Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Archives

Previous discussions may be found here:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5 - an essay about "Hate, propaganda and information"
• Archive 6 (2004 to Sept. 2006)
• Archive 7 (2006-2007)
• Archive 8

peace organisations

Then put (Left wing) after the name of each organisation. It is silly to put political stance in the heading. 'Left wing' organisations implies that there are 'right wing' ones. If that is the case, then surely it shouldn't be a problem listing them in the section. If there are no right wing peace organisations, that is, all peace organisations are left wing, then why do we need to preface the heading with left wing? The heading is clearly NPOV. Suicup 06:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

i do have some small problem with this, considering that anyone can call his activity peace, just as any militant can call his group "*** al-islam" ... i think we should discuss this a tad and perhaps come up with a better name for groups that are more anti-israel than they are pro-peace (i.e. renounce violence if israel does it but refuse to renounce it if it's against israel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs)

No, "Left wing" implies nothing except that the organizations under the heading are left wing. Obviously, if there are right wing peace organizations (and there might be, I just don't know any off the top of my head), then they would belong in the "See also" section under "Right wing peace organizations," but until such an organization is found, there is no reason to change any headings or add any headings that imply. --GHcool 17:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If there are right wing peace organisations, they belong under 'peace organisations', not a separate heading. Why clutter the See also section with a different heading for every political stance? It is much cleaner and more neutral to just have 'Peace Organisations', and then putting any position they might have after the name. Suicup 02:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Suicup. I'm glad to see someone who is as concerned with NPOV and cleanliness in the article as I am. I've taken the liberty to put "Left wing" in the heading as opposed to next to every peace organization so as to make the section more clean and I also to show that these organizations have a liberal point of view so that readers don't make the mistake that these organizations are neutral sources of information. I'm sure you would agree that not calling these organizations left wing would violate NPOV and that to label each one left wing with in-text parenthesis is much more messy than naming the article "Left wing peace organizations in Israel." Thanks for your help in this article. --GHcool 08:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, you don't seem to be internalising any of my points. Having 'Peace Organisations' encourages the addition of other organisations which may not necessarily be left-wing, without having to create a whole new heading. If all peace organisations in Israel are left wing, then it doesn't make sense to put that in the heading, as you would be stating the obvious. Note, I don't believe this is the case, and i hope a more rounded list will appear given time. Are you proposing we split the documentary 'see also' section into political stances too? Taken to its logical conclusion, your method would make this section ridiculous. I appreciate your comments, however given my 'help' in this article has merely left it unchanged due to your reverts, they seem somewhat hollow. Suicup 09:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your first argument is in favor of either violating NPOV or making the section a little messy. Your second argument relies on a slippery slope fallacy. Assuming that the section isn't changed any more, I plan on forfeiting this this debate. Even though your arguments are extremely weak, right now the section doesn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines, which is the most important thing. Its just unnecessarily messy, but not important enough to quibble over. --GHcool 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD

Please give your opinion and vote on this AFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_attacks_committed_during_the_Second_Intifada#.5B.5BList_of_attacks_committed_during_the_Second_Intifada.5D.5D --Burgas00 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab side of 19th century

to be frank, the reasoning that this information "might_ have a place later on in the article but certainly not in the intro."^[1] would make the article imply that only "zionists" have national aspirations in places that "don't belong to them" rather than give the full image of each side's activity. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My position is simple: the info is not relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the introductory paragraph. The original paragraph is good in my opinion, and your edit does not improve it. As a side note, the grammar was sloppy anyway (No offense intended, it read like it was written by a non-native English speaker). Suicup 19:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm confused at your statement, please further clarify how exactly the arab aspirations in the middle east "is not relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the introductory" to the israeli-arab conflict? pardon the figurative speech, but perhaps we should erase arabs completely from the article since they obviously have no claims in the middle east? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

While Suicup and I have disagreed in the past, I must say I see his point this time. I have not read Herzog nor Ismael, but judging by the statement you're trying to add, it looks as though this movement toward independence has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has more to do with some sort of short-lived nationalist movement (perhaps originating in Syria). Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a serious threat to Zionist aspirations. --GHcool 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i think you're jumping to conclusions on that assertion. if you've read any biography about Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and the pan-arab movement you'll notice these arab aspirations are at the core of the conflict, they simply would not agree to any type of compromise with the jews on what they considered (and still are considering) arab land... do you honestly think the term "occupation" means only west bank and jerusalem? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I never read a book-length biography of the Mufti (is there such a book in English?), but I've read about the Mufti in various history books and articles. According to the Wikipedia article on the Mufti, he was only a baby during the 19th century. The Arab national movement furthered by the Mufti came at least 20 years after the First Aliyah. Pan-Arabism was virtually irrelevant in Zionist-Arab relations in the 19th century. --GHcool 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i believe you're mistaken, the time of the Damascus Protocol was at around 1900 and the mufti went to Al-Azhar University at around 1910 and started his pan-arab/anti-zionist activity (p.s. age 15+ is considered an adult by arabs in those days) inspired by the university's themes. there was really no conflict in 1880 because both sides were still only in the planning stages of their aspirations. the conflict really got going at 1920 and placing blame on the jewish national aspirations (first aliyah) is a classic oversight of the will of the arab people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

All you say seems to be correct as far as I can tell, but I fail to see how any of that information relates to the genesis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict circa 1890. I think we can agree that the Mufti's relevance to the conflict did not occur until after 1910. I am not familiar with the details of the Damascus Protocol, but judging by the wikipedia article on it, it doesn't seem to concern Zionism or Zionists. Am I missing something? --GHcool 07:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

what you might be missing is the core of the conflict derives from both jewish and arab aspirations to territory which was not under their ownership; the classical error, which the current version of the article supports, presumes that the conflict started because of the jewish aliya/aspirations... but that is a false presentation which ignores the arab part in the conflict - which was around the same time (late 19th century). the notes i inserted are simply the most known events to explain the way the arabs applied their initial aspirations to the entire middle east (including israel) and it is perfectly balanced in a paragraph that includes the zionist aspirations... obviously whentwo sides declare their desire for a certainpatch of land, there is a beggining of a conflict. i hope that explains the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of this changes the fact that the current version of the intro is fine, and your additions do not improve it, in a 'bias reduction' sense, or a 'relevance' sense. Suicup 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

please explain why you consider this to be irrelevant. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Suicup, I think treating Jaakobou as an intellectual equal would probably be a better tactic in helping him to see your point.

Jaakobou, I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I fear you are confusing the period of 1910s with the 1890s. The Jewish national movement (Zionism) pre-dates the Arab national movements (pan-Arabism and Palestinian nationalism) by several decades. I understand and agree with your point that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about the clash between the Jewish and Arab national movements, but there simply isn't a way around the fact that Zionism came before pan-Arabism. To assign a "beginning" of the conflict is arbitrary, of course, because one could always argue that it began one step ahead or one step forward in the continuum. Most of the books and articles I've read begin the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the First Aliyah because this was the first instance of a strong Zionist and strong Arab population having to share the same land and also because at the time, the Zionists and the Arabs were pretty much evenly matched strategically (i.e. they didn't have the means nor desire to expell one another). --GHcool 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

consider this, have any of those books you've read even mentioned the damascus protocol? perhaps they were concentrating on history from a european centric observation angle rather than explore both sides. i know there aren't many arab scholars who'd dare give out information on this topic, but i thought we were addressing the roots of the conflict, not who came first (which is seriously debatable - see the Al-Azhar alumni link). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble understanding how the Al Azhar alumni relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole are relevant to the conflict's history in the 1890s. Surely you're not suggesting that the Mufti and Izz ad-Din al-Qassamwere politically active in the 1890s. I admit I haven't heard about the Damascus Protocol until now. I pride myself on my familiarity with the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I would not call myself an expert on Middle Eastern history. --GHcool 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

basically, when you look at the conflict and try to pinpoint where it started, you cannot just say... "ah, the jews started coming in 1880... that's why!", it's ridiculous to only look at one side's national aspirations and totally ignore the ones of the other side in the conflict... if the arabs had no national aspirations in the area, there would be no conflict. for example, if the arab who conqured jerusalem at about the 6-7th century, would not have knelt and prayed there.. there wouldn't be no conflict... if the Albanian Muhammad Ali Pasha would not have lost his control over the land back to the ottomans, there wouldn't be no conflict... it's all a matter of how far we want to go. basically, considering we're starting to recant the history of the conflict from the point of national aspirations in Israel/Palestine/Damascus Wilayah (depending on who's narrative you listen to) and not from the point where violent clashes started, then we should include notes about the arab national aspirations which include this area regardless of the time stamp because the time stamp of such national aspirations is an elusive term - for example, why not choose Hertzel's book "the jewish state" instead of the first aliya. we have an introduction to the conflict and it would be silly to remove one side from the discussion just because most books know more about the jews and treat arabs like their opinion doesn't even count, no wonder there's an inferiority complex. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[OUTDENT] Jaakobou, I understand your point and sympathize with it, but I cannot honestly see a way for information about Palestinian/Arab national movements to be stated as the counterpoint to the First Aliyah without there being an anachronistic error. I just cracked open my copy of The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East and found something that might satisfy the problem of assigning "blame" to the group that "started it." In the second paragraph of the "Arab-Israeli Conflict" listing, it is written:

"Violent Arab resistance accompanied Zionist settlement in Palestine from its inception in the 1880s. Peasants, tenants, or Beduin shepherds who feared the settlements might affect their tenancy or grazing habits, as well as bands of marauders, attacked the settlers, who were considered weak until they posted armed guards, the nucleus of the later organized self-defense (ha-shomer). Such clashes were sporadic and mostly non-political until after World War I. However, even before the War ..." (Sela, 58).

The paragraph goes on to describe the evolution of Arab nationalist ideology that occurred at an unspecified time "before the War," but could not have been before 1900. So, if you wish to phrase it in such a way that on one hand we have Zionists moving to Turkish Palestine and on the other hand, we have xenophobic, violent Arab gangs, I suppose that would be acceptable. --GHcool 08:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

perhaps i've missed an important part to explain my point. at 1900, there were about 250,000 arabs in the land and about 5000 jews. at 1915 the numbers were 300,000 and 10,000. at 1945 the numbers were 750,000 and 550,000 - both sides moved vast amounts of people to the region to try and take it over - this is obviously a reaction to the zionist aliyah (mostly to mooch on the new economy)... but this arab immigration is part of their bigger national aspiration... the way it's currently phrased, would have us believe that the couple of violent clashes before 1900 (basically arab raiders and xenophobia) was a reaction of locals to the jews rather than understand that had the arabs left the area as is without building national aspirations to it, there wouldn't be a conflict... meanning that if arabs did not claim the region they did not own.. and react on it, there would be no problem. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um but that is exactly what they were in that time period! Local reactions. Your last point is exactly why your addition should not be in the article, it presents an unacceptably biased view point. Suicup 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And what I've been saying is that those little seeds of nationalism that would later yield the Husaynis and the PLO had not yet germinated by 1900. Keep in mind that the Arabs of Palestine in the 19th century were not the organized people that they are today or even in the 1920s. They were mostly peasant farmers with little to no education that kept to their nomadic bands. They were so un-nationalistic that if you were to ask an Arab in Akko in the 19th century if he felt a kinship to an Arab in Haifa, he would probably say no. This was one of the major edges the Jews had going for them: a Jew from Czechoslovakia and a Jews from Romania were "brothers" in the Zionist vision. These rheorical arguments can go on forever. The claim that there was a pre-1900 organized, nationalistic Arab movement in Palestine that seriously rivaled Zionism for control of the land is an exceptional claim and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Furthermore, please be sure that the source says explicitly what you are implying; meaning that you cannot add information about proto-Arab nationalists in Syria fighting for independence from the Ottoman Empire and imply that it has relevent to the history of opposition to Zionism. --GHcool 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) i understand your point. personally, i think that if we are describing the source of the conflict, and not the start of the violence, then the ambitions of each side should be stated regardless of the date (and i most certainly believe the arab aspirations' date is much debatable).

(2) considering i understand your point, i won't press this issue again before i find "exceptional sources".

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I respect your moderate and positive attitude. --GHcool 05:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

numbers dispute

Jaakobou is presenting the standard Zionist myth of the land without a people. In fact the Arab population of Palestine was c. 500,000 in 1890 and c. 1,324,000 in 1947 all due to natural population growth coupled with a decline in mortality. There is but one scholarly account of illegal Arab immigration into Palestine, that by the Israeli demographer Roberto Bachi, who concluded that it averaged 900 per year between 1931 and 1945. The economy of the Yishuv was designed to be independent, i.e., not to benefit the Arab population, and in fact, because of the Zionist colonies' dependence on foreign subsidies they damaged the local economies of the areas in which they were situated. It's well constructed propaganda, but propaganda nonetheless. --Ian Pitchford 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While I do not contest the research Ian Pitchford cites, I am a little irritated by his reference to it here since that is not what we are even talking about. Please don't change the subject and please don't change the tone of the discussion from a small disagreement to heated mud-slinging. --GHcool 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Jaakobou's last contribution. Silly myths should be challenged. --Ian Pitchford 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ian Pitchford, what book should you be citing? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a section on House demolition

I've twice added a see-also link to the "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" page to see it twice removed without comment here. Clearly it is a relevant article, since "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is a subset to this article on the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". I assume it was removed because this topic (House demolition) was not explicitely discussed on the IP conflict page, so I added a section with citations from Reliable Sources to discuss it. Thank you, Jgui 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jgui, the reason I moved it was because it wasn't appropriate there. The {{seealso}} templates are designed as a link to the corresponding section, given the small amount of information in the article. Your link was not relevant to that section (which was an overview). However, now that an explicit section on Housing Demolition has been created, it is appropriate to use that template underneath the section heading. Regards. Suicup 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it took a bit of head-scratching but I figured that out. I fixed a redlink citation, and I left Gcool's changes except reworded the sentence stating the reason for demolitions, since this is heavily disputed - see the reference I cited for a statement of both sides (Israel and Amnesty). Cheers, Jgui 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Disputed" vs. "Occupied"

I couldn't help but notice that the article only uses the phrase "Disputed Territories" whereas all the external references use the term "Occupied Territories". Has there been any official decision here on which term to use? The page Status of territories captured by Israel states that the International Court of Justice, the U.S. State Department and the Supreme Court of Israel have ruled that the territories are "occupied"... Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. sorry, I don't see which items you're referring to. could you tell me which section you mean by "external references"? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

References 33 and 43 and the B'Tselem link in the "External links" section have it in their titles. Pedro Gonnet 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I think it is possible that you transposed the terms? in your original question you say the refs call it "disputed" but the two references which you cite 33 and 43 both call them "occupied territory". Did you mean that the article calls it "disputed", whereas the references call it "occupied"? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I screwed up. Fixed it now. Cheers and thanks! Pedro Gonnet 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. thanks for writing. To answer your question, the Israeli Foregin Ministry and other entities on the Israeli side feel that some parts of the land are occupied Palestinian land, while other parts are simply disputed territory for which no final resolution was ever achieved. So there is dispute over the status of territories in the "disputed" category, and there is also considerable dispute over which territory actually falls into either category. So using the word "disputed" is a way to reflect this overall ambiguity. --Steve, Sm8900 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - the wiki article which is linked to under that heading uses 'occupied'. Given this is a summary article, if disputed is going to be used here, then it should be used on the seealso article. That would involve a renaming of that article. Suicup 18:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)
wiki uses the terminology used by the sources when we say "XXX claimed that...", however, the encyclopedia itself uses neutral terminology. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This simply is not an issue about "neutrality". You are abusing the concept in order to impose a fringe terminology on this article. Virtually every serious international source and institution - from the UN collectively to individual governments and organisations, as well as most media outlets - uses and understands the phrase "occupied territories". Most other wikipedia articles, quite correctly, use this phrasing. Any dispute about whether the territories are occupied or not is on a par with a dispute about whether the earth is round or not. Give it up Nickhh 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Right, but in this case, what you (Jaakobou) call the "neutral" terminology is a massive violation of WP:NPOV. How would you consider using the "neutral" term Armenian relocation or Armenian deportation preferred by Turkey instead of Armenian genocide? The problem is that this is not a matter of neutrality or taste, but of correctness. Every official body (even the Supreme Court of Israel) except for the Israeli Government (note the difference between the Legislative and Executive) uses the term "occupied territories" (see Status of territories captured by Israel).

Since this issue seems to bounce around every so often, I suggest we just push it through WP:DR and get some final ruling on this.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 12.11.2007 18:57

Exactly, it's not about random editors adding the qualifier "occupied" in order to make a point, equivalent to describing President Bush as "the inept President" at every opportunity. It is simply the phrase that pretty much the whole world uses to describe these areas. Objecting to it is as absurd as communists saying that the phrase "Red Terror" isn't neutral and should be replaced on wikipedia with the phrase "Red Discipline". I agree there should be some form of authorative ruling on the issue, if only to settle it once and for all. --Nickhh 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i've made an edit that you might agree on. in general, i believe the earth round/flat and the armenian genocide/relocation comparisons are at fault to the occasion; i undertand your position but disagree that this opinion is marginalized on such levels as the first or so controversial as the latter. that organizations such as amnesty use the term occupied territory, does not resolve the issue of what parts are occupied (some would say tel aviv is occupied also) and what parts are not. i think we should try to avoid this conflict where possible rather than push the point. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If the argument is that "occupied" territories is the correct term (as Pedro Gonnet puts it), then I'll gladly accept provided that all of the references to Palestinian "militants" to the correct term: "terrorist." --GHcool 05:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that's just clouding the issue and is a rather irrelevant attempt to set up some kind of "deal". The terminology "occupied territories" is used, as I have said, by every international body and most world governemnts to identify the areas under discussion. It is also the standard terminology in the mainstream Israel media (see Haaretz and even The Jerusalem Post). The phrase "disputed areas" is used by virtually no-one. The Tel Aviv issue is also a red herring, since in standard discourse it is not included in the areas described as occupied. Saying Tel Aviv is "occupied" is as wrong as describing the West Bank as "disputed", and for exactly the same reasons. This really is a very simple point and has nothing to do with what you or I might think, or our personal opinions on the matter.

By contrast the distinction between "terrorist" and "militant" is far more subjective and nuanced, as you surely know. There is no international standard for whether a group is a "terrorist group" or not. Wikipedia guidance quite rightly suggests that the phrase terrorist should be avoided, for this reason. --Nickhh 08:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) GHcool actually brought up a good point explaining how wikipedia terminology works. (2) you'll excuse me if i reject your "expert" assessment on what the israeli media uses (haaretz, the 'anti-national' ultra-leftist paper aside) to describe the territories and what parts of the territories at that. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Not looking too good regarding the Israeli media. A quick search on www.jpost.com for the terms "occupied territories" vs. "disputed territories" favours the former by a factor of almost 10 (2331 vs. 246 hits). Care to call the JPost an "'anti-national' ultra-leftist paper"? I think not.

Uhm, and what is exactly the point GHcool made?

Seriously, Jaakobou, if you think you have an argument, lets take this to WP:DR.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 13.11.2007 10:15

Update: doing the same dance at www.ynetnews.com (the Enlish language online verison of Yedioth Ahronoth) gives an even worse ratio (270 vs. 19 hits). Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 13.11.2007 10:23

are you going to lookup hebrew sources also because i do believe israel's main language is hebrew and a quick search (in ynet) finds more than 5 the term "judea and shamaria" [2] (in ynet) over "occupied territories" [3].

p.s. like i said earlier, i think we should try to avoid this conflict where possible rather than push the point.

p.p.s. i still think my (reverted without a comment [4]) edit was fair to both sides. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, last time I checked, this was still the English language Wikipedia, so I think what all these papers call it in English is what's relevant. I'm all for staying on topic and moving on to WP:DR if you don't mind. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 13.11.2007 10:55

(Reset) However of course this is the English wikipedia. In the English language, and probably in translation from most other languages (whether that includes Hebrew or not), the phrase is "occupied territories". This will apply even more when we look at official government and other third party positions, rather than simply media sources in the country that is doing the occupying. Again this is not a point about whether you, I or anyone else thinks this terminology is accurate or not. The point is that this IS the terminology. And as a result there's no need to find a middle ground which is "fair to both sides", as if there is a genuine debate over this. --Nickhh 10:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

please go over my arguments, it's a tad tiresome to repeat them while they are being ignored. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We have gone over your arguments and refuted them. If you're still not happy, then don't just restate (or refer to) your arguments: If you think we don't understand them, then rephrase or illustrate them such that we may. If you think we have understood them, yet you don't understand our argument, then try to refute our refutations. This is the way discussion works. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 13.11.2007 12:23

here [5]. you are free to open an RfC btw. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so your argument is that the term "occupied territories" leaves room to interpretation as to the extent of these territories. Well, the definition of "occupied territories" is pretty clear -- territories which Israel is occupying, according to the definition in Occupied territories:

“ Occupied territories is a term used by advocates who assert that a region has been taken over illegitimately by a sovereign power (compare disputed area). It is distinguished from a colony where there is no war, conquest (meaning military), or sovereignty of the territory. ”

Which would, it seems, exclude Tel Aviv but would apply, for instance, to the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Now, by the same token, if you think "disputed territories" is a better term, you're going to have to make the case that it is less ambiguous then "occupied territories". Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 13.11.2007 15:51

Would it be enough to make a case that "disputed territories" is more NPOV and equally accurate? From what I gather in the mainstream media, the Golan Heights is not generally included in current discourse by the phrase "occupied territories" because it is not Palestinian land. The Old City of Jerusalem doesn't count either in ordinary discourse. Furthermore, a strong case can be made that the capture of Gaza and the West Bank during the Six-Day War was not illegal or illegitimate. Gaza was captured from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan; two enemy nations that started a war against Israel just. Furthermore, Palestinian Arabs from both territories faught in that war and prior to it against Israelis. The same can be said for Syria and the Golan Heights. In short, "occupied territories" favors the Palestinian point of view while "disputed territories" describes the international status of the territories. --GHcool 22:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As you probably know, the acquisition of territory through warfare is, since the establishment of the League of Nations, a big fat no-no. So no "strong case" here. "Occupied", according to Wikipedia's own definition (quoted above) is NPOV and accurate, whereas "disputed" is a huge can of worms that one-sidedly favours the Israeli government (as opposed to legislative) by obfuscating the legal status of the territories in question.

On a side note, it is kind of useless to argue that "occupied territories" isn't specific of what territories are meant (it is not: the definition makes it pretty clear that it is all territories unlawfully under Israel's control). The wording "disputed territories" does not amend this perceived problem.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.11.2007 08:28

Will you PLEASE stop missing the point quite so spectacularly? It is utterly irrelevant whether you happen to prefer a certain phrasing, or whether in your view that phrasing is more NPOV or not. For the 14th time, the standard phrasing in 99% of all official and media discussion of this issue throughout the planet is "occupied territories", or referring to a subtly different area, "Palestinian territories". Both phrasings for example would include the West Bank, but exclude Tel Aviv. Any attempt by any editor to impose alternative phrasing constitutes original research. The fact that some elements of the Israeli establishment and the extremist right-wing blogosphere have tried to push the phrase "disputed territories" is interesting and relevant, and is rightly referred to in several wikipedia articles, however that terminology should not be allowed to replace the standard one, on the whim of one or two editors here. --Nickhh 08:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(ps: our comments seem to have crossed Pedro .. my plea for relevance was of course addressed to GHCool's prior comment, and also to Jaakabou's posts) --Nickhh 10:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

you're both missing the point, this is not the article to fight over these issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you are the one who brought this up here two days ago. If you want to take it elsewhere (I still strongly suggest WP:DR), be my guest. pedro gonnet - talk - 14.11.2007 10:38

i followed a POV edit that changed "disputed" to "occupied" [6]. you are free to open up an RfC to this issue. i still don't see the problem with my suggested compromise [7] which you reverted with the suggestion that i've gone mad. [8] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that wasn't a "POV edit". In the whole article the term "occupied territories" is used. Somebody introduced a section with the term "disputed territories", which was corrected to match the status quo of the article.

The problem with your "suggested compromise" is that it is a compromise between a correct terminology and an incorrect, biased terminology. If there is a correct terminology, then there is no need for a compromise to suit your POV.

Furthermore, I suggested you were off your rocker for your blatantly incorrect edit summary, insinuating that we had agreed in the talk. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.11.2007 12:56

Changes to add mention of Arab Peace Initiative and improve NPOV

I added a section on the Arab Peace Initiative, with cited text and seealso's to the appropriate WP pages. Unfortunately an editor deleted all of the text I added without mentioning why here. Please do not delete text without noting why you are doing it here.

I have put the changes back one at a time so it will be clearer what I changed and why. The first change I made was to add the Arab Peace initiative. This initiative is still under discussion, and is in the opinions of many, both Arabs and Israelis, the best chance of achieving real peace, which is borne out by the citation given. Please read the citation and please do not delete this again.

I added back the description of the Israeli pullout from Gaza, unmodified.

I also made changes to improve NPOV. This whole page has POV sections, but two of them in this History section really stood out - presenting the history purely from the Israeli point of view. This consisted of two changes. First I removed the following paragraph:

After repeated Qassam rocket attacks against Israeli civilian populations and the kidnapping of the 19-year-old Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, Israel launched Operation Summer Rains which effectively reinstituted Israeli dominance over the Gaza Strip. Although some Israelis interpret the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict as proof that the Palestinians are not able or willing to govern themselves without resorting to terrorism and kidnappings and therefore the disengagement was a serious miscalculation, key members of the Knesset including Prime Minister Olmert said "that Israel has no intention of recapturing the Gaza Strip and that IDF forces will eventually retreat."

It should be very clear to anyone who tries to write NPOV WP text why this does not meet the NPOV test. It describes this conflict as starting with "repeated rocket attacks against Israeli populations" - but why did we start there? Why not start with the repeated attacks by Israel against Hamas when Hamas was in the midst of a cease-fire? For that matter why not start with the 1967 war??? And why does this paragraph then present the Israeli thinking from an Israeli newspaper without consideration of the Palestinian thinking? Furthermore, one should ask whether this paragraph serves any purpose - it does not, and the main statement that this paragraph makes - that "Palestinians are not able or willing to govern ... without resorting to terrorism" is pure Original Research and NOT from any source. Clearly this paragraph is a mess and adds nothing and deserves to be deleted.

My final change was to remove a sentence with a CN tag on it, that was similarly POV and Original Research, and added nothing except a gratuitous and uncited slam by the WP writer against the PNA:

Various foreign governments and organizations continued to debate as to whether the PNA had become a credible negotiating authority, and whether economic and diplomatic sanctions should be lifted.

Any comments? Thanks, Jgui 04:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, I and many others agree with you but I have a comment about the form. The WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies at Wikipedia imply that you should quote reliable sources (WP:RS) with these opinions. They also imply that, for the sake of balance, you should quote competing views, regardless of how absurd they sound. I wish I could edit it myself but I spend all my free time on Israel & the UN these days. For complaints about these idiotic policies, call Jimbo, not me. Emmanuelm 12:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I think you are saying it is important to keep the citation, so I added back the full citation that I had removed above. I kept out all the OR which I detailed above, and added the citation back in an NPOV context, describing the fighting but not trying to state who is responsible for the fighting. Please compare the POV sentences above to the following which I added:

... and sporadic fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has continued. In spite of the continuing fighting, Ynetnews reported that "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday that Israel has no intention of recapturing the Gaza Strip and that IDF forces will eventually retreat."

Thank you, Jgui 14:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GHCOOL, you have AGAIN reverted back to your version of this page (twice!), undoing all the changes that I discuss in detail above. Please follow WP protocol and do not delete my changes again without discussing it here. Thank you, Jgui 01:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GHCOOL, since you are determined to go into detail regarding Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal, I have tried to take your extremely POV version and flesh it out with accurate and well-cited details that present it in a NPOV fashion. I started immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, instead of jumping right to the kidnapping of Corporal Shalit as you did. And I have updated it with the latest news coming out of Israel of another proposed ceasefire. Thank you, Jgui 07:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghcool, I would like to remind you that you are not supposed to simply delete cited text you do not like from WP as you have just done; you are supposed to improve the text, and you are supposed to discuss any major changes here in Talk. I hope you will follow these WP guidelines in the future.

Ghcool, you removed a large portion of text that I added, claiming in your edit history that "you cannot place events in Feb. 2005 AFTER events in Aug. 2005 in the chronology." Your claim is not accurate, since we are not building a rigid time-line in this section, we are discussing a history of events. Nevertheless I see the general benefit of chronological order, so I have rewritten to do so. Please do not delete my cited paragraph again without discussing it here.

In making my changes I deleted one uncited sentence: "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has stated that further unilateral withdrawals from some West Bank settlements may be undertaken if the peace process continues to be stalled." I deleted this sentence since it was made more than a year ago and does not describe Olmert's current thinking. I also do not think the sentence is valuable, but if someone thinks it is important, then they should re-add it, changing it to note the context in which it was made and the fact that it is no longer being considered as an option. Thank you, Jgui 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Huhhh??? An Israeli Prime Minister has said "If peace talks slow down, we may just give up more territory, without waiting for any formal deal." And in your mind, if that hasn't come up recently, he must not be thinking it anymore. Not sure I agree with you. That seems like a fairly substantial statement of a leader's entire underlying philosophy. I feel that sentence should be retained. --Steve, Sm8900 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that he made this statement while running for office, when there was popular support for the disengagement of Gaza. AFAIK, he has not repeated that statement or made any indication that he would attempt to follow through on it - on the contrary it would seem to be political suicide for him to attempt it given his unpopularity now. But I did not research it well, and if you think it is important, then please add it back in context. Thanks, Jgui 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well also, the fact that he said it is useful as showing his mentality at a particular time, even if his philosophy changed. After all, part of our goal is to tell history accurately too, and as long as he is still prime minister, that is relevant to current situations too. So I appreciate your reply. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction changes

Hi people. A user (82.166.9.18) recently changed the intro to say:

"Many Palestinians accept the West Bank and Gaza Strip as at least a part of the territory of their future state.[6] Many Israelis are ready to accept a solution in which Gaza and West Bank only will be the only parts under Israel's control to be given to the Palestinians.[6]"

Whereas it used to say:

"Most Palestinians accept the West Bank and Gaza Strip as at least a part of the territory of their future state. Most Israelis also accept this solution."

Now, I haven't read the book that this part is referencing, but apart from the poor English ("...West Bank only will be the only parts...") I'm really not sure what this addition means (what is 'many' anyway?). Is it saying that most Israeli's *just* want to give back Gaza and the West Bank? Can someone else (maybe the person responsible fot assigning the ref originally?) take a look and tell me what they think about it? My inclination was to change it back, but I figured I'd better ask first...

BTW, I was the chappy who changed the intro recently under the ip 80.42.84.75. Apologies if I'm stepping on anyone's shoes but I'm new to this! Richardbeavis 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I own the book referenced and added the reference to the lead to begin with. I just changed it back to the original version. Your instincts were correct, Richardbeavis. --GHcool 22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for taking a look, GH.  (Phew!) Richardbeavis 12:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Perspectives

Just a comment but I wonder if the article doesn't say enough about the perspectives of the two sides in the context of trying to explain the justifications of the conflict and the reasons it has affected the entire Middle East as opposed to being a more localized issue. Granted this is difficult to discuss in an objective way but it seems worth trying to do. Among other things the fact that, for right or wrong, many in the Middle East view the Jewish population as foreigners who have invaded the region and view Israel as a colonial empire of Europe seems worth bringing out more explicitly. I think most people in Western Europe and the Americas (presumably some of the major audience of this English-language page) don't look at it this way and so bringing out this point in more detail clarifies the intensity of the emotions to some degree. This same attitude could be compared to the Protestant-Catholic conflict in Ireland and many other similar conflicts although, obviously, this conflict has escalated to much larger proportions and the details are unique.

Mind you, I am not suggesting casting any sort of judgment, only clarifying mindsets.

--Mcorazao 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What you are asking for is already provided here. --GHcool 21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this doesn't really talk about what I've mentioned. All that is there is a vague list of general topics which speak little to somebody who is not already very knowledgeable about the subject. Granted if they follow the links and read deeply enough they could start to pick this up but, ideally, this article should be able to stand on its own (i.e. the reader should be able to get an overview of the topic simply from reading this article alone).

--Mcorazao 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also that link is on a separate page. --Mcorazao 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.181.251.9 (talk)

Controversy management on wikipedia

• Controverses must be detailled and all pov's must be pointed out.
• If they cannot be detailled (too long, undue weight) or if too many pov's should be explained (undue weight for the article), they should not be introduced but only their existence pointed out and readers sent towards more detailled article.
  
• Any editor who having know-how of the controversies and who tries to put forward only one side systematically is called a pov-pusher and should refrain editing wikipedia which is not the appropriate battleground for these matters. Ceedjee (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do insist. I have just reverted a "but Finkelstein considers that..." Ceedjee (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein refers to a consensus among serious scholars.

You want the article to state your pov, namely that the causes are controversial, while there is another pov that says there is a consensus on one part of the causes, namely that it was an ethnic cleansing and that the controverse is on whether there was a deliberate policy to that effect.

You are pushing your pov, I'm pushing Finkelstein's. According to Wikipedia policy, both should be in (at least if yours is reliably sourced).

Certainly Finkelsteins observation is not given undue weight. This is an article on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The exodus is the major cause of the conflict! --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How can Finkelstien refers to a consensus among serious scholars when none of them agree.

More what he calls consensus would be ethnic cleansing. Don't make fun of us.

I don't push any pov. There is no consensus : this is something extremely factual !

The only pov-pusher here is you ! Addtionnaly you are a problematic editor who wants to writes Finkelstein comments on all articles related to Israel. Nobody agrees with you.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please conform to wikipedia policy. In your pov there is no consensus, but you are not a source for wikipedia articles. Finkelstein is a RS saying there is consensus in some respect. It's relevant and reliable, so I add it.

Please stop pushing your pov, i.e. that it's all controversial. I will leave that pov in, although I don't agree with it. So I expect you to respect Finkelstein's pov. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply adding a relevant statement from a reliable source. The fact that you don't agree with the statement is no reason to remove it! --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You ADD one pov where there are many.

It is clear they are many pov on the matter.

You keep not respecting NPoV in only focusing on 1 pov.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should explain it again: there are 'povs on the causes of the exodus' and there are 'povs on the debate on the causes of the exodus'. You are referring to povs in the first category, but Finkelsteins pov is in the second category, like your pov that there is only controversy. You are pushing the pov that there is a controversy, while a reliable source says that, at leasst in some respect, there is not. Please think .... . --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I write before too :

If Einstein would write that the "water boils at 95°" but other scientists would write "water boils at 100°", "water boils at 90°" or "water boils at 105°".

Quoting "Einstein writes that all serious scientists think water boils at 95°" is pov.

Stop making fun of us now. Ceedjee (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh... But I have a solution :

Many scholars debate around the causes of the 1948 exodus (we can give 5 differents ones in reference with Karsh - Gelber - Morris - Flahan and Masalha) nevertheless Finkelstein thinks all serious historians share his mind. You can add this on Finkelstein article if you like.

Would this fit your mind ?

Ceedjee (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) i reverted because finklstein is not a reliable source - even more so when he subjectively talks about his perceptions of other scholars. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is a very reliable source. He's been attacked ad hominem, but his attackers have always been powerless against his arguments. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, You would be correct about finklstein being an extremely reliable source... if we were to live in a holocaust revisionistic space-time continuum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot answering me just above, concerning these powerless arguments. Ceedjee (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, you are the only one here claiming Finkelstein is a "very reliable source". That hardly makes for a consensus. His writings are grotesquely against the mainstream and thus especially subject to what we call "undue weight" when and if we cite him. He is a reliable source not of solid, constructive scholarship but generally of attacks on the work of others. Contrary to your statement that "his attackers have always been powerless", I seem to recall that he lost his last academic job on account of questionable scholarship, and that it was not the first time. When you insist on quoting what he thinks of others' work, you are telling readers of this article nothing useful about what actually happened in history. Worse, you are misleading them, since any view other than Finkelstein's is branded, tendentiously, as coming from a scholar who is not serious. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Finkelstein is a reliable source, by the standards of wp:rs. He has published several books which have been controversial and gotten both favorable and unfavorable reviews. If Finkelstein claims that serious scholars concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, that's a legitimate claim of consensus by WP rules. I think it should stay in, unless you can come up with serious scholars who do not concede that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. If there's a controversy over whether Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, we should add to Finkelstein's assessment the names of some of the scholars who agree, along with the names of some of the scholars who don't agree.

I don't agree that Finkelstein's writings are "grotesque," whatever that means. They may go against the mainstream among the American Jewish fundraising establishment, but they don't go against the mainstream among Israeli Jews, where it is a subject of vigorous debate, or even among American Jews, many of whom agree with him. Nbauman (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nbauman, they don't go against mainstream israeli views? you have any reliable sources saying this? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the citation, he claims that all serious scholars concede the point. He is not qualified to represent all serious scholars (perhaps no one is); "serious" is tendentious, and so is "concede". I think you will find, upon looking closely, that he is not widely respected for balanced views or scholarship. Why would you want to use him as a source, other than to steer the article away from objectivity? Hertz1888 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, who are the scholars that Finkelstein cites who concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed? Nbauman (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ilan Pappe for one. Suicup (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Some people think that Finkelstein represents a minority pov. Maybe this is so if the general public is considered. But the general public's opinion is not what should guide us here. We should be guided by reliable sources. By the consensus of scholars, not by public opinion. If 51% of Americans believe they found WMD in Iraq should we write that here?

@Hertz: You are misquoting me: I said his attackers have always been powerless against his arguments . Apparently you can't argue with that. His reliability has not even been scratched!

I'm not required to argue pro or con their powerlessness, and decline to be drawn into that highly subjective side issue. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore you acuse me of saying all other scholars are not serious. I've never said, nor implied that. If you can find a reliable source having another pov you're free to put it in the article.

You don't have to say it; the wording "all serious scholars concede" implies that anyone who doesn't concede is not a serious scholar. I am certain I am not the only one who would read it that way. Also, since to concede is to recognize a truth, use of that word "concede" is very sneaky -- implying that a truth has been established for the "serious scholars" of Finkelstein's choosing (and yours) to recognize. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Finkelstein is qualified to judge on the consensus of scholars on this subject. He has followed the discussion for twenty years, and he is a good scientist, as was confirmed by DePaul University.

That must be why they denied him tenure. Maybe it is time for you to find yourself a new hero. Please stop wasting our time here, and your own. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not specifying who he means with all serious scholars, but I can imagine he means

Flapan: the Jewish army […] under the leadership of Ben-Gurion, planned and executed the expulsion (Simha Flapan , 1987, ‘The Palestinian Exodus of 1948’, J. Palestine Studies 16 (4), p. 3-26.),

Morris: There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing. That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them [[9]],

Pappe: The ethnic cleansing of Palestine,

Masalha: Expulsion of the Palestinians,

Walid Khalidi: Plan Dalet: master plan for the conquest of Palestine, J. Palestine Studies 18 (1), 1988, p. 4-33.

I think he also means Gelber: The local deportations of May-June 1948 appeared both militarily vital and morally justified., ... These later refugees were sometimes literally deported across the lines. In certain cases, IDF units terrorized them to hasten their flight, and isolated massacres - particularly during the liberation of Galilee and the Negev in October 1948 - expedited the flight. ... The vast majority of Israelis did not think that the Palestinians should fare better [and be allowed to return] and wanted to apply this principle to the Middle East [[10]], but I'm not sure of that. As you can read in the source, Gelber seems to be especially concerned with justifying Zionist behavior, and I'm not sure how serious Finkelstein thinks he is. Anyway, based on what Gelber says he can hardly deny that it wasn't at least partially an ethnic cleansing.

It seems quite clear to me that at least five of these serious historians now concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed and that Gelber probably also falls into this category.

Finkelsteins statement isn't as strange as you might have thought. In fact its true! --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The question was : how do you know he refers to them !??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceedjee (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Gelber and Morris do not. (your misquotation of Morris is explained in other topic).

Nor do Masalha. Expulsion is not ethnic cleansing. Read Pappe to understand the difference.

I don't know concerning Khalidi but he does not in the article about Plan Daleth.

And remain traditionnal historians such as Shabtai Teveth, Anita Shapira, Efraim Karsh and Laqueur. New historians such as Tom Segev and Avi Shlaim who do not use that for the whole exodus (Segev does for Dani and Hiram, referring to Morris). What about David Tal and Uri Millstein ? And Dan Kurzman ? And I can also refert to French historian Henry Laurens and up to now Dominique Vidal (but he has just published a book about that).

Ceedjee (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein refers to what scholars concede now. If your interpretation is different from Finkelstein's its probably OR (or you should find a RS confirming your interpretation).

Also your 'moral' appeals to me to stop putting in my (relevant and sourced) edits is totally unconvincing: each time you do this you accompany it by an edit reversing me. Shouldn't you give the good example if you want to be convincing? --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop talking about my interpretation and Finkelstein's one.

The only issue here is your interpretation of Morris, of Finkelstein and all others.

You have been answered on many talk pages.

concede now... now when ? Flapan died in 1987. Khalidi wrote his article in 1961. Stop making fun of us.

Ceedjee (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is dissapointing indeed. First JaapBoBo tried to add some of Finkelstein's pseudo-research into the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. When he failed, he asked me to participate in [mediation]. I agreed, but JaapBoBo apparently lost interest in the mediation once we both agreed that unreliable scholars/scholarship were not to be allowed in the article. Then JaapBoBo asked an unknown entity (me? the mediator? the wikipedia community in general?) to provide a list of my arguments for why Finkelstein shouldn't be in the article so that he can rip the arguments to shreads. In fact, since it is he who wants to change the status quo, the exact opposite is true: he must provide the arguments and I am obligated to rip them to shreds. Now he's trying to add Finkelstein trash into other articles without continuing the mediation. Shame on you, JaapBoBo, for your dishonorable behavior. --GHcool (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, please behave properly. You are twisting my words. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If I am twisting JaapBoBo's words, and I deny that I am, then I think we can all agree that JaapBoBo's time and energy would be better spent clarifying his words at the mediation rather than shoving Finkelstein's pseudo-research down everybody's throats. --GHcool (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo *you* are twisting scholars'words. Ceedjee (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

recent revving

per this edit - [11]. i can sort of understand the first change/complaint (though i disagree), but i really don't see any justification for the other two changes. please expand on all three in order to accomplish consensus. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there's something you fail to understand here... You're the one making the changes, so it's up to you to justify them.

To give your question a quick answer: Israeli "feelings" are not the issue, but their recognition of a Palestinian state (or the lack thereof) is. It's not all about what the Israelis want, but also about what the Palestinians want. Taking an enemy combatant during a war (Israel has declared the Gaza Strip a war zone, so the term war applies here) is not a hostage taking but a capture. Gilad Shalit is as much a prisoner of war as the ca. 9000 Palestinians in Israeli jails.

But, as I said, you're the one introducing the change, so I'm really looking forward to your arguments for these changes. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.11.2007 11:58

capture vs. occupation

per [12].

the term occupation is a common POV charged term used mostly by palestinians and the left. i now gave it a bit of extra thought regarding a new phrasing which does not imply POV and gives more detail. i came up with this:

Local Arab nations and Israel fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, in which Israel won control over borders which remained in place until during the Six Day War, it seized control over the West Bank (Jordan) and the Gaza Strip (Egypt). (See also: West bank: History, Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt)

thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Jaakobou's proposal. --GHcool (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Capture" is factually correct and "occupation" is loaded, so I agree with "capture". <<-armon->> (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It has to be capture. Occupation is not only loaded, but arguably incorrect. (I'll not argue it here.) Hertz1888 (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so "occupation" is good when it refers to Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt but not when it is the Israelis in Gaza and the West bank? We had this discussion above and I won't restate all the arguments except for the bottom line: every official body, except for the Israeli government, uses the term "occupied".

Look, it is not a POV term and your compromise (especially the "See also:" bit) does not make the text clearer. I do not agree. pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 08:12

pedro, four people believe that the word "occupied" is loaded. considering the Jordainian article is called, Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan, i promote that we name change the egyptian article. this way, we won't be supporting a loaded "occupied" narrative. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

feelings that conditions exist vs. acceptance of

per [13].

I tend to think that the Israeli issue is not one of mere acceptance of a Palestinain state but rather the conditions they set before they agree for such a state to be created. i'll not GHCool regarding the refs he added to the article for this paragraph [14]. and in the meantime, i suggest we compromise on his version. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --GHcool (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I don't like the "feelings" phraseology. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, isn't it a bit biased to state only what Israel wants for the conflict to end? I've re-phrased GHcool's edit to make it clear that it is the non-acceptance of Palestinian sovereignty that is one of the main causes of the conflict. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 08:30

taken hostage vs. captured

per [15].

obviously, the term capture would suggest warfare. on the other hand, the term hostage is more accurate to the situation where he is held up for ransom and was kidnapped in a kidnap oriented operation. i agree that kidnap has a soft tint of POV, however - i see the term hostage as a perfect description of the situation. he was not taken to be incarcerated, and was not "captured" as a military goal, but rather as a means for leverage/negotiations - i.e. hostage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference. "Captured" and "taken hostage" are both accurate and neutral in this case. --GHcool (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In a guerrilla war a "means for leverage/negotiations" can also be a "military goal" but, like GHcool, I don't have a strong preference. Either is OK. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jaakobou. I believe that when someone is captured for the purpose of being exchanged for someone else or something of value, that person is a hostage, not merely a captive. Therefore taken hostage is the correct expression. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on Gilad Shalit uses the verbs "abducted" and "captured" (the relevant section is even labelled "Capture") and refers to Shalit as a POW. Without going into the specific arguments, with which I disagree, the term "hostage" is inconsistent. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 08:36

Would "captured and hold hostage" be satisfying ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should we purposely inject such negative language? As I said above, he is referred to as a POW, not a hostage. Calling him a hostage would be inconsistent. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 10:41

Because they is no POW when there is no war and something that sounds neutral and a little bit consistent should be found.

We are writing an encyclopaedia. Not solving the I-P conflict.

Note I don't see anything negative in holding hostages. This is an asymetric conflict, that's all. Ceedjee (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)