Talk:Peace Now

Not very balanced

i have little to no knowledge of the issues and no understanding of the groups or politics, other than a general overview of the region and politics, thus why i was on this page, to learn more. so, maybe as an outsider i might bring some perspective. something i noticed is this: there seems to be no real information on when, who, and how the organization was founded, how it runs, and what its presence is like. in fact, there is no mention any person's name except for the general secretary, who appears at the end of the article in an anecdote that provides no real understanding of him or the organization, and this only comes after 3 paragraph that go into more detail on one the group's detractors, Ami Ayalon, where it tells us what he used to do, the name of something he authored, along with the co-author and describes his motives and arguments for three paragraphs. smacks a little of unbalanced bias. --65.113.35.130 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the big Peace Now demo was in Tel Aviv (not Jerusalem), in what's now called Itzaac Rabin Square (was it Kikar Malchai Israel then?). Somebody who knows for sure - please verify! :-)

I added "allegedly" with respect to the 400,000 because someone calculated how close the demonstrators would have had to be packed in order to fit in the area where it occurred - and it was impossibly close, especially for Israelis. Come to think of it - was the reported number 400,000 or 100,000? -- Marj Tiefert, Friday, May 17, 2002

Yes, the big demo was in Tel Aviv, on Kikar Malchei Israel (now Kikar Rabin), and on September 25, 1982. I confused this with the demonstration on February 11, 1983 following the publication of the Kahan report (on which Emil Grunzweig was killed). Righteous Victims (by Benny Morris), on p. 548 says "hundreds of thousand (the organizer claiming 400,000)". Indeed, my estimates show that the Rabin Square in Tel Aviv (known in the past as Kings of Israel Square) is too small for 400,000 people as it is now (and the recent demonstrations top at 100,000), but about half of it is taken by newer buildings that were perhaps not there in 1982. As to density, Israelis are as used to it as any other nation :-). --Uriyan

But they gotta have room to wave their arms around! ;-) -- Marj Tiefert, Saturday, May 18, 2002

___

This article is ridiculously and insultingly POV. Not a word about when Shalom Achshav was founded, by whom, Emil Grunzweig is not mentioned in the body of the article, facts are scant; but adjectives like "surrender", "defeatism" and "unrealistic" abound. And what is this BS about "Song for Peace" and the Oslo accords? "Song for Peace" was written in 1969 [1], the Oslo Accords weren't until 1993. I hate to be dragged into political arguments. I don't particularly want to touch this article, but it reeks. I wish I hadn't read it and didn't have to do battle with myself not to edit for the next two hours.--Woggly 06:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have translated the corresponding article from the Hebrew wikipedia, currently up at User:Woggly/temp, waiting for this article to be unprotected. --Woggly 11:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

209.135.35.83, whoever you are: please don't start a revert war. You can always use this talk page to discuss your grievances. The "Song for Peace" was written in the aftermath of the Six Day War, in 1969, a good twenty-something years before the Oslo accords; this is well documented. I've never even heard of that other song by Rotblit, whatever it was did not catch on. I'm not sure either song belongs here in this particular article. Also, you seem to think the fact that Peace Now has lost support in recent years is so important as to justify putting in the lead. I disagree: stating this in the lead makes it seem that you're dismissing the entire movement as superfluous, which perhaps you would like to do, but the natural encyclopedic order is to go by a historic timeline. Peace Now is not defunct, it is still an active movement, and if it is not in the height of its popularity there's no need to gloat. --Woggly 05:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Woggly, while Rotblit did write the song for peace after the six-day way. peace now did adopt it as a anthem. the song for eretz yisrael is on rotblit's web site and it currently rather popular, though not on the leftist media. indeed i do think that they growth and waning of support for peace now is important. superfluous? not at all. rather responsible to state the current status in the lead section, just as i would expect to find regarding the libertarian, democratic and republican parties in the us. as well as the yippie movement...no gloating, i dont give a fig about peace now one way or the other.

If you don't give a fig as you claim, why are you insisting on reverting the page time and time over, including reinstating information that you have just admitted you know to be misleading (regarding when the song was written) and a typo (aslo/also)? --Woggly 06:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The issue of whatever other songs were written by this person is clearly irrelevant to this page. --Zero 16:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Or start a seperate article about Rotblit, there's plenty of info on him, he's a pretty well-known Israeli songwriter. Despite what you have claimed, "Song for Peace" is not an official anthem for Peace Now. It is not mentioned anywhere on their website, for example, nor does the Rotblit website mention Peace Now by name (just "Mahane hashalom", which is a more general affiliation). The song was used by the Meretz party in one of their election campaigns, I believe directly following Rabin's assassination. Meretz was the only group to officially adopt the song as an anthem, (and quite a few Peace Now supporters were actually quite upset by this, as it "spoiled" the song's apolitical integrity for them). In fact, the history of "Song for Peace" is probably interesting enough to merit the song itself having an article here on Wikipedia. But I agree with Zero that this discussion, interesting as it may be, is mostly irrelevent to the Peace Now article. --Woggly 06:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Have you read the surveys at the Tami Steinmetz Center of the University of Tel Aviv? The Al-Aqsa Intifada has had a significant effect on Israeli public opinion. One effect is a significant drop in support for Peace Now, the Oslo Accords and Geneva Initiative. Peace Now pre-dates, Oslo as you say. The Republican Party predates Ronald Reagan. Nonetheless, organizations change, evolve and espouse new efforts and individuals over time.

I don't need a survey to tell me that the Al-Aqsa Intifada has had a significant effect on Israeli public opinion, or that the popularity of Peace Now has waned - I live in Israel. The Al-Aqsa Intifada predates the Geneva Initiative, so it could not have affected a drop in support for the initiative. Your current phrasing implies that the surveys you refer to prove that the Oslo process collapsed due to failures of the Palestinian authority. Is that really what you meant to say? At least you have stopped insisting that "Song for Peace" was written in 1992. --Woggly 14:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am surprised to hear that "I insisted Song for Peace was written in 1992", can you show me a place where I made such a statement?

You wrote, and insisted on reinstating time and time again: The anthem of Peace Now is A Song for Peace whose lyrics were written by Yaakov Rotblit during the height of hopes regarding the Oslo Accords. This would be round about 1992, plus minus a year - or are you claiming that "the height of hopes regarding the Oslo Accords" was in 1969?

And here's why I'm about to revert the following paragraph:

With the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada (2000 to present), the movement has hit an all-time low, in light of what seems from a present perspective as the collapse of the peace process set into motion at Oslo due to failures within the Palestinian Authority as detailed in regular surveys by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at the University of Tel Aviv.

The link to the Tami Steinmetz Center is positioned in such a way as to misleadingly suggest that it contributes credibility to the statment that the peace process collapsed due to failures within the Palestinian Authority. In fact, the link does not even lead to the surveys you mention, does not mention Peace Now anywhere that I've been able to easily find, and so is totally irrelevant here. People reading this discussion are welcome to follow the link and see for themselves. --Woggly 06:59, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A little search has yielded the following link: http://spirit.tau.ac.il/socant/peace/peaceindex/2004/files/may2004e.pdf

Also, check the following graph: http://spirit.tau.ac.il/socant/peace/ , the red line represent the support in the Oslo accords in percents. You can clealy see it did hit all-time low. MathKnight 19:38, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will re-insert the paragraph in, with the additional links provided here. MathKnight 18:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am not disputing facts, I am disputing their relevance here, and the particular misleading positioning and phrasing of the facts.

Peace Now is not synonymous with the Israeli Peace Camp. It is not synonymous with the Oslo Accords, or the National Census, or Meretz, or the Rabin assassination. If you want to keep the article NPOV, try not to get carried off into describing related but seperate issues. That's what the links to other articles are for. --Woggly 10:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peace Now is the mainstream (and the largest faction) of the Israeli peace camp and affilated\identified with the groups you mentioned - although they are not part of Peace Now. As for the criticism, you may not like it but it exists and it should appear. This is no secret the Peace Now is in a low and managed to lost a lot of the public support it had before 2000. As for "Symbols", instead of leaving a one-line tidbid I gave a little background to it.

I've reinserted much of the paragraph back and changed them a little. Before you revert it back (unjustifiedly, IMHO) please copy relevant sections you disagree to here, in order to discuss them. After the page was long-time protected we don't need another edit-war. MathKnight 11:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your comment, I'll be right back with a longer explanation. --Woggly 12:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, here's the sentence that ticked me off: and not being treated as enemies (as the current leadership of Peace Now treats them).

That is a very strong statement, and unsubstantiated. I don't care if it's Ami Ayalon's opinion. The criticism section, as it currently stands, does give the general gist of Ayalon's speech. In my opinion, giving more than this is not justified.

As for the "symbols", the whole section is silly. The history of "Song for Peace" is longer, more complex and more interesting than what's up there: maybe it deserves an article of its own, but just writing something inaccurate and not totally relevant on the "Peace Now" page is annoying. And Kikar Rabin is where the right-wing hold their major demonstrations, too; as well as many apolitical events. It doesn't belong to Peace Now any more than "Song for Peace" does. Also, before you revert back, notice that there are errors in the version you have been reverting to (a missing closing parenthesis, for example). --Woggly 12:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it is the only statement the bothers you, it can be removed (although Ayalon clearly states that). Is the rest of the paragraph is fine with you?

As for "symbols", you have a point that is only a minor issue. MathKnight 12:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, in my opinion, the sentence: Ami Ayalon ... has criticized Peace Now for demonizing the Jewish settlers ... encouraging hate towards settlers, and providing the general public reasons to dislike the peace camp. sums it up well enough. The rest of the paragraph is, in my opinion, superfluous; it gives too much weight to the opinion of one not terribly central political figure. But I don't object to the point that I would bother reverting back, if you insisted on reinstating that bit. Thanks for discussing this civilly, I appreciate that. --Woggly 13:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You welcome. I would insist of re-inserting the entire paragraph since it is not only a criticism of Ayalon, but also of a majority of the Israeli public on Peace Now and the peace camp. Ayalon so far enjoying a honorable reputation and political neutrality in the Israeli public, making him accpetable both on Right and Left. MathKnight 13:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peace Now and Microsoft

If you use an operation system other than Windows, please complain to Peace Now about how their site is full of Microsoft-specific coding and can't be viewed properly on anything else. --Zero 06:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

How to avoid Original Research

In order to avoid original research, one needs to cite what reliable sources have said on a matter, in a neutral way. For example, if one is citing criticisms of Peace Now, one must say "X has criticized Peace now on the grounds that it does Y", with a link to the source stating that. Then, if one wishes to "defend" Peace Now against that criticism, one must similarly state "However, A has stated that X's criticism is invalid, for the following reasons". One should not be making up criticisms, nor should one make up defences of those criticisms; rather, one should quote the critic, then quote someone else responding to that critic. I hope this is helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How do we label this group?

This is always fun and easy to do with no differing opinions, right? :) It seems that the lead should be as NPOV as possible with expansion to follow. Anyways, how do reliable sources "peg" this group? TIA --Tom 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is widely regarded as a radical left wing organization and is referred to as such in most of the sources cited in this article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 19:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What sources? This articles has more cite tags than my dog has fleas :) Seriously, I am going to remove a bunch of the unsourced material here shortly. Again, can we please put links/sources here and I would be happy to add them to the article. Thanks! --Tom 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This article by Y-net that is cited in the article refers to them as a left-wing organization. This article by Arutz 7 from this morning refers to them as a radical left-wing organization. --PiMaster3 ^talk 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PiMaster3 is absolutely correct. Israeli politics clearly are divided into a spectrum, with right, left and far right and far left. It doesn't get more left than Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) and removing it will simply not give the accurate picture. Amoruso 01:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the right label for Peace now is "Extreme Left wing Antisemitic Terrorrists".Axxn 15:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence to this article is ridiculous, and defies WikiPedia standards. The phrase "it is widely regarded as" is weasel words, and these things are frowned upon in articles, for reasons which should be obvious. The weasel words have been taken out of the article, and what remains is simply a declaration that Peace now is left-wing, which is even worse. The article should be NPOV, and the facts within the article should allow the reader to decide for themselves whether or not this organization is right-wing, left-wing, centrist, or whatever. Now, are there credible people who claim Peace Now is centrist? Yes, including some from within the heart of the Israeli establishment, such as former foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami. Read the interview with him at http://democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml, where he states "...even Shalom Achshav, which is a centrist — it's not a leftwing". Of course if you refer to conservative newspapers such as Ynet, of course they would consider Peace Now to be left-wing. I'm sure the Wall Street Journal would also consider them left-wing. Siding with these such publications is a slap in the face to the concept of NPOV, "a fundamental WikiPedia principle". To leave the article as is would be an academic disgrace. DeusIrae 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New Controversy

It has bee discovered that Peace Now was erroneous and criminal in its accusations of the community of Revava. Peace Now stated the community sat on land that was 71.15% privately owned by Palestinians. This has been disproved. The land in question is actually 22% Palestinian and Peace now has been convicted of slander by an Israeli court ordering them to apologize, Justice Barclay ruled that they must pay the Fund for Redeeming the Land 20,000 shekels plus tax. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128821

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/14/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Settlements.php