Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

What factual inaccuracies?

Would someone clarify which factual assertions need attention? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Grave error on the map of 1949

Hello, the map of 1949 is incorrect, the fact is the ceasefire line wasn't recognize by both parties (israeli and jordanians, egyptians). It was written down in the ceasefire accords, especially for that reason. Adding to that, Israel refused to recognized the line as its border, and till this day Israel has no formal border with the former occupied regions by egypt and jordan. Please correct that asap, it's a grave error. --Iudaeorum (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The map says "showing 1949 armistice lines" which is perfectly correct. Zero^talk 04:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's very misleading : you use "green" color for jordanian occupation or for oslo accords areas. + the oslo is just area not de jure or de facto sovereignty. so it's BIAS. you should not use those colors. + the blue line of the armistice line is drawn like if it was a border, and it is misleading too. simply not factual, maybe factual enough for an illustration, but not for a geopolitical map. you welcome --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed before, and is the reason that the shades of green are different. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, first the continous line is not clearly defined ( and explained why it's continous and then on the next map not ), and its misleading to use the "green" color, and yes maybe you understand it, but it's misleading for someone else that doesn't know this bias and read it the wrong way, the one suggested --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Map of 1967 misleading too

What about the sinai occupation? Not enough important here so you prefer to whitewash history? Obviously context is not important, --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Map of " jewish owned land"

The map of jewish own land is problematic, most of the natural areas, which comprise more than half of the territory weren't own by no-one. This map makes it look like the white part were "non-jewish land" which is absurd. --Iudaeorum (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed exhaustively in another place that I don't remember. Someone will remind us. Zero^talk 04:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah this one is misleading too. + it's originated from pro-palestinian propaganda like bds groups. So it's controversial from the start, and it's meant to be that way --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It is shown this way, in such a series of maps, by numerous reliable sources. I believe the reason is that the Survey of Palestine did not carry out a cadastral survey in the West Bank, so a more fulsome map is simply not possible with the same level of certainty. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact is this map just represent jewish owned land, and it has nothing to do with sovereignty, so why do you use this map in our chronology this way. And it is untrue the british have produce map of land use. + the fact that the rest of the land is "non-jew" is ludicrous. and you should try to precise this mess.

where is the map of the balfour declaration (with san remo confirmation) de jure sovereignty btw?( yes it's not in bds propaganda, I know ) --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Another lacking fact, is the "state domain" of the british, ( and that were later handed over to israel )--Laseitainravi (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Laseitainravi, there was no map of the Balfour Declaration. I don’t know where you are getting your information from, but I suggest you spend a bit more time learning about all these matters. I can suggest some good and balanced sources if you like. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I never claimed that there was a map, but the balfour declaration was about the entire mandate territory, until the "white papers" so why not representing it? All of those map are BIAS and do not represent any evolution. All this is fake n.... PS: you can give me some of your good reads, but I know the facts, and I know good books too

what about using the british produced map of land use on this map. THe british were in power not the jews, it's an important contextual fact.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)(I just lost my password, sorry)

OK here are some books for you:

• Garfinkle, Adam (1998). "History and Peace: Revisiting two Zionist myths". Israel Affairs. 5 (1): 126–148. doi:10.1080/13537129808719501., "After the Cairo Conference of March 1921, whereupon the Emirate of Transjordan was created, Article 25 pertaining to Transjordan was added to the draft Mandate – in August 1921. Article 25 notes that Transjordanian territory is not included in the Jewish National Home. This language confuses some readers into imagining that Transjordanian territory was covered by the conditions of the Mandate as to the Jewish National Home before August 1921. Not so; what became Transjordanian territory was not part of the mandate at all. As noted, it was part of the Arabian Chapter problem; it was, in other words, in a state of postwar legal and administrative limbo. And this is also not to speak of the fact that, as of August 1921, the mandates had yet to be approved or take effect."

• Wasserstein, Bernard (2008). Israel and Palestine: Why They Fight and Can They Stop?. Profile Books. ISBN 978-1-84668-092-2.: "Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there – but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement."

• Abu-Lughod, Ibrahim (1988). "Territorially-based Nationalism and the Politics of Negation". In Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens (ed.). Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. Verso. ISBN 978-1-85984-340-6.: "... the statement presented by Mr Herbert Samuel, the first British High Commissioner, to the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Transjordan between 1920–25 ... is sufficiently clear on the distinctness of Transjordan and its emergence and leaves no doubt that Palestine did not include Transjordan in prior periods ... The Zionist and later on the Israeli discourse stresses the 'fact' that Israel emerged on only a very small part of Palestine – less than a third – by which they mean the entirety of Palestine and Transjordan; hence the term 'the partitioned State' ... While Israel officially is more circumspect in its pronouncements, its official spokesmen often refer to Jordan as a Palestinian State and claim that Palestinians already therefore have a state of their own. A series of advertisements that appeared in major American newspapers in the course of 1983 claimed openly that Jordan is Palestine. The series was presumably paid for by 'private' sponsors who support Israel but have been reported to be acting on behalf of certain sectors of Israel's leadership. Though rightly discredited as spurious scholarship, Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial (1984) gave much publicity to the Zionist definition of Palestine as including Transjordan (and, throughout, her work utilizes seriously flawed data that specifically refer to 'Western Palestine'). Perhaps Israel's preference for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in terms of what has become known as the 'Jordanian' option reflects the same understanding."

Happy reading. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not serious literature, it's more a "debunking myth" kinda stuff regarding the political narratives. No in fact in 1920, san remo recognized the british mandate at the time as for "balfour declaration" application. And few time latter, the "non formal" boundaries were changed significantly, but yeah you can say it's not per se a partition because there was a lack of legal frameworks. The first ref is vague : "it was, in other words, in a state of postwar legal and administrative limbo", the second wasserstein claim that transjordan was "added to the mandatory area", however there is no proof of that claim, while there is proof that british mandate ruled in 1920, also on the transjordan area, with no other mandatory autrity than herbert samuel. the third ref,is a criticism of jabotinsky, not about legal frameworks at all.

You should read books like this one : The British Mandate in Palestine: A Centenary Volume, 1920–2020 edited by Michael J Cohen, it's more serious because it's written by specialists. And yeah if you read arab historians, you should know that their universities are bound to a dictatutre and many are using their distortion of history to promote their political activities.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is solid proof of this. You can see it for yourself at Borders_of_Israel#Border_with_Jordan – those two pictures on the right are straight from the British archives.

Your comment about Arabs is racist. Ibrahim Abu-Lughod was educated at Princeton. Even if he was educated in the Arab world, does that mean he doesn’t have the mental capacity for individual agency? Sadly you don’t appear to have learned that skill yourself. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Proof of what? that there was no partition. Ok, call it separation or whatever, it depend on a legal understanding anyway. This guy call it a separation, page 578 https://books.google.be/books?id=jiWQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA578&lpg=PA578&dq=transjordan+status+in+international+law&source=bl&ots=x2DamsVDMC&sig=ACfU3U3PKGVT7trQXpNUy4m66qJi1g56aQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAuoqR797pAhVODewKHczJBoAQ6AEwDXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=transjordan%20status%20in%20international%20law&f=false

No racism here, I am talking about the quality of arab academics in arab countries, which are totalitarian with obedient and intolerant societies, so don't expect to find great work quality. At one point, you have to choose between historians. Good for Princeton, I quicky checked and found that he was involved with bir zeit uni, no offense. And there was no racial connotation in my remark, so you just being ad-hominem.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws here. Weizmann himself admitted it in late 1921: "Transjordania, which in the first draft of the Mandate lay outside the scope of the Mandate, is now included. Article 25 of the Mandate which now lies before the League of Nations, contains this provision. Therewith, Mr. de Lieme, the question of the eastern boundaries is answered. The question will be still better answered when Cisjordania is so full that it overflows to Transjordania." (Zionist Organization (1922). Report of the Twelfth Zionist Congress: Held at Carlsbad, September 1st to 14th 1921. Central Office of the Zionist Organization. p. 69.; original German transcript at Stenographisches Protokoll der Verhandlungen des 12. Zionisten-Kongresses in Karlsbad vom 1. bis 14. September 1921 [Proceedings of the 12th Zionist Congress September 1 to 14, 1921 in Karlsbad (Karlovy Vary)] (in German). Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag. 1922. p. 279. ZDB 2176334-3. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help))

You will know by now that Article 25 was drafted as part of the decision to give Transjordan to Abdullah and exclude Jewish settlement there. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well this quotation is about the creation of "transjordan" and the fact that now there is a border. It doesn't mean that the region of transjordan in 1920 wasn't part of the british mandate territory, it was just unclear at the time. And if we are going to pick and choose quotation, the article 25 state : In the territories lying between the Jordan [river] and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions. Why do they say eastern part of palestine? Why do they need consent? Why do they call it "postpone or withhold application"? Because they created a new entity on the mandated territory. --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

San remo convention ( legal framework )

Article 5 The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

Article 25 : In the territories Iying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.. As I said the term partition is probably not the correct one, but it doesn't mean there was no "separation" or "postponed or withhold application" --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s been fun talking to you. I hope this has piqued your curiosity enough to not just take the stuff you have heard for granted. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, sure, but I was right from the start. And even without tranjordan, if we are going to do " palestine going to puberty" we should add that balfour and san remo apply to the territory. And concerning the jewish owned land map, please complete the map with british owned land, arab own land and bareland--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why you felt the need to write the first sentence above. Earlier you said “Secondly, the actual map allocated by the Balfour declaration was de facto and de jure to Jews, so why not representing it. Thirdly, the Tranjordan emirate was a first partition plan of the Britsh mandate“ which are both nonsense. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Look if you are going to create maps of the region, you will have to produce also a map of the territorial arrangement before 1922. It's a question of inclusivness, you cannot pick and choose the maps you find interesting, that's basically my point here. + Indeed, in my first message I used the term "partition", which I stopped using following your remark. So generaly, yes there was a separation of the initial territory, it's more coherent than claiming that there was no "separation" like you seem to believe, or a mere creation of transjordan with no regard to the "British Palestine" territory beforehand, if this make sense to you --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Laseitainravi2, the map of the arrangements before 1922 is already there – it is the first map in the series. The Balfour Delcaration and San Remo did not have maps, or any defined borders at all. Please just read about the history at Mandate_for_Palestine#Borders. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

About separation, quotation from "Churchill's Promised Land Zionism and Statecraft" by Michael Makovsky: This plan proved costly to the Zionists because Churchill, in his haste to establish the sherifian structure, also decided to approve his staff’s recommendation to give the sherifians 75 percent of Palestine. In 1920 British officials had struggled with where to delineate Palestine’s eastern border. Late that year, General Walter Congreve, commander of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force whose jurisdiction included Palestine, proposed separating Transjordan (east of the Jordan River, now Jordan) from Palestine as a way to save money and disentangle from the conflict brewing there between the French, who coveted eastern and western Palestine, and sherifians and their supporters. In early 1921, several senior colonial officials, including Lawrence, recommended establishing a separate local government in Transjordan under the auspices of Abdullah, though it would be supported by Britain and would still report to the high commissioner in Jerusalem. They believed this would head off Abdullah, who was in Transjordan, from leading a party against the French, who evicted his brother Faisal. These colonial officials believed sherifian control fulfilled the promises made by Henry McMahon, Britain’s high commissioner in Egypt, to Hussein in 1915–1916, and the mandate’s instruction to respect the rights of non-Jewish inhabitants and to provide self-government (Transjordan was populated by Arabs). In 1922, McMahon objected to this interpretation of his correspondence, writing a senior colonial official that both he and Hussein understood that Palestine was to be “excluded from independent Arabia,” while also insisting that the Jordan River was not to be a boundary. Churchill did not bother to immerse himself in such details and interpretations. In late February, he accepted his staff’s recommendations without even consulting the Zionists—Weizmann’s appeal came after the matter was decided. (page 108) --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No words on arab migrants

There is no words about the arab immigration to the region during late ottoman period and british mandate. It is however well studied, maybe the estimations may be controversial, but the immigration in itself is not. Some historians estimates their number as a third to and half of the arab population in 1917, which is very significative. Plus, they played an important role regarding the conflict, and cheap labor. --Iudaeorum (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No respectable historians claim a third or a half. The overwhelming consensus is that it was insignificant, which is why it does not belong in a high-level article like this. Zero^talk 04:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Actualy, you are wrong. You just call historians "not respectable" just based on your biased judgment. it's actually far from truth, there is many serious studies and it's well know for example that there was an egyptian worker immigration, it's absolutly not controversial, what is controversial, is what number.

• Rural Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine: Distribution and Population Density During the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Periods, by David Grossman, chapter: Migrations and settlement of various ethnic groups in the 19 century, 2017
• Constructing Boundaries: Jewish and Arab Workers in Mandatory Palestine, Deborah Bernstein ( citing Joseph Vashitz, 25000 et 30000 in 1934)
• Haifa in the Late Ottoman Period, 1864-1914: A Muslim Town in Transition, Mahmoud Yazbak, 1988
• The Syrian Land: Processes of Integration and Fragmentation : Bilād Al-Shām from the 18th to the 20th Century, Thomas Philipp, Birgit Schäbler, 1998
• Martin Gilbert ( 50000 in the 40'), Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2005
• at the beginign of the mandate והמוסלמים לארץ ישראל רבקה שפק־ליסק ( 200000

--Laseitainravi (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That there were population movements within the Ottoman Empire is not only uncontroversial, but it is obvious and irrelevant. The question is how many. Mainstream scholars have concluded that such movement was relatively minor in the overall picture, and that the net movement was insignificant. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your example Bernstein says that 25,000 to 30,000 was "casual and seasonal migration" which is not immigration. It is temporary visiting and then leaving. Zero^talk 14:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

So what, it wasn't mean to be a permanent immigration, but many stayed and there is no census, so existing estimates are relevant and not mere propaganda ( it's describe in the Bernstein book as an example)+ it doesn't talk about other migrants, like egyptian migrants that fled conscription or were workers for example on railway projects --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream scholar is a BIAS. It's absolutly not the case. there were egyptian migrants and other migrants at the end of the ottoman era, and it's well documented. regarding the case of the british mandate, it's non-consenual, but not "minor" or "debunked"--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No words on terrorism

Terrorism and political violence as long been a palestinian strategy in the conflict, and its impact has a critical importance. However this wikipedia page doesn't represent it nor describe it ( attacks on civilians, bombings, random shooting, bus and car attacks, kniving, jihadism, suicide bombers, etc ). It's a paradox not to describe it, maybe its an apologetic attitude, with the goal of presenting the conflict based on "ideology" and quick historical simplifications ( sorry but it's a valid assumption )--Iudaeorum (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Terororism

No words on Hamas (and other rebellious groups ) revendications, and one of the strongest point of PA is "historical palestine" or at least "1967 line", not mere "freedom of movments,etc ( that's mainly a rethoric of war and a peoccupation of humanitarian groups )--Iudaeorum (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Silencing terror

Why don't you represent all the palestinian groups in the infobox Belligerents? Why "all palestine" is mentioned as if it was representing the Palestinians, it wasn't a representative organ or anything, it's a creation of egpyt and the arab league with no power whatsoever, but why not the fedayeen -???

where is abu nidal and other terror groups? -Laseitainravi (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The map in the infobox is false too

The map in the infobox?? WTF? what is this green area please? and the israel separation barrier is first not completed ( and not along this exact line), and it's not a border in any way without annexation --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Issue in dispute?

How do you know what are the issues in dispute inside the negotiation room? I get it, you listed what you think is contentious... In fact, there is many issues, but you forget for example mutual recognition, borders, the goal to destroy israel which is widespread according to statistics ( + hamas and PIJ official doctrine.. so what about peace with hamas and PIJ and other groups? isn't it importnant too? ) --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Another problem with map : 1916-1922

In fact there was other proposals, but it wasn't to the Palestinians firstly. Secondly, the actual map allocated by the Balfour declaration was de facto and de jure to Jews, so why not representing it. Thirdly, the Tranjordan emirate was a first partition plan of the Britsh mandate. --Laseitainravi (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Laseitainravi, please read Mandate of Palestine. You will see that your second and third points are mistaken. Your third point in particular is well known as false propaganda. You should consider where you built your knowledge on this topic and consider starting again. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not the case, the British and san remo clearly meant " jewish homeland in palestine", not anything else, the arabs weren't even invited to discuss the plan. So yes, its not propaganda. concerning the transjordan creation, it was clearly a partition of the inital mandate of 1920. So what do you mean by " propaganda", I guess we have a different appreciation of this term.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever thought to question the motives of the people you are listening to or the books you are reading? Your first sentence says "it is not because someone told me it is not"; a more healthy response would be "it is interesting to hear a new perspective - could you point me to the information you are basing this off, I will then assess its merits". Onceinawhile (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Laseitainravi: Hi, seems your account is quite recent. There is a procedure to ask for edits to protected articles of the form change A (what is there now) to B (what to change it to). See WP:EDITREQ. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am exposing the common misconception, folks can face reality or live with their lies, it's up to them--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

List of false claims

• Jordan and Egypt supported the Palestinian Fedayeen militants' cross-border attacks into Israel, : FACT: the so-called fedayeen were not vaguely supported, they were created, armed, trained, commanded and financed by the arab league ( countries) and Jordan and egypt.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know where you get your information from, but it seems to be consistently wrong. It seems you know very little about Palestinians, and a great deal about Anti-Arab propaganda. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

From the CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP00T02041R000100220001-1.pdf and historians, what about you? This nasser quote speak for itself Egypt has decided to send its heroes, students of Pharaoh and the people of Islam and they will clean the land of Palestine ... There will be no peace on the Israeli border because we demand revenge, and revenge is the destruction of Israel

3 no of Khartum is also propaganda? --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

for the fedayeen, see for example p166 https://books.google.be/books?id=LXCjAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA166&dq=fedayeen+creation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihman8jt_pAhWOsKQKHRieDioQ6AEIOTAC#v=onepage&q&f=false or https://books.google.be/books?id=1WmPAAAAMAAJ&q=fedayeen+creation+by+arab+league&dq=fedayeen+creation+by+arab+league&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi80sSxkN_pAhXHwAIHHSPSBS04ChDoAQgmMAA

• my list, was automatically deleted?! well this information is lacking https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/15/world/us-agrees-talks-with-plo-saying-arafat-accepts-israel-renounces-all-terrorism.html --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• On taba peace negotiations, it's easy to put the blame on sharon, but in fact the main problem is palestinian "need for time" and not for solution--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Laseitainravi2: Wikipedia is not a forum nor a soap box. So, no edit requests? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

yes I request you and other people to be skeptical about all the false claims presented and correct them all.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Laseitainravi2: Present edit request plus appropriate sourcing for consideration. Until then, nothing to do.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Use the edit request format of “change x to y”. That’s the only way editors who don’t meet the editing thresholds for this topic are allowed to edit. Also, please stop bludgeoning the talk page. You’ve made like a dozen edits here and opened a couple of new sections in just a few hours. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

I just wanted to edit the grammar and the casualty count at the bottom I have found IDF docs that are much more substantive and accurate then estimates Johncena123412312141 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Should the Israeli–Palestinian conflict be part of the Arab–Israeli conflict? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As it says in the note at the top of the page, the IP conflict is treated separately from the wider conflict (which is mainly historical now). In sources, IP is usually treated separately .Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Under Belligerents and Supporters in the infobox, please add Iran on the Palestinian side as it is a major supporter of many Palestinian parties.2605:6000:1526:450B:956:77:243D:31F5 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are sources to back this up.

Theses sources appear to say that Hamas is linked to Hezbollah and since Hezbollah is linked to Iran, then Hamas is linked to Iran, which does not actually follow. Also, PHD candidates are not usually acceptable, PHD's are. The second source appears to say the opposite of what you are saying. Perhaps I have missed something, please explain exactly where the refs assert Hamas is supported by Iran.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Both Hamas and Hezbollah have been backed by the Iranian government. If we are not going to definitely put Iran under supporters, at least put it as allegedly. 2605:6000:1526:450B:E865:9545:B628:DADC (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please specify the edit you want to make ie Change X to Y; Insert X after/before Y; Remove X along with the required reliable secondary source(s). Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Absence of Balfour Declaration

Hello, I noticed that the Balfour Declaration is not mentioned at all in this article, which is a bit odd since the foundation for the establishment of a separate Jewish state was set in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration. In the Balfour Declaration, Arthur James Balfour, who served as Prime Minister for Britain from 1902 to 1905, wrote to Lord Rothschild relaying the British government’s sympathy with “Jewish Zionist aspirations” and approval for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people,” as well as a promise that the government would “use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.” You can find the Balfour Declaration at Yale Law School's “The Avalon Project." WindermerePeaks (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)WindermerePeaks

BD didn't mention anything about a Jewish state and you appear to have overlooked the second half of the declaration. I suggest reading Balfour Declaration and then make some suggestion as to what you want put in and where.Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know it doesn't specifically say "Jewish state." As I put in my suggestion, it says “national home for the Jewish people." What I meant was that this declaration set the foundation for the future Jewish state, Israel, since it is now categorized as a state, not a "national home." I did not overlook the second half of the declaration since I included text from it in my suggestion. Moreover, I think information regarding the importance of the Balfour Declaration in legitimizing a Jewish state/national home could be included in the beginning of the article's "History" section. WindermerePeaks (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)WindermerePeaks

Please format your edit request appropriately (there are examples to follow here on this page). Make sure anything you want included is properly sourced (for instance the claim that the BD laid the foundation for either of Israel or a Jewish state will need a proper source (proper as in "not Howard Grief" or similar), I can tell you now that "legitimizing" won't get off the ground, even the Mandate didn't get anywhere close to such a thing and the Mandate was a legal instrument whereas the BD was nothing more than a best endeavors affair). A simple way to proceed is to ask for material that is already in the BD article to be simply copied over to some appropriate place here.Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and suggestions. I do have a source about the BD's role in the establishment of the Israeli state, however, I would like to check if it can be used here. WindermerePeaks (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)WindermerePeaks

I would like to suggest that this section from the Balfour Declaration Wikipedia article be added to the beginning of the "Background" section or to the beginning of the "History" section: "The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917."

In addition to this piece of information, I suggest that this statement be added as well: The Balfour Declaration played a pivotal role in the establishment of the state of Israel since it "determined the direction of subsequent developments in Palestine" and "was incorporated in the Mandate . The United Nations has stated that the Declaration was the "direct outcome of a sustained effort by the Zionist Organization to establish a Jewish State in Palestine and that it "can be considered the root of the problem of Palestine." WindermerePeaks (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)WindermerePeaks

The first part is very lengthy for this article,which is not about the BD, remember you will have a wikilink to the BD article, so readers can simply click there if they want all the gory details. You just need something simple, the first part is enough, I think "The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine" and then continue from there except that you are still attempting to impute a meaning to it that is not in the given source, let me repeat, the BD did not of itself play a pivotal role in the establishment of the state of Israel and for that matter, neither did the Mandate but yes I do agree that it is at the root of the problem in (historical) Palestine, I can also agree that the BD is a result of the effort by Zionists to establish a Jewish State but you need to mention that the BD represents a failure in that respect, they got nowhere near to such a thing with the BD or even with the mandate. You need to drop this idea that the BD -> State of Israel (or Jewish state) because it absolutely doesn't.Trying to explain a complicated piece of history that took place over many years (17 to 48) as an x leads to y won't really work.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion about the first part. I agree that the first sentence will suffice. However, I do not agree with the rest of your statement. The BD does have an important role in the establishment of the State of Israel, because the BD is the first official document, from a legitimate state, that recognizes and supports the aspirations for a Jewish national home/state in another existing state. This document is what set the precedent for what came after. You also say that the BD failed, however, the current Israeli occupation of Palestine does not support this. I never said that the BD was the direct factor that led to the State of Israel. I mentioned countless times that the Balfour Declaration was essentially the first step in the legitimizing the establishment and existence of the State of Israel. In your previous comment, you said that anything I wanted to include should have proper sources and I did exactly that; the United Nations themselves have stated the BD had a pivotal role. If the United Nations is not enough of a proper source, then I am not sure what else is. I have abided by Wikipedia guidelines and supported the information I added with “proper sources.” Also, the importance of the Balfour Declaration has been supported by several reputable academics. So, I am not confused or making anything up the BD’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So, I would like to make my edit request once again. I believe that this information about the Balfour Declaration should be added either to the beginning of the article’s “Background” section or the “History” section: “The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population.

The Balfour Declaration played a pivotal role in the establishment of the state of Israel since it "determined the direction of subsequent developments in Palestine" and "was incorporated in the Mandate" . The United Nations has stated that the Declaration was the "direct outcome of a sustained effort by the Zionist Organization to establish a Jewish State in Palestine and that it "can be considered the root of the problem of Palestine." WindermerePeaks (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)WindermerePeaks

You still need a properly sourced and properly completed edit request. Based on what you have written above, I would decline such an edit request for cherry picking statements and inadequate sourcing. I have added in to the Background section the part on which we agree which deals with your principal objection that the Balfour Declaration is not mentioned at all.Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Update to Fatalities

As noted under the "Fatalities" section, there is a need for information from third-party sources that are reliable and independent. I suggest adding information that is cited from data collected by the United Nations. This is what I suggest to add, "According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs database, as of October 25, 2020, there have been 5,587 Palestinian fatalities between the years 2008 and 2020 due to military occupation of Palestine by Israel. In the same time span, there were 249 Israeli fatalities. The greatest number of fatalities on both sides occurred in 2014 with 2,327 Palestinian and 88 Israeli fatalities." Wintersflower (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Wintersflower

I have added a sentence about the counts. The entire section could do with reworking, snapshots from the UN database could be included. Anyone?Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Early tensions

@Enthusiast01: regarding your comment: "There was no initial tensions, that came later. Later, the tension was not because of the immigration itself, but because it was Jewish immigration. There was not the same objection to Arab immigration at the same time." This is wrong. See for example Balfour_Declaration#Opposition_in_Palestine and:

We have noticed yesterday a large crowd of Jews carrying banners and over-running the streets shouting words which hurt the feeling and wound the soul. They pretend with open voice that Palestine, which is the Holy Land of our fathers and the graveyard of our ancestors, which has been inhabited by the Arabs for long ages, who loved it and died in defending it, is now a national home for them ... We Arabs, Muslim and Christian, have always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries ... but there is wide difference between such sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation ... ruling over us and disposing of our affairs. [Source: Wasserstein, 1991, p.32, quoting Storrs to OETA headquarters, 4 Nov. 1918 (ISA 2/140/4A)]

It is said that the effect of the Balfour Declaration was to leave the Moslems and Christians dumbfounded ... It is impossible to minimise the bitterness of the awakening. They considered that they were to be handed over to an oppression which they hated far more than the Turk's and were aghast at the thought of this domination ... Prominent people openly talk of betrayal and that England has sold the country and received the price ... Towards the Administration [the Zionists] adopted the attitude of "We want the Jewish State and we won't wait", and they did not hesitate to avail themselves of every means open to them in this country and abroad to force the hand of an Administration bound to respect the "Status Quo" and to commit it, and thereby future Administrations, to a policy not contemplated in the Balfour Declaration ... What more natural than that [the Moslems and Christians] should fail to realise the immense difficulties the Administration was and is labouring under and come to the conclusion that the openly published demands of the Jews were to be granted and the guarantees in the Declaration were to become but a dead letter? [Source: Report of the Palin Commission, August 1920]

Also note the Arab Congress of 1913:

...educated Arabs could not be deaf to the endless statements made by Zionist leaders abroad concerning Jewish ambitions in Palestine. These were frequently reproduced in the Arabic press and by 1913, despite official Zionist declarations to the contrary, Arab leaders in Palestine and elsewhere were convinced that the sole object of the Zionist Movement was to establish a Jewish state which, centred in Palestine, might even extend as far as Iraq. These leaders voiced their fears in the Ottoman Parliament, while editors of newspapers in Palestine as well as in Beirut, Damascus and Cairo worked out and broadcast - often with considerable vehemence - Arab objections to Jewish activities in Palestine. [Source: Neville Mandel. (1965). Attempts at an Arab-Zionist Entente: 1913-1914. Middle Eastern Studies, 1(3), 238-267]

The magnitude of the tensions were due to the the publicly stated political intentions to make Palestine Jewish, which were naturally frightening to the native population. This is not the same as normal opposition to immigration, which does not envisage a change in sovereignty. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Triplicate bias of sloppy majoritarian wishful thinking

Third para of lead, on long-standing negotiation failure:

In 2007, the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, preferred the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict.

Any other? Or merely any of the other constrained options presented by the survey, either explicitly or implicitly? This is not a small detail.

Fourth para of lead, on disparate views of long-standing failure:

A majority of Jews see the Palestinians' demand for an independent state as just, and thinks Israel can agree to the establishment of such a state.^[13] The majority of Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have expressed a preference for a two-state solution.^{[14][15][unreliable source?]}

Actual text of [13]:

Public opinion polls in Israel and the Palestinian territories continue to show majority support for a two-state solution that ends the conflict.

Good grief. Among those who showed up to vote, a majority of people in the UK supported Brexit, but subsequent to this "support" it's hard to find two people in the same room who support the same specific proposal for the terms of this economic divorce.

The single most outrageous statement Trump made during his political tenure: "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Nobody? It's pretty much a litmus test of whether a citizen or resident of America is living in the real world with their eyes open. If you don't know that health care is one of America's most polarized, partisan, Byzantine and intractable problems, the next question in line to bracket the other person's world-view competence: "okay, do you know water is wet?" And if you get a "yes" answer you can say, "great! we're already halfway there." Then you can ask: do you think Jared Kushner can solve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict over coffee tomorrow afternoon? If the answer is "yes" again, you might be halfway there, but you've still got a long road ahead.

What makes American healthcare "so complicated" is that many people are quick to support ideological option (A) or (B), but then when any specific proposal trickles into view, seven people out of ten go ape shit over their favoured ox being gored (such as watching your favourite Gore being doxed). Ideological majority often fails, and fails miserably, to translate into majorism backing any specific, concrete proposal.

These ideological surveys, testing categories of solutions over specific solutions, are already bad enough. But here on Wikipedia, we've made the problem even worse by shearing off the restrictive clause "that ends the conflict".

As I'm not picking on Trump in particular, let's also consider the Firdos Square statue destruction. The "majority" of Americans supported the Iraq invasion under the (careless) assumption that toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein would "end the conflict" (at least symbolically). What we saw instead was a year of Bush and other Bush administration officials running around saying "I did not have insurgency with those Arabs", modelled to a T on Bill Clinton's less-than-finest hour ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.")

As it stands, we've used the word "majority" in this lead three times in short succession, and nowhere have we made it clear that this is quite possibly yet another majorism of wishful thinking (spanning all citations provided), entirely congruent with: Brexit, ending Obamacare, and the toppling of the Hussein administration in Iraq.

What you can legitimately assert from the polls cited is that the majority of people polling are not rejecting the two-state solution out of hand, though the devil is surely in the details, should a concrete proposal be tabled from on high.

I am not the man of one book, or one Wikipedia page, or one geopolitical conflict. I have many other Wikipedia pages yet to visit / And miles to go before I sleep. On fresh news of Sheldon Adelson's passing, I've merely stopped by long enough to carve my two cents into the tree bark (with loud and sloppy axe strokes) for what it's worth.

Looking back, I see that I used the word "specific" four times in opposition to this article's lead bandying about the phrase "a majority of" three times. Not an accident, by any stretch. — MaxEnt 20:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You've used commenting on several parts of the article to not-so-subtlety insert several WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP violations. Cease.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Gaza strip is not occupied by Israel. But rather is under blockade due to the fact that a terrorist organisation- Hamas is ruling the strip. As such, in order to protect itself, Israel is controlling what's going in and out of Gaza. 46.125.249.12 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, the control of Hamas is already mentioned in the article. Gaioa (T C L) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)