Talk:Six-Day War

I edited part of the section about the events leading to war

The article was missing an important confrontation that occurred on April 7, 1967 between Israel and Syria, so I added it. -- Wiki Khalil (talk) October 13 2012

to Dailycare: Why did you deleted the sentences referring to the Water Plan ?

Your deletion Diff page.

your reason: "The Johnston plan wasn't accepted by e.g. Syria, so it's irrelevant to mention here."

• Concerning the water plan:

1. This is not accurate. "The Plan was accepted by the technical committees from both Israel and the Arab League. A discussion in the Knesset in July 1955 ended without a vote. The Arab Experts Committee approved the plan in September 1955 and referred it for final approval to the Arab League Council. On 11 October 1955, the Council voted not to ratify the plan, due to the League's opposition to formal recognition of Israel. However, the Arab League committed itself to adhere to the technical details without providing official approval" ( source Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan). That means it was accepted De facto by the Arab League.
2. Syria planned to divert the water to the kingdom of Jordan, who was obliged to the plan. "Israel and Jordan provided assurances they would abide by their allocations."( source Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan)

• concerning your deletion of:"canal for irrigation in its west, and southern desert". The irrigation purpose should not be deleted, since the Arab opposed the Israeli diversion plane since "The Arab leadership also argued that the increase to Israel's water supply would encourage the immigration of more Jewish settlers" ( source:Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River))

I will appreciate it if you un-delete it. Ykantor (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I read the source used on the page you refer to, and it states that Israel and Jordan "undertook to operate within their allocations", it's not clarified what the "technical details" were that the Arab side in general would have agreed to. In any event, the plan wasn't formally accepted by Israel or the Arabs. The section we're editing is the background to the Six-Day War and needs concise summary style, so quotas that Syria hadn't agreed to in the first place don't IMO need specific mention. I'm also OK with just saying, as we do now, that across-border conflict over water had preceded the war without specifying that Israel bombed the Syrian diversion project in April 1967. Similarly for the sake of conciseness I don't see utility in mentioning which parts of Israel would have been irrigated. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Concerning Johnston water plan acceptance by the Arab League, as said it was half way accepted, and there was no alternative plan. At the moment the section is somehow misleading that it was like the "wild west": every state took over whatever amount of water that was decided upon. It is better too show that there was a water plan, that was at least half way accepted by all side, and there was no other alternative plan. So Israel have consumed less than its quota, while Syria planned to divert some of the Israeli water quota to Jordan, although Jordan was obliged not to consume more than its quota .
• Concerning the section size, it can be reduced e.g the April 1967 event, may be condensed. The water dispute reasons, are more important than some of the section other details.
• concerning your deletion of:"canal for irrigation in its west, and southern desert", I have to repeat myself. The irrigation purpose should not be deleted, since the Arab opposed the Israeli diversion plane beacause "The Arab leadership also argued that the increase to Israel's water supply would encourage the immigration of more Jewish settlers" ( source:Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River)). Actually, this is the first link in a chain of events that evetually caused the war. Ykantor (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Concerning Johnston water plan acceptance, according to the first quote(Kobori), the involved states has agreed to the plan, but eventually have not ratified it, because of political reasons. Ykantor (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, now re-reading the Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River) article, I noticed that it says that following 1956 the Arabs in fact opposed the plan. So not only was it not formally approved by either side, the Arabs were against it since way before 1967. Concerning its mention in this summary section, see also WP:SS, others when discussing the background of the SDW don't even mention it (e.g. Parker). Removing already present material from this section is rather hard as it's a result of a long process. There are some important aspects of the Background that need to still be added to it, such as Arab concern over Israel's nuclear-weapons program. Despite your repetition, I'm afraid I still don't see your point concerning the west+south point. Do you have a source that links the Arab leadership's concerns over Jewish immigration to the Six-Day War via the intended irrigation of western and southern, as opposed to eastern and northern, parts? Why would the Arabs be more pleased with Jewish immigratrion to the eastern and northern parts of Israel? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• concerning the water plan status, it is a clear that it was not legally binding for Syria. However:
  • The Arab League technical experts approved it ( after negotiating for 2 years )
  • It was not ratified because of political reasons that had nothing to do with the water quotas

Thus it is important to clarify and to avoid a somehow misleading section that it was like the "wild west": every state took over whatever amount of water that was decided upon.

• The water plan is important since:
  • The Syrian - Israel water dispute is a major factor of the border clashes between Israel and Syria.
  • The border clashes between Israel and Syria are a major factor of the tension that leaded to the war start.
• Concerning the section size, as said, it can be reduced e.g the April 1967 event, may be condensed. The water dispute reasons, are more important than some of the section other details.
• yours: "the intended irrigation of western and southern, as opposed to eastern and northern, parts? Why would the Arabs be more pleased with Jewish immigration to the eastern and northern parts of Israel?". The Israeli national water carrier main purpose was to divert water to the sparsely populated south, since the (Negev desert northern part) land was relatively fertile, but could not be cultivated due to a lack of water. Naturally, cultivating the region is supporting a bigger population, which is the reason why the Arabs opposed it. There were no eastern / northern sparsely populated regions so it does not matter for the article.
• I have carefully read the wp:ss but have not found what is wrong. Will you please highlight the exact section / sentence their?
• It seems that we are in a standstill. Will you cooperate if I will open a dispute ? A volunteer may convince us to compromise. Ykantor (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any specific sentence in wp:ss in mind but e.g. "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs" is relevant to the point I made. What do you mean by opening a dispute? Assuming it is one of the normal dispute resolution methods in the projet I'll naturally co-operate with you. Before proceeding to those, however, we can see if there is real substance to the content issue we're discussing. Namely, do you have sources that explicitly tie the material I deleted to the buildup of the six-day war? If there are sources that say the (ultimately) rejected water plan quotas and geographic distribution of Israel's irrigation plans were relevant to the buildup of tension then the argument is there that the stuff merits mention. If not, then not, IMO. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Shemesh (2008). Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967. Sussex Academic Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-1-84519-188-7. Retrieved 30 August 2013. "the water struggle was a major factor in the deterioration of Arab Israeli relationship that led to the six days war in 1967" Ykantor (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• The present section is misleading: it was like the "wild west": every state took over whatever amount of water. It has to be rectified. Since we do not compromise, let us continue with involvement of wp:drn
• The link to wp:ss seems to be irrelevant.
  • Both of us agree to reduce the size of other less important details ( e.g. the April 1967 shooting). Hence, the added proposed words, will not increase the section size.
  • Your quote is relevant to the lead, which is not the case here. Ykantor (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, the Shemesh source is good. However, the text fails to mention both the geographic distribution of Israel's irrigation plans and the planned quotas so it isn't an argument for including them. Rather, it says that water was an issue, like our present text in the article. Concerning the wild west analogy, it sounds rather good as the Syrians were busy diverting and Israel bombing the diversion plans. Clearly there was no multiratelally accepted framework for managing the water resources since air strikes were used. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Shemesh (2008). Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967. Sussex Academic Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-1-84519-188-7. Retrieved 30 August 2013. "The water struggle was a major factor in the deterioration of Arab Israeli relations that led to the Six Day War in 1967. The Arab states’ struggle over Israel’s water plans. especially the National Water Carrier (NWC) plan that was designed to carry water from the Jordan River and Sea of Galilee to the Negev, was an integral part of both the overall Arab struggle against Israel and the inter-Arab dispute over the method of solving the Arab Israeli conflict. The struggle generated discussion on all aspects of the Arab Israeli conflict and stood at the center of the conflict.

Following the debates the Arabs prepared, for the first time, a military plan for liquidating Israel. and long-term and short-term strategic goals in their struggle against the Zionist state. Water became the main topic in the Arab media and in inter-Arab forums such as the Arab League Council (ALC). Arab Defense Council (ADC). Arab chiefs-of-staff conference, and the highest forum the Arab summit conferences- at tended by the monarchs and presidents of Arab countries. Discussion in these forums centered on the modus operandi for meeting the challenge of Israel’s water plan.

Since the Arab world viewed the Jordan River’s water as a key element in the overall Palestinian problem and Arab Israeli conflict. then its solution became part of the Arab. Egyptian. or Syrian strategy. Egypt had determined the strategy in the Arab Israeli conflict and the Arab response to Israel’s plans to divert the Jordan River. Just as Syria’s position was the exact opposite of Egypt’s on the first issue, so too was its position on the water issue." Ykantor (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I agree that counts as a source that mentions the geographical extent in connection with the leadup to the war. Mentioning in the text e.g. "to the Negev", using that source, would in my opinion be OK. Not that I still see a point in mentioning it, but if you feel strongly about it go ahead. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Will you accept: "Israel tapped the Jordan River (and the Sea of Galilee) by canal for irrigation of the Southern Negev desert, consuming the water quota allocated by the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan" ? Ykantor (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the same applies here as did to the "Negev" issue. Shemesh, for example, doesn't say that Israel's diversion would be in-line with the plan, rather he says the Arabs rejected the plan and Johnston's mission failed (see p. 32 onward). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I repeat the quote as in those deleted lines: name="Murakami1995p287">{{cite book|author=Masahiro Murakami|title=Managing Water for Peace in the Middle East; Alternative Strategies|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xVGo3B-82GMC%7Caccessdate=15 July 2013|year=1995|publisher=United Nations University Press|isbn=978-92-808-0858-2|pages=295|quote="both Jordan and Israel undertook to operate within their allocations, and two major successful projects were undertaken: the Israeli National Water Carrier and Jordan's East Ghor Main Canal...The initial diversion capacity of the National Water Carrier without supplementary booster pumps was 320 million m3, well within the limits of the Johnston Plan." Ykantor (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please see my comment above, timestamped 18:52, 29 August 2013. The Murakami book only mentions the Six-Day War once, on page 284, and there doesn't mention that Israel's plan to irrigate the Negev would have been in-line with the failed Johnston plan. In fact, it doesn't even mention the Johnston plan overall, or the leadup to the Six-Day War. --Dailycare (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• It seems we are advancing along a circle, and we start to repeat the same questions and answers. Is it fair to prolong the discussion by returning to the same points?
• unlike your claim, murakami mentions Johnston plan few times.
• the water struggle was a major factor in the deterioration of Arab Israeli relationship that led to the six days war in 1967" (shemesh)
• The increase in water-related Arab-Israeli hostility was a major factor leading to the June 1967 war(murakami)
• Political considerations cited by the Arabs in rejecting the 1955 Johnston Plan were revived to justify the diversion scheme. Particular emphasis was placed on the Carrier's capability to enhance Israel's capacity to absorb immigrants to the detriment of Palestinian refugees. In response, Israel stressed that the National Water Carrier was within the limits of the Johnston Plan..(murakami)
• The technical committees from both sides accepted the Unified Plan ...Israel and Jordan have generally adhered to the Johnston allocations, and technical representatives from both countries continue to meet two or three times a year ...These events set off what has been called "a prolonged chain reaction of border violence that linked directly to the events that led to the [June 1967] war" (Safran cited in Cooley, 1984, p. 16). Border incidents continued between Israel and Syria, triggering air battles in July 1966 and April 1967 and, finally, all-out war in June 1967.(kobori)
• so, these points are proven:

• So my contribution (that you deleted) is fully justified. However, I propose to compromise and not to mention that Syria planned to consume more than it's allocation.

I agree that this does seem to now return to territory we've already covered. For the record, I didn't say Murakami doesn't mention the Johnston plan. I said Murakami doesn't discuss the Johnston plan in connection with the lead-up to the Six-Day War (=on page 284 which is the only place it mentions the Six-Day War), and so isn't a very good source to use in a section that discusses the lead-up to the Six-Day War. What I wrote above applies, namely you need sources that support what you want to include in the article. If you feel like editing the section on the lead-up to the war, you need to consult sources that discuss the lead-up to the war. It may be in fact easier to find a source and then decide on the wording, rather than the other way around. You might want to try a thought excercise: a lot of territory that is on the "Israeli" side of the Green Line was allocated to the Arab State in the Partition Resolution, which the Zionist leadership publicly accepted, or at least signaled acceptance. Would you support mentioning this in connection with places and events in Israel that occur at these locations, if sources don't make the connection? --Dailycare (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• concerning Murakami and the Johnston plan, you said:"In fact, it doesn't even mention the Johnston plan overall", which is rather strange.
• to your last question: Yes, I support mentioning a relevant information, although not mentioned in a RS. If you are interested, I have already done it in another issue
• However, there is no analogy here. Everything here is well supported. It seems that you ask for Murakami support only, but I have used Murakami, Shemesh and Kobori. Is that the problem?
• Can you please list whatever is not well supported in your opinion? We have a communication problem, since in my opinion everything is well supported. Ykantor (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to add that the Israeli plan would have been within the Johnston plan allocation in this section, you need a source, and preferably several, that mentions this specific item in this specific context (the leadup to the Six-Day War). So far, there is no such source. This encyclopedia has articles on the Johnston plan and the Israeli diversion effort. That info seems appropriate there rather than here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• At least, we know where we are standing now. As I understand Wikipedia rules, the article sentences relies on wp:rs , but not necessarily the same RS. It was proven (not by the same RS) that

1. - The Arabs opposed the Israeli NWC (National water carrier) since it would be used to irrigate the Negev and enable more Israeli farmers there.
2. - The Israeli NWC consumed water were within the Johnston plan allocation
3. - Israel and Jordan adhered to those quotas. The Arab League technical committee accepted it as well, but the League rejected it later, because of political reasons
4. - The increase in water-related Arab-Israeli hostility was a major factor leading to the June 1967 war.

• Should we hold on until you provide a a proof that those points must refer to the same RS? or should we continue with wp:drn? Ykantor (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If you take information from different sources, particularly "Primary sources" to make them say something that is not in a secondary reliable source, that is WP:OR. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you have not read the discussion. i.e. "Primary sources"? "to make them say something that is not in a secondary reliable source"? Ykantor (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, have a look at this section of WP:OR: " (...) is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The relevance here is that no reliable source has placed the content you're proposing in the topic of the section, namely the lead-up to the Six-Day War. As no source has placed the compliance of Israel's plan with the (failed) Johnston plan quotas in the context of the lead-up to the war, it has no place in that section. Overall, I'm sure that if you think about this, you agree that this is a good rule to have since otherwise anyone could enter any sourced material anywhere in the encyclopedia. See also WP:TOPIC Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your quote's source is: Synthesis of published material that advances a position. As I understand it, our case complies with SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. I will verfy it with the help desk. Ykantor (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What you suggested to include is a WP:SYNTH because it gives the WP:OR feeling that the Arab opposition to the way Israelis expected to use water ressources was not legitimate and that it is one of the key point that produce the war. What WP:RS source would state so ?

Could you please indicate to us what is your first language ? It is not English. It looks like it would be French. Is this the case ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In order to avoid any [[wp:synth] claims, I have modified my proposal:

1. the water struggle was a major factor in the deterioration of Arab Israeli relationship that led to the six days war in 1967 (shemesh p. 32 ; murakami; kobori, wolf). On 1964, Israel completed and started using the National Water Carrier (NWC) that carried water from the Sea of Galilee for the Southern Negev desert (shemesh p. 32).
2. The Arab states opposed the Israeli National Water Carrier (NWC) project because it enabled Israel to irrigate the Negev desert(murakami) and support a population growth of up to 5 millions (sosland 2007 p. 80). Moreover, Syria did not regard Israel as a party with any Jordan river riparian right (sosland 2007 p. 79). Hence, the Arab states decided to divert the Jordan river tributaries to Syria and Jordan which would result in Israel loosing one third of the water planned for its NWC (shemesh p. 50; kobori), and Syria would gain more water then its allocation (shemesh p.49) according to the Johnston plan. the Arab scheme was only marginally feasible; it was technically difficult economically inefficient(wolf) and expensive (murakami c.4)
3. On 1966, After few israelis killed as their cars detonated mines (the perpetrators' tracks led to Syria) Israeli army destroyed Syrian ground moving equipment used for their diversion project. (shemesh p. 65). The Syrians nearly halted the diversion project. (shemesh p. 66)

• Will you please tell me, if you have any objections. Ykantor (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What text, exactly, are you proposing to put into the article? --Dailycare (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

All of it. Once the content is agreed upon, it may be concised. Ykantor (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As we discussed previously, the Murakami reference doesn't discuss the lead-up to the Six-Day War. I'm puzzled that you're once more citing it as it doesn't relate to the subject-matter of this article and should not be used as a source here or anywhere else in this article. I made a search into the Kobori reference in Google Books, according to which it fails to mention the phrase "Six-Day War" even once. What is the Sosland source? Another point is that if we expand the water issues with this kind of block, it will have roughly as much space in the article as the actual border skirmishes and threats issued during the actual lead-up to the war. As to the content above sources to Shemesh, I'm OK with replacing the first sentence of the Israel-Syria section with the first sentence of point 1) above, sourced to Shemesh. On page 32, Shemesh doesn't mention 1964 so the second sentence of point 1) above seems unsourced. Concerning point 2) above, the sections sourced to Shemesh are quite similar to what we already have in the article. We can have the current wording or those, I'm OK either way. Concerning point 3) I can't comment specifically as I don't have access to Shemesh after page 63. However pages leading up to 63 quite clearly say the reason for Israel's attacks was water, not mined cars. --Dailycare (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• the Murakami reference does discuss the lead-up to the Six-Day War. it is quoted in the article.
• The Kobori source does mention it:"These events set off what has been called "a prolonged chain reaction of border violence that linked directly to the events that led to the [June 1967] war" (Safran cited in Cooley, 1984, p. 16). Border incidents continued between Israel and Syria, triggering air battles in July 1966 and April 1967 and, finally, all-out war in June 1967."
• I have undone your deletion. the sentence is well supported. It was not justified to delete it.
• The Sosland source is quoted in the sentence that you deleted and I un-deleted.
• as for this sentence:"On 1964, Israel completed and started using the National Water Carrier (NWC) that carried water from the Sea of Galilee for the Southern Negev desert (shemesh p. 32)." , I apologize. it is Shemesh p. 43 (and not 32), and Murakami as well.
• Concerning Shemesh p. 65, I can read it with Google books (while I can't read page 63). Are you sure you can't? try to search for the word "mine". Ykantor (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is a complex topic it is this, and simplifying it misleads:

'The Arab states opposed the Israeli National Water Carrier (NWC) project because it enabled Israel to irrigate the Negev desert(murakami) and support a population growth of up to 5 millions (sosland 2007 p. 80).'

Selective snippet. The objections were based on numerous grounds, that being one of them. Palestinians had traditional water rights to the Jordan and 150 pumping stations before 1967, and immediately Israel won, it forbad them to use that water resource. There are dozens of interests, not only watering the Negev to allow immigration. Subtraction of resources, bombing of diversion projects, all meant Arabs would less developmental water, and the objections specifically re Negev also concerned the real fact that the Palestinian refugees would be denied water in order to provide water to Israeli immigrants who at the time weren't there. The anomaly remains that:Teagan E Ward and Hillery L Roach, ‘Hydropolitics and Water Security in the Nile and Jordan River Basins,’ in Dhirendra K. Vajpeyi (ed) Water Resource Conflicts and International Security: A Global Perspective 2012 pp.51-102 p.88 ‘This project was one of the very few examples in the world where water is being diverted from an international river basin by one riparian state to areas outside the basin, without the consent of other riparian states and peoples sharing the basin.’ (Elhance 1999). The whole thing is extremely complex, multifactored and with conflicting attitudes in the 'Arab camp', and is covered by dozens of technical works in great detail. To snip up a picture in three points like this makes for caricature if you intend it to be a summary of the relevant issues. It ain't. I suggest one look at the whole page, and contextualize the water issue as that is given in books specifically dealing with the 67 war. If one does not do this, one will bloat out a section violating WP:Undue, and perhaps risking WP:Synth suspicions. I myself have long studied it, and never undertaken to synthesize the materials for articles like this because it is too unwieldyNishidani (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• yours:"If there is a complex topic it is this, and simplifying it misleads:". Do you mean it can not be simplified?
• yours: " The objections were based on numerous grounds, that being one of them". All the sources (mentioned by myself) are repeating the same reason.
• yours:" all meant Arabs would less developmental water,". This is called a compromise. Johnson spent 2 years (1953 to 1955) in negotiating with all sides, and eventually the technical experts of all sides have compromised and agreed to the Johnston plan. The Arab League rejected it later , but on political ground and not because any problem with the quotas. the plan was seriously considered by Arab leaders. e.g. name="Gat2003p101">Moshe Gat (2003). Britain and the Conflict in the Middle East, 1964-1967: The Coming of the Six-Day War. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-275-97514-2. Retrieved 7 September 2013. [on 1965]Nasser too, assured the American under Secretary of state, Philip Talbot, that the Arabs would not exceed the water quotas prescribed by the Johnston plan</ref>
• In my opinion, Hillery L Roach has a fringe view. Have a look at the quote:

1. "his project was one of the very few examples in the world where water is being diverted from an international river basin by one riparian state to areas outside the basin...". This is ridiculous. She try to present it as a crime. What is wrong with piping the water to the desert? once the state is using its' quota, it can use it anywhere, even if Ms Hillery L Roach does not like it.
2. "...without the consent of other riparian states and peoples sharing the basin". She is twisting the facts again. She completely ignores Johnston plan, and that Israel and Jordan has used no more than their plan's quotas.

• yours:"one will bloat out a section violating WP:Undue, and perhaps risking WP:Synth suspicions". As everyone has agreed to the previous writing of this issue, there is no reason to start talking about a WP:Undue for the same issue with a different concise content. Concerning WP:Synth, we can ask at a help desk whether there is such a problem. Ykantor (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is exactly the same as the other places where you are in conflict with other contributors. You refuse to comply by yourself with WP:NPOV in providing by yourself a fair view of the different points of view of an issue.

When you decide to comply with this, there will be a chance that you can collaborate fruitfully with other contributors. As long as you refuse, there will be endless discussions.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

what is the WP:NPOV here? note that Dailycare opposed my writing, but have not mentioned NPOV. Ykantor (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we could step back a bit here, and have a look at the text in the article. It now says water was an issue, and mentions the competing diversion projects. I think that's OK and presents water issues in this summary section. Many scholarly sources don't give enormous space to water issues so there is an argument that the present wording is sufficient to cover water. YK is right, by the way, that Murakami does mention this war, but this point doesn't move the earth here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So why have we spent the last 3 weeks, for nothing? why have we spent the last 3 weeks with all sort of your content objections? You could have said it 3 weeks ago that is not a content dispute but ... (I am not sure what is the problem now). unfortunately, we have to continue in the wp:drn. Ykantor (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

to Dailycare:Will you be able to reply in the Drn ? Ykantor (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We haven't spent the past three weeks for nothing, we've been discussing the content and agreed on changes to the content (the Negev point), and now we have participation from more editors than just the two of us which is a definite advance to have more pairs of eyes looking at the issue. Nishidani's comment, for one, seems reasonable in my opinion. --Dailycare (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Background and summary of events leading to war

I have a serious problem with the second sentence of the introductory paragraph to this section. 1) The provided reference does not support the entry. 2) The sentence leaves the erroneous impression that only Syria was involved in the admonishment by the UN Security Council. 3) The sentence belongs (if at all) in the sub-section "Events: Israel - Syria. Erictheenquirer (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have split the "background sentense". It seems that you are right and the sentence should have been moved to the "syria" sub section. Concerning the content, you might attach a "citation needed" tag to this sentence, with an explanation what is wrong there. after a while, if no one clarify the point, you might delete the sentence. Ykantor (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Children"?

I have changed the caption in one of the images from "israeli children" to simply "israelies" since 6 of the individuals that can be discerned are children but the other 5 are clearly adults (the other 2 heads are undiscernable with at least one appearing to be another adult as well). Likewise for the caption of "israeili women and children" (changed to "israelies") since an adult male is shown in that picture. Mercy11 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Classic WP:Original research reverted. The original captions in at least 1 of the pics reflect title given, and the second is equally valid. Do not revert without consensus based on discussion. You appear to have an aversion to the term Israeli children, or women and children. And the capitalisation of the term Israel or Israeli. How odd. Irondome (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)