Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Core issues II

article current version:

Some of the core issues in the conflict include: the future of the remaining Israeli settlements built in the occupied territories, the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and the status of Jerusalem, along with the refusal of some Palestinian groups to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and Israel's reluctance to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

suggested version:

Some of the core issues in the conflict include: Israel's reluctance to allow the establishment of a possibly lawless and hostile Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem, the future of the remaining Israeli settlements built in the occupied territories, the question of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

Changes include: change of order in subjects, note on the main Israeli issue regarding the possible Palestinian state, and removal of a couple weasel words.

Thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou -- you are to be commended for proposing the text here first, with refs. You are being respectful both of our previous consensus-building effort around the text and responsive to the potential volatility of editing before adequate discussion.

For now, I'd suggest two things. First, I wouldn't try to change the order, at least not for first clause which we worked out carefully and I'd like not to revisit for at least several months. Second, your wording of the proposed new clause goes way to far beyond the (good) source you cited. (The words 'reluctance', 'lawless' and 'hostile' do not appear in her speech. Presumably unwittingly, you've described this core issue from an anti-Palestinian standpoint. If you don't mind my saying so, I'd expect better judgment from an experienced editor in this topic area.) It seems to me like a more neutral description would be: whether a Palestinian state would be responsible regarding Israel's security or -- the responsiveness of a Palestinian state to Israel's security needs or -- ensuring that a Palestinian state would not detract from Israel's security. Thanks for your consideration and, again, glad to see you raise your point here. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence Israel's reluctance to allow the establishment of a possibly lawless and hostile Palestinian state reeks of POV. I suggest the creation of a Palestinian state and its future relations with Israel. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The core issue is the Palestinian charter (promoting violence against Israel) and promotion and funding of terrorist (pardon, "resistance") activity. I'm open to suggestions on how to phrase these two issues (with refs would be better off course).

p.s. It's not necessarily "reeks of POV", if it's a declared policy. [1] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. HG, what was so good about the previous order? the settlements are no more important than terrorist activity. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, why don't you start with commenting on my three suggestions, based on your ref? It bothers me that you ignored these suggestions. Beside the reason I already gave, the order is secondary to your rephrasing in a neutral manner. How can you expect folks to be receptive if you don't propose an edit that is plausible? While I do commend you for starting with Talk, I don't want my time wasted. Either exercise your ability to propose an encyclopedic, neutral-tone edit, or drop it. HG | Talk 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I agree with the concerns expressed about that phrase. The edit needs to use language such as "Israel has expressed concerns about a lack of law and order in the territories, as well as continual incitement," or something like that. We can't use the neutral "3rd person" voice of the entry itself to reprsesent Israel's concerns, IMHO. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

for example:

...and Israel's reluctance to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, due to its concerns about ____ (eg, current levels of hostility and incitement towards Israel in the current Palestinian territories.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is, I am afraid, a very long way from an adequate summation, and I commend User:HG for his wise remarks. I think one will see a readiness to collaborate when a serious proposal, with strong claims to even-handedness and neutrality, is outlined. Until then, discreetly, one watches developments, without wishing to complicate the issues by needless kibitzing. Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Jaakobou meant to indicate some consent to my last proposal, through his silence while waiting to see any further ideas on that. So if I think up some further refinements to that idea, based on useful sources, I will try to discuss them further. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How's this? the phrase at the end can be shortened somewhat; I simply tried to provide a few subclauses. thanks.

...and Israel's reluctance to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, due to its concerns about accountable Palestinian governance, law and order, the extent of anti-terrorism efforts, and ending of incitement. ref: Speech by FM Livni, 12/17/07, Paris Donors' Conferences. (Scroll down to paragraph begininning This is neither...) Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with the suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Any statement must give the full range of core issues (one is water:87% of Israel's water comes from the Occupied Territory, 10-12 litres per Israeli, 1 litre per Palestinian, etc), balanced strictly point by point (Palestinians have security concerns: the IDF is considered to be an IOF (Army of Occupation) actively abetting land-theft) etc. The language must give strict verbal balance, number of words, to each side. Unless this minimum of equilibrium is observed, the endeavour to raise a discussion will fail. E.g.'the refusal of some Palestinian groups to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state', for example, is nonsensical. Arabs and Palestinians (2002 Beirut Summit peace offering underwritten by Hamas and the PLO in 2007) are ready to recognize Israel's right to exist: they don't want that right complicated by a demand that they, non-Israelis, be asked to agree to Israel's definitions of that state. What Israel determines itself to be is Israel's business, not that of other people. In this international law is with them. States are recognized: recognition does not require endorsement of infra-state constitutional arrangements. China is recognized: the US does not by that endorse its constitution. I suggest you rethink the whole proposal, Jaakobousince it is too deeply flawed to elicit anything but an extenuating and tedious rehash of POVs Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statement doesn;t fit the facts. this is getting out of hand. Hamas doesn't withhold its recognition of Israel as a Jewish state out of constitutional concerns; it wants to eliminate it. the "recognition of Israel" which you refer to is its willingness to accept a state on the territory of Israel, if that state is not a Jewish state. Nishidani, this is getting a bit out of hand. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't bore you, pleaase reread what I wrote. And try to distinguish the rhetoric from the reality. Hamas with 10,000 men and a few Qassams is intent on overthrowing the 4th most powerful military in the world, with its atomic arsenal? Well, of course, they may all be totally, insane, but probably are not. The point is Palestinians will recognize Israel, de jure or (Hamas) de facto: they cannot recognize it as a Jewish state for a very simple reason: it would immediately signal their compliance of the idea that family inside Israel, Arab Israelis of Islamic persuasion, are not full members of the state, but second-class citizens, in so far as they lack the appropriate confessional identity, and being Islamic, perhaps even deportable as not congruent with the confessional nature of the state. One underwrites agreements with an extremely wary eye fopr possible technical hitches that might ensue in the future if the language is not absolutely clear on things like this. Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani that sentences like "the refusal of some Palestinian groups to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state" should be avoided. The preceding sentence would be better if "as a Jewish state" was left off. Suicup (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamas doesn't see itself as 10,000 men but rather as part of a supremacist Islamist nation (at least based on Tomorrow's Pioneers; this is certainly OR. I do find room for a mention of Water issues at the end of my suggested version (with the corrections of Sm8900), but clearly your suggested text is POV and you'd have to give a more balanced phrasing before it can be acceptable. Still, the water issue, should not withhold other normative changes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't suggested any text, as you assert. I commented on your suggested text. My comments were for this page, not for the text. I thought this was obvious. As to 'Hamas doesn't see itself as 10,000 men but rather as part of a supremacist Islamist nation', if that is so, then Hamas is the mirror image of the settler movement that refounded the Jewish settlement at Hebron. See Ian Lustick's book on the latter, and the parallels are many. Like begets like, as they say.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sticking to the material on the table, the Israeli concerns regarding the possible future Palestinian state are the main point in all discussions. What reasoning do you have on excluding this issue from the paragraph? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Jaakobou makes the para more POV, and doesn't add anything substantial. Suicup (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou You are continually misreading my lapidary comments. The core issues concern two parties. each having serious concerns over water, security,etc. I haven't excluded an issue from the table. It is quite simple: consult the relevant documentation on 'core issues' as given by both parties, make an NPOV synthesis of those issues, giving equal weight, and weighing of words, to each on each issue, and you will have achieved a proposal, that then others can comment on. Since you are the proposer, this is the task you set yourself. When you have a roughly adequate and comprehensive synthesis, others will provide comments on language, issue emphasis, etc. You have given your game away in writing:'the Israeli concerns regarding the possible future Palestinian state are the main point in all discussions.' I.e. in plain English, the 'core issues' are Israeli concerns, and this is the 'main point'. Might I remind you that earlier you protested at one formulation with the words: 'that would make for the core issues to only list down the issues from the arab perspective, which was the problem to begin with.' To invert the bias you detected, and construct a list from 'the Israeli perspective' is, to put it mildly, deeply ironical. Balance, m'boy, balance.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the title of the article is "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", so giving the Israeli perspective is not enough unless you also give a palestinian perspective. if that is not plausible, then we could at least give a neutral perspective without going mentioning either of the parties' concerns

core issues section, intro

I am trying to tighten up the intro (see section below) and IMO the entire core issues paragraphs need to be looked at (below is the current text in the article, not the proposal):

''Some of the core issues needing to be resolved include: the future of the remaining Israeli settlements built in the occupied territories; the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants; and the status of Jerusalem. Other issues include the refusal of some Palestinian groups to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state[6][7] and Israel's reluctance to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories due to its concerns about governance, and law and order. [8] Some key concerns for Palestinians are the contiguity of land given to the Palestinian Authority, and equitable access to natural resources, especially water.

Another of Israel's major reservations in regards to granting Palestinian sovereignty is its concern that there is not genuine public support by Palestinians for co-existence and elimination of terrorism and incitement. [8] [9] [10]Some Palestinian groups, notably Fatah, a political party founded by PLO leaders, claim they are willing to foster co-existence if Palestinians are steadily given more political rights and autonomy. In 2006, Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, where it remains the majority party. While Hamas has openly stated in the past that it completely opposed Israel's right to exist,[11] indeed its charter states this,[12] there is some evidence that its position may have softened somewhat recently.[13][14] However, Israel contends that Hamas's leaders have consistently refused to recognize Israel in any valid way, [15] and refers to recent rocket attacks on Israel as "Hamas attacks." [16]''

Perhaps if we can list here all of the issues which may be relevant here, and then collectively distill them into the core ones. Then I (or someone else) can whip it into some prose that isn't as dreadful as the current version above. So far we have:

• Israeli settlements
• Palestinian refugees/right of return
• Jerusalem
• Palestinian groups recognizing Israel
• Israeli security concerns from a possible Palestinian state
• contiguity of land
• equitable access to natural resources
• elimination of terrorism
• Ending anti-Israel incitement, promoting tolerance, and co-existence with Israel among Palestinian society. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• the boundaries of the Palestinian state. --NYCJosh (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• accountable Palestinian governance, and law and order. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• wall/security fence. --72.95.168.41 (talk

These ones are from the article itself (contents):

• 4.1 The status of the occupied territories
• 4.2 Holy places
• 4.3 Mutual recognition
• 4.8 House demolition in the occupied territories
• 4.10 Government
• 4.11 Airspace
• 4.12 Palestinian army

Cheers Suicup (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to revisions. If you want, just go ahead and try revising it. or try posting a possible draft here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As i've already stated, in order to do that, we should try to list all issues of relevance, and then cull them to just the core ones (this is the intro after all). Then I (or others) can go about revising the actual text. So the question is, do you have anything to add to the list I started? Suicup (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

have added one, above. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the proposed intro above by: (1) removing: the phrase "due to its concerns about governance, and law and order" after the statement about Israel's reluctance to agree to a Palestinian state. Most of the other issues in the paragraph don't list a reason for why one side does or claims what it does (e.g. non-recognition by HAMAS of the State of Israel). Further, this reason about "governance, and law and order" is a rather, ahm, selective and charitable reading of Israel's reasons. Another is the historic Zionist vision of Jewish State in "all" of the "Land of Israel" (I'm using standard Zionist rhetoric which can be found in many places.) (2) added "the boundaries of the Palestinian state" as an issue. Seems a pretty self-evident omission to me.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The first Israeli demand in all negotiations is putting a stop to terrorist activity and incitement to violence. I don't see this core issue mentioned in your rephrase. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you bothered to read my section, you would have seen that it is in the list. Suicup (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't talking to you so no need to be snippy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, hold on. Suicup, this is what happens in this kind of effort. NYCJosh, there really is no basis for suddenly spreading blanket distrust of Israeli motives. "Concerns about governance" is derived from first-hand Israeli sources. The concern about "law and order" is due to the fact that any Israeli who wanders into Palestinian town is immediately attacked and beaten. Is that clear enough? This article is the result of hard work and mutual trust on both sides. Please do not undermine the valuable sentiments shown by both sides. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the word "professed" to keep this as NPOV as possible. hope that is better. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No it is not clear at all. 'The concern about "law and order" is due to the fact that any Israeli who wanders into Palestinian town is immediately attacked and beaten.' Please document, and not used hearsay. There are very many Israelis who wander through Palestinian towns, and are greeted and given hospitality by Palestinians who then, often having just suffered a death or maiming in the extended family, relate their version of the incident in which one of their own died as part of 'collateral damage'. Ask Amira Hass, or any of the hundreds of young Israelis, rabbinical students who live and work with these people. I have provided you at 'Settlements' with a mere snippet of the daily truth of this, and if you wish to include concerns about 'law and order', put in on the other side Palestinian concerns about law and order which do not exist under the present civil or military administration in the Occupied Territories since land is still stolen, people have their fields cut off from water supplies, trees are uprooted (I million in twernty years), houses and clinics demolished, 94% of all requests for building permits by Palestinians are refused (todfay's Haaretz), and if you go ahead, the result is bulldozed, legal titles are examined by the authorities and ignored or left at the military commanders' discretion, unarmed demonstrators are shot frequently, and if you protest or are merely suspected you can be arrested, detained and even put under detention without legal representation for months. This is all thoroughly documented, dozens of books written by Israeli scholars have given the details. So yes, now it is, if not quite clear, rather more balanced than it was before. p.s. governance is also a problem because their are strict agreements limiting the autonomy of the PNA in how it trains arms and equips its men, and when they are deployed, Israeli raids in their midst make them look like quislings to the locals, a consequence which very cleverly then guarantees lack of local trust in them, and confirms Israel's 'worries' about lack of governance. I could write for several hours on this, but we are all intensely bored, and I am, well, somewhat sleepy after a bottle of claret.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, forget what i said. Let's just focus on the fact that if there is clear documentary evidence for articulating a concern for either side, we should be able to accept it, and not question either side's motives in doing so. the expressed views of the Israeli Foreign Minister, are a clear and reliable indicator of Israeli concerns, regardless of the credibility of those concerns. We need to start trusting each other somewhere. i would like to suggest that we not continually post comments on why the other side is nefarious, deceitful, under-handed or malicious. Is that truly a way to reach resolution? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions so far NYCJosh and others. I think there is a bit of confusion here, the italicized text is the original which IMO is clearly inadequate and thus it makes sense that everyone is arguing over it. I don't want anybody to change that text, it is just there so that we are all on teh same page. What i am trying to do is a three step process: 1) get everyone to add relevant issues to the list I have started. 2) distill these issues into the core ones. 3) write the final prose. Cheers Suicup (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Suicup. i added another one. thanks for the clarification. appreciate it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

by the way, thanks for your efforts. However, I would suggest that maybe it might have been just as well if we did try the other way, i.e., taking the existing text and making our revisions there. however, i'm willing to give this process a try. I appreciate all your work. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if the intro is the place for something like this, but is the wall seperating a portion of the palestinian territories on one side with the Israeli territory and portions of palestinian territory on the other side. I think this issue is misrepresented greatly by the article. (The wall is actually taller and wider and now almost as long if not longer that the Berlin wall but gets nowhere near the attention of the latter). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.168.41 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The West Bank barrier gets nowhere near the attention of the Berlin Wall? Really? I haven't heard very much about the Berlin Wall recently, but you can hardly read an article about the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict on Wikipedia without coming across at least one mention of the barrier. And the barrier seems to get taller and wider and more wall-like with each retelling of the story. Enough already with the barrier. Plus, the comparisons with the Berlin Wall always seem to miss one pertinent point: The Berlin Wall was meant to keep people in, while the West Bank barrier is meant to keep terrorists out. And it is apparently doing a good job at that. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

if the West Bank barrier was designed to keep terrorists out, why has it nabbed and expropriated huge swathes of lands from Palestinian farmers who are not known for harbouring terrorists? Like all designs it has many purposes. One is security, one is creating 'facts on the grounds' like appropriating more land from Palestinians, the sort of thing of course which makes some turn into terrorists. Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, please avoid making WP:SOAP declarations and questions. Each side of the conflict has it's own perspectives and questions and it certainly does not help resolving the content disputes to make inflammatory comparisons and questions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou Just for the record. My reply has nothing to do with soapboxing, or being inflammatory. It is not inflammatory to suggest that one's co-editor has overlooked implications in his/her statement. Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, rhetorical questions like "if the... why has it... Like all designs it has many purposes." are certainly a 'passionate advocacy of a certain point of view' and take away from the article to real life perspectives. Same for stories about Israeli anti-Zionist writers who have good ties with Palestinians. Please don't try to 'convince us of the merits of your favorite views'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You're getting distracted, and once more misusing English to point score. To note: 'If' in English introduces a proposition (that of 6SJ7. 'Why' responds by to it by pressing the author of the proposition to face the logical consequences his proposition entails. In so far as this is syntactical, it is 'rhetorical'. In so far as 6SJ7 made 'rhetorical' affirmations, I am justified in making 'rhetorical' queries about them. This is called, uh, 'dialogue'. Jaakobou. I express my favourite views on talk pages, not, eheu, by editing them consistently into texts and articles by a highly selective use of favourite articles. Come now, drop it. User:Suicup has asked for work specifically on core issues, has commendably stuck to the technical problems and I think we should be focused on that, and not on bitching about. The immediate necessity is to fine official documents or comprehensive analyses by experts on the whole range of core issues discussed over the last years. Stitching them up out of articles won't get us anywhere. Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO it is probably not necessary to find entire analyses of the issues, given that this is just the introduction. Although they will certianly be needed once work begins on rehauling hte rest of the article. Anything simply listing them, and in my reading it seems to come down to 6 core issues (noted below), should be enough for our immediate purposes. Suicup (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, you can try the dialog thing with less soapbox. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate editors who use the word 'terrorist' and tell ultra-Zionist narrative stories with each dialog they make. I'm avoiding giving an example due to the sensitivity of the issue and wouldn't want to make others feel like I'm soapboxing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, as the ICJ put it,

the contentions of Palestine and other participants [are] that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. [...] Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The ICJ ultimately found that "the construction of the wall and its associated régime create a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent," and noted that "There have also been serious repercussions for agricultural production, and increasing difficulties for the population concerned regarding access to health services, educational establishments and primary sources of water." Whatever Nishidani is doing, it is not merely expressing personal POV's, and if the demand is for sources to back the claims, they are very readily available. <eleland/talkedits> 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Suicup Re the paragraph you cite:-

Another of Israel's major reservations in regards to granting Palestinian sovereignty is its concern that there is not genuine public support by Palestinians for co-existence and elimination of terrorism and incitement. [8] [9] [10]Some Palestinian groups, notably Fatah, a political party founded by PLO leaders, claim they are willing to foster co-existence if Palestinians are steadily given more political rights and autonomy. In 2006, Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, where it remains the majority party. While Hamas has openly stated in the past that it completely opposed Israel's right to exist, and its charter states this, [11] [12] there is evidence that its position may have softened recently. [13][14] However, Israel contends that Hamas has refused to recognize Israel in any valid way, and that it supported recent rocket attacks on Israel. [15] [16]'

It is self-evident this is deeply biased to one-side. I suggest provisorily the following rephrasing:-

'A major Israeli reservation over the issue of Palestinian sovereignty reflects a concern that public support among Palestinians for peaceful co-existence may not be sufficiently well-grounded to eliminate hostile acts Israel defines as terrorism. The PLO, recognized by Israel as the legal representative of the Palestinian people, recognizes Israel’s right to exist and maintains that Palestinian self-determination and political autonomy are preconditions for securing peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity and security. In 2006, Hamas, a party that has opposed Israel’s right to exist, won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Israel has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Hamas. Though evidence for a recent softening of its position exists, Hamas still regards the present state of relations with Israel as one of war.'

As to the following para, that too is weighed heavily towards the equation of Palestinians-violence/Israel (peaceful) settlement. The settlements, under IDF protection, are viewed by Palestinians as a major 'incitement' to resist, even vioolently. Provisorily I suggest

The Oslo Peace Process, which began in 1993, was a key turning point in the conflict, where Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) negotiated steps towards the conclusion of a mutual agreement on eventual Palestinian statehood. The PLO obtained recognition of its request to establish an autonomous Palestinian Authority and associated governing institutions, to run Palestinian affairs in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, with the understanding that it would uphold recognition of and mutual co-existence with Israel. However, since then, there has been continual contention over whether each side has fulfilled its undertakings. Israel has asserted doubts that actual events and conditions indicate greater acceptance of Israel's existence by Palestinian leaders [17] . Palestinian authorities question Israel’s commitment to stopping provocative settlement activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[18] Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

core issues, intro 2

Do people agree that the list of issues above is comprehensive enough to start culling to the core ones which would make the intro? In the mean time, at Nishidani's suggestion I am searching for official documents (eg from Annapolis negotiations etc) which state issues that need to be resolved. If other people can help with this that would be great. Suicup (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Condoleezza Rice, the core issues include: borders, refugees, security, water, settlements, and Jerusalem. Suicup (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rice's speech above refers to the Joint Declaration made at Annapolis last year. This declaration stated that the parties "agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements." The key part is the end of that sentence. Does anyone have any idea what 'previous agreements' the declaration refers to? The Taba talks? Camp David? The Road Map? Reason being, if we can find official documents from these agreements stating the so-called core issues, that would be valuable material to cite our Wikipedia paragraph with. Suicup (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

According to official (and semi-official) documents from Taba, the core issues were refugees, security, borders and Jerusalem. [2], [3] Suicup (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with sticking to formal sources. Refugees, security, borders and Jerusalem, sum up my earlier suggestion for the paragraph and I prefer the "4 word" short version to the previous extended one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, resources are fundamental. If you read the Rand report on the future Palestinian state, there is a whole chapter on the importance of water, since only 16% of Palestinian land has adequate water resources though 87% of the water comes from the West Bank area. One problem with Hamas is that it refuses to accept the deal the PNA would cut with English-Israeli off-shore gas exploration and developments firms etc.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that resources are fundamental, which is why Rice refers to water especially, and the Joint Statement indirectly refers to it. In fact i think i was the one who originally added the statistic you just mentioned into the main article. Any luck on official sources? Any comments on the Joint Statement? Suicup (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come up with anything significant so far, but then I'm an old fogey not too familiar with googling tricks. I, and I think I can speak for all others, appreciate the solid word you're putting into this, by the way, whatever verbal tiffs may crop up between us. It is extrermely useful to have an outside hand volonteer to drop in and vet and help reorganize a complicated page. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If we now go back to Oslo, which the Annapolis declaration is surely referring to, we get:

"It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest." Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, Article V, Section 3

Thus, using official documents from Annapolis and Oslo as a guide (and source), we have as our core issues:

• borders
• refugees
• security
• settlements
• Jerusalem
• water

These are the so-called 'final-status' issues referred to in official documentation, media sound-bites, and public speeches. Thoughts? Suicup (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One could add 'full or restricted sovereignty' of course, since most of the above issues are about to what degree the negotiations will restrict the full autonomy of an eventual (even if improbable)Palestinian state. But until we have more leaks on what went on or is on the table (anyone have a full consultable report on the Taba Negotiations/Talks? There were pretty detailed. ) I should think the best course is to take, in the meantime, these six key issues as listed by Suicup and describe each according to the perspectives of both sides, with equal weight guaranteeing absolute impartiality. Given the fact that the issues intertwine perhaps an hierarchy, facilitating clearer exposition without reduplication, the curse of wiki, is required. I.e., (1) Borders (2) Jerusalem (3) settlements (4) refugees (i.e. which side of border) (5) security (6) resources/water.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to describe the issues in the introduction? Surely just listing them, and then ending with: "This issues will be described at length below.(ie in their own section)" or something to that effect? Or do you mean expanding them from one word to one sentence each? I would prefer the latter, however getting people to agree on an entire sentence is much harder than a single word. My current thinking is that we list 'core/final-status' issues in one paragraph, and then other issues in another paragraph. As for Taba, i posted an semi-official EU report above, link 39. Suicup (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Alzheimer's again. Yes of course. The lead should simply list the contentious issues, and leave their definition to the appropriate section. This also simplifies things, because if other issues arise, one simply inserts one more further word or phrase in the lead. That way the lead can be quickly stabilized.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. sorry, thanks for the suggestion, but I disagree. I feel that a brief, concise summation of some key issues is helpful to the article. expressing this as concise sentences, rather than mere list items, helps the average reader. i feel we are not really improving the article or conveying information if we reduce this to a bullet list. also, i know of no encyclopedia article which begins simply with an itemized list, on any topic. thanks though. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand, an itemized list is what is currently the case anyway! The problem with having sentences is that it opens the door to bloat, which is precisely the reason I am rewriting the intro in the first place. The issues are necessarily complex and controversial, and thus it is unreasonable and indeed impossible to be able to distill each into one sentence in a fair and thorough way. I am however, open to suggestions/attempts. Suicup (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree to the short list and suggest, "security, borders, status of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, and water resources" alignment of the issues with an expansion on each issue inside the article rather than in the intro. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sm8900, it would be easier on the edit wars if a list will link into the article to each issue. thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the question, but what edit wars do you mean? right now the article is fairly stable, believe it or not.

I'm open to any new discussion on new ways to handle the article. However, I still do not agree with this particular suggestion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, given people seem to agree on the core issues, i will now turn to the others. Is it necessary to list other issues in the intro? Are 'other issues' simply sub-issues of our core ones? If we decide to list them, do we list all or a few (chosen via discussion here)? Suicup (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Other issues can be listed as they emerge from reading. The essential point is short terminological listing, which most agree with. The only disagreement remaining is the hierarchy. Jaakobou lists security, I borders. I defend borders, and the entailed scale I mentioned above because the definition of a state's borders is the fundamental premise of sovereignty (which by the way is not, as often above, 'granted' by Israel). The border with Gaza, one of the three areas, is already defined, independently of security.

The major problem at the moment is to fix up the badly organized leadm which is far far too long.

A third point: Does any one have serious objections to my eliminating 'modern'('modern roots')? I ask this because no one has been forthcoming on the 'ancient' roots, and unless that covert assumption in the choice of 'modern' is made explicit and defended, the adjective should not stand there.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I object the removal of "modern", but this is not the subsection to discuss this issue.

on topic, is there a prime Palestinian demand? Israel certainly has a prime demand and it is security, that is the reason I believe it should be listed first. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the prime Palestinian demand would be freedom from all Israeli intrusions and curtailments; checkpoints, curfews, travel restrictions, setttlements, diversions of resources, etc., etc. Even I know that. Obviously, it's always good to show some awareness of the basic concerns of our fellow editors who feel some connection with Palestinian concerns, at least from a basic factual viewpoint. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If I understood Nishidani correctly, he believed it was borders rather than anything else. However, Israeli activity in the would be Palestine are a direct result of security issues and therefore I consider 'Security' to include both Israeli and Palestinian concerns, another reason to place it first on the list. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinians want Israel out. That seems pretty obvious,. Could I please suggest that we not start a possible contention about hypothetical Palestinians' phrasings, when they haven't even said a word on this topic? I'm not sure what the benefit is of asking them what their prime demand is. I see no reason to put security first, last, or anywhere in particualr on the list. I agree with you that it is important though. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I'm willing to compromise on this one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. by the way, can I assume that even with the ideas proposed in this section, there would still be some paragraphs left in the lead? I assume there would be some text there. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, one step at a time. Don't worry everything will be pruned. Patience! Suicup (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think the order is looking a bit too much into it, but for what its worth, this poll, suggests that all final status issues are important to Palestinians, with Jerusalem being the most important (95%), followed by prisoners (94%), refugees (88%), settlements (80%). This roughly corresponds with the order of the original Oslo agreements, which we are using anyway as a source. Thus, does it not make sense to just use the order in the original document? Suicup (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I have gone ahead and written something on the main article. I did so because it seems i am in a very different timezone to the rest of you, which is frustrating to me because it creates a delayed process. Feel free to change the order of issues etc as per the discussion above. Also feel free to change the piped articles to ones that you think are more appropriate. In most cases I used the ones already in the article subheadings, however for others (eg Security) there wasn't really a good standalone article to link to that I am aware of. As you can see, my aim was to create a concise, NPOV paragraph with no bloat. I think this is close to the mark. I really do believe we need to be vigilant about this because the downfall of the old intro was that people just kept adding their own little thing, to the point where it became unworkable. In an article as long and controversial as this one, you can't afford to have a sloppy intro.

core issues, intro 3

The next section of the intro is the following paragraph:

"Another of Israel's major reservations in regards to granting Palestinian sovereignty is its concern that there is not genuine public support by Palestinians for co-existence and elimination of terrorism and incitement. [9] [10] [11]Some Palestinian groups, notably Fatah, a political party founded by PLO leaders, claim they are willing to foster co-existence if Palestinians are steadily given more political rights and autonomy. In 2006, Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, where it remains the majority party. While Hamas has openly stated in the past that it completely opposed Israel's right to exist, and its charter states this, [12] [13] there is evidence that its position may have softened recently. [14][15] However, Israel contends that Hamas has refused to recognize Israel in any valid way, and that it supported recent rocket attacks on Israel. [16] [17]"

This paragraph can either be about other issues in addition to the core ones; actors in the conflict and their various positions; or something else. Personally I'd rather actors, because then we can explain the different spectrum of views inherent in the conflict (ie it is not necessarily just Israel VS Palestine), IMO it is crucial this is conveyed to the reader right off the bat. Thoughts? Suicup (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of "Politically, the parties are represented by x, y and z." And then give maybe one sentence explanation of each one, and possibly their stance. In addition to Israel, and the Palestinian National Authority, obviously Hamas needs to be mentioned. Is there anyone else? Should (for example) the Quartet or the USA be mentioned? The reason I think this is necessary is because we have talked about issues, solutions and talks, but not the actors participating in all of this. I also want to somehow convey the large spread of opinions. I'd appreciate comments, because this will not be as straightforward as the issues paragraph. Cheers Suicup (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, although that might become too long for the introduction. What do you think about the introduction explaining the political parties within Israel and within Palestine, but deferring the positions of external actors such as the United Nations, the Quartet, and the USA, to a later section on the role of external governments and organizations in the conflict? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 06:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to raise this technicality again but the first line: 'Another of Israel's major reservations in regards to granting Palestinian sovereignty' raises the issue of whether, in concluding eventual peace talks, the sovereignty obtained by Palestine will be a result of Israel granting it. Since in International law, the territories are Palestinian and not Israel's to dispose of, or grant, the phrasing is problematical unless it is supported by international legal usage on the transition of control over an occupied area to the occupied people by the occupying power. We need a lawyer, if we can't get a RS. Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is being removed, this discussion is regarding what will replace it. Do you have any thoughts on my or User:Michael Safyan's suggestions? Suicup (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My only point for the moment is that 'leads' should be terse. So removal is fine. I'm busy at the moment, but, by the way, looking at several documents, I note that instead of 'grant(ing)' sovereignty the phrasing 'transfer of powrers and responsibilities' is repeatedly used. Cf. for example by Peter Malanczuk, ‘Some Basic Aspects of the Agreements Between Israel and the PLO from the Perspective of International Law’ p.5. He lists the following as core issues in permanent status agreements: ‘ Jerusalem, refugeesm, settlements, security arrangement, borders, relations and cooperation with neighbours and other issues of common interest’p.5 http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol7/No4/art2.pdfNishidani (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The replacement will bear no resemblance to the current paragraph. Thus, 'grant vs transfer' is a discussion for another time. Right now, the pressing issues are:

1. I want to give a brief overview of the actors involved.
2. These actors include those from Israel and Palestine obviously, but also include external ones.
3. So the question is, who do we mention in the intro, and who do we leave out and elaborate on in the article proper?

Suggestions would be very welcome, and so far only one editor has obliged. Suicup (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, with so many things on one's plate, one gets raggedy, and disattentive. Hamas and the PLO being mentioned, the suggestion is made that Israeli political parties be listed, while the external parties be relegated elswere. talk. Hamas/PLO are the main actors and they negotiate with one Israeli government, whose factional constitution may vary, but is not relevant to the specific conflict. The question you pose can be resolved by division. List of direct negotiating parties (historically) Israel, PLO and now these two and Hamas (2) List of external bodies involved in negotiations, USA, Europe, Quartet. I don't know what the status in specific peace negotiations of Arab countries is, but the Beirut Summit (peace proposal) of 2002, and its 2007 follow up, influence negotiations, as do individual Arab state actors like Egypt. Given these complications I would tend to press for (1), each actor precisely if tersely defined, and with regard to(2) only with a very cursory reference, in order to avoid the usual bloating. Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree that in the intro we should not go into political parties. The only reason Hamas is being mentioned is because they have set up a de facto government in the Gaza strip. So we have: Direct negotiating parties:

• Israeli government
• PLO / Hamas

External Actors

• Quartet (given that the USA, EU and UN are part of the Quartet, it doesn't make sense to list them separately)
• Arab League

Is that sufficient (with an explanation)? Also, I am wary of turning this article into another Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My vision is that, being a top level article, it shouldn't really have any original info. Rather it should be an amalgamation of History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It sort of already functions like this however please let me know if I am taking it too far. Cheers Suicup (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I am going to try to tighten up the intro. Discussion can be had here. cheers Suicup (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Appreciate your openness. Let's assume there is some degree of openness to change in text; in return people are free to raise any concerns here, of course. (As opposed to assuming that certain changes are a violation of consensus, which we sometimes legitimately need to do here, due to prior compromises.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Given this talk page is getting out of hand, and you seem to be quite active, it would be useful if you could list 'prior compromises' here to save everyone time and frustration. Cheers Suicup (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there aren;t any there right now as far as I know. I was simply making a general point about Wikipedia dynamics. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is problematical.

Suicup--Steve, Sm8900

'Many attempts have been made to broker a "two state solution," that is the creation of separate Jewish and Palestinian states.'

This is another fatuous example of Israelo-Palestinian Wiki-ese, a variant of Orwellian double-talk, where all eyes are focused on par condicio to the point that nonsense results. Israel is a state, already created. I'd appreciate suggestions. The point is whether, alongside Israel, a Palestinian state should also be created, on land Israel now occupiesNishidani (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Change the damn thing then! I'm sick of this innuendo bullshit. Be bold, explain your motive on the talk page and be done with it! Bitching about text on the talk page without offering a viable alternative achieves nothing. Suicup (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. No innuendos, but I was asked to help in here, also by yourself and I have done so reluctantly. Instead of making edits, I decided to mark problematical statements. The one above is historically meaningless. Yet it lies unquestioned. To note that problem in colourful language is not 'bitching'. It is simply to avert all editors that it doesn't make sense. You ask me to rewrite it, when I don't even know what the people who agreed on this phrasing wish to say, other than to balance Palestinian desires for a state with a parallel Israeli desire for a state which they already have. If it means what I think it is supposed to mean, the text would run:-

'Many attempts have been made to broker a "two state solution," which would entail the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel'. Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Its not that hard now is it? Suicup (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence entirely. It really was not adding anything and was just causing conflict. Unfortunately, as I re-read the first paragraph, I see much worse problems than that. It makes it sound like there is hardly a dispute at all. It does not address, for one thing, the questions of terrorism and whether the majority of Palestinians (or their elected representatives) accept not merely a "second state" (other than their own prospective state), but a "Jewish state". Such issues are dealt with to some extent a few paragraphs lower, and in the body of the article, and to a greater extent in other articles, but this first paragraph is pretty misleading. 6SJ7 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I understand your concerns. my own feeling on this is that I think we can sort of keep the first paragraph the way it is more or less, at least in regard to the topics which you describe. we can all agree that there are many sensitive aspects of this entire issue obviously. Leaving the paragraph as an overall statement of the most basic outline of the situation seems ok. As you noted, the lead does go into some other concerns, a few paragraphs later. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence which I think may address the concerns which you stated. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7's delete was the sensible step to take. The passage is worthless, and confusing (2) Israel has concerns over terror, Palestinians have concerns over being terrorized, which is how they interpret what the IDF defines as reprisal bombings for Hamas/Al Aqsa activities which those two groups regard as reprisals etc. This is an encyclopedia and should not give undue weight to either side, especially on 'terrorism' which is used by both sides to characterize the behaviour of the other (3) User:Jaakobou removed a quote from Al-Faisal. Perhaps that quote is best not in there. But the motivation given was wrong. Al-Faisal represents as FM the state which had organized a comprehensive peace treaty, ready to be countersigned by 22 Arab nations, in 2002. Israel has never said much about it. The 2002 meeting was reconvened in 2007, and the proposal repeated, with Palestinian participation. Israel hasn't substantially done anything in reply. That, as official representative of that State and proposal, he complained of the lack of Israeli acceptance of it as a basis for a comprehensive treaty, expressed discontent at stalling and said also that the Palestinians should not be drawn into this as factors since all Arab states are ready to make peace in exchange for a Palestinian state, is not 'POV' (an editorial judgement). It is the point of view of the leading Arab negotiator in a proposed comprehensive pleace plan, and as such is a perfectly legitimate thing to note.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think i was the one who added that sentence, when i first started playing around with the order of the text. My aim was thus: given a two state solution has the support of the majority of both sides (via cited polling), i wanted to state that right away, while also mentioning that this has been attempted before. Then once the reader knows this 'end point' they then move on to what issues need to be resolved to get to that point. Essentially i was reversing the order from issues/concerns > 'solution' to solution > issues, because i think it makes for better reading. I'm happy history has been taken out of the intro into its own section, as it saved me from doing it, however the virtually all the text itself needs to be rewritten so that it doesn't sound like it was written by 20 different people who each contributed a word. My first task has been the 'issues' paragraph, which i have discussed in the section above, and asked others to comment on. Suicup (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction: "The vast majority... agree that the two-state solution..."

"The vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians, according to all major polls, agree that the two-state solution is the best way to end the conflict." First of all, the relevant phrase in the linked page is q2, not q13. Q13 states that this movement signed 60,000 people on each side on points of consensus. Q2 repeats the wiki article phrasing and adds nothing more. I suggest we delete this sentence, or delete the "according to all major polls" blanket statement, or drop the source and replace with "citation needed," or some combination of which. And at least fix the link :-) Binba 07:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The link can easily be fixed. The movement has actually signed over 600k ppl, 300k on each side - the FAQ is slightly outdated. I like this link, because it is from a non-partisan source, and indirectly allows you to reference numerous polls without having numerous citations. ie the source is reliable enough to be able to cite that sentence. Suicup 15:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I do personnaly share that mind as the 600k but is this really relevant ??? This is an encyclopaedia, not a news-blog. And what is the WP:RS of this ??? Let's wait for the peace process to have ended before writing this. Ceedjee 09:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry, Ceedjee, I disagree. this may not be a news blog, but we still can try to include the most updated and relevant information. that's one benefit of wikipedia; frequent updates are possible. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an information. But is this relevant ? I don't think so. Who analysed this survey ? What does it mean ? What does it not mean. This is a primary source information without any additional comment from a secondary source... Ceedjee (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point - trumpeting "Palestinians want a two-state solution" may be satisfying, but it's hardly very explanatory. Were they offered a one-state solution? The Saudi initiative involves (I think) dismantling all the settlements and letting the refugees back to their homes - are we to believe the Palestinians oppose that solution? Well, no, the same poll tells us the Saudi initiative has a bigger majority in favour amongst Palestinians than does the two-state solution. PR^talk 10:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but which part of the plan which you described indicates that it is a "one-state" solution? you simply said it entails dismantling settlements and letting refugees back to their homes. i understand if you say that's one-state, but could you please explain how? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually come to think of it, I thought the whole point of the Saudi plan is that it is being offered to israel as a potential peace plan. it would not be much of a peace plan if it involved dismantling, erasing or otherwise abolishing Israel; as far as I know, it does not entail that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I trust you'll not present yourself as having any understanding of the developing situation. The Saudi inititative is a two-state proposal that leaves Israel intact within the Green Line borders, but it does have to abide by International law (as mostly written or re-written by the US in the aftermath of 1945). And the Saudi proposal has more support amongst Palestinians than does the undefined "two-state solution" they were offered in that poll. It might be time to start writing this article to WP:policy and reliable sources. PR^talk 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And you can provide proof here of this support? Suicup (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's in the poll refered to here Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip during March 22-24, 2007: "A majority of 72% supports the Saudi, or Arab, initiative and 26% oppose it." Our reference in the article is to One Voice which claims to agglomerate all polls. The PCPSR poll also says "63% support and 35% oppose mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people", which approximates to the figures used elsewhere.

Clearly, Palestinian support for a "two-state solution" is about something very different from the thing that Olmert is talking about. The article needs to make that clear. PR^talk 19:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Even more importantly -- and not yet noted by this article -- is that a two-state solution is the mutually agreed upon outline for the current negotiations. In their joint opening statement at the Annapolis Conference, the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians all endorsed a two-state solution, and the entire Conference was predicated on this outline/paradigm/understanding. As soon as this article is unlocked, this info should be added. (Now I understand why many people argue over two-state vs. one-state; it's very controversial. But let's not lose sight of what the ACTUAL parties involved are agreeing to as of a couple weeks ago.) Laser813 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Big deal (no offense to you). all that has also been agreed to years, months, and weeks ago. However, obviously it's still ok to try to look at this objectively, so I'm not trying to disagree with you here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your point, Steve. I think you're partially correct. True, a two-state solution isn't "new," but the Annapolis Conference in Nov. '07 WAS the first time both sides came out together and said officially, Yeah, a two-state solution is our framework. (I could have made this clearer in my first post.) Alas, many related articles on Wikipedia still don't yet elevate the two-state framework above other ones, and I'm afraid I'm too lazy to track down all the examples and change them. Any takers? :) --Laser813 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit misleading to say "both sides", when most of one side was excluded. Big question marks hang over Abbas. PR^talk 10:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I see some validity and legitimacy to your view of this. would you like to go ahead and mention here some of the edits which you are proposing to the article? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd tear most of this article up. The immigrants arrived and armed themselves in order to seize every home, business and farm in Palestine and many miles in all directions. (Yes, I can document all of that). It took them 65 years to grow enough to carry off the first stage, 20 years to grow enough for the second stage, and a further 40 years to realise they're in the soup. 2007 was the year when immigration fell below emigration (I can document that) and the writing was really on the wall (oops, that might be OR). Olmert (both of whose sons have abandoned ship) is now begging for a two-state solution - as he told Haaretz after Annapolis: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished". Why would we write this article as if Palestinians wanted to save the same Israel that Olmert wants? PR^talk 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

While your point here has some merit, it really is more suited to the history article rather than this one. I have proposed a shake up of this article (see section in talk), in order to differentiate itself better from the history one. Suicup (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't fully appreciate that this article was meant to be current affairs, not historical.

However, it goes into historical matters with such amazing distortions as "on May 14, 1948, after numerous attempts to partition the land" - which is blatant re-cycling of discredited propaganda. There'd been just one proposal for partition, 12 years earlier, and it was known to have been completely unacceptable to Palestinians and (perhaps more importantly) completely unacceptable to the British.

Our article seeks to make it appear that 1948 was the culmination of what the British had intended since 1917, which is not the case atall. Partition, ethnic cleansing and/or apartheid state/s were to be avoided at all costs.

Well i asked for people to help me to conduct this restructure however nobody seemed interested. It is one thing to whine about it on the talk page however if you have some ideas, post them here (Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Restructure_necessary) and take action! Suicup (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We're also claiming "vast support for a two-state solution", which is Israeli propaganda, failing to make clear there are two very different two-state solution on the board, the Palestinians are in favour of the Saudi initiative. They're hardly going to be in favour of Olmert's plan, locking half of them in as refugees, not handing back Jerusalem, and perpetuating second-class citizenship. This is especially the case now Olmert's admitted his plan is a last-ditch attempt to save the apartheid state. PR^talk 19:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Object - we need a much, much more dependable source than "One Voice" (who are they?) to say that the Palestinians are in favour of an apartheid two-state solution. The source we've got is plainly inadequate to support such a very surprising result. Why would all the refugees agree to give up their homes in Israel in order to live in a very, very impoverished and over-crowded Gaza and West Bank? Why would the original inhabitants of those places agree to having these other people squatting on the outskirts of their towns? I'm not saying that "One Voice" are wrong, but they appear to be supporting the same Bantustan solution as Olmert. This article needs something much more dependable. PR^talk 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point that the claim is ambiguious, and so changed 'the' to 'a' to indicate that there is more than one 2 state solution. I think the point (of the polls, of OneVoice - which is why i referenced it) is that the vast majority of people favour some sort of 2 two state solution, that is 2 states for two peoples. Suicup (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Are you now disputing that the Oslo Process specifically asserts a two-state solution?

If it's any consolation, i agree with you. i agree that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians do not accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish State, never have, and never will. However the difference is that i believe the official Palestinians negotiators have claimed that Palestinians accept this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the article. thank you for admitting what no one dares to admit. I agree, almost all Palestinians are united the in the belief that the establishment of the State of Israel was a huge outrage which must be reversed as soon as possible, and all Palestinian actions hope to work towards this goal. Now maybe we can change the article to reflect this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, nobody has provided a reliable source for the statement that to say which two-state solution the Palestinians are in favour of a two-state solution and that statement is no longer in the article.PR^talk 09:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC) PR^talk 19:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. So let me ask, do the official statements of official Palestinian leaders have any importance for you at all? If you're saying we probably can't believe their statements, I can go along with that. But are you aware that a two-state solution is precisely what the Oslo Peace Process, as well as the current peace talks, are working towards? Or did you think they were all negotiating an end to Israel's existence? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I come to articles to get information - I find it odd that the reference is un-convincing and my enquiries only draw accusations against the actors. PR^talk 10:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The source for the OneVoice polls are here: Palestinians Khalil Shikaki, Angus Reid, Geneva Initiative; Israelis IMEMC, Xinhua. As i said it is easier and cleaner to cite OneVoice rather than cite all of these polls. As for who OneVoice are, they are a large non-partisan NGO, with over 600,000 supporters from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Suicup (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. I wonder why it's so difficult to get such information from knowledgeable editors. I'm still very suspicious of an organisation that calls a 63% to 35%/27% for a 2-state solution a "vast majority". But cherry picks that figure from amongst other poll results, which support the Saudi initiative (72% to 26%), oppose giving up 10-20% of the West Bank by 71%/27%, oppose giving up 3% of the West Bank by 55%/43% and oppose a solution giving up the right of return by 55% to 43%. PR^talk 10:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Accusation: "The [Jewish] immigrants arrived [in Palestine] and armed themselves in order to seize every home, business and farm in Palestine and many miles in all directions. ... It took them 65 years to grow enough to carry off the first stage, 20 years to grow enough for the second stage, and a further 40 years to realise they're in the soup." - PalestineRemembered. Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

The Reality: PalestineRemembered's claim that the goal of the Jewish immigrants to Palestine has been to dispossess the Palestinian Arabs since the 1880s is simply fallacious and PalestineRemembered's alleged two-stage plan for domination of the land amounts to a bogus conspiracy theory. The Russian immigrants of the First Aliyah escaping oppression from the czar and settling in the Galilee could not possibly have imagined the events of 1948 and certainly not the events of 1967! The Zionists had not even collectively agreed upon which region of the planet to focus their dreams of Jewish statehood until 1905 (Uganda was still an option before the time). As far as I know, the Jewish population of Palestine had no arms to speak of until at least 1920 (when the Haganah was established), and even those arms were not nearly enough to be able to carry out this alleged "master plan" PalestineRemembered is soapboxing about. History is not done by taking an event and saying that all events that occurred before it must have been part of a brilliant conspiracy to lead to that event. --GHcool (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd never let me forget it if I'd ever expressed any kind of historical falsehood. PR^talk 13:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with Palestine Remembered on only one thing. I do agree mainly that most there are many Palestinians who have no intention to accept or recognize the State of Israel, and whose main goal is to destroy Israel and pursue conflict with its citizens. Any other statement is not true. I don't know why Palestine Remembered is so proud of it though. Perhaps, he feels sixty years of conflict is not enough. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900, Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral source of information, not a tool to promote a particular POV. Comments to the effect that all or most Palestinians have no intention to accept or recognize Israel, when polls indicate otherwise, do not belong Wikipedia articles nor on their respective talk pages. If you would like to back the statement with a poll, please provide a link, otherwise, please refrain from making similarly inflammatory statements. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The polling would indicate otherwise (ie that the vast majority are in favour of a two state solution). Suicup (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The two-state solution that the Palestinians want (by a bigger margin than they want anything else, according to the PCPRS poll I've seen) is the 2002 "Saudi Initiative" - which according to the Jewish Peace Lobby involves Israel returning to the 1948/49 "Green Line" border and allowing the refugees back to their homes. (Those solutions also being the ones required by UN resolutions and International Law as best I understand them).

Any wording which implies that the Palestinians support a "two-state solution" of the kind Israel or the US is currently talking about can only be so misleading as to amount to a falsehood. It may perhaps? be possible to reference RS that wrongly imply this to be the case - but I've seen nothing to support such a version either. PR^talk 13:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The two-state solution which you describe is a two-state solution. So i am unclear why you object so strenuously to the phrase "two-state solution". the phrase itself does not imply agreement with any specific plan, whether the US, Saudi Arabia, or ahyone else. If you want, we can add the phrase "a two-state solution which does not in any way admit any sympathy for the Zionists', but I doubt that it would last very long. Cheers. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Suicup just made a very good edit which seems to solve this confusion rather neatly. Thanks Suicup. --GHcool (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That edit doesn't fit the purpose atall - there are two "two-state" solutions, and the Saudi one is clearly much the more important. Our article calls it the "Arab Peace Initiative", no mention of it being a "two-state solution" whatsoever.

So our article is extremely misleading. I suppose, if you tried really hard, you could persuade me this was just an accident. PR^talk 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well fix the article so it makes sense to you then. Suicup (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. i agree with you PR. We should make it clear that the Saudi peace initiative is a two-state solution. Please feel fre to add that if you wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that my contributions are not being directly helpful, but I'm afraid I'm not an expert on this topic. It might take me weeks to bone up on the subject, and even then I might face a blistering edit-war to make corrections. I'm just a passer-by - the propagandist content of this article (just on this one point) is clear. About the only thing I could usefully do is put a "POV" tag on it - do you agree that that is called for? PR^talk 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you go about listing various things which you think are 'propagandist' about the article, and then say that you can't really help because you 'aren't an expert on the topic'? I think it is great when editors with different points of view contribute to the article, however if the edits are just on the talk page, then it really is rhetoric with no substance. Actions speak louder than words. Suicup (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2008

(UTC)

What you fail to realize is that not everyone is a certified linguist ( I certainly am not) and that if someone like me tried to edit this article someone could find a million flaws in what i write. therefore, i will not even attempt to edit this article but instead present arguments and suggestions so those of you with some sort of talent can do the dirty work. I dont think it is right to dismiss PR's concerns because he cant(or wont) generate a paragraph from them.

Introduction Again

I reverted with this edit because this paragraph really needs to be about the CORE issues that have been the headline points in every recent negotiation, not every grievance coming from both sides. Otherwise bit by it it'll just grow as different people add their own thoughts and views to it (and talking about a "potentially hostile" Palestinian state is a bit unnecessary). A while ago myself and other editors started discussing how to cut down the intro as a whole to a manageable size, but the effort just died really. Can people think about how to do this - ie to cut back on the history (which has its own article), and to not just try to list every single issue, which instead are better covered in detail in the main body? We should be taking things out of the lead, not stuffing more and more things in, even if you can find 100 references for your particular favourite bit (it's not that hard to do that after all). --Nickhh (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better if everybody agreed to list all their concerns before making the edits to the lead paragraphs? And to float potentially disputed drafts here before edit/reverting? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HG (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, but as mentioned, the previous discussion died a death a while ago, and since then people have repeatedly just started to unilaterally add more and more to the lead without raising the issues here. I've just tried to take it a few steps back. I know there's going to be a debate about exactly what does go in, but either way the lead is just too bloated at the moment. --Nickhh (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we can discuss suggested edits here. i don't agree that the lead is too bloated though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LEDE for guidance on content and length. Be well, HG | Talk 22:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, the issue of the refugees is declared in the UN resolution for all refugees, not just Palestinian ones. Also, Israel has repeatedly noted that there is a huge concern of having a "terrorist state in your backyard". I'm honestly not following your assertion that these are not core issues. can you please clarify? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the UNGA 194 resolution was about the 1948 refugees. The number of non-Palestinian refugees from the 1948 War was exceedingly small. The number of Mizrahi Jews made refugees due to the Arab-Israeli conflict was enormous, but that catastrophe was neither concurrent to nor caused by the 1948 war. It lasted into the 1970s, and involved many states not party to the war (Morocco, Iran...)

Anyway, the paragraph is about core negotiating issues, not UN resolutions, and absolutely nobody with any credibility claims that the return of Mizrahim is a core issue. The vast majority don't even want to go back. <eleland/talkedits> 13:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleland,

1. I believe you might be misreading into the paragraph. There is no mention of "core negotiating issues relating to 1948 only" - the actual text says: "Core issues in the conflict are..."
2. The Palestinians and their descendants request 'Justice' and 'Right of Return', The Jews request 'Justice' and 'refugee rights' ... it's in the cited refs.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think it might be better if we would not remove edits by other editors if their text is brief, concise and well-sourced, (even if the lead is overall slightly excessive). otherwise, we will inevitably find ourselves in contention, because automatically removing all such text means we are no longer being open to most people's new ideas, no matter how briefly stated. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think my point is that there's just too much at the moment on the history, on each sides' grievances etc as well as a level of detail that is only needed in the main body. I think - and I believe this follows WP:LEDE properly - that we only need around four paragraphs, which set out a) the basic nature of the conflict; b) very briefly how everyone got here (eg 1948, 1967 etc); c) what the main issues are that need resolution (eg the right of return, security issues, the status of Jerusalem etc - ie the kind of issues that are headlined in any peace discussions); & d) what an achievable settlement would look like (the mainstream consensus being a two-state settlement, roughly on the 1967 borders). If instead everyone keeps inserting their own little bits to what we have now, with each "side" adding stuff in turn in a bid to find supposed NPOV, the lead will become totally unmanageable. There's also too much comment/interpretation in it, of the sort "X finally said Y, which is what was needed"

I think there's some misunderstanding as well, that if the article highlights for example the Right of Return, that this is somehow evidence of a pro-Palestinian bias in the article, which needs balancing with some reference to some vaguely similar Israeli rights. All it means of course is that the Right of Return is one of the big issues, which it undoubtedly is. The solution to the issue could of course be that the Palestinians agree to renounce it, which would be a very "pro-Israeli" outcome. --Nickhh (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and to clarify one point - the idea that some things are "core" issues really is all about focus and prioritising for the purposes of the lead. It's not to say that there aren't another 101 issues that feed in to the debate, which are legitimate concerns for either side. But they've got to be the really big ones, that are genuinely causing problems for either or both sides in terms of allowing a resolution to the conflict. And btw I've always agreed that security issues were among those - I'm just not sure for example that they should be referred to using phrases like "terrorist state". Can't we be a bit more general than that, at least for the intro? --Nickhh (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

The article phrasing was "a possibly hostile Palestinian state". [4] Excuse me for the suggestive phrasing, but I'm assuming there's a slight probability that you missed that part and decided to revert everything the moment you saw 'rights of Jewish refugees' in the body. The Jewish refugees are certainly an integral part of the core issues and their rights certainly deserve a mention in the proper context. To be frank, I'd appreciate an attempt to allow the perspectives of Israel rather than delete them with "stop stuffing.. Israeli POV" - It obviously doesn't help the communal atmosphere and Wikipedia is meant to allow presentation of both POVs, not suppress one over the other.

The differences to the text were:

• Slight change in order for legibility,
• Addition of 'possibly hostile' to the possible future palestinian state,
• Noting the rights of the Jewish refugees as integral part of the refugee discussions, which is true and worthy of mention.

I don't see where you've decided that one more legitimate concern leads to "another 101 issues" being inserted, and I disagree with that assumption and with the revert. I'd also like to refer you to WP:CRYSTAL in case this issue still worries you... not only wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we are not either. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for hostile v terrorist confusion, I was working from memory, but the point still stands - if that's going to be there, then shouldn't we insert something about Palestinian fears of a "hostile Israeli state"? We can make the security point much more simply and concisely in the lead, and then deal with it in more detail later on. You keep making this point about how the Israeli POV needs to be represented - all true in principle, but you've never addressed my point about how simply referring to Settlements, Jerusalem etc as issues is somehow pro-Palestinian. Are you saying that they are not issues for the Israelis who might lose their homes, or who might not be able to claim an undivided city as their capital? The point is that to resolve the conflict, these issues need to be sorted out one way or another, to the satisfaction of both "sides", otherwise the conflict wil continue - Wikipedia should flag this up in an intro. And you are surely not being serious when you suggest that issues about "Jewish refugees" is at the top end of the agenda of any peace talks, and is a major block to any resolution. --Nickhh (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nickhh to some degree. We can insert text which mentions Palestinians fear of continued dispossession and denial of rights by Israel, to go with any added phrase detailing Israel's concerns. One suggestion; it might be pointless to discuss fears of a "hostile" Israeli state, since there is currently no Palestinian state for the Israeli state to threaten. it is more close to the facts to express Palestinian fears that Israel will deny them certain basic rights and political enfranchisement. Hope that sounds good. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

1. Are there any sources and international (US+UN) agreement regarding Palestinian fears of a "hostile Israeli state"?
2. The Jewish refugee rights not being recognized by the Arab world does not remove them from both the UN documents or the issue of refugees.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry not much time at moment, but since you asked .. what I actually said was that we should talk very generally in the intro about security issues, for both sides. I was making the point, for the purposes of illustration on a talk page, that if we were going to use the words "hostile" in respect of one side's fears, we should use it for both - but ideally we would use neither. And on a matter of principle, surely whether there are "Palestinian fears of X, Y or Z", requires a Palestinian source, not US or even UN acceptance that those fears exist? (Given that 1000s of Palestinians, including civilians and children, have been killed by the IDF in the last few years, that shouldn't be too hard to find). And are you also saying that Israeli viewpoints are self-verifying, while Palestinian viewpoints require corroboration from Israel's main financial and political backer?

For the fourth time, I am not disputing that there may be issues around the question of Jewish refugees. I am simply saying that it is not a key make-or-break issue. They are mostly where they want to be, Palestinian refugees and their descendants are generally not. --Nickhh (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to take a few steps re your concerns with the lead, and to tighten things up a bit. hope that seems somewhat useful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for that - I think there is common ground to be found on a tighter lead, which simply states where the main issues lie (not necessarily though, in what way exactly they might get solved). As I say though I don't have time to get too involved in the detail of it all. My broad suggestions were meant to be a constructive contribution though. --Nickhh (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see this phrasing as neutral.

"refusal of some Palestinian groups to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state[7][8] and Israel's reluctance to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state" [5]

The reason for my edit was NPOV to a non neutral paragraph. Removal of the Palestinian hostility from the core issues, the first point made by Israel on each and every interaction and agreement, is not in the benefit of this article. I can't say I've been persuaded that my changes were "stuffing (the intro) with Israeli POV", as the Israeli POV is completely missing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou. I thought I'd been pretty good about making sure that refernce to such issues get covered in the lead, with plenty of good sources? I know it's not fully covered in the "core issues" paragaraph, but it is mentioned there, and then it appears further right below that. I think that most readers will grasp the importance of this issue. Let me know if you feel this really needs to be futher inserted/documented? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

core issues

per this version by Nickhh:

Core issues in the conflict as seen by both sides are the future of the remaining Israeli settlements built in the Occupied Territories, the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and the status of Jerusalem, along with the refusal of some Palestinian groups to recognize the right of Israel to exist and Israel's reluctance to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. - [6]

i can see why more issues can be added into this text, however, i believe the phrasing lacks references and is also told from the palestinian perspective alone. feel free to suggest ways of improving this paragraph - perhaps expanding it into a full subsection? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously think the introduction, which is meant to briefly flag up the key issues for further explanation in the main body of the article, is better off without any mention of these points? But with the inclusion of that hoary old (and utterly marginal) issue of Palestinian textbooks? Or with the inclusion of what the Jordanians did or didn't do 50 years ago? Seriously? I said that what I had done was only a start and it needed improving - however mentions in the lead, as I understand it, don't require citations if they are sourced in the main body of the article. Nor quite clearly is it phrased solely as if from the Palestinian perspective - if you read it properly, it simply says settlements, the status of Jerusalem etc are "issues". They are, I believe. And it does refer to the issue of Israeli's right to exist (as well an equivalent right for a Palestinian state). Stop seeing bias where it isn't there --Nickhh (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

on point, i believe you left out the israeli perspective. for example, you left out the expectation that the PA will fight the terrorists rather than promote it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, can you be more specific as to what the "Israeli perspective" would mean? Other than including reference to violence and terrorism (which that paragraph should) I don't see what your point is. If we're going to get into specific accusatory language (PA promotes terror, etc) then it's going to have to be for both sides (Israel expands settlements, etc) which just leads to degenerating into a mess of allegations. Better to stick with a high-level, neutral summary, no? <eleland/talkedits> 21:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Israeli settlements are mentioned, the paragraph is told "neutrally" from a palestinian view of the issues. settlements and right of return only. neutral would include the israeli main points - cracking down on militant activity and a stop to hate incitement on their official channels and schoolbooks. Better write the israeli perspective down also so to stick with a high-level, neutral summary, no? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If we're to discuss violence, we should be discussing violence on all sides, not specifically Palestinian violence. Obviously, the Palestinians don't want IDF invading their towns and bulldozing their houses any more than the Israelis want suicide bombings. And since when has "hate incitement" been a major negotiation concern? Do you have any sources to back that? <eleland/talkedits> 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Eleland (and everyone), here's your link. this is an opinion piece by the Israeli foreign minister, in a New York newspaper. Tzipi Livni article. By the way, I can NOT believe you're actually asking that. Concern over relentless Palestinian incitement, and expressions of hatred of Jews, Israel, and Zionism, is one of the most CENTRAL concerns for Israel of the entire conflict . --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, security obviously impacts on both sides. The point here is that the intro should cover the main issues only, and in summary. Those issues include the right of return, the status of Jerusalem, security etc, but frankly does not include the content of Palestinian textbooks (which arguably should, alternatively, be discussed in the main body of the article). That doesn't mean the article is taking a view on how those issues are solved, it's merely saying they are issues. We can haggle over the precise wording, but any intro which doesn't broadly spell these points out to a reader who doesn't know that much about the conflict is deficient. --Nickhh (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

you can add a palestinian note about the IDF if you find a proper source for it... there should at least be a mild attempt to write a neutral paragraph rather than this one-sided one which ignores the main israeli core issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jaakobou, GHcool, and Armon. Eleland (and Nickhh), it's a little disingenuous to ask to leave out editor's concerns for the sake of conciseness, brevity or any other reason. This is a complex subject., The way we usually achieve consensus is by being open to each others deeply-held beliefs, as you knwo. i think you're a fairly reasonable person, and fairly rational. i expect to be able to respect most of the points and concerns which you raise here. please try to respect ours as well. thanks for your usual helpfulness. --Steve, Sm8900 02:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs vs Palestinians in the first sentence

I am not disputing putting this wording in the article where it is historically appropriate. However for the opening sentence Palestinians is the more contemporary term people will expect to read. Suicup (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

the historical point has great merit in my opinion since 'Palestinian' back then was actually referred to the jewish population rather than the arabic one which identified with the pan-arab agenda rather than a palestinian one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Back then the 'state of Israel' didn't exist, and yet we are using that term in the sentence? Why? because the first sentence uses contemporary language to label the actors! Suicup (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if we are to use outdated terminology like "Palestinian Arabs", we should be consistent, and say that the conflict started between Palestinian Arabs and the Zionist movement. <eleland/talkedits> 17:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

But Palestinian Arabs is not an outdated term. --GHcool (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

the first sentence provides a definition of the conflict in the present tense, not as it was in 1948. so it is written accurately. --205.232.86.31 (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The mainstream media currently describes the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine and their decendents as "Palestinians." The phrase "the Palestinian people" is used solely in nationalist speeches and publications similarly to how a politician in the United States might use the phrase "the American people." No serious encyclopedia would call the I-P conflict as between Israel and "the Palestinian people" just as no serious encyclopedia would describe the American Revolutionary War as between England and "the American people." To keep up with current terminology, we could write that it is a conflict between Israel and "the Palestinians," but I prefer "Palestinian Arabs" because it is less vague and is an accurate term throughout the entire history of the conflict. --GHcool (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

'The extremists are seeking to impose a dark vision on the Palestinian people, a vision that feeds on hopelessness and despair to sow chaos in the holy land.' George W Bush address at Annapolis.http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBAo1yCOOLr02NJfYtgrYmyZQKxAD8T66H682

Your analogy is incorrect as the American Revolutionary war was between Britain and its colonies in America - ie political units. Who is the opposing political unit in this conflict to Israel? Suicup (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, England did not recognize American independence, so as far as they were concerned, they were fighting against British subjects. Your point is demonstably wrong, but I don't want to go too far off on a tangent about the American Revolutionary War. The point is that "the American people" would be an incorrect way to label the American combatant in the Revolutionary War or any other international conflict that the U.S. was involved in. I'm sure we can all agree on this point.

Secondly, if it is present-day political units you are looking for, the I-P conflict could conceivably be summarized as the conflict between the State of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. However, since the PNA is a fairly recent development in the history of the conflict (established in 1994), I prefer using the term Palestinian Arabs, which is just as accurate and neutral in 2007 as was is in 1947. --GHcool (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, you are wrong and in the minority, Suicup 08:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)
wikipedia is not a democracy WP:NOT, but if you really want to go there, i see a 2 to 2 count. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I request proof from anybody who claims that I am wrong on this issue. I have provided my reasoning for why I am right. I will accept nothing less than better reasoning than my own to change my mind. --GHcool (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Both Palestinian and Palestinian Arab link to Palestinian people and the article uses the terms interchangeably. For consistency, I guess they are all equal (unless User:Jaakobou goes and changes that article too to make some weird point or whatever). pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 13:14

And (occupied) Yathrib also links to Medina... we're not going to write down Medina on every location where Yathrib is the proper one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Position of HAMAS

The following line has been removed twice now (bolded):

While [[Hamas]] has openly stated in the past that it completely opposed Israel's right to exist,<ref name="CaseforIsrael">[[Alan Dershowitz|Dershowitz, Alan]]. ''The Case for Israel''. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003. p. 3.</ref> indeed its charter states this,<ref>"Hamas's charter uncompromisingly seeks Israel's destruction." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5016012.stm "Palestinian Rivals: Fatah & Hamas"], ''[[BBC News]]'', May 25, 2006.</ref> the position has softened somewhat recently.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1803008,00.html Climbdown as Hamas agrees to Israeli state], ''The Guardian'', June 22, 2006</ref><ref name = "hudna">[http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0531-23.htm Hamas Officials Already Recognize Israel's Right to Exist, Apparently] ''CommonDreams.org'', May 31, 2006</ref>

Besides the fact that this leaves the "While..." clause dangling, no valid case has been made to remove the information. The only comments made so far have been "removing hogwash about Hamas's so-called change of heart" and "this is false information - Anyone who has listened to the news over the past week can tell you that".

The first line is true, although the word "openly" is weaselly and the use of Dersh as a reference is laughable (much better ones are available). However, the line at issue has been widely reported, two references were given, and many more are available, such as our ref #40, a Yediot Aharanot article "Hamas: Ceasefire for return to 1967 border". The Guardian is an RS, professor Chernus is an RS, and the Prisoners' Document which agrees to a very-long-term ceasefire in return for implementing the international consensus based on the 1967 borders has been extensively discussed. Top Hamas leaders, including those with rejectionist reputations, have very publicly re-iterated this offer in newspaper interviews and op-eds.

Now, I don't know what "the news over the past week" is meant to refer to. Perhaps it's a reference to Hamas' condemnation of the farcical photo-op down in Maryland. The fact that Hamas denies the right of a government which it views (accurately) as an illegitimate usurper to make concessions does not mean that they would be unwilling to make concessions under any circumstances.

Now, can somebody explain why this line should have been removed, with specific references to sources or policies? Or is it just a case of removing information which is distasteful to a certain POV? <eleland/talkedits> 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

None of the culpable will explain it. It is just another example of hostility to informational updating, and people who censor this are not amenable to persuasion.Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a little bit more complicated I think.

see eg here dated jan 2007. Ceedjee (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

On wp:fr it is also pointed out that the proposed cease-fire was in fact a hudna. Ceedjee (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who originally introduced the sentence, and deliberately chose 'softened somewhat' for obvious reasons. Suicup (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a "personal analysis" ? Sticking to facts without comments would be more neutral.

The wording is as neutral as you can get. Suicup (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there are as many interpretations as they are readers for these announcements of Hamas. Ceedjee (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so the proposed cease fire was in fact a... cease-fire? Because that's what "hudna" means, when you strip away the Islamophobic spin - and it's how reputable media outlets translate the word (try Google News searches for "hudna, or cease-fire" and "cease-fire, or hudna"). And if you actually read the interview referred to in the Ha'aretz piece, it's a standard re-iteration of the Hamas position expressed in countless other forums. "We in Hamas are with the general Palestinian and Arab position and we are with the consensus of the necessity of establishing a Palestinian state on the June 4 [1967] borders..." Splitting hairs over "recognition" is a tactic designed to ignore the practical "facts on the ground" being offered. Meshal did not say he "remained committed to destroying Israel", or any such claptrap. <eleland/talkedits> 20:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That was not a cease-fire. That was a hudna. That difference is the limitation to 10 years with Non Muslims as explained in the article and commented by Hamas leader Rantissi himself. I should not have had to explain this. You have just proven you are wheter unable to read or just too pov-ed to edit wikipedia.

And the right of Israel to exist was not a position shared by all of them. That is was the Ha'artz article points out.

I leave you here. Ceedjee (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The "ten year limit" is one interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence and is not canonical. The fact that Hamas leaders have explicitly offered terms based on far longer periods including 50 and 100 years belies your point. <eleland/talkedits> 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that the position has softened somewhat. What are we arguing about again? Suicup (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee I'm not sure I understand your point - a cease-fire is by definition temporary, or at least of indeterminate length. You seem to be suggesting it is something more than that, in order to contrast its meaning with the meaning of "hudna". And while we should be broad in the intro, I don't see why it can't actually go a little further and say something along the line of - "Hamas has indicated that it might/would be willing to accept, in the short term at least, some form of settlement based on the 1967 borders" --Nickhh 16:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee is 100% right. Hamas has not softened its position. A few of its leaders have expressed some contemplation of not carrying out its official position in tactical terms right now. Not one has expressesd a desire for peace or co-existence, simply because not one has expressed any actual acceptance of reconciliation with Israel. --Steve, Sm8900 17:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It has. Reread Eleland's remarks. Secondly, Hamas is as intransigent as Israel, which refuses to recognize that Hamas was legitimately and democratically elected, and which has shown no intention of reconciling itself so far to a Palestinian state within the borders marked out under international law as the 1967 bounds of the land in which the Palestinians live. It will only negotiate if some of those borders are pushed even further back, under Palestinian recognition of a fait accompli, the de facto annexation and illegal settlement of what is occupied territory, in violation of international law.Nishidani 19:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's not argue about the meaning of "official position" and "softened somewhat". Can we just say that the charter calls for the elimination of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state on the entire British Mandate area, and that in recent years, senior Hamas leaders have indicated a willingness to accept a long-term truce based on the '67 borders, while hoping that future generations will fulfill their ambition of a united Palestine? That way we are keeping to facts rather than interpretations. One can interpret that position as a mere tactical feint designed to fool Israelis, then drive them into the sea - or one can interpret it as a massive historical concession, keeping only a vague hope of realizing Palestinian national rights as a sop to Hamas's more extreme constituents. That verdict will be issued by history, not Wikipedia. <eleland/talkedits> 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with and completely accept your suggestion, namely: to simply provide a factual statement of what some Hamas leaders have said in interviews and statements, without trying to depict Hamas as a whole. This allows us to present the facts, without giving them undue signficance. Thanks for your helpful tone and ideas. --Steve, Sm8900 23:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset) I agree entirely - say briefly who said what, and what position they hold in the organisation, and then leave it up to each reader to interpret it as they wish. That's all a truly neutral encyclopdia can and should do. We can't start assuming that it's "hogwash" [sic] and then edit that cynicism in, or ignore the statements altogether, as if that interpretation were solid fact of some sort. --Nickhh 20:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're about 80% of the way there. However when we mention the charter, I don't want us to say something like "still in force" or "still in effect today", because that draws conclusions about the importance of the charter to Hamas's current position. Rather, I would say "never revoked", "not repealed" or the like. So how about something like the following. It needs refs and attribution, but I'm just putting the text out as a sounding board.

Hamas's 1988 founding charter takes the position that all of Palestine, including land secured by Israel in 1948 and expected to remain Israeli in any peace negotiations, belongs exclusively to Islam, and that Israel is illegitimate. It has been widely interpreted as calling for the violent destruction of that state and the expulsion or genocide of Israeli Jews. However, since the outbreak of the Second Intifada, and in particular since the election of a Hamas majority in the Palestinian Authority, senior Hamas leaders including Ahmed Yassin have stated that a hudna or truce of as long as fifty years would be possible, so long as Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders. They say this will let time heal their differences and allow future generations to reach a just settlement. Commentator (i dunno, pick one, preferably a respectable academic) calls this a ploy to build strength for a future war against Israel, while Whatsisname sees it as sincere. Hamas does not recognize Israel and Hamas leaders have not said whether recognizing Israel will ever possible.

<eleland/talkedits> 18:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is appropriate to put such a long paragraph in the introduction. As I have already mentioned on this page, I propose a new section - Actors in the conflict - where your paragraph would fit perfectly. Suicup (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell you the truth, when I wrote that, I forgot that we were talking about the lead (which is bloated).

We should say something like "Hamas does not recognize Israel and will not say whether it ever will, but Hamas leaders indicate their willingness to negotiate a long-term truce." <eleland/talkedits> 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical stuff

comment - this subsection has been opened in parallel to this one - [7] - which discusses the same dispute. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

However there was continual contention over whether actual events and conditions proved that there was greater acceptance of Israel's existence by Palestinian leaders[4] or a commitment by Israel to stop settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[5]

This is nonsensical and badly phrased. Something along these lines?

However, both parties accuse each other of failure to implement key elements in the agreement. Israel contends that Palestinian leaders have not substantially accepted Israel's existence, and that they have failed to provide effective guarantees that respond to Israel's concerns for its security by clamping down on terrorism. Palestinian leaders complain of Israel's continuous policy of encouraging settlements on land illegally expropriated from them and designated for a future Palestinian state.

Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

not bad. here's some proposed edits, to your second sentence: "...and that they have failed to take effective action to respond to Israel's concerns for its security by fighting terrorism, promoting acceptance of Israel's existence, ending incitement, and suppressing and dissolving extremist groups and militias." hope that sounds good. thanks for your helpful text and proposal. --Steve, Sm8900 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

should rev up the israeli points to fit the verocity of the palestinian claims. i.e. palestinians are not merely not clamping down, but they are promoting terrorism through incitement, financing of illeagal weapon smugglings and the payment of salaries to militant groups. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jaakobou. However, it's not necessarily a question of revving up, but the level of detail to be included by both sides. I agree we should reflect all of the issues which you mention, which are verifiable. --Steve, Sm8900 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Make a moderate suggestion with Jaakobou in short, and he sees it as a sign of softening on the battle front, and, 'revving up' the propaganda tank drives full speed at it with 'Israeli points'. Please note that in my suggestion I gave more space to Israeli claims than to Palestinian claims. If he revs up, I will rev up and add an equivalent amount of detail of targeted assassination, refusal to respect ceasefires, the use of American aid illegally to build illegal settlements, the refusal to respect 90 UN resolutions by Israel, the refusal by Israel to apply the agreements on settlers since Oslo, the indiscriminate killing of civilians, the refusal to accept the results of a democratic election in the Occupied Territories, the expropriation and annexation of land that has full Palestinian title, the habit of allowing settlers on Palestinian land to go about fully armed while denying Palestinians, on pain of being shot dead, a similar right of defence etc etc etc.

Mind you, Jaakobou had one point of Freudian enlightenment in his Carrollian portmanteau coinage, verocity of Palestinian claims. That means evidently that when a Palestinian makes a claim it combines veracity and ferocity, Palestinian claims are obnoxious because of their ferocious veracity. Let no more be said, guv. Nishidani 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

what makes you think i was talking about the palestinians? i was talking about your one sidedness, which you now dare describe as "[your] suggestion [you] gave more space to Israeli claims". seriously reminding me of your "moral grounds" claim a while back. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobouyou inquire:-

what makes you think i was talking about the palestinians?

Uh, well, normal English grammar.e.g. the natural way of construing the phrase:

'rev up the israeli points to fit the verocity of the palestinian claims'

'i was talking about your one sidedness.'. The pot-calling-the-kettle-black syndrome. Are you seriously trying to underscore the last line of the Galaxy Song from Monty Python?Nishidani 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

the sentence as it should have been written (so to not get you confused again):

write down the israeli points, which you neglected completely, to fit the one sided POV level of detail you have listed down the palestinian claims at.

if you don't understand why your version is one-sided POV, let me know so i can explain... if you feel strongly that you gave israel more space, i'd be more than interested in hearing an explanation on how you concluded this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Israel 33 words. Palestinians 22. Q.E.D. Problems with arithmetic as well?Nishidani 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think one or both of you needs to put their proposed text up, and let some others revise as they see fit. Writing about how one might write about the writing of this artiucle won't help us; actually writing it would. :-) So perhaps one of you could put up an initial draft of the relevant text, and discussion could proceed on whatever problems either side might have. (By the way, I'm logging off soon, but will be on and off the site later on.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 23:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

actually, just realized, you already did. ok. :-) I just put up some comments. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)
here's how i break Nishidani's suggestion down:

Israel contends that Palestinian leaders have not substantially accepted Israel's existence (1) (as a jewish state), and that they have (2) failed to provide effective guarantees that respond to Israel's concerns for its security by clamping down on terrorism. Palestinian leaders complain of (2) Israel's continuous policy of encouraging settlements on land (2) illegally expropriated from them and designated for a future Palestinian state.

1) this point is a small one, but important non-the less. the fatah (not hamas) repeatedly claim they "have recognized israel" but they refuse to recognize it as a jewish state. 2) this is the core issue of our editorial conflict, the phrasing suggests that israel encourages ileagal activity while the palestinains are merely unable to guarantee that they could stop it. you could argue that israel encourages or doesn't encourage settelments - but you cannot argue that the palestinians are merely not clamping down on their "resistance" activity. the core issue from israeli perspective is both the jewish state issue and the incitement and promotion of violence. israel, you could claim for NPOV's sake, promotes the settlements.. however, writing one without the other, makes for a non neutral phrasing.

nishidani, you're the english nut here, try to work these points in please and we'll find a compromise. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)