Talk:Second Intifada

Casualty figures and dates

It seems to be accepted that the Second Intifada was over by the end of 2005, but the casualty figures are those from 2000 to 2008. I am going to alter them to fit the timeline given in the article. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If anyone believes the new figures are inaccurate and wants to change them, please discuss it here first. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Btselem numbers:

Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories:

210 (2000-04)

Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in Israel:

434 (2000-04)

Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories:

218 (2000-04)

Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians in Israel:

83 (2000-04)

Israelis killed by Palestinians between 2000 and 2004: 945

Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories:

3112 (2000-04)

Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in Israel:

56 (2000-04)

Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories:

34 (2000-04)

Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians in Israel:

0 (2000-04)

Palestinians killed by Palestinians:

152 (2000-04)

Palestinians killed by Israelis and other Palestinians between 2000 and 2004: 3354

--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. There doesn't seem to be a concensus on the figures. For fatalities between September 27, 2000 and January 1, 2005, the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism gives the following figures:

Palestinians killed by Israel: 2,773

Palestinians killed by other Palestinians: 406

Total Palestinians killed: 3,179

Israeli civilians killed: 764

Israeli security personnel killed: 215

Israelis killed by actions from the own side: 22

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs gives a detailed list of each attack that resulted in deaths, and it supports the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism's figures. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Palestinian casualties, B'Tselem considers the number of people killed is higher than your sources. And gives proper details of every full name, place of residence, age and incident.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel MFA also gives every full name, age, place of residence, and circumstances of death, so I would consider it and the ICT to be the more reliable sources for Israeli casualties. Israel MFA includes Israelis killed in Palestinian attacks abroad, which I think might explain the differences with B'Tselem, as B'Tselem only lists those killed within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Perhaps both figures should be given in the article's infobox:

Israelis total: 945-1,010

Israeli security force personnel: 215-301

Israeli civilians: 644-773

Palestinians total: 3,179-3,354

Palestinians killed by Israeli security force: 2,739-3,168

Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians: 34

Palestinians killed by other Palestinians: 152-406 --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone see the contradiction between the casualties and the description of Palestinian and Israeli tactics? The high level of Palestinian civilian casualties (and their age/sex characteristics) are directly attributable to the predominant (highest numbers and occurring most often) form of resistance i.e. youth demonstration; that were countered with force. There is not a single mention of youth demonstrations against the occupation in the tactics section. Indeed, the emphasis on the Palestinian struggle as a predominantly armed one is highly debatable. As is the statement that the resistances' most effective method was suicide bombings, many (such as Usher, Kaufman-Lacusta, Qumsiyeh and Sharp) have argued quite the opposite that they were in fact a strategic mistake, merely obscuring the vast amount of limited violence and nonviolent resistance performed by civilians. This entire article is an under sourced mess which entirely misrepresents the nature of the second intifada. Where is the balance? 86.132.59.126 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Steffan Smith

Casualties, again

There are big problems with this highly manipulated section.

• Figures still given for after-Intifada
• Original research and WP:POV in section Combatant versus noncombatant deaths:
  • This item is exaggerated to undue proportions (in fact, the combatant-noncombatant ratio is virtually oninteresting and irrelevant)
  • percentages are fabricated and until 2008
  • Chart is controversial and until 2008
  • Highly undue part about criticizing B'Tselem statistics, using many unacceptable non-neutral sources, including opinion articles and Shin Bet figures. The critics are essentially that B'Tselem uses the definition for civilians conform international humanitarian law (http://www.btselem.org/statistics/casualties_clarifications) and includes civilian police, non-violent ("not participating in fighting at the time of death"), unarmed Hamas members and stones-throwing children.
    

--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

restore to prior accepted version

I just noticed User:Wickey-nl made a number of changes to the article in the last month. Some were good but some were horrific POV problems. For example the opening paragraph in the lede states

It started in September 2000, when Ariel Sharon made a provoking visit to the Temple Mount and Palestinian demonstrations were cracked down by the Israeli army with brutal force, using lethal ammunition.[6]

While I can't claim that this position is unreasonable for one side narrative, it does not represent the other side of the narrative. And the words "provoking", "cracked down", and "brutal force" shouldn't be used regardless in an encyclopedia. Therefore I have restored the prior consensus version that would allow us to figure out what changes are acceptable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, the revision referred to as the "prior consensus version" is Revision as of 2013-11-24T09:12:37. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So, brewcrewer, you say I made some good edits and after a month, with one edit you undo many former edits, including those of others. I claim that my edits are reasonable in a very unbalanced article. Provocative is not my word, but you can find it frequently on internet. It is even not a biasing word, but a word expressing an experience. The very authoritative Mitchell report uses even the words "highly provocative" and "a large number of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and a large Israeli police contingent confronted each other ... Police used rubber-coated metal bullets and live ammunition to disperse the demonstrators, killing 4 persons and injuring about 200". You might discuss specific wording or change some details, instead doing a dirty job with a dirty trick. --Wickey-nl (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Links

Aftermath: >> Jerusalem holy site visit sparks riots (Lihaas (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)).

Result ?

I find some of the acclaimed results in the infobox a bit strange. Especially the conclusion "Decrease of violence in the West Bank". Was the violence decreased compare with the period before the intifada? According to the article, the intifada started when Sharon visited the Temple mount. I assume that the situation in the West Bank was relatively calm, before his visit.--85.166.156.71 (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ICRC report on targeted assassination

@Averysoda: I again fail to understand your edit summary. it doesn't say "international community"? Did you read the source? I quote from the source I cited (pg 375): The assassinations have also drawn widespread condemnation in the international community. It gives various examples. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over the lead - Arafat's role in the intifada

How many times will people revert back and forth before someone realizes that edit-warring is useless and one should open an RfC or something? Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

LoveFerguson, in extremely tendentious articles like this, you really have to take things to talk. Whether you agree with those who are reverting you or not, there is a process. I gurantee you that no matter what, the final disposition of this article will please no one's point of view. This is neither Palestinopedia or Israelopedia. What we intend here is to try and represent all valid points of view (those that have verifiable and reliable sources) in proportion to their penetration in the greater world (with an emphasis on English-language sources, as this is the English Wikipedia project). Just as you feel, for example, that there is a valid source for Arafat being the cause, many others here disagree. You are all probably colored by your points of view, upbringing, families, political leanings, etc. THAT'S OK, you're all human. Again, the key is to take the slow and steady way to discuss the points in question in detail and have everyone explain their reasons and try and develop the "least of all evils" agreement. One suggestion I have found very useful is that if you want to add point A which represents one point of view that belongs in the article, try mentally wording it from the perspective of point B. At the least, it tends to remove partisan words.

Regardless, continued reversions, additions, deletions of material that has clearly been contested and removed only serves to inflame tensions and needs to be curtailed. Continued disregard of consensus-based methods of dispute resolution may result in measures taken to protect the project. Of course, that goes for everyone here (myself included). -- Avi (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I will attempt to make the case for my edit here. My point of view is very simple:the notion that Arafat pre-planned the intifada is a conspiratorial pro-Israel view. This is reflected in the sources cited by LoveFerguson which are mostly editorials from ideologically committed observers. To my knowledge, this viewpoint is not accepted by reliable scholarship on the issue. Nevertheless, since it is certainly a prevalent opinion, it should be included somewhere in the article, though I do not think the lead is appropriate, because it creates a false balance and gives undue weight. JDiala (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your reasoning, why does it take so much time to open a talk page discussion? This thing has been going on for a couple of weeks, with nobody making a single comment on the talk page. Complex historical matters are not amenable to arguing through edit summaries. Besides, edit-warring is not allowed, even if you are correct. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. You're right. Do you want me to apologize or something? I'm here now; we can discuss it. JDiala (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, the discussion is now occurring. We want to enforce that behaviour, not attack it. JDiala, fair enough, let's wait a while and see if there are any agreeing or opposing arguments. I guarantee you, no matter what happens, Wikipedia will be wrong. 8-) -- Avi (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No I don't want anyone to apologize. I was simply expressing the frustration over seeing reverts back and forth on my watchlist for the last fortnight. I even opened this talk page discussion yesterday, hoping someone would notice it. But people seem to ignore the talk page. So I made a dummy edit linking it on the main page. As to the edit, I am not the one who wants to make the edit, it is up to LoveFerguson to provide their rationale. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that JDiala's persistent removal of sourced content is a clear case of wp:I don't like it. For example, this is an indisputable secondary source. JPost is a known newspaper in English, which is used in several articles throughout Wikipedia as a reliable source to report about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both Israeli and Palestinian newspapers are used as RS, because sources are required to be reliable, but not necessarily neutral in a "pure sense". However, that's not even the point here. Suha Arafat is someone who knows about her own husband much more than all of us together. And she is admitting that Arafat planned the Intifada due to the collapse of Camp David talks, and NOT Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (that was merely a trigger or pretext, not the ultimate cause for the Intifada). Per wp:balance, I propose to include the following sentence next to Sharon visit: ...when Ariel Sharon made a visit to the Temple Mount, seen by Palestinians as highly provocative; and Palestinian demonstrators, throwing stones at police, were dispersed by the Israeli army, using tear gas and rubber bullets, although Suha Arafat admitted that her husband planned the uprising due to the collapse of peace talks. Objections?--LoveFerguson (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim made was "some consider that the uprising was pre-planned by Yasser Arafat due to the collapse of peace talks". I propose that, if such a statement is to be made, the claim itself should be backed up by some sort of reliable source, not a woman asserting the claim is true. I do not think that is sufficient (for example, she may be saying that for attention or political reasons - it is difficult to surmise whether or not she is being honest). I can cite two reliable secondary sources (books I have, The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim and Righteous Victims by Benny Morris, which disagree with this view, as well as the Mitchell report which explicitly states that the PA did not "[deliberately] plan" the intifada). I would also like to note that I am not arguing that the claim be dismissed, but rather placed elsewhere in the article. LoveFerguson seems to misunderstand the purpose of the lead section. It is to provide a "concise overview" of the article "with appropriate weight". The viewpoint that Arafat preplanned the intifada is a partisan viewpoint which is best excluded from the lead; controversial viewpoints should not be given the same weight as the mainstream opinion that the cause of the intifada was the provocative effect of Sharon's visit to Al-Asqa mosque and the discontent regarding the failed peace talks. JDiala (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually ,the "indisputable" secondary source says nothing of the kind. The JPost is RS, meaning that it is correct that MEMRI actually claims that Suha Arafat made such a statement. It says nothing about the reliability of MEMRI. Secondly, this, by definition is a primary source. Historical matters are not decided on primary sources. There can be a hundred different reasons why Arafat (assuming he did) made such a statement, the simplest one being that he could be boasting, or blustering. Just because I claim in a video that "I am going to cause an earthquake" and by some chance, an earthquake happens, does not mean that I caused the earthquake. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

JDala, you are wrong. Mitchell Report doesn't say the Intifada was caused by Sharon visit. This is what it says:

"The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada". But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited."--LoveFerguson (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)