Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

The Swedish Version of this article

The swedish version is a pure pro-palestinian propaganda, that reffer to israelies as jewish terrorists and exclude all the palestinian violent attacks on jews. The Swedish version should be re-written or deleated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.185.128 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I coudnt agree more!!! Im surprised that such-one sided propaganda is published on wikipedia, but than again there is not much to do about swedish ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.184.57 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Start of Jewish and Arab migration

There is lack of sources and information on the arab and muslim migration waves and the demographic shift in the 19th century:

1814 - the Nadi (Egyptian arab tribe) settlement on southern coast of palestine.

1831-1840 - rule of Ibrahim Pasha (of Egypt), who battled the local muslim populations of Bedouins, Circassians, Druze and others in the "arab revolt of 1834", causing serious casualties to both sides. As a result of Pasha's policies, many Druze escaped to Lebanon, and the Samaritan community almost went extinct. At the same time the settlement policy brought thousands of Egyptian arab peasants into loosely settled coastal areas (town establishment list is available). In addition Pasha's retired soldiers and allied Bedouin tribes settled in the vicinities of Haifa and Jaffa, while the Sudanese were settled in the Jordan Valley.

Other migration :D waves followed when Ottoman Empire restored the control over the area (Syria and Palestina), most noticeable in Galilee - Houran arabs, Algerian tribes, Bedouins, Turkmen, Jews, Kurds, Bosniacs, Circassians and Druze. A very interesting period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There are sources for this information. The source you removed is a professor in history. Please don't remove it again. --Frederico1234 (talk)

17:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your source is irrelevant for the "Timeline of Israeli-Palestinian conflict", since early immigration occured before the conflict began (1920). I ask you to make a link to "Demographics of Palestine" as i tried to, where we should add a subject "19th century migrations to Palestine", and add all the data of early immigration there, leaving here just a brief note that migrations occured. What do you say ? Sincerely Greyshark09.

No, that would not be acceptable. Either we leave this sourced info as it is or we delete any mention of arab migration. We should not leave to the reader to infer that large arab migration occured, since that would be wrong and contrary to what the sources says. A footnot on style: Please sign your comment with four tildes (~). That will insert your signature. And you may use colon before your text to indent it. This will will improve readability. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The numbers on immigration to Palestine during 19th century are highly speculative, whether we are talking of Jews, Arabs (Hourani, Algerian, Tunisian, Egyptian), Sudanese, Druze, Kurds, Turkmen, Bosniacs and others. Perhaps only Circassian migration is well recorded (establishment of Rehaniya and Kefar Kama). By putting a single source to 1914 numbers you might mislead, since most immigrants of 19th century would be already dead (average life span 19th century was less than 60 years, while most migrations occured 1831-1880, considering migrants age of 20 - in 1914 mostly their Palestine born descendants would remain).I must note i do not intend to underline any specific migration but the reader should be aware of all populations which sided in Palestine and migrated there in 19th century as a background to the conflict. There is a tendency by some historians to summarise all non-jews as arabs, and all israelites as jews - both are not correct and mislead.Finally - thank you for the style notification i'm not yet familiar with all styling properties.I have an official degree, so of course i support only the use of credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I updated the text as I see now that I had misrepresented the source. The source didn't refer to how large fraction of the 1914 Arab population which were immigrants. To sort out the confusion I may have created, here is what the source actually says:

Israeli and other scholars of the question conclude that a natural increase in the overwhelmingly Arab population of Palestine from the 1840s would account for an Arab component of the 1914 estimate of 650,000 of between 555,000 and 585,000. Taking the lower figure of 555,000 and adding a Jewish population of about 80,000 in 1914 still allows for an additional 25,000 to 40,000 settlers, whether other Europeans or Arabs. Arabs undoubtedly did migrate to Palestine or were settled by Ottoman officials there during this seventy-year period, but they probably comprised no more that 8 percent of the Arab population of Palestine in 1914

(Bolding added by me to emphasise that this is an upper estimate.) --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The specs for the source seem to have disappeared from the article. Who is Charles Smith? Zero^talk 10:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The specs didn't disappear, they were just never there due to me being lazy. Sorry for that. Updated the source with more info. Smiths resume can be found here. -Frederico1234 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Greyshark09 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Looks much better now, i still think we should link it to a new section "19th century migrations" within "demographics of Palestine", and bring all the sourced information there for all nationalities. I doubt Prof. Smith indeed brought this number for arabs but actually for muslim and pseudo-muslim non-jews including Druze, Circassians and there is no separation between fellahin (farmers and town inhabitans - arab Palestinians) and nomad Bedouin tribes (arabs, who are majorly not considered part of Palestinian people, even though they dwell on territories of Israel / Palestinian mandate / Ottoman provinces of Beirut,J-m, Hijaz).

Greyshark09, Highly disputed sources like From Time Immemorial are not permitted here. Zero^talk 00:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Zero0000, please do not speculate.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A more serious problem in this highly biased article is the start "There had been a continuous Jewish presence in the Holy Land since Biblical times". No mention of the fact that Jews were a minority (usually a tiny minority) for about 1500 years? Zero^talk 10:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You could add there was an arab presence in Palaestina since Byzantian period - the Ghassanid migration. Samaritans and Jews became a minority in 6-7th centuries, until 20th century. Greyshark09 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The time when Jews lost majority is usually put about 200 years before that. Conversion to Christianity was a major factor. However the relevance of this to the present article is dubious. I'd prefer to not address those periods of history at all. Zero^talk 16:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Population exchange of Jews / Arabs in the middle east

The event of 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the following War of Attrition as well as Six Day War were followed by extensive waves of refugees in both directions, both arabs and jews. The attempt to remove the facts of the refugee problem from the article either of Palestinian Arabs or Middle-Eastern Jews is an attempt to lessen the importance of one of the sides in the conflict and therefor is biased. The claim of "exodus didn't occur just in 1948" applies to both arabs and jews, but still the main arena of the refugee problem of both sides is 1948 War. The wider refugee problem dating is 1941-1967 for jews from arab states, and 1947-1967 for the palestinian arabs.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That simply isn't the case. The 700,000 Palestinian refugees referred to were all refugees from the 1948 war. The Jewish exodus you referred to occurred over a very long period, more than three decades, and is not appropriate to add in this part of the timeline. But I'll have a think about this and see if I can come with a compromise. Gatoclass (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, that is a very delicate issue, and this is the reason both refugee problems must come together in the text. The peaks and downs of each exodus were not directly related, but occured over a limited period of time - the period between 1947-1967 and more specifically 1947-1951. We can partition the exodus of each population by years, but we loose the context of the events (frederico correctly moved this section to "After the War"). During the events of 1947-1951 the total amount of Palestinian Arab refugees and displaced (within Palestine Mandate area) was officially 711,000 by UN census of 1951, and more turned refugees during Six Day War of 1967. During the same period the amount of Jewish refugees from arab lands was nearly the same (even larger), but i must remind there are only official numbers of those who arrived to Israel, not overall refugees. In early 50s large numbers of Jews were already displaced and waited in various transition camps until arrival to Israel, Americas or Europe. Unlike Palestinian camps, there was no census of Jewish refugees and displaced by the UN. For example 50,000 of the 150,000 Jews of Iraq were displaced already in 1941 (Farhood riots), yet only in 1950 they left the country. This is problematic to count Arab refugees and displaced, while counting the Jewish arrivals to Israel on the other hand - it creates a distortion of reality. The main problem of Jewish and Arab exodus was created in the period 1947-1951. The Palestinian arab refugees (actually displaced is more correct term for most) were counted in 1951, while the count of Jewish refugees is largely based on later arrival numbers to Israel and population census of the countries they had left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Talking about the Jewish refugees in the same light as the Palestinian ones elides the fundamental difference of national contexts. You point to 800,000 Jews in Arab countries, but don't forget that Algerian Jews were regarded as citizens of France since the Cremieux decree of the late 1800's and had basically no choice but to leave with the other Pied Noirs after the Algerian War of independence. Moroccan Jews weren't actually force to leave and largely migrated of their own will. Same with Lebanese Jews. Yemeni Jews largely left with the connivance between Yemen's Imam, the Israelis and the US in two different airlift operations (though there was communal violence - but not ethnic cleansing). In Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, the Jewish communities left after a mix of communal violence, voluntary emigrations, property confiscations, etc. It was a tragedy yes and a crime for which Arab nations must compensate their descendants. But it is NOT the same as the Palestinian exodus. Palestinians left as a result of a systematic campaign of warfar and ethnic cleansing, residing in refugee camps since the 40's. The Arab Jews left due to a mix of factors relating to decolonization, national reprisal relating to "guilt by association", etc. Furthermore, many Israeli leaders of Mizrahi (Middle Eastern) background have rubbished attempts to label them "refugees" in the same sense as Palestinians. It implies that they are somehow exiles from original homelands rather than "returnees" to the motherland, as Zionist ideology would have it. I can recommend you to some detailed balanced work on the issue like Joel Beinin's ethnography of Egyptian Jews, Nissim Rejwan's writings on Baghdadi Jews, and Michael Fishbach's excellent commentary on the question of compensation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.123.161 (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Six day war

Frederico, my edit was a shortened version of the value Six day war in Wikipedia, since the previous edits were inaccurate. BTW I propose to farther shorten the description, just adding the casualties numbers. It was a pre-emptive strike in Israeli perseption, after actions interprinted as war declaration by Egypt and its allies. It is senseless to omit this discription and distort the events by saying Israel attacked Egypt, with no context. The same can be said Egypt attacked Israel. Please, do not revert my edit with no discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Saying "Israel attacked Egypt" is not a distortion of events - it is what happened. The context should of course be mentioned too, as you correctly pointed out. I believe the context actually was mentioned, however.
• That Israel actually believed that an Egyptian attack was imminent is dubious. You don't wait three weeks if an attack is imminent, you pre-empt immediately.
• Actually, waiting three weeks isn't dubious at all - "imminent" doesn't mean "tonight"... just as going out to war is a process, so is responding to it in the correct fashion. Remember that the IAF didn't just, "jump in their planes" and run off... it was a well planned attack meant to prevent the Arab nations of gaining aerial support in the attack which Israel believed was coming. In fact, just reaching the conclusion that the attack should start by air and not land wasn't an obvious decision to make... only in retrospect does it seem that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheMeerkat (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Your edit had other problems as well; in particular replacing the well-established term "West Bank" with the POVish "Judea and Samaria". --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

* Believe me, i would not have changed anything if someone havenot started changed "pre-emptive strike" into "attacked".

* The question is not of imminent attack - this is not the claim. Israel saw the actions of Egypt as declaration of war (and also its allies). You don't believe that if Egypt removes UN and closes Tiran straits together with massing army on the border (on the false info from Soviet Union that Israel is preparing a war) would not prompt a war. Therefor as you correctly mentioned Israel attacked Egypt, but a context is important - it was a pre-emptive strike upon actions of Egypt, interprited as declaration of war.

I understand better now. Thanks for the explanation. In that very loose sense then I guess you could call it a "pre-emtive strike". However, I still think we shouldn't say so as it is leads the reader to believe that the Israeli strike was a response to an imminent Arab attack, which was not case.

The context is as you say important. But I don't see why the previous version of the text is lacking in that matter. It said:

The reasons for the the war actions of Israel were Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula (May 16), while expelling the UNEF forces (May 19) and naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran (May 22), as well as Syrian and Jordanian support for Fedayeen incursions into Israel.

Why isn't that sufficient? --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

*There are many names for the region - Judea and Samaria area, West Bank, West Bank of Jordan, Judean hills, Jerusalem Region and i bet you could find more. The fact is that two terms are used interchangably today - West Bank (of Jordan) and Judea and Samaria area. I have no problem here they are the same, but i don't see why is it important to use only "West Bank" (politics?). Anyway it is not important.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is important to use the (by far) most common name of the region, or the reader will get confused. The common name is "West Bank". --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for the text - The Six-Day War. Israel launches an attack against the Egyptian Air Force, claiming that Egypt and Syria are planning to invade. The reasons for the the war actions of Israel were Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula (May 16), expulsion the UNEF forces (May 19) and naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran (May 22), as well as Syrian and Jordanian support for Fedayeen incursions into Israel. Israel defeats the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and their supporters and captures the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Israel annexes East Jerusalem and reopens its holy sites for Jews and Christians.

Greyshark09 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal: The Six-Day War. Israel launches an attack against the Egyptian Air Force followed by a ground invasion of the Sinai peninsula. The attack was motivated by Egypts closure of the Straights of Tiran for Israeli shipping two weeks earlier - an act of war according to Israel. Israel defeats the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and their supporters and captures the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Israel annexes East Jerusalem and reopens its holy sites for Jews and Christians. Sorry for the late reply. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. That wasn't much of a reply. My apology for that. Another try:

Your propsal is good, but has some issues:

• Israel at the start of the war actually (falsely) claimed that Egypt was invading, so saying that Israel claimed that Egypt (and Syria) were just planning to invade is not strictly true.
• Jordan did not support Fatah incursions into Israel.
• The crucial step Nasser took which triggered the Israeli response was the closing of the Straights. That should be emphasised.
• The claim that non-israeli jews weren't allowed to visit holy places in Jordan-occupied Jerusalem seems to be a dubious one. Tom Segev in "1967" writes on page 204 that "Jordan allowed Jewish tourists to approach the [Western] wall, but not Israelis".

Here's a compromise based on you propsal. Changes are bolded and places where text has been deleted are marked with [removed]:

The Six-Day War. Israel launches an attack against the Egyptian Air Force [removed]. The reasons for the the war actions of Israel were Egyptian naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran (May 22) as well as the military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula (May 16), expulsion the UNEF forces (May 19) and Syrian [removed] support for Fedayeen incursions into Israel. Israel defeats the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and their supporters and captures the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Israel annexes East Jerusalem and reopens its holy sites for Israeli Jews [removed].--Frederico1234 (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me apply accordingly.

First of all, it was Egypt who first claimed that Israel wants to start a war, upon false intelligence from the Soviet Union. It was the main reason for military build-up and the war mongering actions of Nasser. It was Egypt who first began the escalation, or actually the Soviet Union, if you like, and it was only a matter of time who pulls the trigger. I still prefer the pre-emptive strike definition in this relation, though i agree to attack wording too. Anyway, everybody was thinking that the other side would invade, but Egyptians were the first to make a war act and Israelis the first to attack - both things should be said in the opening sentence.

The Jordanians gave a free hand to Fedayeen Operations, and to be correct one must also add Egypt to this list. PLO in fact mounted its activities from headquarters in Jordan since 1964 up until Black September, when their activities have become a danger to the ruling Hashemite regime.

It is true some Jews from the West were allowed to visit the Western Wall during the Jordanian occupation. However, such cases were rare, and other Jewish holy sites have become muslim dominated and technically got closed for any Jewish presence (you probably know many holy sites for Islam and Judaism correlate, such as King David's grave - Malik Dawd in arabic tradition). The Old City of Jerusalem and its surroundings contain a large number of holy and historical sites for Judaism as well as Christianity for this matter, many were closed during Jordanian rule. Considering all Palestinian Jews were evicted from East and Old Jerusalem during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (just before formation of Israel) and the anti-semitic policies in the arab world (incuding Jordan) during this period, which led to regional Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands, you cannot relate to Israeli Jews alone in this matter anti-jewish policies. It is simply not-correct, and it misleading to consider exceptions as a hall (it is still the main dogma of several Islamic cicrles, who bring the example of existing Iranian jewish community). It cannot be argued that multi-religeous tolerance was established only after 1967.

Therefor, i do not propose a corrected verison, but expect your suggestion on those matters.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You talk about "anti-semitic policies in the arab world (incuding Jordan) during this period". To lump together different Arab regimes like that is problematic. Jordan differed quite a bit from eg. Egypt and Syria. Jordan's regime was considered moderate and was supported by the US. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Eventually we are speaking of the arab league, it would be strange to separate its members, who signed the same statements and made the same actions. Jordan as well as other members o fthe arab league followed the policy of cleansing. No Jews remained under Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. While one can argue on whether these or other parts of Palestine are Jewish or Arab, it is certain they are not Jordanian or Egyptian.

My edit to your proposal, shortening it. I drop annexation, since it didn't happen during the war,adding casualties instead.

The Six-Day War. Israel launches an attack on Egyptian Air Force (June 5), following Egyptian naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran (May 22) and Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula (May 16), interprited as acts of war. The attack quickly turns into a regional war, in which Israel defeats the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and their supporters. It captures the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The number of war casualties is estimated between 15,000 to 25,000.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good proposal. No objections here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanx, we shall use that, though after discussing the issue of six day war with an Israeli veteran, i want to add the fact of deployment of Iraqi and Egyptian troops across Jordan and declaration of the state of emergency following the closure of the straits of Tiran. This is my second proposal (i think it is short enough and unbiased)-

The Six-Day War. Israel declares a state of emergency following Egyptian naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran (May 22nd) and Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula (May 16th), interprited as acts of war. After deployment of Iraqi and Egyptian troops across Jordan, Israel desides to launch an attack on Egyptian Air Force (June 4th). The attack (June 5th) quickly turns into a regional war, in which Israel defeats the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and their supporters. It captures the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The number of war casualties is estimated between 15,000 to 25,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your earlier proposal was better. The closing of the Straights by Egypt was what lead to war. Jordan had very little to do with it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, indeed my first proposal is better.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Immigration issue

We have been dealing with this before, but i want to go back to this issue again. The jewish immigration events are brought here as major events of the conflict. However, this is a very much unilateral stance of the Palestinian Arab leadership, which claims jewish immigration to be a conflict trigger. Jewish stance on this matter is that jewish immigrants settled either within jewish or undeveloped areas of the country, without any real threat to arab society, and the conflict was eventually on national grounds (as it was also waged by arabs upon the ancient jewish societies across middle east and maghreb, without any immigration reasons). In the same time there is no mention of Arab and Muslim positive immigration to Palestine/Israel, which unlike jewish immigration had been almost unrecorded. It is true its extent is little known, and it had mostly occured either before (beginning and mid 19th century), or right after (British Mandate) the beginning of the conflict in 1920. Never the less, it accured, and sometimes greatly exceeded the jewish immigration in total numbers. Suggestions? Greyshark09 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In any book I've read on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jewish immigration is covered in depth. Arab immigration on the other hand may be mentioned in a footnote or not at all. The article should reflect that reality. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Arab immigration is not the issue, the question is whether Jewish immigration should be "major event" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It reflects a problematic bias perspective.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As with every issue in this conflict, the answer here needs to consider both sides. As you correctly say, the Palestinian nationalist stance is that Jewish immigration was the root of the conflict in the region, and that Arab immigration was irrelevant. The Zionist stance does not dispute that Jewish immigration was relevant, but argues that other factors including Arab immigration were also relevant. The two sides of the argument do not technically clash, so the balanced view has to be that both Jewish immigration and Arab immigration played a part - the reader can decide which was more relevant.

My specific suggestion is that the article needs more context - it should mention Proto-Zionism, Moses Montefiore, the Decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Greek War of Independence - the latter being the earliest trigger claimed by either side.

95.21.75.73 (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No. The answer is not to consider "both sides". The answer is to look at what the experts say on the matter. And please: forget about Arab immigration. The zionist claim that Arab immigration was significant is a lie and the historians confirm it. Just drop the issue. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll never make progress with that attitude - for better or for worse, there are "experts" on both sides of this issue - and I believe that every single one of those experts leans towards one side or the other. The only way to make this article work is to put both sides down - that goes for every issue on this page which, by the way, is currently full of Zionist propaganda suggesting throughout that the Zionists were the defenders and the Arabs the attackers. There are two sides to every story in this conflict - once the article is balanced, we can let the reader decide. So, to my point, can we please start this timeline earlier with the seeds of the conflict - Proto-Zionism, Moses Montefiore, the Decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Greek War of Independence. 95.21.75.73 (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The question on Arab immigration is not an issue where scholars active in the field are divided. There is simply no evidence of large Arab immigration into Palestine during the period. WP:NPOV, an official Wikipedia Policy, requires us to "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". To follow your proposal would be to violate that policy. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to revert this discussion to its original topic, since it has became a discussion on arab immigration. I want to emphasise that i wanted to discuss whether Jewish immigration is indeed a major event of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, as Arab and especially Palestinian Arab politicians claim. What is the stance of historians regarding the relevance of Jewish immigration to the conflict (historians from both sides)? Is jewish immigration indeed recognized as a trigger of Arab violence in Palestine since 1920, or was Palestinian Arab volence just a part of major Arab world pattern of anti-jewish volence, which also occured in Marocco (1903 Taza, 1907 Casablanca, 1912 Fez massacre), Iraq (1917 Bagdad rioting against jews), Egypt (riots of 1901-1902, 1903, 1907, 1908) etc. on nationalistic and anti-semitic grounds. Clearly anti-jewish violence across Middle East didn't have much to do with immigration issues, so was the situation in Palestine any special in this regard?Greyshark09 (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer is complex given the number of different events you have quoted. When you look at these lists of pre-balfour anti-jewish events, bear in mind that such lists are commonly compiled with the intent of finding a pattern to justify how poorly the jewish immigrants in to palestine treated the native arabs. If you look into the background of each one of those pre-balfour events, you will find that they were most often driven by specific political issues in a very unstable arab world, rather than some kind of coordinated anti-semitism or anti-zionism.95.21.74.221 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you provide a source for how poorly the jewish immigrants in to palestine treated the native arabs. Sound like synthesis.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to not see Jewish-Zionist immigration into Palestine as major events. How co�uld there had been a conflict between Zionist Jews and Palestinian Arabs if the said immigration had not occured? How could there had been an Israel? --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have academic support for such a view?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

For what sentence specifically? --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That immigration wave by itself was a major event of the conflict to mention it outside of violence events (1920-1921, 1929, 1936-1939 riots), rather than mentioning it within the conflict events among stated reasons for violence by arab nationalists.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I might have been mistaken. In "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" Charles D. Smith presents a chronology on the last two pages. As far as I can see, there is no entry on Jewish immigration during the pre-Israel period. Similarly with Mark Levine's "Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine since 1989", where a chronology is presented in the beginning of the book. I'm ok with removing the entries describing the Aliyahs. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, i think we shall remove the separate entries on Aliya as a conflict event, but mention the Jewish immigration as an important issue for arab nationalism and the beginning of the violent events under the leadership of Amin Al-Husayni. Good work.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why have you removed the first killing by Zionists of a native Palestinian in 1882? You can't tell us that's not part of the conflict!

You've also failed to start a talk-section and explain why you object, as you're required to do under BRD. Templar98 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why have you removed the account of the first known incident of Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This was for 1882:

The first groups of Hovevei Zion arrived in Palestine in the spring and fourteen Biluim left Eastern Europe for Palestine on June 30. They planned "self-redemption" and national renaissance through settlement and physical labor in the Land of Israel. In December 1882 a guard at the Hovevei settlement, Rosh Pina in the Galilee, accidentally shot dead an Arab worker from Safad. Around fifty or sixty Biluim reached Palestine by the end of 1884. Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p.18, 19 & 47.Templar98 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)) - banned user

This is not a reliable quote from Morris, but a collection of unrelated sentences from a tertiary source, which quotes Morris. (p.18,19 & 47). Anyway Rosh Pina 1882 incident, as well as various Jewish and Arab crime casualties are not related to nationalistic conflict, thus not linked to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Most sources agree that nationalistic Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in 1920, some state earlier dates (Frederico suggested 1890s i think). I removed your Hovevei Zion Aliya input because we stick to historians' timescale of conflict events - and 1882 is not included.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::::There are big, big problems at this article and I can see where they come from, a refusal to use the reliable sources.

There are indeed problems with Morris - he's a right-wing Zionist and seeks to cover up this killing as an "accident" when we know from less extreme (but still Zionist) observers that these first immigrants used their sticks and guns freely with no opposition from the Ottoman administration.

Four years later came the first known Palestinian retaliation, the famous attack on a settlement (Petach Tikva) by fifty or sixty villagers, vandalizing houses and fields and stealing much of the livestock. Four settlers were injured and a fifth, an elderly woman with a heart condition, died four days later.

But my heart sinks when I see people who don't even format their talk-page responses sensibly. Templar98 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source the describes this specific incident differently than Morris? And stop commenting on how people format their responses, unless you want to do so on their talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Beginning of the conflict

Does anyone have an issue if we start this timeline earlier with the seeds of the conflict - Proto-Zionism, Moses Montefiore, the Decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Greek War of Independence?95.21.74.221 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Greek War of Independence important? And who is Moses Montefiore? --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It is in the articles:

• Greek War of Independence: "In turn, the success of the Greek Revolution was to stimulate the incipient stirrings of Jewish nationalism, later called Zionism."... and ..."Whereas previously only large nations (such as the British, the French, or the Germans) were judged worthy of national self-determination by the Great Powers of Europe, the Greek Revolt legitimized the concept of small ethnically-based nation-states and emboldened nationalist movements among other subject peoples of the Ottoman Empire."
• Moses Montefiore:"the founding of Mishkenot Sha'ananim in 1860, the first settlement of the New Yishuv"...and..."These activities were part of a broader program to enable the Jews of Palestine to become self supporting in anticipation of the establishment of a Jewish homeland."

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Arab Nationalism and Zionism

I think this section title need to change. Palestinian nationalism were pretty much non-existant at the time (late 1800's), I believe. Something like "Birth of Political Zionism" would be better. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Arab Nationalism was born in 19th century, Palestinian Arab Nationalism is just a branch of it, formed by Muhammad Amin al-Husayni. It is indeed hard to distinguish between arab nationalism and palestinian arab nationalism. I agree to change it to Zionism and Arab Nationalism if you want.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the statement "Arab Nationalism was born in 19th century"? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Emergence of Arab Nationalism is well described in Adeed Dawisha's Arab Nationalism in the twentieth century - from triumph to despair, Chapter 2, entitled Early startings: The Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. However, some do say that Arab Nationalism had not been a dominant political movement until WWI, as you can see here [1]. On the other hand, Zionism too was pretty much reluctant movement until the Balfur declaration of 1917, which introduced a solid target. Likewise was the British promise to King Faisal during WWI for national Arab home in the former Ottoman land.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Also as mentioned before, Zionism is not exactly adequate to Palestinian Nationalism, but rather to Arab Nationalism. If we wish to finda counter part to Palestinian Nationalism, then it should be a term like Israeli Zionism (perhaps post-Zionism?).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. In the first book you mentioned, what start date do the author set for Arab nationalism? Does he mention the inhabitants of Palestine? --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

From what i see in Dawisha's book the roots for strictly defined Arab nationalism (unlike establishment of a renagade Muhammad Ali's kingdom in Egypt, which can be seen from several perspectives) in Syria and Lebanon are in 1857 and 1875 (p.29). I found an interesting quote in another book The origins of Arab Nationalism by Rashid Khalidi, p.8 Arabism and regional patriotism were mingled and given predominance over Ottomanism by some in Syria and Lebanon. As early as 1868, Ibrahim al-Yaziji called for the Arabs to recover their lost ancient vitality and to throw off the yoke of the Turks. He also participated in a secret society that worked for this goal in the late 1870s and posted a few placards calling for rebellion in Beirut. During the same period there was a similar movement among Lebanese and Damascene notables, mostly Muslim but possibly with some Christian participation. Greyshark09 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to correct myself after reviewing Zionism. Apparently Zionism and Jewish Nationalism are almost iterchangable, whereas Palestinian Arab Nationalism is a branch of Arab Nationalism. It is correct to say Zionism and Palestinian Arab Nationalism, since both dealt with Palestine since WWI, but had earlier beginnings in the 19th century. Anyway it seems the collision of those nationalistic movements occured in early 20th century (Nabi Musa riots, Jaffa Riots and Tel Chai fighting), when both Palestinian branch of Arab Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism were already alive and beating. Unless you find a specific position of an historian denying this, i suggest we keep the title.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A question of definition (or, what date should we start with?)

"Israeli-Palestinian conflict"? Surely there can't be an Israeli-anything conflict without an Israel. That would put the start date at 1947/8, no? PiCo (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

I propose to remove the tagging of "factual accuracy", since this article has been extensevely edited and debated in the recent months to reach a certain level of validity.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

:Many other parts of this article are not simply disputed, they're totally untrue. Templar98 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Templar, please notice that the removed dispute tag is of factual accuracy not neutrality. I agree that this article is still subject to neutrality dispute, thus it remains. I would like to point your attention that your previous remarks were transferred to appropriate discussion of Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Immigration issue. Please put your remarks into relevant discussion, or open a new one if you like by bounding a subject with two evens, like this == Subject ==.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested merge procedure. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Merge.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Since this article is greatly overlapping the article of Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict i subject it for merger. The article name itself including both violence and conflict is exaggerating the issue, which is widely and in detail discussed in target article. Sub-articles by years 2000-2008 (Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2000, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2001Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2002, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2003, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2005, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2006, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2007, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2008) would be linked as subsections of Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict instead of subsections of Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please vote Confirm in favor of this merge or Oppose if you are against (please provide a reason). Greyshark09 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Significant overlap. However, I would like to go one step further and merge both Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (this article) and Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "Timeline of..." is not a very encyclopedic name for an article while "History of..." is. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The complete merging proposal is now relisted and all contributors of the source and target articles during the last calendar year were notified.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - assuming the information in this article will be used as background for the relevant periods in the other article, merging seems like a good idea. It would certainly improve the timeline article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested merge procedure. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merging

I suggest to merge the article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both articles are substantially the same, and shouldn't exist in separate. You can vote Confirm or Oppose here Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merging with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The complete merging proposal is relisted and all contributors of the source and target articles during the last calendar year were notified.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The outcome of the merger proposal is merge. Editors are welcome to assist the merging of Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into this article.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Early clashes" section has some content which could be merged, as that time period is not really covered in this article (except for the Basel conference).

Slightly off-topic: How do you merge? Is there a special tool for it, or is it just normal copy-paste editing? --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We can merge everything notable. Currently, i have already made the redirect, and removed tags from the page, but all the info is still there. Technically i do cut-n-paste (removing from the original until only the redirect remains), i don't see any other tool possible. There is however an issue of Talk page - we usually fully embed it into the new page, but i'm not sure how the discussions there are relevant (they specifically discuss the "violence" article).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the first stage should be taking all the information from one article and putting it in the other. Then we can cut down on whatever is duplicated, undue, etc.

I can't see the other article right now, but if I remember correctly it consisted mainly of overview type text. You could move that into here at the top of each section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Access it here [2].Greyshark09 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Frederico, i have once again read the "early clashes" section in the "violence" article and i doubt it is relevant here (it is a background to the conflict). For example i don't see how we can put into timeline article that "by 1908 a dozen Jews were killed by Arabs, but only 4 on nationalist ground", and putting a merriage shooting accident in the conflict article is rediculous - in Jordan dozens die in wedding celebration shootings annually to this day (some editor added "this was the first incident of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", but that is a clear POV pushing, and not something Morris said). I think we should merge those into "History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Greyshark09 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done The merge has been completed. Greyshark09 (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

More merges on subarticles

More work is required on the subarticles, which is merging "Violence against Israelis in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict <year>" (2000-2007) into "Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict <year>". Another one is "2006 Israel–Gaza conflict casualties timeline" into "Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2006".Greyshark09 (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't get why "Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict <year>" becomes "List of Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2011". Could we have some consistency in the naming of these articles please.

We're also missing the years 2009 and 2010. There's only lists of Israeli rocket attacks. This seems unbalanced. thanks Halon8 (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up timelines.

Hi, I've began cleaning up the timelines on the article, mostly to do with adding bold-text to dates for readability, improving sentence flow making a few pieces of language more encyclopaedic. I'll hopefully get around to finishing this very soon...but would appreciate it if anyone could review my edits and maybe lend a hand. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good on the whole, I've fixed one grammatical error. While you're doing this, I strongly recommend changing this entire article to one tense only. This article flips between present and past tense a lot. --Jethro B 01:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think the article would be better if we'd use full sentences, rather than "Name of operation. Da da da. 58 killed." --Jethro B 01:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these things are important. I think if we are writing in whole sentences, the past tense is marginally better. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there's some Wikipedia policy on it, I just don't know what. I've sometimes seen lists written in present, and sometimes in past. --Jethro B 14:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:DATELIST is the relevant section of the Manual of Style. While it doesn't actually tell us which tense to use, its examples use the past. I think we both agree that consistency is the main thing. I'll amend to the past in edits I make, if that's OK by you. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's spectacular with me. --Jethro B 15:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)