Canal did not figure at all in Israel’s war objectives.  
  10. ^ Dominic Joseph Caraccilo (January 2011). Beyond Guns and Steel: A War Termination Strategy. ABC-CLIO. pp. 113–. ISBN 978-0-313-39149-1. The escalation continued with the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956. On October 14, Nasser made clear his intent:"I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations." Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Nasser in command of all three armies. The continued blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of recent Arab statements, prompted Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, to attack Egypt on October 29, 1956. 
  11. ^ "The Jewish Virtual Library, The Sinai-Suez Campaign: Background & Overview". In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet Bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel. He announced it on August 31, 1955: Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death. These “heroes” were Arab terrorists, or fedayeen, trained and equipped by Egyptian Intelligence to engage in hostile action on the border and infiltrate Israel to commit acts of sabotage and murder. 
  12. ^ Alan Dowty (20 June 2005). Israel/Palestine. Polity. pp. 102–. ISBN 978-0-7456-3202-5. Gamal Abdel Nasser, who declared in one speech that "Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death."...The level of violence against Israelis, soldiers and civilians alike, seemed to be rising inexorably. 
  13. ^ Ian J. Bickerton (15 September 2009). The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History. Reaktion Books. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-86189-527-1. (p. 101) To them the murderous fedayeen raids and constant harassment were just another form of Arab warfare against Israel...(p. 102) Israel's aims were to capture the Sinai peninsula in order to open the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and to seize the Gaza strip to end fedayeen attacks. 
  14. ^ Hazem Kandil (13 November 2012). Soldiers, Spies and Statesmen: Egypt's Road to Revolt. Verso Books. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-84467-962-1. (Israel) "was alarmed by the Czech arms deal, and believed it had only a narrow window of opportunity to cripple Cairo's drive for military parity". 

Turkey's support to Arab side[edit]

Is there any reference for this. It is well known that Turkey supports Palestine but this support does not extend for all the Arab world. Turkey is one of the Israel's largest arms and tech customer, they participated in joint military exercises against Iran and signed a free trade agreement etc etc. kazekagetr 08:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)