Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Did Arafat reject the offer?

The Camp David section states this. Arafat rejected this offer. However the source given Pressman, Jeremy (Fall 2003). "Visions in Collision - What Happened at Camp David and Taba". International Security 28 (2): 6.actually states the following, on Pg 15-16:

rejecting barak’s generous offer

The Israeli offer at Camp David, the Clinton plan, and the Israeli proposals at Taba all broke new ground for Israel and the United States. In each case, the Palestinian negotiators accepted some significant points and also broke new ground. They did not reject the Israeli/U.S. proposals in toto. At Camp David, the Israeli offer was unprecedented, but it was neither as generous nor as complete as Israel has since suggested. With the Clinton plan, Israeli and U.S. negotiators correctly noted that Palestinian officials had serious reservations about proposals for the West Bank, Palestinian refugees, and the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary. In explaining the failure of the diplomatic route, however, they did not highlight the significant Israeli reservations about the Clinton plan on many of the same issues. The Taba talks were serious, and important developments took place. The Palestinians did not reject another Israeli offer.

Therefore I have changed the above to Arafat did not accept this offer.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I provided a source that says rejected. --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

good work, i will add them both And we can record that some sources say reject, and some did not accept.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

didnt kissinger give a comment on the whole thing? any source we can use from him?77.53.83.107 (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 return of bodies

Any comments on this article (besides the fact that the name is extremely unhelpful to most readers). Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

-- [A question/suggestion] --

Add more information regarding Israeli assassination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations

Unfair showing of causalities pictures between both sides .

The numbers of pictures showed are in favor of the Israeli side , under 1948 Palestinians causalities only one picture to represent compared to 4 in the Israeli section. You need to make sure displayed pictures of destruction,terrorism and killing are fair between both sides , if not in favor of the side who had more killings as per showed statistics ,which is the Palestinians.Thanks. (67.193.171.189 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

Title is biased

The title "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is incredibly biased, as "conflict" implies some level of equality between the two sides, when in fact one is the ruling government and the other is a subject people (regardless of whether you think this arrangement is justified or not). The Palestinians have rocks, or hand-held rockets if they're lucky. Israel has tanks and fighter jets. "Israeli-Arab conflict" would be ok, as would "treatment of Palestinians by Israel" which is neutral, and doesn't necessarily imply such treatment is bad or unjustified. But the current title is like calling the Holocaust the "Nazi-Jewish conflict"!101.114.55.219 (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning is unsound and your Holocaust analogy is ignorant bordering on racism. --GHcool (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You never made any counterargument to the reasoning why the title should be changed to improve the article. so it seems more like you are a jewish apologists and borders on racism of hatred towards non jews109.225.100.105 (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Since both sides are shooting missiles at each other (missiles provided by the USA and Iran of course), there is clearly some element of conflict over there. And these allegations that Gaza is some sort of death camp overlook the care the Israelis took in calculating the required number of calories required to avoid starvation and then subtracting twelve percent. Hcobb (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a full moon or something? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my bad.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/10/18/Israel-counted-calories-to-limit-Gaza-food/UPI-48451350543600/?spt=hs&or=tn If Israel were supplying all Gaza's food, the 2,575.5 tons for Gaza would require 170.4 truckloads a day, five days a week, the document said. But the document's authors deducted 68.6 truckloads to account for vegetables, fruit, milk and meat Gaza produced locally -- and deducted 13 truckloads to adjust for the "culture and experience" of Gazans' food consumption.

13 divided by 170.4 is only eight percent below starvation and not twelve percent. I misremembered the (causally whitewashed from the article of course) figure. Sorry for the inconvenience. Hcobb (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's why so many of them died of starvation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank Allah the Hamas leaders were able to feed their troops by smuggling in some food in place of some of the Iranian/Sudanese missiles. Hcobb (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Stupid Israelis can't even starve people properly. By the way, Auschwitz also had one of the highest obesity levels in the world at the time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

They could starve jesus christ to death.Bearing false witness and shoting crucify him to the romans. And the people of ukraine in the Holodomor genocide of 1932. It litterly means forced starvation. So yes, some people the israelis could certainly starve to death.

This however is a sourced document about the whole event http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2012-10-17/gaza-siege-report-2279-calories-per-person-how-israel-made-sure-gaza-didnt-starve/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.100.186 (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"The drafters of the “red lines” document noted that the quantity of fruit and vegetables Gaza could produce for itself was expected to decline from 1,000 tons a day to 500 within a few months, due to the Israeli ban on bringing in seeds and other raw materials needed for agriculture, as well as the ban on exporting produce from the Strip. They predicted a similar fate for the poultry industry. But they didn’t propose any solution for this decline.

Robert Turner, UNRWA’s director of operations in the Gaza Strip, told Haaretz that he “read the draft with concern. If this reflects an authentic policy intended to cap food imports, this ‘red lines’ approach is contrary to humanitarian principles. If it is intended to prevent a humanitarian crisis by setting a minimum threshold, it has failed.”

A couple of statements from the source that I suggest we should add to the food crisis section debate109.225.103.114 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Link to 1956 Suez crisis

The link referring to the 1956 Suez crisis should instead link to the Suez crisis page, as the event is known as the latter, not the former. Cgyounk969 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's fixed. There is an automatic redirect from 1956 Suez Crisis to Suez Crisis. The reason 1956 Suez crisis appears as a red link is because the letter c is in lower rather than upper case. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased

The fact that the military occupation of Palestine by Israel is not mentioned in the lead is absolutely ridiculous.

Then quickly looking through the article there are titles like "Israeli security concerns" and "Palestinian violence outside of Israel" but no titles such as "Israeli violence outside of Palestine" or "Palestinian security concerns". Under these headings there is information on Palestinian rocket attacks - but no information on Israeli missile strikes, information on the percentage of Israelis who know someone injured in the conflict, but not the percentage of Palestinians who have lost someone, statements like "the motivations behind Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians are multiplex" but no statements questioning the reasons why Israeli settlers and military attack Palestinian civilians, etc,

"Palestinians claim at least the parts of the city which were not part of Israel prior to June 1967." (The city being Jerusalem) Such a sentence suggests that these parts are now part of Israel, this is not true, they are only now militarily occupied by Israel.

I hope someone can fix these obvious problems with the article. Sepsis II (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)