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
• Archive 9

"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" [1] (in ynet) over "occupied territories" [2].

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 [3]) 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 [4]. 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" [5]. you are free to open up an RfC to this issue. i still don't see the problem with my suggested compromise [6] which you reverted with the suggestion that i've gone mad. [7] 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

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 [[8]],

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 [[9]], 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 - [10]. 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

see here [11] to continue discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

i've gone and done a page move on the egyptian article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And you've conveniently ignored the entire discussion we had a week before in which it was the opposite ratio (against you) and who's arguments you failed to refute. Discussing for just half a day is somewhat jumping the gun and your move was a rather crass violation of WP:POINT. Don't make any more reverts (remember WP:3RR) until we've reached some agreement here. pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 13:08

i think your perception of the previous discussion is inaccurate. to remind you i suggested an RfC, a suggestion that you have not followed - so i started this subsection to clear up the perspectives on whether or not the term is loaded. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

you shortened the israeli point to mean something different than the actual meaning. this is why you are being reverted on this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, go read WP:Undue Weight and think about what you're reverting. This article is here to explain the conflict, not just what the Israeli side wants. pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 13:10

my personal initial edit kept the paragraph short, but you insisted on a version with a different meaning [15]. are you disputing the content or the size of it? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. if it is the size, then i believe Nickhh just increased the size of the paragrah - he added some good points, but i felt it was told from a certain perspective (POV) and lacked referencing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

how about we simply say "Israel does not feel conditions have been met for the creation of a Palestinian state", or something? that seems to provide a phrase which is fair to both sides's concerns actually, I think, in one sentence. --Steve, Sm8900 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)
that would make for the core issues to only list down the issues from the arab perspective, which was the problem to begin with. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

taken hostage vs. captured

per [16].

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 there 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)

pedro, i honestly believe we have some form of direction on this discussion but you seem reluctant to suggest a solution to this issue, rather you remain persistent on the term "captured" when a few editors explained their perspective that the term is inaccurate to describe the event. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, we know that Israel seizes the families of militants, including women and children, and places them in "administrative detention" (ie, w/o charge, w/o access to lawyers or indeed anyone at all). Shall we call this "kidnapping" or "taking hostage"? It's factual. But then, so is "captured" or "arrested" or "detained", and those terms lack the POV implication of moral outrage. The same applies to Palestinian actions. Whether "kidnapped" or "held hostage" is factual or not, "captured" is also factual, since kidnapping or taking hostage logically requires capturing. We should avoid using potentially loaded terms unless the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use the term. Oh, and the claim that lack of declared war means no POW's is particularly strange, since wars have hardly ever been declared since 1945. <eleland/talkedits> 17:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

i do believe they are not immediately presented as a bargaining chip and therefore the term hostage is incorrect. the term kidnappig suggests that there is no conflict, and therefore i would not support it for gilad shalit either. military operation - capture, bargaining chip for leverage - hostage. does the word hostage really requires an RfC?

how about this WP:RS for use of the term? CNN: Militants issue Israel hostage demands

how about your favourite source? B'Tselem: Holding Gilad Shalit as a hostage is a war crime

i'd apprecite it if this pointless debate would be over now that clear sources have been provided. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$ The Gilad Shalit article does not refer to him as a hostage. I'm sure they've had lengthier, more complete discussions with even more references than we can have here. Since this article is not about Gilad Shalit and only mentions him in passing, we should use the terminology agreed to there. This is what an RfC or mediation would tell us to do. User:Jaakobou, if you want to push the term "hostage", I suggest you go do it there first. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.11.2007 15:42

comment - wikipedia is not a reliable source. we now have 4 (CNN, BBC, Betzelem and Amnesti international) of those using the captured and held hostage phrasing. [17] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I favor the word "abducted." Here is a quote from the Gilad Shalit article (with emphasis added):

Gilad Shalit (Hebrew: גלעד שליט‎; born 28 August 1986) is an Israeli soldier who was abducted by Hamas forces on 25 June 2006...[Shalit] is the first Israeli soldier captured and held hostage by Palestinians since Nachshon Wachsman in 1994.[2] He was abducted by Hamas and is one of three Israeli soldiers to have been abducted by militants. His abduction, and the later abduction of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev by Hezbollah were key events leading up to the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon during summer 2006.

On 25 June, 2007, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories B'Tselem issued a statement[3] that "International humanitarian law absolutely prohibits taking and holding a person by force in order to compel the enemy to meet certain demands" and thus considered a war crime.

That same day, a year after Shalit's abduction, the military wing of Hamas, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, released an audio tape on which Shalit is heard sending a message to his family, friends and the Israeli government and army and appealing for a prisoner-swap deal to be reached to secure his release.

end of posting message. --Steve, Sm8900 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

support your suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's really cute. The Gilad Shalit article uses the word "hostage" after User:Jaakobou inserted it there. He inserted it after I pointed out (check out the edit summary) that that article does not use the term "hostage".

Beyond the rather blatant disruptive editing to make a WP:POINT, this is just plain bad taste. User:Jaakobou, this is the second time you've tried this kind of stunt in this discussion (remember the Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt?). If you don't let it go, this is going straight to WP:AN/I. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:06

what is cute is that you blindly revert (WP:POINT?) while ignoring the edit summary and the reason the change was made. i.e. to fit the source's text. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

just to make it easier on you, here is the source: (Amnesty on BBC). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote your source in full. The title of the article is Israel seizes Hamas legislators and the only use of the word hostage is the paragraph:

"Amnesty International, the human rights group, called for all hostages to be released and for "an end to the wanton destruction and collective punishment" by Israel."

Sounds a hell of a lot more like Amnesty referring to the Hamas legislators as "hostages", don't you think? Anyway, I'm taking that discussion back to where it belongs: Talk:Gilad Shalit#Use of the term "hostage", source. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 10:54

When we are talking about a soldier the most NPOV term is clearly captured. Clearly there is no consensus on the terms abducted or taken hostage. When there is such a large disagreement, the least loaded terms should be used and I believe captured satisfies this. Timb0h (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"held hostage" or "abducted" are exactly the terms to use here. what none of you seems to realize is that this is not analogous to an army capturing an enemy soldier; a better analogy is if an Israeli extremist group "captured" an ordinary Palestinian police officer, and said they would not release him until some convicted felon held by the Palestinian Authority were released. I think you would all protest that stridently.

what none of you seems to realize is that officially, this is not an act of the Palestinian officials, but the act of a renegade group. but you've grown so used to Palestinian extremist groups carrying out their own actions, and then getting a wink and tacit support from palestinian officials, that you've stopped viewing those as extremist acts, and alreasy start to think of them as official, legal acts. that's kind of sad. Just wanted to mention that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is no concensus on whether to use "hostage" or "abducted". These are loaded terms. Your personal opinion may be that they are appropriate, but there are many personal opinions on wikipedia. When there is no concensus we should fall back to clear descriptive words that are not loaded with emotion. Noone is suggesting covering up the facts of the case. We can describe the circumstances and leave it up to the reader to decide if he was abducted, kidnapped, being held hostage, illegally, legally or as a POW. Timb0h (talk) 15:03, 5 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)

<sigh> "Occupation" again, and Introduction

Further to the above, but more generally ... so four random Wikipedia editors in two days of discussion on a talk page disagree with the the standard terminology used for the last 40 years by the UN Security Council, the Red Cross, the US Government, 98% of countries in the world, 90% of the English-language Israeli media etc etc (it's an outright falsehood to say it's mostly used by Palestinians and the left btw) - and suddenly the word "occupied" to describe, er, territory that is occupied, is flung into the dustbin of history and excised from the earlier parts of this article? This is an old, old and very futile debate and I can't believe that it's now going on on this page too. I'd also make the point that a lot of material has been added to the opening paragraph recently by an anon editor, which has left it a bloated and one-sided parody of an introduction, stuffed with references to everything the Palestinians have ever supposedly done wrong, and what they have to do now to "deserve" their own state. For example the relatively trivial - and disputed - textbooks issue does not belong in the introduction to this article; by contrast the issues of Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements etc do. Don't take my word for it, just look at the coverage of the Annapolis summit if you want to see what issues are really at stake, and what is being discussed by serious people. --Nickhh (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

i invite you to give a content based, referenced WP:NOT#OR opinion here: [18].

i don't think that general ranting about everything you don't like with the article will get any content issues resolved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I, that's why I started to have a go at cutting back and re-balancing the introduction as well (other editors seem to have started on that as well, so hopefully it will get somewhere). I opened a new section for my comment as it was covering two separate points. And of course I wouldn't have to rant about the "occupation" issue if people didn't continually revisit it every four days or so on different articles ..... --Nickhh (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

please try to remember to not replace one perspective with the other, but add the perspective you feel is missing without taking out the other POV. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:48, 28 November 2007 (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. - [19]

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, 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)

Restructure necessary

Nickhh, I applaud your attempt at starting to clean up the intro a bit. I did some work on it myself, which seems to have caused a bit of trouble. I don't think the spring clean should stop at the intro though. The whole article needs to be reworked IMO, especially the way the history is dealt with in a structural sense. eg you have pre 1945 events in the intro, then in the formal history section you have 1945-1967 and 1993-today (where is 1967-1993???). This is really not good. Given the length of History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is obviously going to be difficult to summarize, however I do not think the current version is adequate. The current structure of the article is promising:

• Intro
• History
• Issues which need to be resolved
• Current Status

However I think that it should be modified to

• Intro: (moving any history which only occurs here into the history section - ie all of it. Any history should be as brief as possible - otherwise it is a slippery slope to a mess)
• History: (I think specific subheadings should be something debated here - we need to be brutal here, as there is a very large history article already, which means that this section has the potential to overrun the article)
• Themes (Zionism, Arab nationalism etc)
• Actors (a way to showcase the multitude of positions on the issue - there is no single Palestinian or Israeli voice)
• Issues which need to be resolved: (I think the issues are ok, but content needs to be cleaned up; perhaps give the position of each actor above on each issue)
• Possible solutions: (ie two-state, one state etc) (I also think 'Peace Proposals should moved out of the history section and put here: given the nature of the article, i think they should have their own section; again bring in the actors)
• Current Status: but shorter than it currently is (ie should really only be 2007 onwards). Superfluous info should be moved into the relevant section of the article.

Suicup (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Edited Suicup (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the History in this article takes up too much space. There is a perfectly good history article already. This is about the overall conflict not just the history. Right now, this article is approaching a poor mans version of the history article. I think the history section should be pruned, and in the intro, there possibly shouldn't be any history at all. I know this is a pretty radical proposition, however I think this article could be so much better. The problem is I think many people (including myself on occasion) have missed the point and not kept focus on what should be the purpose of the article. Suicup (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How does one discuss a historical conflict in isolation from a discussion of its history? It seems silly to have two separate articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. john k (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well they're difficult to disentangle of course, but I think there is a case for an article which focuses on where the conflict is now, and what can be done to solve it. That will obviously refer to the history (and direct links can be made to the "History" article), but will take up enough space in its own right. I broadly agree with where Suicup is coming from on structure, although the only thing I'm likely to look out for to be honest is whether the intro remains clear, focused and prioritised, rather than being used as an ever-expanding dumping ground for partisan observations about the history of the conflict. --Nickhh (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

john k in a way I totally agree with you, and one could make an argument that this article could be deleted. However as it stands, we have an article. My point is that it shouldn't just be a poor imitation of the History article. My perception is that people will come to this article wanting more 'higher level' information about the conflict. That is, who does it involve? what are the key issues? what are some underlying themes? are there any solutions? Now, the question of how/why have we got where we are now (ie history) is obviously important, but IMO in this article not the main focus.

Nickhh is exactly right when he says that the intro is becoming a dumping ground for observations about the history of the conflict - half the stuff in the intro simply doesn't belong there!

Suicup (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: On the use of the term "occupied"

restarted here: [20]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As per Status of territories captured by Israel, those territores can and should be referred to as "occupied". Some editors, however, argue that the term is POV and biased. Comments and arguments for or against are welcome. pedro gonnet - talk - 29.11.2007 08:22

It's a no-brainer, Pedro. One cannot argue that a term is 'biased' when it is standard in international legal language. The phrase 'Palestinian Occupied territories' is current, and endorsed by the text of the International High Court decision of 2004. Indeed, to argue the contrary, is proof of bias, because editors who reject it are rejecting the conventions of international legal usage, for an alternative terminology current only in Israel, which unilaterally refuses to recognize the validity of that International Court's 14-1 decision. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the exact terms are "occupied territories" (see eg resolution 242)

They don't often refer to the *palestinian* occupied terrories. [21]

which is not a wise diplomatic langage.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant "Occupied Palestinian Territories" (google resutls). pedro gonnet - talk - 29.11.2007 14:37

yes... yes...

but anyway. I meant it may not be clever to refer to these as Palestinian.

jsut from the international point of view etc.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$ Let us not get too lost in specifics. What this is about is using the term "occupied" for territories that are effectively "occupied". The contentious phrases are of the type:

• after victory in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip...
• the continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is one of the major sources of...
• the United Nations has called on Israel to pull out of all territories occupied since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war...

and so on. These are the types of wordings that are being deleted. I'm not talking about using the phrase "Occupied Territories" every time we refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip specifically (although the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" should be used if the context is to discuss occupation), but when we refer to the occupation or occupied territories in general, as per the examples above. In these cases the term "occupied" is correct, concise and widely used.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 29.11.2007 15:14

yes. That is indeed the case and wp must use that term too in that context. Ceedjee (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

One can argue the case that presently, at least part of the '67 territories are not "occupied", since East Jerusalem and the Golan have been de facto annexed. It's a weak case, but it's available to be made. However, I've noticed that some editors want to remove the word "occupied" even when referring to the initial seizure of the territory. This is just nationalist exceptionalism and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By definition, land which is not legally the territory of a state, and which is captured in military operations by that state, is occupied until something is done to change its status. <eleland/talkedits> 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - this thread is not really an RfC IMHO, this is an opinion piece by one side of the discussion. please go over the notes for how to open an RfC [22], and try to reopen this thing properly. see example here [23], and note the instructions. i also suggest you note (rather than ignore) the issues raised by the other side of the discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you think it's such a bad thing (I had followed the instructions you linked to -- both are identical -- and looked at the current running RfCs for inspiration), then feel free to add "Statement" and "Comment" subsections. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 29.11.2007 17:11

Okay, wise guys, mea culpa. I will practice my seppuku rituals with a preprandial phlebotomical incision on my typing digits as an act of self-chastisement. I meant 'Occupied Palestinian Territory' as per the International Court of Justice decision of 2004. See the following passages. There can be no dispute, and no discussion, on this, since it is simpy a matter of technical legal language, and the highest world authorities sanction the use of the term 'occupied'. According to my search of the relevant document, cited below, the alternative wording 'disputed territories' is not used in the ICJ decision. As to Eleland's remark, the ICJ decision specifically rejects the status of annexation, and refers insistently to East Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory:-

• INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2004 9 July 2004 2004 9 July

General List No. 131 LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

• “Legal consequences” of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem

• Settlements established by Israel in breach of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory . Construction of the wall and its associated régime create a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent . Risk of situation tantamount to de facto annexation .

• Applicability of those instruments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

• Restrictions on freedom of movement of inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

• Recalling in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development as well as those demanding the complete cessation of settlement activities, Gravely concerned at the commencement and continuation of construction by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources

• 90. Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the other participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In particular, in paragraph 3 of Annex I to the report of the Secretary-General, entitled Summary Legal Position of the Government of Israel it is stated that Israel does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, citing “the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt” and inferring that it is “not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention”. (nota bene, in this document the summary of Israel's legal position uses the phrase)

• 91. The Court would recall that the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951 and that Israel is a party to that Convention. Jordan has also been a party thereto since 29 May 1951. Neither of the two States has made any reservation that would be pertinent to the present proceedings

• 96. The Court would moreover note that the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention approved that interpretation at their Conference on 15 July 1999. They issued a statement in which they “reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. Subsequently, on 5 December 2001, the High Contracting Parties, referring in particular to Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, once again reaffirmed the “applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,. They further reminded the Contracting Parties participating in the Conference, the parties to the conflict, and the State of Israel as occupying Power, of their respective obligations.

• 114. Having determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to reply to the question posed by the General Assembly, and having ruled in particular on the applicability within the Occupied Palestinian Territory of international humanitarian law and human rights law, the Court will now seek to ascertain whether the construction of the wall has violated those rules and principles.

• 120 In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

• The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

(nota bene: the ICJ actually cites 'Palestine' as the country occupied)

• • (A)121. Whilst the Court notes the assurance given by Israel that the construction of the wall does not amount to annexation and that the wall is of a temporary nature (see paragraph 116 above), it nevertheless cannot remain indifferent to certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine,

• • (B)162. The Court has reached the conclusion that the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is contrary to international law and has stated the legal consequences that are to be drawn from that illegality. The Court considers itself bound to add that this construction must be placed in a more general context. Since 1947, the year when General Assembly resolution 181 (II) was adopted and the Mandate for Palestine was terminated, there has been a succession of armed conflicts, acts of indiscriminate violence and repressive measures on the former mandated territory. The Court would emphasize that both Israel and Palestine are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law, one of the paramount purposes of which is to protect civilian life.

In sum, this is a no-brainer, meaning, international law uses the contested term, occupied and therefore those who reject it, as Jaakobou, reject international law, its decisions and terminology. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

you're not really helping this RfC progress, please make note of my previous comment on RfC structure. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we really arguing about this again? "Occupied Territories" is by far the most common term to refer to the territories Israel captured in 1967. It is used by everyone outside Israel, and by many people within Israel. To use a propaganda term like "Disputed Territories" is to elevate a very small minority right wing zionist POV over all others, and obviously it is not wikipedia's job to make up our own "neutral" terms (especially because, in this case, even a made up term would be POV, in that it would serve to validate the right wing zionist POV that use of "Occupied Territories" is wrong, in spite of its vast predominance in common usage). Common usage obviously supports "Occupied Territories," and there is no alternative term which anyone could possibly agree is NPOV. Why do we have to refight this battle every fifteen minutes? john k (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: On the use of the term "occupied" (2nd try)

Template:RFCpol This is a request for comment regarding the use of the term "occupied" when referring to Israeli-occupied territories.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Preference to use the term occupation when necessary

• What this is about is using the term "occupied" for territories that are effectively "occupied". The contentious phrases are of the type:

• after victory in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip...
• the continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is one of the major sources of...
• the United Nations has called on Israel to pull out of all territories occupied since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war...

and so on. These are the types of wordings that are being deleted. I'm not talking about using the phrase "Occupied Territories" every time we refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip specifically (although the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" should be used if the context is to discuss occupation), but when we refer to the occupation or occupied territories in general, as per the examples above. In these cases the term "occupied" is correct, concise and widely used. pedro gonnet - talk - 30.11.2007 08:36

• yes. That is indeed the case and wp must use that term too in that context. Ceedjee (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• One can argue the case that presently, at least part of the '67 territories are not "occupied", since East Jerusalem and the Golan have been de facto annexed. It's a weak case, but it's available to be made. However, I've noticed that some editors want to remove the word "occupied" even when referring to the initial seizure of the territory. This is just nationalist exceptionalism and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By definition, land which is not legally the territory of a state, and which is captured in military operations by that state, is occupied until something is done to change its status. <eleland/talkedits> 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• In sum, this is a no-brainer, meaning, international law uses the contested term, occupied and therefore those who reject it, as Jaakobou, reject international law, its decisions and terminology. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Are we really arguing about this again? "Occupied Territories" is by far the most common term to refer to the territories Israel captured in 1967. It is used by everyone outside Israel, and by many people within Israel. To use a propaganda term like "Disputed Territories" is to elevate a very small minority right wing zionist POV over all others, and obviously it is not wikipedia's job to make up our own "neutral" terms (especially because, in this case, even a made up term would be POV, in that it would serve to validate the right wing zionist POV that use of "Occupied Territories" is wrong, in spite of its vast predominance in common usage). Common usage obviously supports "Occupied Territories," and there is no alternative term which anyone could possibly agree is NPOV. Why do we have to refight this battle every fifteen minutes? john k (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• All the above posts make the obvious points in some detail. This really is a non-debate, centred around how much some editors simply don't like the phrase despite the fact that is the phrase used - sorry to be slightly flippant here - everywhere in the real world, by everyone in the real world. The comments cut & pasted below (actually from one specific example of this debate) only go to flag that up - no argument or explanation is offered, just a vague assertion that the phrase is "loaded" etc. Well yes it is I guess, if by "loaded" you mean "descriptive" according to all standards of international law, and according to near unanimous usage in the worlds of government and the media. The description "Serial Killer" is loaded, but there are plenty of examples of people who are, by accepted definition, "Serial Killers". This is not a POV issue, it is an accuracy issue. It's slightly embarrassing that 3 or 4 Wikipedia editors genuinely think they can overturn a totally standard and accepted phraseology. --Nickhh 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Preference not to use the term occupation when unnecessary

• I believe the term occupation, is a politically charged term, and should be avoided when there is no intention or need to expand on the topic WP:TOPIC. Israel won territory (and lost other territory) in a war imposed upon her by the surrounding nations. to insist on the politically charged, legal terminology within' this context, seems to promote anti-israeli POV. therefore, i suggested this as a replacement (when using the term 'captured' was under contention). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

original	suggested replacement
Israel declared its independence. Local Arab nations and Israel fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, in which Israel won control over borders which remained in place until its victory in the Six Day War led to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.	Israel declared its independence. 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). However, during the the 1948 war, Jordan captured Jerusalem, expelled Jewish population, and vandalized many Jewish holy places, including synagogues, and the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and from 1948-1967, prevented Jews from visiting Jerusalem. (See also: Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan, Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt)	by Jaakobou

• 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)

Comments

• I took the liberty of copying the main arguments down into this new section. If any of the authors take offence or feel I have taken their words out of context, please tell me and I will self-revert. User:Jaakobou, care to join in now? pedro gonnet - talk - 30.11.2007 08:36
• i added the comments for preferring 'capture' over 'occupied' on said paragraph - "seized" was another option preferred to the loaded term. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• question - What exactly is "loaded" about the term "occupation"? john k 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • reply - [24] - control and authority over a territory belonging to a state passes to a hostile army. i marked out the most controversial part of the general definition; as far as this conflict goes, the area did not legally belong to any government and the term implies that it legally belonged to someone as was stolen from that country. if this explanation does not suffice, we can open a subsection to the subject where people state whether or not they see the word as politically charged or not... however, i believe several editors already stated just that. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • debunk: The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (aka Resolution 182), which was the legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel, also postulates, using the same language, an Arab state on half of the territory of the British Mandate. This is the state to which the West Bank and Gaza Strip belong. pedro gonnet - talk - 04.12.2007 15:29
      • reply - (1) which arab state would that be? (2) didn't the arab states rejected the UN proposal? (offtopic: "debunk"?!) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not a useful source for definition of terms. Dictionary.com defines occupation in this sense as "the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory." American Heritage gives "Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces." In neither case does the territory have to "belong to a state". john k (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• The question has already been arbitrated, not by anonymous wikipedians but by distinguished representatives of the best legal opinion in the world, i.e. by the International Court of Justice. Stack the vote by emailing around friends for consensus as you will, the area is technically, in international law, 'Occupied Palestinian Territory' and any attempt to censor this established usage violates language as it does reality. As to the POV junk Jaakobou's writing has dished out, I suggest if this kind of rhetoric is accepted, then it opens the door to numerous edits from the other side detailing the massive amount of destruction of infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza consequent upon Israel's occupation of those areas, and therefore cannot be acceptable, if only because to accept it would induce useless 'balancing' statements of a similar POV-gearing type.Nishidani 16:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, much of Palestine is occupied by Israel. The biggest problem with Israel is how they treat the indigenous people of the land they occupied to create a country. If you read the Balfour Declaration, it states that "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". This has not been done, which is why there is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So yes, feel free to use the word occupy. The only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to rename the country Palestine and provide civil rights to everyone. 199.125.109.58 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • i see you don't know much about the issues behind the "indigenous" mythology or the pan-arab movement's history. The only solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict is to stop holding descendants of Arabs from the mandate days as hostages for political reasons. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Both of you, please try to confine your remarks to improving the article in line with policy. General discussions on history or morality are unlikely to resolve anything, or to be themselves resolved. <eleland/talkedits> 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is this a joke? Are you trying to inject some levity? You think it's "loaded" to use the term that everybody except Israel uses (although Israeli politicians, even Sharon, were known to slip up and talk about the "occupation" sometimes), but it's non-loaded to offer a laundry-list of Israeli greivances and Arab violations, with no reference to the concurrent Israeli depravity (shooting fellahin "infiltrating" back into their farms, the post-war military rule of Palestinians within Israel, regime of land confiscation, dispossession, and "present-absentee"-ism, draining the Jordan River.....) <eleland/talkedits> 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Suggested compromise.Ok, here's a suggestion: how about we simply have a paragraph explaining what is meant by the term "Occupied Territories", and explain that the phrase is used widely, even though Israel does not consider all of the pre-1967 West Bank land to be illegitimately occupied.

Then after that, we use the phrase "Occupied Territories", with capital letters to make clear that we are using an official term of usage, and not necessarily making any statement or verdict here as to the political/diplomatic status of the territories. Please note, I am agreeing to use of the "occupied" phrase, with merely some explanatory text somewhere in the beginning, which clearly this article would need to have anyway. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is more than one article detailing the phrase "Occupied Territories" -- I don't think adding a paragraph here will help much. Furthermore, if we do that for "Occupied Territories", we'd have to, following WP:Undue weight, add a paragraph for the phrases "British Mandate" vs. "Historic Palestine", "Exodus" vs. "Ethnic cleansing", "Irgun" vs. "Terrorists", etc... I also think that any "compromise" on such a clear issue favours the anti-occupationist side disproportionally. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 03.12.2007 08:51

I don't think I've ever heard anything more needlessly execessive than the last comment. i fail to see what is excessive about adding one paragraph defining an important term, especially one which is so important. I AGREE with your position, and you STILL disagree with me? You have to be kidding me. this is a little unbelievable. Ok, guess we'll keep the article protected. thanks so much--not. --Steve, Sm8900 14:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pedro that a paragraph would be excessive. If anything is needed at all, a simple one sentence footnote should suffice.Suicup 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading in the Israel article about how it considers the territories to be "disputed" rather than "occupied," because they never belonged to any state which is a requirement for occupation. This of course is an Israeli POV, but perhaps should be worked into the article. It is true that generally the territories are considered "occupied territories," and as such it would be OK to use that term to describe them. A decent compromise would be to call them "occupied territories," but with a footnote noting the Israeli POV. This IIRC was what was done with the Israel article.Ngchen 04:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but no, footnotes seem a bit too obscure for this. I think one sentence is ok, but I feel it would be better if placed somewhere within the article. --

Steve, Sm8900 15:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is a footnote 'obscure'? it is exactly the sort of tool you use for an issue like this. Suicup 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I appreciate your trying to find a compromise, but adding a paragraph to satisfy the lone Israeli POV would only open a huge can of worms. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 04.12.2007 15:18

I'm not trying to find a compromise, i'm expresing my own views on the nature of this article. I am concerned by the above comment which denigrates the Israeli side. The view I describe is sourced in documents of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Israeli Settlements and International Law Israeli Foeriegn ministry. It states:

"Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a compromise on this issue.

End of post. --Steve, Sm8900 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're concerned? How do you think any Palestinian in the West Bank or Gaza Strip feels when you refer to raids, checkpoints, house demolitions, economic sanctions, targeted assassinations and collateral damage as a mere "dispute" and not an "occupation"? Denigrated maybe?

Look, it's nice of you to have supplied the quotation and all, but nobody here is suggesting that nobody calls it the term "disputed". Yes, the Israeli government uses it, but they are the only official body to do so. The fact that even the Israeli Supreme Court uses the term "occupied" should be enough proof that they are in error. pedro gonnet - talk - 04.12.2007 16:11

thanks for your reply. Could you please explain what is so excessive about a one-sentence summation of this issue? whatever you may think of the Israeli government, even if you think they are a pack of liars, the official, publicly-stated views of the central Israeli government are clearly notable, since, officially speaking, they are one half of this conflict. The other half is the Palestinian government.

By the way, it's nice that you feel you have proof that "they are in error." we do not render verdicts here as to who is "in error." we report facts. I agree with you that the opinion of political advocates for Israel need not be given undue weight. however the statements of the Israeli govt are not an opinion; they are a factual part of the conflict. in other words, they are not notable as a view of the conflict; they are notable because they are the conflict. so if you think israel is in error, it only helps your side to make the official Israeli views plain on this . --Steve, Sm8900 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely: the position of the Israeli government is notable and should be stated. However, it should only be stated where the nomenclature is the actual topic of the article or wherever the nomenclature has any relevance -- not every time the word "occupied" is used.

But you're somehow missing the point that if you make this exception for the "occupied" vs. "disputed" issue, you're going to have to allow it on a number of other names, which would make this and many other articles completely illegible. pedro gonnet - talk - 04.12.2007 17:22

Possible footnote text:

Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict. The Israeli government uses Disputed Territories. The area is also referred to as Judea and Samaria by some extreme settler groups.

I added the last bit purely for informational purposes, not to push a view. Suicup 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Further debate; style, etc

I am NOT TRYING to expalin a term. I am TRYING to expalain this important ISSUE. --Steve, Sm8900 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, as far as I can tell, the issue here is which language to use in the article. There is one official term which we should be using, however clearly other actors (such as the Israeli govt) use a different term. Some editors here have expressed dismay that one term is being used without acknowledging the others. A footnote solves this problem by listing other terms in a way which doesn't clutter the article. I do not see your point here? Suicup 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Ok, but this issue has nothing to do with the current article. There are several articles detailing this issue which give ample space to the "disputed" position. We do not need footnotes describing issues for every name or term we use. pedro gonnet - talk - 04.12.2007 17:52

Thankls for your reply. however, sorry, but I do not see your point. the information which i refer to is actually already in the article, under "Settlements." i simply want to add a phrase explaining the use of terminology. After that, I am basically giving complete agreement to you on the terms to use. i do not see why there needs to be any further issue over a small phrase or sentence which would explain terminology. --Steve, Sm8900 17:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pedro, thanks for your reply. However, this article has everything to do with every issue in this conflict, since this is the overview. I agree with you that we should not overstate issues, in order to over-extend this article, so i would not write this too lengthily. --Steve, Sm8900 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible solution

What is wrong with a footnote? Can you explain how it clutters the article? I agree that the footnote should not explain the issue, but rather list possible alternatives and direct the user to an article where there already is a discussion. I did not see this information under 'settlements' - in fact i couldnt really find a discussion anywhere in this article. Here is another attempt.

Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict. The Israeli government uses Disputed Territories. The area is also referred to as Judea and Samaria by some extreme settler groups. For a discussion see Palestinian_territories

Suicup 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Suicup, that text sounds totally fine like a good start, with the following changes, and if placed in the article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict. The Israeli government uses Disputed Territories, to indicate its position that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967.* The area is also referred to as Judea and Samaria by some extreme settler groups.

* Ref: Israeli Settlements and International Law, Israel Foreign Ministry website, 5/4/01, accessed 7/11/07.

Thanks Steve, however if you read further down, a much better solution was suggested by Pedro. If we simply pipe Occupied Territories to Status_of_territories_captured_by_Israel, ie Occupied Territories, it benefits everyone, and is the cleanest method - this is exactly how a 'wiki' should work. Furthermore, while i do advocate footnoting certain points, i am warming to pedro's 'slippery slope' argument below. I mean no offense, but his argument applies equally to all controversial terms so really the solution agreed upon for this one will most likely be applied to all of them for the sake of consistency. saying you don't have an opinion on the other terms is a bit of a copout IMO. cheers Suicup (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i know your motives here are positive. however I find your answer slightly counter-productive. please judge my suggestion on its own merits, not on the basis of whether some hypothetical editor later on might use it to shoehorn in more terms. besides if other people want more definitions for other key terms, and they have good reasons for that, then we can always accomodate them as well.

I do not agree with pedro's suggestion. i would like simply a sentence or two to accomodate this. there is no reason that this article cannot accomodate an additional sentence, in my opinion. so i do not think that is unreasobable, and I am unclear as to why that cannot be implemented. thanks for your reply. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Piping the link as Pedro suggests is a perfect use of the wiki medium. It accommodates alternative viewpoints with minimal clutter. Having explanatory sentences throughout the article will quickly make it a mess, not to mention ruin the flow. How is the reader supposed to keep a train of thought going when every 3 sentences he is confronted with a segway accommodating every possible interpretation of a word. The discussion regarding 'occupied' doesn't exist in a bubble - how can you not see this? If we are going to be consistent (not just in this article, but all articles in the category - which are in need of a severe cleanup) we need to make this discussion apply globally. By having firm resolutions, the same arguments no longer have to be debated again and again and again which is the current situation. The article already is a mess IMO - I proposed a structural rewrite however nobody seemed keen to join me. IMO, all this tinkering misses the point. If significant progress is to be made, we have to aggressively rework the article. Suicup (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. i will try to think about it further. in the meantime, i suggest we continue of course to consider all others' input from all other comments and postings here. Of course, i am open to any other comments which anyone may choose to post here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

by the way, one more thing i feel i should add: I dobn't plan to comment here continually as this discussion takes shape. so if you can find consensus with anyone else at all, please feel free to do so. i don't plan to necessarily comment when others are genuinely finding consensus here, merely when i am directly addressed. So i am not sure why this article is still edit-protected, or why admins are still concerned. if you can find other editors to reach consensus, I will allow the process to go forward. Alternatively, if the talk page remains stable as it basically is now, we can simply leave things generally in equilibrium, and let the admin come back at some point and address the edit-protection at some point. thanks. (I will now generally step aside here where possible, abnd allow others to comment.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(reindent). i would just like to ask, is there silence here because most pro-Israel editors here accept my proposal, and would be willing to abide by it, and are waiting for a reply from the other side? Or is there silence here because there are other issues which they feel are completely unresolved? I ask this in order to be fair to the those on the other side of this issue, as I feel that many of them have already in large part indicated what sort of solutions they might be willing to accept. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I and others think the piped link solution is best and you are going to have a hard time convincing me otherwise, because I see so much going in favour of it. As it stands, me , Nickhh, Pedro (and steve, sort of) think it is a good idea. Given the silence, i'd say that is close to a consensus. Suicup (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

responses

If you want, enter your responses below, to the proposal which is shown above. (You may enter your response, no matter which side of this issue you are on.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reading my 'original' proposal and notice it had been modified (lengthened). Despite the fact that I dont don't agree with it anymore, it is very bad form for someone to put words into my mouth. Suicup (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Favor proposal

1. strong favor. per comments above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

Oppose this proposal, but this is the only issue of concern

1. GHcool - Suicup's proposal on 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC) contains a dubious claim ("Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict"). If this claim can be cited to a reliable source, then I'll accept the proposal. Otherwise, I will reject it unless the claim is amended so that it conforms with a reliable source. --GHcool (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

ok. thanks for your reply. how's this as an initial item? article: Israel and the occupied territories, US State Dept., Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, February 28, 2005. it states:

"Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem during the 1967 War. Pursuant to the May 1994 Gaza-Jericho Agreement and the September 1995 Interim Agreement, Israel transferred most responsibilities for civil government in the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank to the newly created Palestinian Authority (PA). The 1995 Interim Agreement divided the territories into three types of areas denoting different levels of Palestinian Authority and Israeli occupation control. Since Palestinian extremist groups resumed the use of violence in 2000, Israeli forces have resumed control of a number of the PA areas, citing the PA's failure to abide by its security responsibilities.

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That proves that the U.S. has referred to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "the occupied territories" before. The burden of proof for the clause "used by virtually all actors in the conflict" has not been met. --GHcool (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but how many parties do you want? We already know that the UN< EU, and most major newspapers and governments use that term. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In order for the phrase "Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict" to be acceptable, the following must be done:

1. Cite sources proving that "virtually all actors in the conflict" (meaning every actor except Israel) calls the West Bank and Gaza Strip "occupied territories" as their official term. The other actors include the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, the E.U., the U.N., the Arab League, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, the P.A., Hamas, Fatah, etc. etc.
2. "Palestinian territories," "disputed territories," or "West Bank and Gaza Strip" must not be used interchangeably with the term "occupied territories" in the above actors' official writings in order to make that term the "official" one. --GHcool (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In the article Status of territories captured by Israel there is a good list of who says what. Remember that we are only trying to introduce the term "occupied" when the context requires it. If I remember correctly, the sentence that started this whole dispute was something like "after the 1967 war, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip".

In any case, I'm against Steve's proposal. I favour the wikilink I suggested earlier. pedro gonnet - talk - 19.12.2007 08:33

Steve, are you able to explain specifically why you oppose the piped wikilink proposal? Suicup (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for your question. Only because I don't see why it is so excessive just to add 2-3 sentences. If you want, i can agree to just one sentence. or just a phrase. is there a way that we can compromise here? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, i was going to try to address this at length, but now that GHcool nixed the mediation, I'm ready to agree to a more immediate solution. So let me know what you think, and we'll reach a compromise on this fairly quickly. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding a footnote like that is not good Wikipedia style and the footnote can by no means contain as much information on the subject as the separate article on that topic. Also, when we write "Israel occupied the WB and GS", what are you going to write in the footnote? That the term "occupied" is not preferred by Israel? What does that have to do with the statement? That's just inserting a POV-statement because you don't like the word "occupied"... pedro gonnet - talk - 19.12.2007 14:55

[re-indent]] I don't mean to use that text in any footnote; I mean that it should be put somewhere in the article.

Pedro, this has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. i am surprised at you for saying that, and I am slightly taken aback and hurt by your mischaracterization of my motives and actions. We are all dealing with issues which are of great sensitivity to all of us, and it would behoove us to give each other the benefit of the doubt when possible. i have always tried to give you respect, and wouyld appreciate it if you would please show me the same courtesy. thank you.

In answer to your question, no, it's not because i don't like it. It's because the status of these territories is one of the major defining issues of this entire conflict. Are you saying you didn't already know that? Let's try to avoid being a bit disingenuous with each other, ok? thanks.

By the way, to answer your question further, my text would refer to text from the Israeli Foreign Ministry only. i would not refer to any commentator, political group, political opinion or set of ideologies. It would only refer to a brief official definition and clarification. So I hope that sounds like an good and useful response to your concerns. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, with all due respect, I think you're forgetting what this discussion and RfC is about. The whole problem started with the wholesale deletion of the word "occupied" in all its forms from the article. The issue was the refusal to call the occupation an "occupation".

I have nothing against mentioning, at an appropriate place in the article, that the nomenclature and it's implications regarding the Geneva Conventions is an issue. I do, however, object to a footnote or qualifier every time we use the word "occupied". pedro gonnet - talk - 19.12.2007 15:23

Oh. so do I. I would simply like an initial note of explanation. i think then we can more or less use the term "occupied", give or take some references in one or two other relevant issue sub-sections. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is where I differ: if we can't use the term "occupied" in the introduction without first explaining that some people have a problem with that wording, then it's introducing POV: It's putting semantics before content and opinion before information. Using a Wikilink is a good compromise since it doesn't automatically highlight some controversy before the word is actually used, whereas a qualifier points more to the controversy than to the issue (i.e. occupation) itself. pedro gonnet - talk - 19.12.2007 15:40

we probably don;t need the text to be in the introduction. we can put it in the body of the article. is there a section you had in mind? let me know, and I'll try to think about which section to use on my own, and get back to you. please note, i am not proposing a footnote or a wikilink, but rather some regular text tio appear somewhere within the article. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a paragraph to the section "The status of the occupied territories". The first sentence there alludes to the problem and could be extended to include the nomenclature issue. pedro gonnet - talk - 19.12.2007 16:04

Oppose this, and also have other issues in contention

1. Enter user name.

• indicate issues, if you wish.

I already rescinded my proposal in favour of Pedro's which was to simply pipe the link to an appropriate page explaining the different meanings. My reasons have already been stated, however in a nutshell: it is simple, clean, best use of the wiki medium, and IMO fair to all parties. Suicup (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

further debate

(EC) Ok, we're back to where we were a couple of lines farther up... Tell me, Steve, would you like there to be a footnote on every term that anybody considers loaded or controversial? Consider the terms "Palestinian people" (raging debate as we speak), "Zionists", "West Bank", "Gaza Strip", "exodus", "hostage" (i.e. Gilad Shailt), "Palestine", "abandoned properties and villages", "rocket attacks", "hudna", etc... Can I get a statement from you to that effect?

Furthermore, your argument that the topic is detailed further on in the text is an excellent reason not to add a footnote for its use in the introduction. pedro gonnet - talk - 04.12.2007 18:05

Pedro, no i am not asking for footnotes on all those terms. I am asking for a simple, concise, even-handed solution on this term. Let's work together and add the one or two sentences which can be fair both to my concerns and to your very legitimate concerns, ok? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on any of those terms. I'm not suggesting that any of them should be included or not included. All I'm commenting on is this specific issue. If you feel any of those phrases or points should be included, feel free to suggest or propose it, and we can discuss. --Steve, Sm8900 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pedro, it isn't detailed further on in the article, and nor should it be IMO. As you say there are plenty of other articles. However given this is the overarching summary article of the entire issue, it makes sense to have signposts everywhere to all relevant articles. Suicup 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I suggest the following solution: instead of using "occupied", we use, in the first occurence of the term, "occupied". This way, any user can follow the link and read-up on both sides of the issue if he or she wants to. Any takers? pedro gonnet - talk - 04.12.2007 19:17 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try to think about this, and then reply. perhaps others here could also comment as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Pedro. Suicup 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pedro - simply use the term "Occupied", since this is the agreed current term (as above, with fringe dissent) and this article should be about the current conflict, and what should be done in respect of those territories now. The wiki-link to that, and other relevant links, can then take people to detailed discussion about the legal status of the territories, and to the history of the conflict. --Nickhh 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just on a side note, it is a shame there is so much duplication of material on Wiki, eg for the piped link you quoted (which I think is a good choice) virtually the same info exists on Palestinian territories, Israeli-occupied territories and International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The discussion we are having here (ie do debates on one page and then link to it, rather than having the same debate on every page) should be applied globally to all articles in this category IMO. It would clean up everything so nicely. Suicup 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, once all these little disputes have been resolved, I propose putting a big banner at the top of the page stating the several issues which have already been resolved as a result of talk page discussion (with wikilinks to the relevant archive), and directing the user to only reopen debate after they: 1. have read the archived discussion. 2. are positive there is new information that wasn't discussed originally. Suicup 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess we should start considering merging or cross-linking the articles you mentionned. In any case, I see a lot of editing in our collective futures... ;) Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 04.12.2007 20:43

Comment-- I'm entering the fray a bit late here, but I believe that the use of the term "occupied" is non-controversial. It is the correct term from every standpoint except the most nakedly propagandistic one. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

comment - i think you're not following the discussion. it's not about the possibility of using the term 'occupied' but rather the overuse of it to situations where it's non-valid, such as israel capturing territory from egypt/jordan who also captured territory which was not legally owned by anyone. the term occupied most definitely suggests 'non-ownership' and this term should be used with reason and not to promote a certain perspective. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:33, 15 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 - [25] - 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)

edit protection

Hi. what are currently the open issues preventing us from getting this article's edit protection removed? seems to me like there's a lot of consensus on most things here. feel free to leave your replies here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

these are the current, as i see it, open disputes that would lock the article again:

• "One central question/core issues paragraph": (1)(2)
• "taken hostage vs. captured": (1)
• "Palestinian Arabs vs Palestinians in the first sentence": (1)
• "RfC: On the use of the term "occupied" (2nd try)": (1)
• "Position of HAMAS": (1)

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. I addressed points 4 and 5, above. Re point 2, I favor the word "abducted" rather than either of those terms, as the soldiers are being held by private militias, or terrorist groups; no one here claims they are being held by any legitimate organ of the Palestinian government.

Re point 3, how about we just say Palestinians. There's no need to argue over another group's semantics. Re point 1, i added some comments in the relevant sections, above. By the way, that's just my own two cents; I of course don't claim to own this debate. Feel free for anyone to add their further replies and comments, of course. thanks. (I am not on continually, but will be here periodically.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 02:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has been locked for a long time, and meanwhile there's some very relevant stuff from the Annapolis Conference that should be added; can we get an ETA for unlocking the darn thing, or at least an explanation why it's still locked? :) Thank you! --Laser813 (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. However, no one is actively mounting a resolution effort on this, and no admins appear to be too interested. However, I'm not overly concerned. We can just let the whole thing sit for the next few weeks. Eventually the protection lock will become obviously in need of changing or removal. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is an effort -- namely a few RfCs -- but the main instigators seem to have gotten bored. Here's the results thus far:

• "occupied" vs. "disputed": Discussion died after I suggested to use the term "occupied" with the wikilink. Is this some kind of consensus?
• "captive"/"abductee" vs. "hostage": This is being discussed at Talk:Gilad Shalit. I suggest we use whatever term is decided on there.
• "Palestinian people" vs. "Palestinian Arabs": Palestinian people seems to be the preferred term on Wikipedia (other terms link there). As with the "occupied" thing, I suggest using that term with the wikilink.
• Position of Hamas: puttered out, somebody should start an RfC.

I would suggest un-protection with these solutions. That way, we can actually do productive work on the article. Any takers? pedro gonnet - talk - 11.12.2007 16:26

thanks for your reply. I don't wish to comment right now, either for or against, but will step aside, in case anyone wishes to comment. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Disputed" territories is the neutral term and "Palestinian Arabs" or "Palestinians" is the the word for the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine and their descendants. I understand the argument for "occupied" territories since it is a term used in the mainstream media, but "disputed" is the more npov term and it is also used in the mainstream media and in historical articles and books. "Palestinian people" is almost never used in the mainstream media nor in historical articles or books unless the source is quoting a government official during a public speech (as in "Americans" or "U.S. citizens" vs. "the American people"). --GHcool (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for replies. we still have yet to hear from the bulk of editors here. however, assuming that perhaps we may not get much further input, I suggest that the only path to consensus is to include language describing both points on these issues. I'm not saying either side is right to belabor these points, but the path to consensus, as usual here, is not to keep trying to condense one or the other's viewpoints, but rather to simply be expansive enough to note that there are two views on each of these issues.

re the disputed/occupied debate, my suggestion is above. Pedro, my proposal involves including text for both sides, then using your phrase. So I think that seemes reasonable. I don;t see the problem here with that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2007 (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)

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)

Mediation declined

Mediation request was declined because not all editors accepted it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-19 Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi, I want to try and help, therefore I offer to take this case, and have contacted the other involved parties inviting them to summarise their opinions on the matter. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)