Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict

Adjectives

wow this article is so jewish it's not even funny. can someone please make this statement less jewish before someone finds out wikipedia is really run by the jehws?

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) destroyed most of the surprised Egyptian Air Force, then turned east to pulverize the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces.

we don't need to say pulverize now do we? might as well say "kick their butt" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is as neutral as such a topic can be, and as such the neutrality should no longer be in dispute. While the word "pulverize" is a loaded word and may show bias, the article also says the Arab forces "overwhelmed" the Israeli military, therefore equally strong statements are used to describe victories by both forces. To expect perfect neutrality to both sides in the description of a war is ridiculous, and while we should strive for perfection we must also realize it isn't going to happen. You could rewrite this article 100 times and each time there would be people objecting to the wording of parts of it. As such I believe the neutrality of this article is fine and should no longer be in dispute.Cwagmire (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a classic example of an excuse buy someone who is obviously biased, either way. In my opinion, some of the "sources" for statements in this article are suspiciously one sided at best, like this one http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict-2.asp#Clash ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ about the neutrality of some of the sources (see the favicon? is a Israeli flag): http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict-2.asp#Clash ...I work with web development, so I could build a site in 30 minutes with my own opinions, and then cite that info in any Wikipedia article I want... what do you think? Is not the same when the web site has some reputation and neutral views, like a newspaper from a neutral country. Many people is worried about what this article says, because is far from being neutral! Conlag (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

New Article (on the "Belligerent" Comoros Islands)

Can we please have a new article to highlight the serious threat from the "belligerent" Comoros toward poor little Israel? 221.255.16.58 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Replacing this because in a way, this apparently ridiculous suggestion provides a perfect perspective on the POV-pushing in the article and thus is a relevant addition to this discussion. The David vs Goliath map used atop the article is wholly inappropriate and misleading. I ask editors -- who is more involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the United States or the Comoros Islands? By the way, the editor who removed 221's question is wrong, the article does list Comoros Islands as a "belligerent." Suggest adding the United States to the map. RomaC (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article mention the Comoros Islands. The only mention of it was added by the very same anon editor who commented about it above, an addition which was essentially vandalism, and I promptly removed it. Basically, he added a section about them, and then complained about it in the talk page.

Don't feed the trolls.

Regarding your point - the Arab league is officially in conflict with Israel, which is why Egypt was kicked out of the league after signing the peace treaty with Israel 1979. This is the policy they set, and so the map is appropriate. The US never fought in Israel's name, and US forces have never defended it against Arab attacks. By your logic, we also need to have the USSR/Russia highlighted in green, as the main arms supplier of the Arab world (the same part the US plays for Israel). By the way, Russian forces have fought on behalf of the Arab states, mainly Russian pilots assisting the Egyptian air force. okedem (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The POV David vs Goliath map and infobox very clearly present the "belligerents" as the "Arab Nations" on one side and "Israel" on the other. Click on "Arab Nations" and voila, the menacing Comoros Islands are listed. RomaC (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the meaning of the Arab League. They're all in conflict with Israel, by their own choice. okedem (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, okedem you say the Comoros are belligerents because they are in the Arab League and "That's the meaning of the Arab League." I didn't see that definition in the WP entry on the Arab League. Can you direct me to where I can find out about the Comoros as belligerent? Thanks.RomaC (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not, belligerency is not that meaning of the Arab league. But the league has passed many, many, resolutions against Israel. For instance, when Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel 1979, its membership of the league was suspended for it. As such, all members of the league are part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. okedem (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, the United Nations has also passed "many, many resolutions against Israel", so shall we list the entire world as belligerents? The map would look even more dramatic! RomaC (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the UN passed some resolutions which recommend Israel take some action, which Israel doesn't like, or condemn it for action it did take. The Arab league was and still is an active and willing participant in the conflict. See, for another example, the Arab League boycott of Israel (also [1]). Also, Arab League extends 'hand of peace' to Israel - "...extending "a hand of peace" on behalf of the Arab world." okedem (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to okedem: Egypt was suspended from the League in 1979, but they have long ago been restored as a member in good standing. Jordan was never kicked out. All this is clear from the very USA Today article you just provided us. The Arab League has two members, Egypt and Jordan, which are widely recognized as being at peace with Israel. Hence it is wrong to just treat every country in the Arab League as a "belligerent", membership in the League being sole qualtification. RomaC is exactly right, the map misleads the reader and must go. Sanguinalis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanguinalis, I strongly support your contention that the misleading map must go for the reasons you cite. RomaC (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree: the map should go. The Arab League is definitely not an entity at war with Israel. The map fails to show that there are several members of the League with full diplomatic relations with Israel, namely Jordan, Egypt and Mauritania, whereas Qatar has trade relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#Arab_states). In addition, several other members, even when they don't recognize Israel, are not belligerent: "In October 2000, Israeli diplomatic missions in Morocco, Tunisia and the Sultanate of Oman were closed as these countries suspended relations with Israel" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#Diplomatic_relations), that means they had certain friendly relations before. Morocco, for instance, has never advocated war against Israel and its king Mohammed VI (among many other gestures) met in Morocco with Acting Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami in Sept. 2000 (http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Archive/Current+Events/2000/09/Speeches419.htm). You don't do this when being at war. So I vote for the map to be thrown out, more so when it reads "Early 20th century-present". Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What's more: I just found a wikipedia entry which states clearly "According to Israeli law, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and Iran are considered "Enemy countries"" (see Israeli passport). So the rest are obviously not enemy countries, according to Israel, and shouldn't appear on the head of this page. Please remove. Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Arab-Israeli conflict since it's early days and not about the conflict as it is now-days. Please review the article and note the role of the Arab League in the conflict. The same league was quite active even recently, trying to suggest that Mubarak should be assassinated because he would not attack Israel together with Hezbollah. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, when did the Arab League recently call for Mubarak's assassination? I'm ready to be surprised, but it would be quite a big one. And actually of course, while you are right that this is an article about the conflict as a whole, equally there is a separate article for the history of the conflict. --Nickhh (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the time-line for the declaration was clarified in my comment. However, upon further examination, it was the Arab Lawyers Union who made that call on Al-Jazeera (calling him al-Khana and suggesting he's fair game) and not the Arab League - my apologies for the error. I appreciate the link to the history article, btw, but it's existence doesn't mean that this article is narrowed down to the current status of the conflict - it is an article made so that we can keep this article from becoming too complicated and long (see: WP:LENGTH). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've done exactly what Jaakobou asks me to do: "review the article and note the role of the Arab League in the conflict". There is my result: according to the article, the Arab League has exactly one intervention in the conflict, and it is by sending a letter to the UN in 1948 stating their opposition to the partition of Palestine. That's all I find here. So marking the Arab League on the map is definitely useless, I think. We should mark only the countries that have actually engaged in hostilities and then could use two colors to show those that are still - at least technically - at war, and those that have signed peace. What do you think? Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting the volume of hatred and incitement into context, I can agree to having a second map lower at the article that has some type of a rundown on the current situation of the "official" state of the conflict with countries like Jordan marked differently than Syria and other countries which joined the conflict (like Iran) added. I have to note that this is still a superficial issue since Egypt, for example, still makes ridiculous efforts to prove that they are still a part of the conflict. I'll be more available to further discuss how we should do this in a couple days. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about this discussion, but now notice that the Comoros Islands are still listed as a "belligerent" in the Arab-Israeli conflict, despite the good points raised to show that this is as ridiculous as, say, including Arab League observer countries such as Brazil and India as belligerents in the conflict. So, again, suggest removal of this awfully misleading map. RomaC (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions on Wiki Style and this article

okedem, or someone, can you tell me, the following sentences -- are they ok?

"During the Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 missiles into Israel, in the hopes of uniting the Arab world against the coalition which sought to liberate Kuwait."

"In July, 2006, Hezbollah fighters crossed the border from Lebanon into Israel, attacked and killed eight Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped two others, setting off the 2006 Lebanon War which caused much destruction in Lebanon."

Cheers! RomaC (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No comments after a month, inclines me to believe that the involved editors here see no problems with these sentences. RomaC (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, due to increased work load I missed your comment.

The first sentence explains motives without attributing the claim to anyone. This is not okay. Though I remember reading that as the explanation, we're not in the position to offer commentary. Need an RS for that, or just drop the explanation, and leave the facts.

The second one is factual, so I have no problem with it. okedem (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I just replaced 'kidnapped' by 'captured' as that is the term used in wikipedia at the Lebanon conflict page and also in the source, New York Times. As Israel and Lebanon countries are (legally) at war and the victims are soldiers, I think 'kidnapping' is not the right word. Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually kidnapped is used for civilians but it is valid also for soldiers in certain instances. I don't know what source you're referring to, but a kidnap operation usually has it's victims dubbed as "abducted hostages" (I've inserted this correction). Considering that this operation was declared as a hostage taking maneuver from the get go, that is the neutral descriptive to go by. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right there. The source I referred to, anyhow, is an article in the IHT [2] that is used as a source in the main wikipedia article. Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes your note clearer as the IHT has an editorial policy of avoiding both 'abduction' and 'kidnapping' when a soldier is taken regardless of the situation (abduction/capturing). This article where Shalit is referred to as 'captured' and Alan Johnston is referred to as 'hostage' just goes to show this. However, the terminology is so clear-cut that not only do other mainstream sources use it but IHT sometimes have a "slip of a key" (or two) and use these words as well. I hope this clarifies the IHT working issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't fight too much over one word, but this last note of yours is just nonsense, I'm afraid. Except Israeli media and CNN, almost every major media outlet uses 'captured' instead of abducted or kidnapped. Washington Post does, New York Times does, BBC does. IHT uses 'hostage' in the article you refer to referring to the Hamas case, not the Lebanon case (and it doesn't use 'abducted'). So this is not a specific policy but the normal correct wording. After all, I'd think you should revert to 'captured' and add, if you think so, "held as hostages" Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was nonsense also but this is what an IHT editor told me. Mainstream sources have used all the options but the most accurate word for describing a kidnapping with the intention of securing a goal is 'hostage' (look it up and compare with 'captured' on Merriam Webster). The BBC released once a notice as to why they use 'abducted' rather than 'kidnap' and the explanation was that they believe 'kidnap' refers to civilians. I think it's all nonsense, but it doesn't matter really so long as Hezbollah stated the goal of the operation to be kidnapping with the hopes of securing their demands. I'm not sure as to why you're even suggesting that 'captured' is the best fitting term here - imagine al-Qaeda using an operative to abduct a soldier from inside your country (killing them in the process) and having another person on Wikipedia insist that you should change the word used from 'abducted' into 'captured'. I would suggest a little more sensitivity and neutrality as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do I think it is the best fitting term? Because it is the (only) one widely used and because the event took place in a war situation, with Lebanon and Israel legally at war and with Hezbollah recognized by the Lebanese government as a legal combat group, even if not part of the official armed forces. What terms any of us would prefer when speaking about Al Qaeda is totally irrelevant here, as none of these conditions apply to Al Qaeda. Please don't mix up things. But maybe we should stop here and look for more important things to do. Ilyacadiz (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're making some exceptional claims and this needs some sources for validation. For starters, I'd appreciate a few mainstream sources that "Hezbollah [was] recognized by the Lebanese government as a legal combat group" at the time of the operation. This assertion seems to me like a false one, esp. considering some of the speeches I've witnessed by Nasrallah threatening to kill anyone who tried to take away their weapons (referring to Lebanese people). I'm aware that the situation on the ground changed recently after Nasrallah marched on Beirut, but this is a very recent development. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC) wikilink 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, 'legal' was the wrong word here, although Hezbollah was then and is again a legal party in the government. As a combat force it had no legal status, but it was clearly accepted by the Lebanese state, as AP AP states: "Hezbollah was the only militia allowed to keep its weapons after the end of the 1975-90 civil war, on the grounds it was fighting Israeli troops occupying part of Lebanon until 2000". That implied a de facto recognition, as expressed by the Lebanese President Émile Lahoud in an interview in 2006: "An army that is national, and the resistance [= Hezbollah] is national. You want the national army to disarm the national resistance, which is complementary to the army but without having the same operation room?" and by the way also by Israel, as Olmert stated clearly. So you have both the Lebanese president and the Israeli prime minister considering the actions at the frontier as part of a war, not as crimes committed by civilians. Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ilyacadiz,

I thoroughly appreciate your efforts here, but Lebanon is a very complex country with factions playing political games that are far too complex for outsiders to follow. I would not want to dabble too deeply into what little I know but Émile Lahoud, for example, is considered a member of the pro-Syrian/Hezbollah alliance. Hezbollah is basically threatening everyone who dares challenge them (see the link I gave to the 2008 conflict) and a reporter or two saying some people support for them is neglecting that half the country is in the opposition.

I suggest you look up Hezbollah in news outlets like Ya Libnan and The Daily Star so see a little bit how a large chunk of the country views Hezbollah.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Jaakobou, let's stop the debate at this point as not to bore other wikipedia editors. I know Lebanon quite well and the percentage of people who agree or disagree with Hezbollah's actions is definitely not the issue here. I have nothing to add. Thanks anyhow. Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just edited the Lebanon-Israel section a little. Reasons: the given source After the cease-fire didn't support the claim that after Israel's withdrawal in 2000, "Hezbollah and Syria filled in the vacuum" (no Syrian troops were sent to the southern strip). I've added another source which gives context for the withdrawal. If the sentence referred to the 1985 withdrawal - and I wouldn't mix up both in one sentence - than the vacuum stayed 5 years longer: Syria took decisive power in Lebanon in 1990, not earlier. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Religious foundations of the conflict

I created this subsection in the "Scopes of the conflict" section. Regardless of your opinion, I (and Huckabee) think it is naive to start the article with the Ottomans. Until Jewish-Muslim war becomes a blue link again, this article is the only place where this (hugely important) concept can be described and discussed. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I started looking for more sources, and found plenty. I made heavy use of direct quotes (yes, it looks like a link farm) and selected academic texts to help me survive the inevitable criticisms. Strange how this abundantly published facet of a top international issue was completely left out of Wikipedia. One of my sources is tittled "The Elephant in the Room". Indeed. Emmanuelm (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the inclusion of the Huckabee comment in the section. Putting his (mildly said) vain comment in the section gives the impression that he might have some kind of authority or expertise to comment the subject whereas he is irrelevant regarding it. Random comments by random US governors should not be the centerpoint of international issues. Instead, more sources like the 2006 thesis and historical and political studies are needed, not populistic newspaper comments. --piksi (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't complain, be bold, replace it with a better source -- there a plenty to chose from. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to the title of the subsection "Religious foundations of the conflict". Nobody would deny that there is today a religious element to the conflict, but it is definitely not a foundation. The Zionist movement was overall agnostic and did not promote a "fight against muslims" but rather the colonisation of an -according to them- "land without people". In the same sense, the PLO was rather non-religious, included important Christian leaders (see George Habash and focussed on the de-colonisation debate. It is not until the eighties when Hamas adopts clearly religious positions. But until today, even the most outspoken, or fanatic, Muslim critics of Israel tend to use the word 'Zionist state', not 'Jewish state', as to distance themselves from a general Jew-hating vision. So I would replace 'foundations' with 'aspects' or 'elements' or something like that. Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, of all places, did the Jews want Palestine? Emmanuelm (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They didn't, it was the non-religious Zionists who wanted it. It must be questionable they chose Palestine (over Uganda or Madagascar or South America) on anything except practical grounds, it was a much easier place to live. And closer - remember, almost half the early settlers returned, unable to survive even in a country with agriculture and tourists and a postal system. PR^talk 09:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Ilyacadiz, I'm not sure I'd agree with you considering the exploits of the Grand Mufti. Sure, the Christians were joining the Pan-Arab movement on a nationalistic level, but the Muslims were acting under Islamic interpretations of the conflict. Emmanuelm, the Jews wanted a national sanctuary in the historical homeland of Eretz Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, it is true that there is a religous foundation for zionism (considering Eretz Israel as the historical homeland for all jews whereever they are), but it is not exactly a foundation for the conflict, as the immigration per se could have led to other outcomes: in its earliest stages, some zionist and Arab leaders envisaged a strong alliance between "two semitic peoples". Could have been... Jaakobou, the hate speeches of the Grand Mufti are very much quoted, but I think they really didn't determine the subsequent wars. "The Muslims were acting under Islamic interpretations of the conflict" cannot be accurate (although a (small) minority of course would): among the 5 Arab armed forces that attacked Israel in 1948, Lebanon had a Christian president, neither in Iraq, Egypt nor Syria, specific Muslim views were held in goverment circles (all were nationalistic) and Jordan's troops, the strongest of this war, were even headed by a British officer. Much more so in 1967: Nasser was anti-religious, had a pact with communist Russia and used anti-colonialist, never islamic, rethoric, the powerful Syrian Defence Minister Hafez Assad was even Alawite (a Muslim orientation that refuses the normal Muslim interpretation and is strongly secular), and I can't find in the PLO's documents and speeches any reference to an 'Islamic interpretation'. That starts with Hamas in the eighties. If I missed something, glad to learn it. Ilyacadiz (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Several good points in there. Others a bit misleading - no Arab leader believed the Zionists would be allies (Faisal was being bribed to say it). Lebanon didn't attack Israel in 1948 - leading Ben-Gurion and Dayan thinking it would be possible to seize the south of that country (in the event they were too busy with Egypt). You're right about there being no Islamicism until relatively recently - so the "Mufti", an advisor to a Sharia court (and controlling the budget of teachers) wasn't rated very important by the British. Meanwhile 10% of the population were getting a representative council, their language made official and new roads linking their settlements. PR^talk 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

1. "historical homeland" is not necessarily a religious concepts. While the bible tells stories of Jewish history in what the Romans later retitled "Syria-Palestina", certainly archeological findings complement it with non religious and more refined outlook of actual historical events.
2. The Mufti, was the "grand mufti" with all the attached meanings of rulership in the Arab world. If you have a valid source saying otherwise, I'd be interested in giving it a look.
3. I'm not following the changes you're interested in when you describe the Arab leadership as acting on ideology rather than religious inspiration (I'm not really contesting this). Please clarify the changes you're interested in so I can see where we're supposedly going with this.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Having this short section right at the top of the main part of the article is plain odd I'm afraid, however long we sit on the talk page and discuss our own views on the subject matter. The simple fact is that the two sources cited seem to be fairly minor academic papers. Added to that, the George Mason one for example is about incorporating religion into the peace making process rather than being a detailed analysis of the conflict's origins, and actually acknowledges that "the conflict is still seen mainly in terms of competing nationalist claims over land"; the other link doesn't work (and what can be seen, the title, does not refer to the origins of the conflict at all). At the very least this needs to be moved to the bottom of the article. But probably removed altogether as WP:SYNTH & WP:UNDUE. --Nickhh (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

Please don't impose your personal opinion on the sources. It is a violation of WP:NPOV. Also, I would appreciate it if you stop following my edits - this has been an issue in the past and it seems to have come up yet again with this article as well as with Battle of Jenin.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, please stop accusing me of following you around. It's as tedious and wrong as it was the last time you claimed it about a year ago. If we both edit on I-P articles, we will come across each other from time to time. I have been involved in this article [corr - actually that was Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not this page, but the point still stands] frequently in the past, and at Battle of Jenin. I can't recall our paths crossing on any other pages recently. And of course my immediate point here is aimed at the edits which originally added this section, not at any of yours. Are you suggesting that because you happen to be active on a page, even in a minor way, I have to avoid it? Don't be ridiculous. And I'm sorry but the sources here are weak, especially given the voluminous literature on this subject matter from well known and respected historians and academics which don't really rate this idea, and especially since even these sources don't actually support the thesis that is being floated at the top of this article by one editor, without consensus (and are you anyway suggesting that editors cannot query sources and also point out that they don't actually say what they are being used to say? Again, ridiculous, and nothing whatsoever to do with any "violation of WP:NPOV"). This is a simple issue of due weight and balance, and being accurate to what sources actually say. I am surprised you are being so cavalier about these principles, and instead of actually responding to legitimate points, have chosen to make rather feeble knee-jerk accusations against me. I was in no way hostile to you, so please do me the courtesy of following WP:AGF (if we're going to be quoting wiki-rules at each other). Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

History of following my contribution's page: You don't touch these pages for a couple months and immediately after I make a talk page comment you suddenly revive your activity. It is "clearly" ridiculous to find it whatsoever similar to past events when you followed me to 5 articles you never touched before (within a time-span of 10 days) and edit-warred on them. I request you take my request seriously (as it's not "ridiculous") and we'll leave it at that.

Content-wise: Please don't impose your personal opinion on the sources. It is a violation of WP:NPOV unless you can substantiate your claims by some valid reliable measures.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I try and stay away from I-P pages most of the time because of all the cr#p that goes on in them. I'd actually rather avoid them - and, if I am to be honest - you altogether. Occasionally, when I have spare time, I scan a few of them for the more egregious errors and bias that turn up in them, and correct those problems or comment on them. You'll notice from my edits yesterday that I started this on several obscure I-P pages (where you were nowhere to be seen) before coming here. When I did come here I commented on Emmanuel's additions to the main article, not on anything you had said or done. You were not even editing this article itself, although you did happen to be here on the talk page. Again, there is no rule that requires me to avoid any page you are floating around. You are not only being ridiculous, but paranoid. And I have no idea what you are talking about in respect of following you to five articles in the past and edit warring on them. If it makes you feel better I hereby give you my guarantee that I will continue this practice of not deliberately following you to pages.

Somewhat more on-topic, I am not "imposing my personal opinion" on sources, I am querying their relative notability, and the relevance of their content to the point being made. This is bog-standard talk page practice. You may recall that you engage in this practice yourself, for example in respect of Gideon Levy, The Guardian etc. I'm still waiting for someone to explain and justify this section, rather than just writing it relying on two marginal sources, and then asking other people to add more sources, even though most other editors here are disputing its relevance in the first place. --Nickhh (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

@Nickhh - you are entirely right, there is no basis whatsoever for claiming that this conflict is based on religion. The Jews of Palestine were strongly opposed both to Zionism and to the Zionists. Zionism didn't gain general support from the world Jewish Community until, probably, 1967. The Zionists bombed and terrorised the Jews of Palestine (particularly during WWI, and during/after WWI, when religious Jews were keen to live in peace under the Ottomans and the British). The Zionists assassinated Jacob de Haan the leader (and sole effective, multi-lingual spokesman?) of the religious Jews of Palestine in 1924.

Even the fact that Hamas (since mid 80s) and religious settlers (mid 90s?) are now prominent doesn't make it a religious conflict - think how the Christian god has been invoked in every war fought by Christians - including every war fought against other Christians! PR^talk 09:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The PalestineRemembered seal of approval (and soapboxing) was given so we can all go home now. No need to ratify claims of "minor academic papers" or use any relevant sources, for that matter, since PalestineRemembered found someone who was killed by Jews and this obviously proves all anti-Zionist theories and also that JewsAgainstZionism.com are a good reliable source. Not. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jews chose that land because it was the Land of Israel, the Holy land and the Promised land, three religious concepts. I added my short paragraph as a starting point, expecting it to be quickly edited. To my surprise, it was left untouched, like a loaded mousetrap. Stop arguing, be bold, expend and clarify it. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If I was to be bold here, I would just delete it I'm afraid. It's a contentious theory, which virtually every other editor here has contested, and which you have backed up using two marginal and obscure sources. It's not the responsibility of other editors to do your work for you and add proper sources to this section, and nor is that likely to happen anyway given the lack of support for its inclusion as things stand. --Nickhh (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Focusing on the content, what are the contested sources and what makes the assertion that they are marginal and obscure valid? Qualifications should be made in either direction to make a persuasive argument. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

These are the two sources currently cited, here and here. As I more or less said above, before it got ignored and then lost in the fog - the George Mason University one is about incorporating religion into the peace making process rather than being a detailed analysis of the conflict's origins, and actually acknowledges that "the conflict is still seen mainly in terms of competing nationalist claims over land". It is written by a Peter E Weinberger, who gets a grand total of two Google hits (I know this isn't definitive, but it must tell us something, surely). The other link, which now seems to connect after all even if only to the summary page, is to a Master's Thesis. This also appears, in any event, to be about current opposition to the "peace process" from religious extremists. I can't seriously believe we are talking about having a section called "Religious foundations of the conflict" at the top of the main part of the article based on these as sources. They are simply not notable opinions, and in any event don't support the thesis that is being pushed. Even if better ones can be found, it's still suggesting a highly contentious analysis of history, and posting it ahead of the historical details that follow. This is all wrong for an encyclopdia. --Nickhh (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I can see where your concerns are coming from. There is certainly room to improve the citations and tone down the definitive tone of the section. This perspective is not central to the historical perception of the conflict which focuses more on the Pan-Arab movement than it's Islamic roots and the Pan-Islamic movement and therefore this should be taken down a notch on top of adding better sources. I would suggest we start by merging the sources into a single sentence and connect the "Religious foundations" section into the main "Scope of the conflict" section. I'm afraid I believe this won't be appreciated by whoever opened up the section, but as a compromise offer - I suggest something that would not be appreciated by the "other" side, which is to keep the link to "Islam and antisemitism" as it certainly fits in regards to the "scope" of the conflict. I think this compromise suggestion is fair to both sides of this argument as well as a good way to deal with this issue on the encyclopedia. Agreed? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although it took an inordinately long time tbh. I'm fine with the change. The religious elements (as myself and everyone else above acknowledged) are relevant, but "foundations" was way too strong a word and the issues such as they are can and should simply be referred to in the main overview and narrative where appropriate (as it already was to a certain extent). They did not need to be given their own quasi-essay/thesis section. --Nickhh (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the page is better now. Just for the record, as Jaakobou mentioned that the "The Mufti was the "grand mufti" with all the attached meanings of rulership in the Arab world", let me clarify that in the Arab world, the rulership attached to a Mufti, even a 'grand' one, is exactly zero. You may ask him for advice in religious subjects and you may or may not follow his advice, he can't do anything about it. Maybe the British gave him important attributions in Palestine, but normally in the Arab world - and under Ottoman rule, as far as I know -, a Mufti has no rulership at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyacadiz (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of a difference between authoritarian rulership and control over the people, certainly. However, al-Amin was noted in historical records as the main Palestinian ruler of the region and unless I see some notes to the contrary, then I'm left to believe the sources I've read thus far. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, if you read wikipedias entry Mohammad Amin al-Husayni you'll see that he actually had a lot of powers, all of them bestowed on him by the British who created for him positions inexistant in Ottoman rule or Arab countries (where the non-religious Mukhtars would represent authority). Please note that I didn't question Amin's influence during the Mandate, what I referred to was your sentence "with all the attached meanings of rulership in the Arab world", which for a Mufti are zero, be it rulership, authority or control over people, that's the only point I wanted to clarify. In the British Mandate world, that was obviously different. Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I reintroduced the section title for clarity and clarified the argument. I'll try to find a source for the Muslim argument. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, did you notice the reams of debate above, that your edits are dragging everyone into, but which you seem to have set yourself above? Did you notice that no-one agrees with having this section here? Have you read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN? --Nickhh (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy there. Please review WP:COOL. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly cool, just mildly irritated with yet another editor who prompts others to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining calmly and in some detail on a talk page why their slightly idiosyncratic edits are probably not for the best in a supposedly neutral, balanced and accurate online encyclopedia. But then just ignores all those comments and goes ahead and does what they want anyway. --Nickhh (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh is right, we had a consens that 'Foundations' was not the right word here. By the way, we should replace source 5) as the interview with Wafa Sultan adds to the 'clash of civilisations' claim but does not support the idea that "religion is something new", which I agree it is, but it should be sourced. I'll be looking for a source. (Hi Jaakobou, love the sketch on your talkpage 'citation needed'. Just what I say) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyacadiz (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for subsection text

Here is my proposal for a short subsection called Religious foundations of the conflict:

Palestine, called the Land of Canaan or Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) in the Bible was, according to the Hebrew Bible, promised by God to the Israelites. In his 1896 manifesto The Jewish State Theodor Herzl repeatedly refers to the Biblical Promised land concept. The subsequent mass immigration of Jews to this land marked the beginning of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Several studies have argued that beyond the secular motivations, groups on both sides, including Hamas and Gush Emunim, also evoke religious arguments for their uncompromising positions. The Likud party is currently the most prominent party which includes the Biblical claim to the Land of Israel in its platform. Many currently argue that the Jews' claim to the Promised Land has been invalidated by subsequent holy messages, including the Christian doctrine of Replacement Theology. Anti-Zionist Jewish groups also evoke religious arguments.

• I support the introduction of this subsection with the above text as a starting point for future edits. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I support this proposal; although I contested 'foundations' instead of 'scope' or 'aspects' - - why not 'Arguments'? - - I think the proposed text offers valuable information about the ongoing - or strengthening - religious claims and allows to develop that further. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Object suggested version. I've no objection to mention of religion but the "promised land" issue is not THE reason for the heavy clashes of the early 1900s. Make a new suggestion, separate interpretations of why fighting began from this topic and we might have a deal. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ambivalent. As discussed I don't dispute the overall relevance of some of these points - the issue for me is the idea of having a separate main section devoted to this issue, all the more so if it uses the word "foundations" and is placed at the top of the main part of the article. That way it gives the impression that religion is the key and overriding issue in the conflict, and has been since the outset. Better solutions would be to insert this material simply as additional text into the "Scope .." section - without any header of its own - where it simply feeds into that mix rather than being highlighted as somehow more important than anything else; or to include each of the individual points in the relevant part of the chronology. The religious issues are in reality simply "elements of" or "aspects of" the conflict, among many others. --Nickhh (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: I failed to notice until now that the "Islam and anti-semitism" see also was returned with a recent edit. I'm sorry but this is really inflammatory and of dubious relevance. That link belongs here as much as a link to a "Zionism and Racism" article would. --Nickhh (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This was the compromise we agreed upon. If you give the compromise note another look you'll notice a mention that antisemitism is certainly a part of the scope of the conflict.

p.s. please try to tone down pointy analogies as it is unnecessarily provocative. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's what I'm saying, I didn't notice that this link had also been returned when I said "I agree" to the broad rewording of the substantive text. And the comparison to Zionism & Racism is a very precise analogy. You say it's provocative, and I kind of agree (or at least agree that it would be, were it to be included) - that's exactly why I'm comparing it to the "Islam and anti-semitism", it's the mirror image of that claim and just as relevant (or irrelevant, depending on how one views these things). --Nickhh (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You really want to start arguing about the value and effects of the "Zionism is racism" allegations vs. the "Antisemitism in the Islamic world" on the conflict and it's scope? I suggested a compromise that demanded a compromise from both sides - not just one side. Please review my compromise suggestion again and let me know if I have to explain the false nature of the analogy you raised here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no wish whatsoever to start that argument. It is neither appropriate nor relevant for this talk page, even if it might be mildly diverting to see you trying to explain the "false nature of my analogy", and how wrong I am. As for the supposed "compromise" -

• As I have said, I was not aware that you were planning to reinsert this link, when I agreed (note - I misread your comments about this at the time, and took them as you saying that Emmanuel would want this link back, ie implicitly that it had not been put back - when of course it had. I would never have agreed to this if I had read what you were suggesting properly)
• Who set you up as the person to "demand a compromise" and adjudicate on what it should consist of?
• Where exactly anyway is the compromise in having a link which highlights the (widely held but debatable) viewpoint that Islamic anti-semitism is a major factor, but does not refer to the (equally widely held but equally debatable) proposition that the political philosophy known as Zionism has racist elements, intended or otherwise?

Compromise means meeting in the middle, not one point of view prevailing while stamping on its mirror image. --Nickhh (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is simply no correlation what-so-ever between the claims that "Zionism is racism" (Arab Knesset members, acceptance of all colors, and support for the enemy's population[3] suggests otherwise) and clear propagation of antisemitic narratives in the Arab world (Sample: [4]). The first one is not "widely held" while the latter is not a narrative but rather a notable reality. If my compromise suggestion doesn't please you, you are free to come up with one of your own but please avoid from making WP:POINTy analogies. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted, this debate about the substantive merit (or otherwise) of either issue/allegation is neither relevant or appropriate. It should not have been started, and will not be continued. --Nickhh (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Object - the statement "The subsequent mass immigration of Jews to this land marked the beginning of the Israeli-Arab conflict" is partisan, an attempt to link religion to ideology in a way that is not justified by the evidence. Zionism was (always, I think,) secular. The religious, far from being welcome, were discriminated against for immigration. Lots of evidence that the immigrants alarmed the Jews of Palestine and even attacked them. PR^talk 15:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, why did the Jews go to Palestine, not Madagascar? And why do they keep calling it "Israel"? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh is right: To link 'antisemitism' in this article as suggesting that that is part of the conflict is exactly mirroring what would be a link to 'zionism and racism' (note he didn't say 'zionism IS racism'). Note that zionism was considered officially racist from 1975 to 1991 by the United Nations, I state that no to say that it is, but just to say it's a claim which was held at some moment by quite a lot of people and/or states. There is (still) no Wikipedia entry for that subject, but there is one called Zionist political violence. Maybe we should link at least this, as nobody would deny that Zionism is indeed what triggered the 'Arab Israeli conflict' (well, there would be no Israel without Zionism) and that some Zionist groups used political violence at some moment. Hope I don't hurt anybody by stating this. (Or else we delete both links).--Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I reintroduced the subsection with some of the modifications suggested above. It is now open for editing. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's too much content for this article and should be considerably reduced and given a link to a main article that has a more fitting WP:TOPIC. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

@Emmanuelm - the discussion is not finished. The objectionable part (high-lighting the insignifcant contribution of Judaism to the political ideology) is still there and there is another serious problem. Nobody believes that The statement "The conflict started as a political conflict over territorial ambitions" is ahistorical. everyone considers The movement to Palestine started as a colonialist venture, one obvious source is Jabotinsky: "Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through with playing at colonialization" (1923). Herzl very similar - he didn't expect conflict with the natives atall, it was just a matter of doing the "expropriation and the removal ... discretely and circumspectly" (1895). PR^talk 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou & PR, I understood from the discussion above that there is enough support for the introduction of this subsection. Its purpose is to explain i) why Palestine, not elsewhere? and ii) why some groups refuse peace? Both facts are in topic. Both are incomprehensible if you ignore religion. As for its content and size, I did my part, it's yours now. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole religion thing is so misleading as to be effectively false. Palestine was first selected by antisemitic Christians (Prof Sand's new book says as much, but lots of other sources). The project proceeded as colonization (pretty clear in Morris, on top of Jabotinsky and Herzl, above) by the non-religious (lots of references). Its impossible to prove a negative, but if Herzl didn't know the project had started 13 years before he invented the concept, then it effectively can't have been religious. The "Father of Zionism" intended South America or Africa, he was over-ruled - but by facts on the ground, not religion.

Two of the most significant current parties are indeed very religious, and that needs detailing, but that started no earlier than the 80s, 100 years after the beginning (correct me if I'm wrong). Do we have to go by what they say for themselves? Well, no, actually, we don't. Let's look further, I very much doubt if the RS say that the aims of Hamas, Hezbollah or Gush Emunim are set by religion.

Incidentally, there is just one tiny clue that the Lehi might have been driven by religion, but consensus is that it shouldn't appear in their article. (No religious aims known atall for Irgun, Haganah etc). If the founders of modern Israel weren't driven by religion either, then it can only have played some very small part in the whole enterprise. PR^talk 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, you are the kind that goes to the sea and finds no water. Stop reading your books, look out the window instead. Israel is a Jewish state. On the promised land. And is fought by guys with the Qur'an written on their flags. The Torah and the Qur'an say there cannot be peace, and there is not. There is a zillion book saying that religion has nothing to do with this, but no one read them; there is one that says that God wants it this way, and everyone read it.

This subsection is short enough, sourced enough. Please leave it. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You sound convincing in this boldness... but please note that there were no flags with the Quran (or anything similar) written on it until 1985 (excepting Saudi Arabia, which has never been too much of an enemy to Israel). 1985 is the official founding of Hezbollah, 1987 is the founding of Hamas. Before, you won't find any religious sentence on any flag of any guys or states fighting against Israel. The Quran may say what it wants, it was not used as a (ideological) weapon by Arafat's and Habash's fedayin. Nor by Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq. Let's keep that clear. On the Israeli side, the thing is somewhat more intricated, I concede, as even the secular zionists relied on the Torah in at least one point: assuming that all Jews constituted "one people" (i.e. ethnic group, instead of one religion).--Ilyacadiz (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ilyacadiz. Indeed, religion played an indirect role only. Consequently, the subsection is short, in keeping with the WP:UNDUE policy. But to ban religion from the article would amount to a POV. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

When you're prepared to edit to the RS we can get on and produce an article compliant with policy. The conflict has been going on for 116 years, religion could only have been a factor for a little over 25 years (and the evidence for that is weak indeed). The section in question is not even regular POV Hasbara - not even pro-Israel blogs are the claims you're doing.

The only way we can let this stand is if we start accepting Muslim sources, such as this from 2 days ago (story not reported anywhere in the RS): "Al-Ahram (EGYPT): Jewish Settlers Storm Al-Aqsa Mosque for Second Time – For the second time in a week, some 550 extremist Jewish settlers stormed al-Aqsa Mosque, pretending to be foreign pilgrims and under the protection of dozens of Israeli policemen. This coincided with the extremists opening a Jewish temple just a few meters from al-Aqsa, in an attempt to change and Judaize the religious and historic nature of occupied Jerusalem." Are you prepared to allow Arab sources into this article? PR^talk 08:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, religion could only have been a factor for a little over 25 years??? Read what the 1947 UNSCOP report says about religion and the status of Jerusalem. Here is what it says about previous reconciliation efforts:

5. No agreement could, however, be reached in the Council of the League of Nations on the constitution of the proposed special commission. Objections raised by religious authorities or by Powers represented on the Council of the League frustrated every effort to effect a compromise. That failure provides an additional proof of the difficulty of the problem of religious interests in Palestine. Any new procedure raises suspicions and objections.

I'm not asking you to believe, I'm asking you to acknowledge that beliefs matter in the Holy Land. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's not a bad source. On the other hand, this short sentence does surely not raise the same image as does nowadays a speech by Hamas or by David Wilder. I think, nobody seriously denies that religious arguments about some points (first of all, authority over or partition of Jerusalem) have been made from the first day onwards by some people, the question is how much weight they had when compared to other (non-religious) arguments and, accordingly, how much weight should we give them at WP.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

I have reinserted the POV tag on this article, I don't know when it was removed, but there are still clearly major issues with this article. I will try to fix some of it in the next day or two, but if I don't get back to it feel free to remind me. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please list down a couple of your concerns so that fellow editors know several of the issues this tag is supposed to address? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a few of them and I don't want to get into a discussion about it now because I'm about to log off. I'm afraid it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Try not to go more than 3-4 issues every 3 days so not to overload. Also keep the references in mind :) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to get this done quickly but when I started earlier today I realized it's going to be a much bigger job than I anticipated. I really don't want to spend too much time on this though, so I'll try to throw something together over the next couple of days.

Re that little correction - apologies for the failure to ref - I was sure the estimate was wrong, but I was hoping to track down a more definitive reference. Until I find one, I have just added the reference from the Jewish exodus from Arab lands article.

The original estimate of 750,000 refugees from Arab lands between '48 and '52 is definitely wrong. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands from 1948 to '52 was about 280,000. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a couple references for the 280K number since right now we have an RS saying 750K. I corrected the paragraph a bit in accordance to the information that we have listed in the sources. Cheers on the efforts to improve the article (not sure the totaly disputed tag is neccessary though). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a ref for the 280k estimate. I deleted the other ref which claims 750,000 emigrated from Arab lands between 1948 and 1952, it's clearly wrong, that number exceeds the total emigration figure for the same period [5], and more than half of those came from Europe (see the ref I added to the article). Gatoclass (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with the PDF reference from your recent edit. Can you please clarify the source somehow or possibly replace it? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) You mean it wouldn't load, or you couldn't find the figure? FYI, the figures come from a note at the bottom of page 10, which I will reproduce here:

The figures of immigrants (followed by their percentage in parentheses), by country of origin, between May

1948 and the end of 1952 are the following: Eastern Europe: Poland - 106,727 (18 ). Rumania - 121, 535 (17.6), Bulgaria - 37,703 (5.5) Czechoslovakia - 18, 811 (2.71), Hungary - 14, 517 (2.1) Yugoslavia - 7,737 (1.14 ), other East European countries - 6,171 (0.7); Central and Western Europe: Germany - 8,350 (1.2), France - 3,120 (0.5), Austria- 2,671 (0.4), Italy - 1,321 (0.2), The Netherlands - 1,163 (0.2); Asia: Yemen - 45,127 (6.7), Turkey - 34,647 (5), Iraq - 124,225 (18), Iran - 25,971 (3.8), Syria and Lebanon - 3,162 (0.5), Eden - 3,320

(0.5); Africa: Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria - 52,565 (7.7), Libya - 32,130 (4.6) (Keren-Hayesod, 1953).

Add up the figures for Jewish immigrants from Arab countries and you get about 283,000. Gatoclass (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, it looks like a better source than the other (750,000) one but I can't get the PDF to load which is a problem - I would be far happier if we can get a working (or another) source for this. Another minor issue, is that according to my personal count - I reached 321,147. Maybe we should clarify the count on the reference notes with a small chart or something.

Sorry for being a stickler on the details :)

- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Took it upon myself to look for a few sources and found the following:

• http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Jewish+History/Zionist+History/Zionist+Aliyot/1940s.htm
  • 1948-1952
    Massive immigration [648,000] to Israel by the Jewish populations of Arab countries and Europe.
    During the first four years of statehood, the country had to struggle for its existence, while simultaneously absorbing over 700,000 immigrants.
  • Note: I'm aware the source is talking about Europe as well, but it might be worth mentioning in the same paragraph right before the smaller number for immigranst from Arab countries.
• http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/1/6/9/8/p116982_index.html
  • Seems like a good source with a bit of extra input.
• http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=219872
  • Is this a link to the original discussed paper? Looks like it.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the third url contains a link to the same article I used as a reference.

Re the 321,000 figure - I believe that includes the 34,000+ immigrants from Turkey, which is not an Arab country nor has been accused of persecuting Jews to force them to leave as far as I am aware. Wikipedia itself is actually a good source of immigration figures - see the table at the bottom of the Aliyah article.

Finally, I see no reason to include overall Jewish immigration figures or tables in this particular article. The section in question is about the "Jewish exodus from Arab lands", not Jewish immigration as a whole. This article is supposed to be the briefest possible account of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the topic of Jewish immigration in general would only represent a digression here. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick note of the larger number would help alleviate errors like the one we had in the beginning where there is a misunderstanding if the number is around 285,000 or around 700,000. I think a mini-mention of this would help maintain the article text long term.

• Example: from the XXX refugees who came to Israel between 1948-1952, about YYY were from the ZZZ who left Arab countries.

Extra note: I'm not entirely sure on how I feel with the Turkey issue. I'll think about it to see if I have any suggestions/input of value. As of now, I have no objection to writing 285K despite the higher count. Would be good to possibly note within the chart/count thing I suggested (on the ref notes) to mention that Turkey doesn't count.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading a bit of Jewish history in Turkey, I see some room for debate on whether or not to add the number into the mix somewhere. Being that the text is focused on Arab countries, it might be worth an encyclopedic mention as a minor footnote that 30K also left Turkey (with a link to Jewish history in Turkey) following a tax which focused on non-Muslims. I'll wait to hear your thoughts on it but, for now, I'll assume that at least my "XXX refugees" suggestion was uncontested and add it.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the edit, there might be room for a bit of a rephrase, but I think it's an improvement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick fix with the with Israeli Air Force

When the Israeli Air Force launched a that preemptive mission against Egypt on May 30th, 1967 they did not destroy most of the Egyptian Air Force. They destroyed most of the Egyptian Runways. There would be no way for the Israeli Air Force to destroy most of the hangars and planes that Egpyt had. They destroyed the runways, because you can't launch planes without runways. (I don't have tildes on my laptop) - - - - 11/16/08 - - - - ketterc7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketterc7 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your assertions are baseless -- there would be no way for the Israeli Air Force to destroy most of the hangars and planes that Egypt had -- why? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Main image

File:Arab Israeli Conflict 6.png really needs to be pared down to show the belligerent parties in the conflict, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. Including Morocco as "Arabs who have not fought Israel" is..."silly" to be polite. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish purchase, or theft, of Arab Land (Pre WWI)

It is known that the zionist movement began immigration to 'palestine' by the end of the 19th century, and from what I have seen all such immigration had been legitimate purchases of land. This seems to be the case through the 1930's and 1940's. However, every single arab person I talk to insists that the jews stole the land. Does anybody have factual data, sources, on this subject? 137.112.152.65 (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but don't forget that the arabs you would have spoken to do have a bit of a biased point of view, since they relate so closely to the issue. I'm not trying to be offensive, so if I sound it I do apologise, I'm just making the statement... Cybersteel8 (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I've read, the land was legally purchased, and the zionist agencies collected money all over the world for this purchases. But in 1945, three years before the UN's partition plan was implemented (or forced into implementation by the Haganah, after being rejected by the Arab states), only between 14% and 38% of the territory which today forms the State of Israel was effectively owned by Jewish (Zionist) settlers (i.e. had been purchased) (see here [6]. The privately owned land (47% to 87%) was subsequently taken over by Israel, of course without paying anything, as these lands were partly (only partly!) assigned to them by the United Nations plan; if you don't accept that plan, you would consider them of course "robbed"; if you accept the plan, it was a legal takeover. But even then, you could still consider "robbed" that part of territory which was assigned to the Palestinian State by the United Nations and forms today part of the state of Israel, which is quite a big chunk north of Nazareth (see here: [7]. Could be an interesting point, if you want to work something like that into the article.

Even the legal purchases before 1948 might have brought hardship to Palestinian peasants, if the landowners were rich people living far away and the peasant families worked since generations on what was legally another man's land and paying an established annual tribute (this situation has been quite common all over Europe and the Middle East until our days and can still be found in Portugal, for example). So, when Jewish settlers paid the legal owner a correct price, peasants might just have been expelled from lands they lived on since generations without receiving anything and it's hard to blame them for ill feelings, although you can't blame the settlers either for paying only the legal owner...--Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The percentage of privately owned land was much lower than the one you indicated. In many areas most of the land was actually government owned (like in Beersheba district).

One can easily make the claim that had the Arabs accepted the plan, things would have been different, but as they chose to reject the plan and fight, the Jews had no real hope to defend a country with the partition plan's borders or land division, and had to take more land, to create a viable state.

Your last comment is very much to the point, as some land was indeed owned by Turk landlords with Arab tenants (paying the landlord). Land would sometimes exchange hands between these landlords, but the Arab peasants would usually not be affected (just pay a different landlord). However, Jews bought the land not for tribute, but for settlement, which meant the Arab peasant could no longer work it. However, many local Arabs sold vast swaths of land to Jews as well. Throughout the mandate some local Arabs tried to pressure the British into forbidding land-sales to Jews, as they could not convince their Arab brethren to do so. Also remember that this was a time of urbanization, with serious population movement into cities and towns, with land being sold as a consequence. Jews certainly had no ability to "steal" land at any time during the mandate, facing a large, at times hostile, Arab population, and an antagonistic British administration, which turned away from the Jews and tended to turn a blind eye to Arab attacks on Jews. The British administration also worked against the very mandate, by limiting and then forbidding Jewish immigration into Palestine (just to illustrate their position). Some of the Arabs' current claims stem from the landlord-peasant point, but a lot of it is simply sellers-remorse, and lies. okedem (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"the Jews had no real hope to defend a country with the partition plan's borders or land division, and had to take more land, to create a viable state." Okay, very good. Any robber can claim he has to take away your wallet in order to survive because he's given no job - the affected person may as well consider it a robbery. And fact still is, that around half of the land allocated to a future Palestinian state was incorporated into nowadays Israel by force. If you call it a necessary military conquest or a robbery is only a semantic choice - this land was not legally purchased, which was the question asked by User 137.112.152.65 nor allocated by any internationally recognized body (see: [8], but it is recognized nowadays as Israeli territory by all States that recognize Israel, including the Palestinian Authority.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The anon discussed land purchases long before the state (Pre WWI), so whatever happened in 1948 is irrelevant to that point. Since you brought it up, I presented an alternate opinion. As Arabs refused to accept the partition plan, the supposed future Arab State had no real bearing on this anymore. The plan was based on both sides accepting it and living peacefully, and when the Arab rejected it, its borders became irrelevant. And your robber analogy is also irrelevant - in this case there is no "robber" and "victim", but two sides fighting over land, with a suggested plan for settling the argument, to which one side responds with force and violence. The arbitration plan cannot stand forever, even for those who rejected it. By refusing the partition plan, Arabs decided to settle the conflict by violence, leading to the known result. But enough about that. It has nothing to do with the original discussion, nor is it directly related to the article. okedem (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another way of seeing it. If people once owned land, but didn't sell it and didn't get paid for it, and now don't have it, then they may rightfully claim they were 'robbed'. When one becomes aware of the robbery really doesn't matter. If people worked on land, but didn't own it and lost their livelihood to another when the land was sold, then he lost his livelihood/home. However, if that sale and the employment of others was part of a plan, one might see it as robbery of a different sort, collusion or 3rd-party theft. The discussion above doesn't yet include the (later) refugees who fled rather than fought, but were later not allowed to return. That is being robbed also, but just learning it another way, later. Keep things appropriate for the period being discussed. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point. What are you referring to?

Your second point - if you don't own the land, you can't claim it was stolen from you. This is like a person renting an apartment, with a new owner refusing to renew their lease. If you don't own it, it's not yours, and whatever wrong you feel you might have incurred has nothing to do with the new owner (who purchased land to live on), but with the old owner, who knew he had tenants there, and knew the purpose of the Jewish land purchases (none of this was kept secret. The Jews didn't buy land to become land-owners, and the settlement of Jews on these lands was a well-known, on-going affair). Your claim that this being part of a plan makes this wrong, somehow, is illogical. If this was a spontaneous decision (to remove the tenants), would it make any difference?

When you purchase land, you are free to do with it whatever you wish, including coming to live on it, and working the land.

And I say again - much of the land was sold by the local Arabs, who moved into the cities. Many of the grandparents of the people complaining today actually sold the land for good money.

Also, of course, I can also claim that the land was the Jews' to begin with, with all Arabs being foreign invaders, even if the conquest took place a long time ago. okedem (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people carry keys to remember their land and homes; that seems somewhat logical and understandable. Others get their keys from an old book, and forget others' intervening history; that seems less logical and harder to understand. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily making the biblical argument, just reminding that others can have weaker arguments based on history or feelings, disregarding legal facts - these lands (pre 1947-8) were paid for, with their owners' full consent. Some may have been hurt by this change of hands, but that is not the Jews' fault (having paid the owner, with clear and unhidden intentions). The people now complaining were either not the owners, or got the money, only to regret it later. While one can mourn the mistakes of their ancestors, or their misfortune of being mere tenants, claiming that Jews "stole the land" or "robbed them" is simply untruthful, and unacceptable. okedem (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Jews" didn't steal anything. The Zionist settlers between 1890 and 1947 purchased a big deal of land legally from their owners and took another big deal of land by military force. I said that the first action (purchasing legally the land) cannot be called robbery, but that the second action - taking land by military force - is not a legal purchase; there is a intermediate stage which is the taking, without paying anything, of land which was assigned to the Zionist settlers by the League of Nations, not taking into account the opinion of people who lived on it or owned it (there was no referendum to ask Palestinians and settlers what they thought about the partition). The chunk of land taken with no pay, and not provided for by a League of Nations decision, is equally big as the one today -theorically- assigned to a future Palestinian state. To claim it was "necessary" or "promised by God" or "historically owned" or "if your grandfather didn't accept an agreement which he thought unfair, you have no right to claim anything" or "I happen to know somehow that the people who complain actually got money" is no valid legal argument. There are hundreds of thousands of people who didn't get any money when their villages were shelled in 1948. There was a war. But it happens that one side considers this war as a legal method to acquire land and the other calls it a "robbery". You make your semantic choice. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are mixing two very different issues. The original asker, 137.112.152.65, talked about land purchases before WWI (1914), and through the 1930s-1940s, and how it is regarded by some Arabs as "theft" or "robbery". About this I said the points about sellers-remorse etc. on the side of some Arabs. All those lands were paid for in full.

Regarding lands taken hold of in 1947-8, I make no claim that this was a "legal purchase". Of course it isn't. No one is making that claim. It was land taken by force. I am saying it was considered necessary by the Jews of Palestine, and explained the rationale, but I can certainly understand the Palestinians' view of these events as "robbery" (worth mentioning is the fact the Jews were expelled from their own land in some areas of Palestine, notably Gush Etzion - villages close to Jerusalem and Hebron, and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem; and that many Arabs remained in Israel). It was civil war, fought between two communities, and later with several other states attacking, and is another, very complicated, matter.

Please, differentiate between these issues, and don't ascribe my comments regarding one to the other. okedem (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Religious basis of the conflict -- undiscussed deletion reverted

There has been a lot of major, undiscussed edits lately in this article, mainly by anons. One is the deletion of the section Religious basis of the conflict. This section has been discussed ad nauseum above; there was no agreement to remove it. I re-inserted it. Feel free to revert all the other edits. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspected Israeli air-raid in Sudan

I keep reading reading bits and pieces about an air-raid on a convoy in Sudan that was suspected to have been carried out by Israeli warplanes some time in Mid-January. Is this something that falls under the scope of this article? I don't think Israel's involvement in the raid has been publicly confirmed, other then the claims made by unnamed sources in the Time article. [9], [10], [11]. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Cost of conflict

I have, perhaps somewhat hastily, removed the "Cost of conflict" section, which was added a few weeks ago. Should it be there? It doesn't seem very notable - I've never encountered this analysis before, and never heard of this source. What do other editors think? okedem (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Funding

I'm new here, but just as a suggestion, I think it might not hurt to mention that Israel is receiving more funding from the United States than all other countries in the world put together, I don't have any sources, but I'm sure I could find some. Thanks! LastWarrior2010 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) LW2010

Israel receives little actual funding from the US. It receives some military assistance - funding for purchasing American-made military equipment (effectively subsidizing the American defense industry). Many other countries receive such aid, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, etc. While Israel may be receiving more funding than other countries, it is not receiving more "than all other countries in the world put together".

If you find good, reliable sources, make sure to find sources about US aid to Arab nations, and regarding the Soviet aid to Arab countries, which was of great relevance here. okedem (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement above mine is incorrect Israel, despite having a population of only 6 million, recieves about 1/3rd to 1/2 of US foreign 'aid' (this is taking into account all foreign aid... humanitarian or otherwise). That equates to roughly $1000 for each Israeli citizen (I think I am correct in this assertion... the figure could be higher). Whilst in Ethiopia for example US foreign aid equates to something like $5 per person (I think). If you want I'll look for a specific source.. but I think these statements are approximately correct.86.156.51.15 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually very wrong here I think. According to this video (not a peer reviewed source... but I see no reason to distrust it really) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssGZiADiw10 Israel in the last half a century has recieved more U.S> aid than all the other aid recipients comibined. This equates to $10,000 per Israeli citizen and $58 for each person in South America and Africa.86.156.51.15 (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your YouTube video is by a political activism site, and thus not a usable source for such claims.

Israel receives almost no "humanitarian" aid (some tens of millions for settling refugees from the former Soviet republics), and no civilian economic aid. It gets a bit less than 3 billion dollars a year as FMF - money to be used for purchasing military equipment from American companies mostly (26% can be used in Israel itself), and is a sort of subsidy for US industry. Egypt, for instance, gets (in 2009) 1.3 billion as military aid (FMF), and 200 million as economic aid (ESF). It has received (according to the Congressional Research Service - see [12]), on average, 2 billion dollars a year since 1979 (when it effectively switched sides, leaving the Soviets).

According to another report by the Congressional Research Service (see [13], p. 29), Israel was the largest aid recipient after 1976, before Iraq surpassed it in 2003. Israel actually got very little American assistance before 1966 (see this report for a detailed analysis). While Israel was indeed the largest single aid recipient, I doubt it got more than all other combined. Regardless, the relationship is a two-way street, with Israel providing invaluable intelligence in the region, now, as well as back during the Cold War (first hand experience against Soviet weaponry, etc.) For its aid, the US gets a lot of power over Israel - telling it who it can sell weapons to, for instance (wholly Israeli-made weapons, make no mistake). The US even pressures Israel to back off large contracts when it's up against American companies.

Aid is based on interests - until the mid-'60, Israel received a lot of assistance from France. When the Arabs threatened French interests, it stopped cooperating with Israel, and the US stepped in. okedem (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia refuses to enter peace talks

How about adding a section saying how Saudi arabia refuses to negoiate unless Israel gives in to moving to 67 borders first.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13turki.html?scp=4&sq=Saudi%20Arabia&st=cseTannim1 (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)