Talk:Six-Day War

Lede 3rd Paragraph Dispute

As the protected status will expire tomorrow and the article will be again open for editing, I'd like to make sure that the edit warring doesn't begin again. I've expressed this elsewhere, but so far haven't gotten any response, so I'm adding a new section in the interests of getting feedback and hopefully establishing a consensus to "preempt" any further warring (pun intended). The 3rd paragraph currently reads:

On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it subsequently described as a preemptive attack on Egypt.[24][25] [26][27][28][29][30] Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces".[31] Israel subsequently claimed it had taken preemptive action because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent[24], despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community.[32] Egypt denied planning to attack Israel, saying the Israeli strike was not preemptive but an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression.[33] Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.[34][35][36]

The footnotes mess is a separate issue, discussed in a separate section. I'm concerned here with making sure the wording is acceptable to all. First, I'd like to get editors to respond expressing whether they approve or disapprove of the sentence: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it subsequently described as a preemptive attack on Egypt." JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. It reads accurately and in a neutral manner. I'm content with this wording. Please approve or disapprove below this line -- if "disapprove", please explain your reasons and present a valid argument for why your own proposed wording would be better. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Phersu (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. harlan (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Shoplifter (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve/Modify The lead was looking OK on NPOV issues, but needs a rewrite on its prose and other other WP:LEAD issues. I actually have free time over the next few days; I may tackle it. if I do, I'll rewrite in user space then post the final version here on Article Talk. That way no one will be shocked by sudden changes. • Ling.Nut 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thought.... with all due respect to both parties: JRHammond's version is modestly closer to the mark than JiujitsuGuy's. However, now that I have had time to let it sink in, I do see the point that JRHammond's version makes the non-preemptive argument just a little too quickly and too emphatically. I would opt for something that dials down that side just a bit more... I'm gonna stop fixing references. Looking at peoples' behavior, it seems that the lead issue is a bit more urgent. I hope to have time tomorrow to write a version in my user space. I bear no ill will to any sides that may exist. I want a lead that is quite nearly dry, almost boring in its impartiality. Or if not boring, then at least unbiased... I really really have to log out until tomorrow, though. • Ling.Nut 15:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on wording. However, the facts I added, surely you can agree, are very relevant. And if the facts lead you to the conclusion that the attack was non-preemptive, that is your own conclusion, not one that I put forth. So I don't really know what you mean by saying I made the "non-preemptive argument just a little too quickly and too emphatically." Facts are facts. JRHammond (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve/Modify. It is certainly an improvement. However, I'd rather have the sentence split up into two sentences, like this:

On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt; Israel subsequently described the attack as being preemptive.

I think it's easier to read this way. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Both are okay by me. JRHammond (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, I added: "Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces"... despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community." The bit where the ellipses is was not my work. Footnotes 31 and 32 are mine. I would refer people to the footnotes. Everyone here can verify the factual accuracy of my additions by going to the sources. Similarly, if anyone has any concerns or comments, please air them here before making changes. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. It is factual, neutral, and verifiable, and adds important information for the context of this paragraph dealing with the claim that Israel's attack was "preemptive". Please express your approval or disapproval below, along with explanation. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Phersu (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. harlan (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Shoplifter (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/Approve See above. • Ling.Nut 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have invested a very large amount of time and energy fixing the format of the article in my user space – and have barely scratched the surface. I'm gonna move the whole thing en masse to article space when the block is lifted. Please do not edit in my user space... you can comment on my talk page. • Ling.Nut 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ling Nut, consensus is achieved through the editing process and the quality of the arguments made during community discussions which take place on various public pages. You are not discussing or addressing JRHammond's concerns. I'd suggest that you join the mediation case and hold off on moving "the whole thing en masse to article space". That sounds like you've been privately planning a replacement page during the period of sysop-imposed editing restrictions. harlan (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at Ling Nuts edits in his (or her) sandbox, and as far as I can tell, all he did was to clean up the footnotes. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to say in reply to JRHammond that he has an alternative version regarding the facts of the article to insert once the protected status is lifted. Just some good ol' house-cleaning that everyone can agree on. Shoplifter (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I thank Ling Nut for taking the time to help clean up footnotes. However, I also thank Harlan for pointing out that my concerns are not being addressed here. I believe Ling Nut mistakenly posted the above in this section when the section above was the intended place for it. I would REALLY appreciate it if other editors would kindly respond and express approval or disapproval of the wording in question in the 3rd paragraph. I REALLY would like to prevent any further edit warring by such means. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

"Avoiding an edit war" is probably impossible, unless some blocks and bans are handed down. The positions of pro-Arab and pro-Israel editors are diametrically opposed, and set in stone... the best you can try to do is merely state that one side says it was preemptive and the other does not. Wikipedia does not have the ability (as other sources do) to take a stance. • Ling.Nut 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It might not be so "impossible" if you would actually just use this section according to its purpose and kindly comply with my request. Also, you appear to be unfamiliar with the discussion. Nobody -- NOBODY -- has suggested the article should state as fact that the attack was not preemptive. If you were familiar with the discussion, you would know that there is a majority of editors who agree both views should be presented neutrally, with neither expressed as fact, and there is a small fringe group of 2 or 3 editors who continually revert all attempts to implement the necessary changes to make the article NPOV compliant. Please familiarize with the discussion, and please express whether you approve or disapprove of the wording in question in the 3rd paragraph. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove. Too much detail for the lead. --Frederico1234 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The facts mentioned are in no way minor points to be made. They go right to the heart of the issue, so I think it's appropriate in the lede. I'd would to agree to a shorter 3rd para in the lede so long as this information is included in a discussion of the "preemptive" issue further in the article. I think it deserves its own section, so I propose we make that happen. I would write up a draft myself, but I won't have the time. Best I can do for now is contribute this bit from the current lede for it. JRHammond (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If Israel only maintained the view that it had been attacked for a day(?) or so, then how is that not a minor point? --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a minor point because if Israel felt it's attack was justifiably "preemptive", why would they feel it necessary to lie about being attacked first? They claimed a false pretense for their attack. That is by no means insignificant. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the source carefully, you will see Israel did not even say it had been "attacked". Which makes your point even stronger. Marokwitz (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your grasping at straws, Marokwitz. It's uncontroversial that Israel initially claimed Egypt attacked first, as the U.N. record shows, as elsewhere in the documentary record, e.g.: "Each Side Accuses Other of Making First Assault", New York Times, June 5, 1967. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove The words "Israel falsely claimed..." are an original interpretation of a primary source. First of all the source doesn't say "attacked" , it says "moved against" which may refer to mobilization of troops. Secondly, the source doesn't say "falsly". If we add a strong word such as "falsly" , this must come with a proper citation. Also regarding the use of "claimed", see WP:CLAIM, especially in such volatile issues. Marokwitz (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not an interpretation. It's a demonstrable fact that Israel claimed Egypt initiated the attack. It's also a fact that that was false. This is not controversial. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove Nowhere Israel "falsely claimed" anything. [1]--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fact: Israel claimed Egypt attacked first. Fact: This claim was false. What's the problem? This is not controversial. JRHammond (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

War did not provide Israel with expanded borders

• The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and provided it with defensible natural borders.

This suggests Israel's capture of territory expanded it's borders, which is false. Look, this previously read "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and greatly reduced its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states." I objected to that for reasons already stated. It's been changed to the current wording, above, without discussion. The point is, when objections are raised, to discuss. Propose solutions, submit them to peer review, and implement them only after agreement is reached. The above does not satisfy my objection. In fact I object even more strongly to this current wording than I did the previous. I'll be removing the objectionable portion of the sentence momentarily. If someone wants to propose inserting something here about Israel being better able to "defend" itself as a consequence of the war, please discuss your proposal here FIRST. Until agreement can be reached on what/how this point of view should be included, it doesn't belong in the lede.

• The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including portions of the West Bank disputed by Israel)...

I've also expressed my objection to this. I'll reiterate my proposed solution here: The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including Jerusalem, which Israel has attempted to annex)... For discussion, see [2] JRHammond (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• You rmvd the "borders" text. "Borders" does not mean "legal borders". Borders means borders, and yes, it is a de facto border. It is a line of control. One party controls one side of the line; another party controls the other. Moreover, the sources explicitly use the word "borders". I know that you're very invested in avoiding any text that affords the Israeli POV any toehold at all into legitimacy, but at some point, as a cooperative editor who is willing to compromise and at times even concede points – as opposed to a tendentious editor – there must be some areas where a little ambiguity can be tolerated. I would suggest that the word "borders" is just such a point; tolerating the minor ambiguity is a way to avoid eliding a major point.... • Ling.Nut 05:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The premise of your argument is fallacious. "Border" very much suggests a legal, or even "de facto", national boundary. The Jordan River comprising the natural eastern boundary of the West Bank, for example, is not the Israeli "border", de facto or otherwise. The only de facto "border" that exists is the Green Line -- that is, the 1949 armistice line. The wording suggested an expansion of Israeli territory, and I removed it (it required approval for the edit to be implemented) for that reason. Moreover, I reject your premise that we should permit "ambiguity" be tolerated on this point. Also, kindly refrain from further suggestions that I'm being uncooperative or "tendentious". As I've requested before, make your case without employing ad hominem arguments. I will continue to do the same. JRHammond (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Edits don't require approval before being implemented: please read WP:BOLD and WP:TE. And one thing is certain: the only way forward is in fact if both sides in the edit war are willing to give in at times, concede points sometimes, tolerate ambiguity sometimes, and adopt a flexible attitude, rather than a rigid and unbending one. I repeat myself, and will continue to do so: there is no version which is perfect for both sides. If either side insists on a perfect version, all progress stops permanently.• Ling.Nut 07:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, WP:DISPUTE states as a guideline: "Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages." Are you opposed to doing so? If not, nothing more to discuss. JRHammond (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute I was referring to doesn't involve me; it involves pro-Israel and pro-Arab camps. "Nothing more to discuss" doesn't open up any way forward, but rather posits an either/or, open door/closed door ultimatum. I don't think I need to point out that I have been impeccably calm, and have been willing to work out all things on various talk forums. Both the structure and the details of the text have been very significantly altered as a direct result of your input. The problem I am pointing out is that each editor must perceive that there are limits to the degree that his or her views can hold sway. The place where those limits exist is, in my view, a question that finds its way to us on a case by case basis. However, in my view at least, flatly denying any and all verbiage that observes the fact that Israel had no defensible borders before the war and did have some after the war comes close to crossing the line between input into the form of the text, and dictation of the same. Please suggest a formulation that observes Israel's acquisition of defensible borders.• Ling.Nut 07:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's "either/or". You can either follow the guideline of WP:DISPUTE or not. Like I said, if you choose the former, then we are in agreement and there's nothing more to discuss about that matter. As for your desire to include something about "no defensible borders", this is your desire. I don't agree this should be in the lede. So I have precisely zero desire to suggest a formulation. Like I said before, I'm perfectly willing to hear proposals if others would like to include it. If you have one, I'm all ears. But any suggested wording must not state or imply that Israel expanded its territory or its borders. And it must equally represent consequences from opposing POVs, and not present only the Israeli POV. I hardly think insistence on these points should be controversial or cause for concern. WP:NPOV demands it. JRHammond (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• As for WP:DISPUTE, I really think you need to ground your statements within a better sense of perspective. There are a host of various essays, policies, etc. on Wikipedia, and they interact in many ways. In many if not most cases, picking a sentence from one page and drawing a line in the sand behind it is a misunderstanding of the intent of that page (and others).
• As for "borders", propositional statements regarding the defining geographic edge between two peoples/states really can't be done without the use of the words "border" or territories". You are inviting me to make bricks without straw. • Ling.Nut 08:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• bound, boundary, bounds, brim, brink, circumference, confine, end, extremity, fringe, hem, limit, line, lip, outskirt, perimeter, periphery, rim, selvage, skirt, trim, trimming, verge? Defensible geographic perimeter?• Ling.Nut 08:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Lin.Nut, do you not agree with me that we should follow the suggested guidelines of WP:DISPUTE to resolve disputes? How is it demonstrative of a lack of "perspective" on my part to suggest we should observe this procedure? Your argument (if I can call it that) has just become bizarre. As for "borders", this is the whole problem: you formulation DID NOT draw a line between Israel proper and the Palestinian territories. If it had done so, I would have had no objection. My whole objection is the fact that your formulation blurred that line and made it -- as you yourself termed it -- "ambiguous". JRHammond (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's tension between policies, guidelines, etc. that call for boldness and others that call for circumspection. Neither trumps the other; editorial behavior is judged on a case-by-case basis.
• There is a line between Israeli-held territory and all other territory on the planet. I prefer to call that line a border, which is the familiar term after all, but could retreat to the much less perspicuous term "perimeter".
• I think you misunderstand my use of the word "ambiguous". The word "border" might invite confusion between legal borders and less clear cases. The word "perimeter" might invite confusion because readers would wonder, "Is that or isn't it the line separating Israeli held territory from the rest of the world?". I think the first chance for confusion is preferable to the second, because I assume readers will be wary enough to be cautious about drawing conclusions regarding the legality of that line. In the second case, I think resolving the confusion will require a bit more mental effort. But that's OK.
• Are you OK with "defensible natural perimeter" or similar? ... mmm maybe "boundaries" is better...• Ling.Nut 08:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Boundaries" and "cease-fire lines" are used quite often. There was nothing particularly "defensible" about these boundaries as subsequent events demonstrated. Ian Pitchford (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They might not have been as defensible as Israel would have liked, but they were an improvement. I like "boundaries" too... The whole lead really does not adequately cover positive facts or outcomes about Israel. And believe it or not, I'm OK with that, at least for the moment. I want to move forward in a constructive manner. But there can't be nothing; there must be something. If not the borders thing, then what? • Ling.Nut 09:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole premise here is a judgment, and a questionable one at that. It's not a fact, and moreover, it's Israel POV and not neutral. I don't see the point of including it in the lede at all, and I think it's inappropriate to do so for the reasons just stated, so whatever noun one chooses to use is moot as far as I'm concerned. JRHammond (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The noted Israeli academic Zeev Maoz has concluded most of the profound ramifications of the war were negative for Israeli policy and society. It accelerated Israeli threat perception and as a consequence defence spending increased from 6% to 14.1% and military personnel increased 30%. Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not exactly a mainstream kinda guy, though. However, my concern is this: I see systematic bias in this article's future. Every statement about Israel that is not explicitly negative is subjected to pages of "analysis and discussion". This does not bode well at all for the future of this article. I am casting about for an approach to handling this problem. I have no desire to be an enabler of propaganda.• Ling.Nut 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian, I'm glad we're in agreement on that point. I'd like to get your further view on my other proposed change to the lede. It currently states:

• "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including portions of the West Bank disputed by Israel)..."

I've argued for removal of the parenthetical, but Ling.Nut is insistent that it remain. I've proposed the following compromise solution, which I've yet to get any response to, including from Ling.Nut:

• "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including Jerusalem, which Israel has attempted to annex)..."

My discussion of this is here: [3] Thoughts? JRHammond (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am in favour of removing the parenthetical comment completely. The status of the Palestinian territories is not ambiguous under international law. Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• You missed the bit where we said that Truth is irrelevant; notability is the threshold for inclusion. We need a page about Israel's claims. and we need a link to it from this article. • Ling.Nut 13:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly reject Ling.Nut's characterization. For the umpteenth time, kindly refrain from tautological ad hominem arguments. JRHammond (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I only want NPOV. If you wish to be considered an NPOV editor, please work with other editors to make the article something other than a straightforward "Israel is evil; Arabs are victims" narrative...• Ling.Nut 13:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So, let's see. According to Ling.Nut, this:

"The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and provided it with defensible natural borders."

is "NPOV". But this:

"The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region."

is equivalent to "Israel is evil; Arabs are victims", clearly demonstrating JRHammond's anti-Israeli/pro-Arab bias.

Right, Ling.Nut. Keep coming up with these. These are good. Very amusing stuff. JRHammond (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• At every juncture, as strenuously as possible, and with a great surge of text from your keyboard, you seek to delegitimize Israel. That is POV. • Ling.Nut 13:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We all want NPOV and using the best academic sources will ensure that we don't end up with a simplistic narrative. Maoz was head of the Graduate School of Government and Policy and the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and academic director of the MA Program at the Israeli Defense Forces' National Defense College. His assessment could provide a suitable template for discussing the outcome of the war and allow us to summarise the range of expert opinion on the key issues. Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Structure dictates POV. Using his analysis as a "template" is a framework for precisely the narrative we wish to avoid: "Israel is evil; Arabs are victims". Or do you wish to avoid that narrative? • Ling.Nut 13:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Using expert analysis will ensure that no key issue is omitted and citing the best academic sources will ensure that no significant viewpoint on those key issues (or difference of opinion about them) is omitted. Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Using one person's analysis as a framework is a welcome mat for POV. let's use Chomsky as an expert to analyze Bush, or maybe Ward Churchill...? • Ling.Nut 13:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, I'm not interested in responding to your ad hominem arguments. If you wish to discuss editing with me, kindly address my edits and suggestions on the basis of their merits/demerits in terms of the facts I present and the logic I use to arrive at my conclusions. JRHammond (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to bed. see above; The answer is No. No framework based on biased scholar's analysis. • Ling.Nut 13:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I once again have an idea on how to solve the phrasing issue. Let's hope it's not as controversial as my last one. Quite easy, really: "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and expanded its borders beyond the legally recognized 1949 armistice line." The point is that it's hard to avoid using the term borders to describe the outlines of state territory, but we're including the fact that these borders are seen as illegitimate by the international community, since they are in violation of the 1949 armistice agreement. What do you think? Note that the Wikilink is a key facet of this formulation. Shoplifter (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't resolve the issue as it still includes "expanded its borders". Disagree it's hard to avoid the problem term. Also, Green Line is not a legally recognized border. Propose: "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and expanded its control of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line". JRHammond (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the war did provide Israel with defensible borders. JRHammond approved the version in sand box, and now adding POV from his Israeli hater articles and blogs.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the armistice lines are not permanent borders so "legally recognized" is inaccurate in that sense. I meant to say that the Green Line is considered the point to which Israel must withdraw to begin final status negotiations. I think your suggestion is reasonable. Shoplifter (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think the suggestion is fine. Ian Pitchford (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the feedback Shoplifter and Ian. As I'm fine without it, I won't make the edit, but if someone else wants to add ", and expanded its control of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line", that's perfectly okay by me. JRHammond (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the wording, and also added a source to emphasize the international consensus that the lands captured beyond the 1949 armistice line are occupied territory. The latter is for reasons of clarity; it's uncontroversial that this is the view of the international community (as seen in the numerous General Assembly resolutions, and the ICJ opinion, et al.). Shoplifter (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Am reverting. Three major problems:

1. Largest problem: This edit once again beats the drum for the "Israel is evil and/or illegitimate; Arabs are innocent victims" narrative. Not that I care; I do care that Wikipedia does not assume an editorial voice. This edit gathers support for an editorial position.
2. This information in this edit is redundant; it adds nothing to text in the first paragraph. The first paragraph already establishes that Israel acquired (relatively) large stretches of new territory; it also established that the territory is legally considered "occupied" as opposed to legally acquired.
3. The meaning of this edit is substantially different than the edits I added. It is not a proper substitute at at all. my edits, already taking on board that Israel has acquired the territory, make the subsequent point that the territory improved Israel's defensive position. This edit merely attempts to drive home the "Israel is evil and/or illegitimate; Arabs are innocent victims" narrative.• Ling.Nut 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the revert, and the reasons given for it. The edit is neutral and perfectly in alignment with the international consensus on the conflict, reflected by the view of the UNSC, UNGA and the ICJ. Your view that the edit creates a "Israel is evil, Arabs are victims"-narrative is, I believe, wholly without foundation. Shoplifter (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• The article is making no progress. Any edit anywhere which even sniffs as though it might vary from the Innocent Arabs narrative is immediately reverted. Huge amounts of very dedicated and heartfelt effort are expended to revert tiny changes to the text.
• Let's say I throw my hands up and put the lead in precisely the shape that you and JRHammond wish it to be. That may seem small.. However, the process will not stop. Step by step, the tone of the article will be altered to fit the preferred narrative. • Ling.Nut 00:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I remain perplexed of how you find this particular edit to be anything close to your description of an "Arabs are victims, Israelis are evil-narrative". These are almost fighting words thrown at another editor, but to choose that description for an edit which echoes 40 years of UN General Assembly resolutions is astounding.
• You still haven't explained what exactly you find objectionable about my edit. Please break it down for me, and we might get some dialectical footing. Shoplifter (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• The debate here boils down to this: What is more important -- laws, or self-preservation? The Arab POV is that laws are more important, since the laws favor their position. Their narrative runs like this: All Nasser's talk was bluster. Blockading the Straits was not an act of war, and it was not illegal (though it was). The troops were there as a defensive measure. Ejecting UNEF was within Egypt's legal rights ... Etc. The Israeli narrative is this: We did what we had to do to survive. Nasser was threatening to exterminate our country, as were others. Troops were closing in on our borders. Nasser ejected UNEF. Closing the Straits was an act of war. We may not have been in accordance with the law, but we had no choice." Now, I am not choosing sides in this debate. But if you take the position in the lead that the legal perspective is the correct viewpoint, then you completely nullify the Israeli narrative (except for the bit about closing the Straits). You give the "legal" arguments a commanding position, holding the podium. You need to understand that we cannot do that, even though you may believe with all your heart that it is correct. We are not lawyers, nor are we editorial writers, nor can we even structure our article to favor one narrative over the other. peppering the lead with legal findings (neglecting the illegality of closing the Straits) is favoring the tools of the Arab narrative. • Ling.Nut 00:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's very good that you clarified your view on this. Let's have a look at what is said in WP:WEIGHT, subgroup to WP:NPOV, the latter being one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia:

• '"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."
• The Israel-Palestine conflict is a disagreement over the application of international law, which is a fundamental principle of interrelations between nations. All parties involved in the Six-Day War were signatories to the UN Convention, thereby accepting to be ruled by the decisions made in the bodies of that organization. As a consequence of the war, there have been numerous rulings that outline the view of the UN and its members on the conflict, and corollary demands for action by the nations part to the conflict. You're claiming that the article should give equal weight to Israel's desire for "self-preservation" as to the laws and directives of the organization to which it is a member. This violates WP:NPOV principles, in particular WP:WEIGHT, since Israel's view is a distinct minority view.
• Another problem with your reasoning is that it basically only applies to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Have a look at the article on the Armenian Genocide. Does it equally represent the Turkish view that there wasn't a genocide committed upon the Armenians as it does the historical and legal view, accepted by a majority of international actors, that it was? It does not, as it shouldn't, for the above stated reasons.

• Why is this the case, then, that the Israel-Palestine conflict is given special treatment? Unfortunately, Americans not seldom think that their view is more important than most other countries, even if all those countries are in agreement. And more than 50 % of the editors at Wikipedia are American, which makes for an unforunate way of reasoning, where the necessity of upholding the worldwide view is often forgotten.

• In summation, the "self-preservation as opposed to the law"-argument is in direct contradiction of WP:WEIGHT, and is in itself a clear expression of WP:POV as it enlarges the view of one participant to equalize that of a devastating preponderance of opposing views. Shoplifter (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is the counterbalance to your WP:WEIGHT argument:The Israeli argument for self-preservation hangs crucially on the closure of the Straits, which apparently is (by consensus) illegal. Their position is legitimized by the legal consensus in that area. All other issues (where they do not hold consensus) are subsequent, both logically and chronologically. Everything comes down to the Straits. Is the UN clearly against Israel holding onto its acquired territory – to the point of declaring it illegal? Yes. Is preemptive war extremely questionable, from a legal standpoint? Apparently so, since anti-Bush people have been trying to get him tried as a war criminal (let's not start the Iraq thing, though: my point is just that he said it was preemptive). Did Nasser moves troops to the border before, but then do nothing? Yes (but he didn't close the Straits at that time). Is it illegal for the leader of a country to explicitly threaten to exterminate another country? Probably not, and if there are any UN rulings against it, they are toothless. Is it illegal to move troops up to the border, but still within your side of the border? No. The key point in every aspect is one and only one thing: the closing of the Straits. That was the (by consensus, illegal) game-changer. This is the counterbalance to your WP:WEIGHT argument: that the Israeli position is not a fringe one on this point, and that it is in fact the linchpin of the entire commencement of hostilities.[ Eban: "From the moment at which the blockade was posed, active hostilities had commenced, and Israel owed Egypt nothing of her Charter rights."]
• Moreover, WP:WEIGHT says "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". The Israeli view is certainly prominent, among directly involved parties. • Ling.Nut 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• This reasoning is only valid if you disavow all UN Security Council/General Assembly resolutions, beginning with Resolution 242 up until today. If we were having this discussion the day after the cease fire, you would've had a point. But the international consensus that has formed over more than 40 years of legal decision making does not allow for the magnification of this one aspect of the war to trump the conclusions of the international community.

• The Israeli view is prominent to Israel, not necessarily (certainly not in this case, as follows from the UN resolutions) to the rest of the world. Shoplifter (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• (undent) My point is this: not only do I not mind if you state the position that the Israeli continued occupation is illegal within the body text; I actively encourage you to do so. [Actually, what I kinda hope is that you'll write a nice succinct two or three sentences or even a paragraph about it, with a wikilink to the relevant legal article, then go to that legal article and edit your heart out]. It is a very valid point. What I do not wish to see is that argument repeatedly foregrounded in the lead. We have already stated that it is an occupation, not a legal acquisition. Repeating this fact begins to create a "cloud of witnesses" prejudicing the reader's perspective of Israeli position, due to its foregrounded position.
• The Israeli view is prominent to this article. we are not the world; we are not the UN; we are this article. • Ling.Nut 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Once again, Israel's view is the minority view. Therefore, it does not deserve equal representation in the lead (this would violate WP:WEIGHT). The lead should reflect the international consensus. Your view that there has been a repetition of facts is, as far as I can tell, erroneous; you've objected to certain phrasings (such as my edit) which states the view of the international community instead of using nebulous language which effectively obscures the issue (to the benefit of Israel). Shoplifter (talk)
• Yes, the Israeli view is prominent to this article, and should be given its due weight in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Again, either you accept that it's a minority view, and we can end this argument, or you don't, and I know where you stand. I mean, why go on with this pointless arguing? I've stated my view, which emphasizes the importance of upholding WP:5, specifically WP:NPOV. Shoplifter (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) How is it a minority view? There are two sides, and Israel represents one. To say that it is one Jewish nation against a brace of Arab ones is... let's say, a novel approach. [Also see nableezy's excellent quote above about occupation and legality; this is a very nuanced topic]. • Ling.Nut 01:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's a minority view because most of the world disagrees with it, as seen in every UN resolution beginning with Resolution 242. The same way as it's a minority view that the Turks didn't commit a genocide upon the Armenians. Yes, of course there are two sides, that is necessary for there to be a dispute. And one side has considerably less support - it's the minority view. Shoplifter (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Your statement completely privileges the Arab viewpoint in every respect. This licenses blatant Arab propaganda, whether you realize it or not. The weight of UN opinion is not against the occupation directly, but other aspects. Moreover, the weight of opinion about the start of the war, as Jiujitsuguy would love to add more cites to prove, is that the war was preemptive. Do I care? Not one stinking bit. i want the article to be neutral. You can drag in opinion about the occupation; J-guy can drag in opinion about "preemptive" and I think both of you are trying to privilege a particular perspective . You also seem to have missed the bit above where I said that your points can legitimately be included -- but in body text.. • Ling.Nut 02:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see that you're making ad hominem attacks. I've reasoned about the international consensus represented by the decisions of the political and legal bodies to which Israel is signatory, and you're accusing me of "licensing blatant Arab propaganda". I won't respond to such accusations, but I will say that your statement that "the weight of UN opinion is not against the occupation directly" is clearly erroneous - one need only look at the most recent UN resolution on the issue [4], which, as usual, calls for "The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem". And, as usual, the whole world agrees except for Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and the United States. Again, let me underscore that your refusal to accept that Israel's view is that of a distinct minority is what creates the illusory problems you have with the text, and the only way you can achieve this is by neglecting the 164 countries in opposition to the Israeli view (and referring to this as an attempt not to "privilege the Arab viewpoint"). Shoplifter (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not ad hominem; not an attack. Your perspective privileges the Arab narrative – whether deliberately or not, as i said, "whether you see that or not".. You did not respond to the fact that the world's consensus is that the war was preemptive... I see JRHammond;s additions as being better dealt with in a footnote. • Ling.Nut 02:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Where is this world consensus that the war was preemptive? I haven't read that anywhere. I've seen an extensive amount of American sources which claim that it was. Hardly representative of the world view. Shoplifter (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"The weight of UN opinion is not against the occupation directly, but other aspects." That is false, as Shoplifter correctly observed. Under numerous Security Council resolutions (not to mention GA resolutions), as well as according to the International Court of Justice, the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible is emphasized and Israel is called upon to withdraw from the territories occupied in '67. This is absolutely non-controversial. As for this discussion on preemption, it's irrelevant to the issue being discussed here and the objections that have been raised. JRHammond (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Did you take the time to look at the quote nableezy provided, above? His comments are directly in line with (read: identical to) others I have seen. Thanks. • Ling.Nut 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you disputing that numerous UNSC resolutions emphasize the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and that they call on Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied in the '67 war? JRHammond (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The UN wants Israel out of the occupied territories. The finer points of legality are not as easily conflated as you would suggest. • Ling.Nut 03:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "finer points of legality" you are talking about. The facts are as I've stated them. JRHammond (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

3 here agreed with the additional clause: ", and expanded its control of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line". Ling.Nut want this to say something about this conquest allowing Israel to defend itself better and so returned to the old formulation. As objections to this have been raised, and as 3 editors here find it inappropriate and only 1 (Ling.Nut) insists on it being included, despite the objections being raised, without addressing those objections, I've put in to remove the wording in question. Until a satisfactory alternative is proposed for which a consensus can be found, it doesn't belong in the lede. To reiterate the objection, the wording in question expresses a judgment, and a questionable one, and is Israeli POV. Ling.Nut has not substantively addressed these objections, preferring instead to engage in ad hominem or other invalid and irrelevant arguments. Moreover, Ling.Nut's arguments against the edit made by Shoplifter are wholly without merit. Stating an uncontroversial fact is not "anti-Israel/pro-Arab". But stating a benefit of territorial expansion from the Israeli POV is, on the other hand, contrary to WP:NPOV. Moreover, this formulation projects onto Israel's neighbors aggressive intent, a further violation of WP:NPOV. One could just as easily cite Oren to point out that this same conquest allowed Israel to threaten Damascus, Cairo, and Amman. It was, after all, Israel that attacked first, and not vice versa. Moreover, the assumption inherent in this formulation that Israel was somehow vulnerable prior to the war is faulty, as its military power was vastly superior to those of its neighbors -- combined. JRHammond (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Some misconceptions

After reading above dispute I came to a conclusion that some editors have a number of misconceptions about Wikipedia policies:

1. No Wiki policy requires that any article follows any "consensus of international community". In fact, any such consensus is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a pocket encyclopedia of the United Nations.
2. What our policies really require is a consensus among reliable sources, preferably scholarly sources. If there is no consensus all opinions should be represented according to their weight.
3. UN and other international organizations are not reliable sources as they are political organizations, which are under influence of various governments and political groups. They are simply not independent enough to be reliable. This means that various SC and GA resolutions can not be used as sources for this article (except as references to themselves).
4. In this particular example, the article should use words that are used in reliable source. Do any source use such words as " expanded its control of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line"? May be, but I still doubt that any serious author would use such a bad and convoluted English. The word "border" seems much more likely to be used. What is the expert opinion about the nature of the war? Do (almost) all scholars think that it was not a preemptive war? Or may be they are divided on this issue? In the latter case the article should give the equal weight to both positions.
5. Do not forget that articles are written for readers in the first place and therefore should be written in a good English. They should not confusing and should be well structured (for example, avoiding repeating the same information twice).

Summarizing, the opinion of the international community is absolutely irrelevant for this article. It should only be mentioned as one of many facts. Ruslik_Zero 20:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• "No Wiki policy requires that any article follows any "consensus of international community". Nevertheless, WP:WEIGHT does require that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"." Thus, the consensus of the international community is relevant, and certainly must be included if the fringe Israeli POV is to be mentioned.

Consensus of the international community is only relevant as one of facts of life. It should be reported but not more. It certainly can not be relied upon as the basis for writing this article. WP:WEIGHT requires giving a weight to "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", not to "all significant view points". You are misrepresenting the policy. International community is not a reliable source, and Israeli opinion may be a minority in some matters but certainly not fringe. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• "What our policies really require is a consensus among reliable sources, preferably scholarly sources... UN and other international organizations are not reliable sources as they are political organizations, which are under influence of various governments and political groups..." U.N. resolutions, documents, etc. are most certainly reliable and authoritative sources that reflect the international consensus.

U.N. resolutions are written by politicians, which are involved parties in conflicts. They are absolutely not reliable, and under no circumstances should be used as "reliable sources". Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• "In this particular example, the article should use words that are used in reliable source. Do any source use such words as " expanded its control of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line"?" This is absolutely non-controversial wording, and states a point of fact.

"Expanded borders" is also absolutely non-controversial wording, but it has one big advantage—it is much less confusing. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Do (almost) all scholars think that it was not a preemptive war? Or may be they are divided on this issue? In the latter case the article should give the equal weight to both positions." This has already been discussed AT GREAT LENGTH on Talk, and the great majority of editors agree this is a judgment and POV and must be expressed as such, with both sides being presented. This should be a non-issue at this point.

You still failed to answer the question. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Summarizing, the opinion of the international community is absolutely irrelevant for this article." No, it is very relevant indeed, for the reasons discussed. JRHammond (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is only relevant as one many facts that should be reported in this article. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• 1) You're making a fatal logical error in intertwining my underlining of the view of the international community, as reflected in the decisions made by the UNSC, UNGA and the ICJ, with that of Wikipedia being a "pocket encyclopaedia for the United Nations". In fact, if you read back what I wrote, I explicitly stated that "the Israel-Palestine conflict is a disagreement over the application of international law." (As opposed to a disagreement over UN resolutions.) This is uncontroversial; the question from which our discussion originated was whether it was part of a "Israelis are evil-narrative" to describe the territorial acquisitions of Israel in accordance with the widely held legal terminology, or, if it was necessary to obscure the issues by using nebulous language to achieve WP:NPOV. The only reason I've spoken of the UN resolutions at length is because there have been attempts by editors to magnify Israel's minority view of the legal issues to permit a hazy reflection of the scholarly consensus.

"the Israel-Palestine conflict is a disagreement over the application of international law" This is a hollow statement because almost any war or international conflict involves "a disagreement over the application of international law". Moreover this article is about a war, not about "Legal issues of the Israel-Palestine conflict". "to describe the territorial acquisitions of Israel in accordance with the widely held legal terminology" So, you agree that "expanded borders" is a good language? Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• 2) On the above stated question, you will not find one (1) source that purports to show that Israel is not in breach of UN resolutions. What you will find is a scholarly disagreement over whether Israel is in breach of international law, including a relatively small number of dissenters arguing that it is not. However, the overwhelmingly predominant view remains that it is.

Israeli position is reported almost in every source. Majority of authors may disagree with it but still report it. It means the view of Israeli should be displayed prominently in this article. We do not suppress a point of view which is widely discussed only because all who discuss it disagree with it.

• 3) I had in fact sourced that particular assertion, which reflected the language used in the text (expanded territory, armistice line 1949, illegal, etc.), with a book by David McDowall published by University of California Press. This edit was removed by Ling.Nut. There is, as follows from the above, a wealth of secondary source material which speaks of the same issue (how and why Israel violates international law).

How about other books? I suspect that you cherry picked a book that uses necessary words. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• 4) In saying that "the view of the international community is irrelevant to this article", you are making the same logical error. It is not a question of what (almost) the whole world thinks is right and wrong. It is the question of how these views are reflected in the secondary sources. And since most scholars agree with the descriptions of the UN and the ICJ (in saying that there are no disputed territories in the West Bank, or that the war did not grant Israel new borders since all lands beyond the 1949 armistice line are occupied territory, et al.), these are the views that should be reflected in the article, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.

It does matter that scholars agree or disagree with Israel. What really matters is what they report. The Israeli position is reported in any book and should be given a weight proportional to how often it is mentioned in the reliable sources. This is what the policy actually says. If you follow the policy you will see that there are two positions that should be given an equal weight: the position of Israel and that of almost everybody else. It is not a proper function of the Wikipedia to take sides in this debate.

• 5) Why hasn't anybody adressed the pertinent analogy to the Armenian Genocide article? Why aren't you complaining in that talk page that the article is POV, and that the stark language used in describing the event, from EU resolutions and other international bodies, is creating a "Turks are evil-narrative"? Can it be because, on that issue, you're fine with the legal terminology being used, but on this one you're not? I'm not sure (I have my ideas, as stated above), but I'd love to know.

Please, do not try to divert attention to this absolutely unrelated issue. I have not read the article about Armenian Genocide and is not going to do this in any foreseeable future. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoplifter (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero, I don't know what it is, exactly, you're objecting to in the wording of the article. You're speaking so broadly I don't know what your point is. What is your objection to whatever current or proposed wording, precisely? JRHammond (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I want you to stop POV pushing and adhere to what sources say. Even Maoz uses the "border" far more often than "boundary". The later is actually used only in context of "international boundaries" implying their legality under the international law. The lede also does not satisfy WP:LEAD because it is not a faithful summary of the article. Ruslik_Zero 14:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero, your rebuttal does not address the key issues, namely that WP:WEIGHT presupposes that we grant proportional weight to the disputing views, and that the scholarly consensus agrees with the UNGA/ICJ viewpoint in describing the conflict's implications for international law. Whether you are aware of this or not, you are the one engaging in POV pushing by arguing to make the Israeli viewpoint equalize that of the scholarly consensus (including, as I mentioned, widely held legal terminology). Furthermore, you're accusing me of "cherrypicking" a source, without rebutting the undisputed facts used in the source (the latter which would answer your question to why using "borders" is not an option). Thirdly, you refuse to acknowledge my pertinent analogy to the Armenian Genocide article, by accusing me of trying to "divert attention" from the issue. Conceded ignorance doesn't work in your favor. Shoplifter (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Other crap exists is not an argument. The word 'border' is preferably used in many sources because it is an established term and there is no reason to use anything else. Inventing new terms not represented in literature is classical POV pushing. (I checked Maoz, who does use the word "border" despite being highly critical of Israel.) What scholarly consensus are you taking about? I said above that what really matters is how widely the Israeli viewpoint is discussed in the literature, not how often it is approved (or disapproved). The latter is irrelevant. Wikipedia only reports all significant viewpoints without taking sides in disputes. You basically advocating that Wikipedia should take the side of the international community in its dispute with Israel. This is not surprising actually after reading your user page. Ruslik_Zero 19:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm arguing that Wikipedia should represent all views proportionally, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT (which is a non-negotiable principle). In regard to your referencing a non-policy, non-binding essay by Wikipedia contributors, you should keep in mind what is being said in its introduction: Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. If I'm wrong, you shouldn't be afraid to weigh the issue. Shoplifter (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? But the international consensus that has formed over more than 40 years of legal decision making does not allow for the magnification of this one aspect of the war to trump the conclusions of the international community. Are these your words? You apparently think that the article should be written in accordance with "the consensus of the international community". This is contrary to both WP:V and WP:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia article, which should represent points of view of both parties. The fact that one party to this conflict is supported by the international community in irrelevant. Ruslik_Zero 09:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to read what I wrote in the context of my above discussion with Ling.Nut, where we examined the implications of a specific event to the current consensus on the dispute over international law. As I made clear in the discussion you and I are having, the determining factor is how the consensus is reflected in the secondary sources. And here, it's quite clear: the view of the international community is uncontroversial, common knowledge. You will find a comparatively minute number of scholars who argue that the lands occupied (and annexed) by Israel should be considered part of its lawful territory. Whether or not the term "borders" is applied, you have to consider its usage in context - for instance, you will most often find that when the writer uses the term to describe the outlines of Israeli territory, this is accompanied by an extensive clarification of the unlawfulness of acquiring territory by war, the presupposition of withdrawal to the armistice line of 1949, the undisputed illegality (sometimes mentioned as war crimes) of annexation and transfer of the indigenous populace to such territories, etc. Here, the consequences of fairly applying WP:WEIGHT becomes apparent: Since the predominant scholarly view refutes the notion of expanding borders by means of warfare, we are obliged to reflect this in our phrasing. If the term borders is used; and I am willing to consider a compromise, as I've stated before; this must be qualified in immediate connection to the term, as is commonplace in the source material. Shoplifter (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

we are obliged to reflect this in our phrasing In this case the word "border" should be used as the most common term for the de facto outer boundary of Israel. you will most often find that when the writer uses the term to describe the outlines of Israeli territory, this is accompanied by an extensive clarification of the unlawfulness This strains credibility. I do not think authors give a lengthy explanation after every word "border" used—there may be dozens of them even in a medium sized book. If want clarity you can simply insert "de facto" before "border", because the lead is not a suitable place for long explanations. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero, you say "I want you to stop POV pushing and adhere to what sources say." Then you argue that the use of the word "border" should be used. But saying that Israel expanded it's "border" would ipso facto mean that all of the West Bank and Gaza are Israeli territory. Now, there are some who hold that POV, but it is a marginal fringe POV. WP:WEIGHT must consider the fact that there is an international consensus that all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian territory, and that Israel's military presence therein is legally an "occupation". This is absolutely non-controversial. Your whole argument here is nonsense, including your citing of Moaz, which does not support your contention that the Gaza Strip and West Bank fall within Israel's "border". The "border" Moaz refers to is the '49 armistice line (Green Line). Your argument is just absolute nonsense. JRHammond (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hammond, kindly refrain from calling or characterizing ideas or positions that don't comport with yours, as "nonsense."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with J-guy; most all of us have flied off the handle at one time or another in the past, but I think we've managed to sustain a notably civil environment in here over the last few weeks (save for a few anonymous IP's). Everyone gets their say. It's a good thing. (I do concur in your reasoning, still.) Shoplifter (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree it is any way uncivil to point out the demonstrable fact that Ruslik_Zero's argument consists of "words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas". He accuses others of "POV pushing" while himself pushing a marginal fringe view contrary to international consensus. So that's a meaningless argument. He cites Moaz to support his position. But the source does not support his position. So that's a meaningless argument lacking any kind of logical validity. In other words, by definition, "nonsense". This is an observation on point of fact, not an attack on his person. JRHammond (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You still have failed to address my arguments. Please, specify a source that specifically uses "boundary", "perimeter" or any other words in respect to the Israeli border as of 11 June 1967. what the Egyptians had in mind given the situation that has materialized along their new border with Israel. This passage from Maoz, p. 114 refers to the border along the Suez. Maoz is critical of Israel but still does not hesitate to use the word "border". If you however continue to attack me with claims like "that's a meaningless argument lacking any kind of logical validity" a trip to WP:AE will be inevitable. Ruslik_Zero 09:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting that Israel expanded its "border" as a result of the war would mean that the West Bank and Gaza became part of Israel. This is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, given the uncontroversial point of fact under international law that the territories are Palestinian and that Israel an occupying power, and given the international consensus with regard to this point of fact under international law. JRHammond (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

De facto the West Bank and Gaza became part of Israel in 1967. The disputes centers only about de jure aspect of the conflict. The international community is not happy with the current arrangement do not want it to be in this way, but facts are clear: de facto the territories belong Israel. Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The West Bank and Gaza became OCCUPIED by Israel in 1967. De jure and de facto OCCUPIED. This is a non-controversial point of fact. JRHammond (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

De facto is about who really controls the territory not about how it is legally called (The latter is de jure.) Ruslik_Zero 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching the progress on this article for some time, and having read through this thread, I have to agree with Ruslik0 that several editors appear to have misconceptions about what Wikipedia is for. UN resolutions may be reliable sources, but they are reliable primary sources for what the UN has resolved about international consensus. Wikipedia articles should be based on what reliable secondary sources have to say: we make no new analysis of primary source material here. Secondary sources will almost certainly represent the UN position as important, but the UN has also proven to be ineffectual at times. Our goal is to report the current state of human knowledge according to reliable secondary source, not to state The Truth (TM).

Just to take the latest point as an example: "Suggesting that Israel expanded its "border" as a result of the war would mean that the West Bank and Gaza became part of Israel." What reliable sources state and what Wikipedia reports as a consequence do not suddenly change what is true. The West Bank and Gaza are currently part of Israel to the extent that Israel (in the sense of its government and military forces) currently occupies these territories, nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia has no opinion as to whether this is right or wrong, or what a just future settlement would be. We simply report what reliable secondary sources have to say to inform the reader so that they can make up their own mind about the issue. This neither condones nor admonishes the occupation: all such opinions should be attributed to other sources.

The main reason this article is under protection now, in my view, is that some editors have not yet taken these distinctions on board. Please listen to the repeated statements by uninvolved editors to this effect: Wikipedia is not part of the conflict, but an impartial observer, reporting on the best information we have. Geometry guy 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PSTS allows the use of primary sources that have been reliably published. The government of Israel called the boundaries in the Middle East after the Six Day War "Cease Fire Lines". [5] Efraim Karsh is a secondary source who explains that the boundaries are formally armistices lines, cease fire lines, and separation lines. See Peace in the Middle East: the challenge for Israel, by Efraim Karsh [6] Several international treaties require states to report on any territories that are subject to their jurisdiction. Israel has reported for many years that the West Bank and Gaza are "areas that are not subject to its sovereign territory and jurisdiction. As for "de facto control", Israel claims that "the overwhelming majority of powers and responsibilities in all civil spheres (including economic, social and cultural), as well as a variety of security issues, have been transferred to the Palestinian Council, which in any event is directly responsible and accountable vis-à-vis the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel says the Palestinian Authorities have taken on powers and responsibilities “with due regard to internationally accepted norms and principles of human rights and the rule of law”. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 and E/1990/6/Add.32, paras 5-7.

165 UN member states recognize the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinians over the natural resources of the occupied Palestinian Territory including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resource. [7] More than 100 countries have recognized the State of Palestine on their own initiative. See for example Request for the admission of the State of Palestine to Unesco as a Member State". UNESCO. 12 May 1989 [8] 111 contracting State parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recently adopted the definition of the crime of aggression contained in UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974.[9] That definition says that any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from an invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State is not only illegal, it is criminal. Those are reliably published third-party, or tertiary views. Per WP:ASF and WP:YESPOV. Editors can, and should, assert facts about all of those opinions and clearly distinguish between the majority and minority views. harlan (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

many additions to lede

It's becoming War and Peace again (pun intended). • Ling.Nut 02:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made two edits. One shortened a sentence. The other replaced one wording with another of equal length. The rest seems to be as originally posted. So could you explain what additions you are referring to you think have made it overly lengthy? JRHammond (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Legality of closing the Straits; legality of the occupation

• I suggest we create sections in body text about both these topics. • Ling.Nut 03:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for that. I'm not as knowledgeable about the legal issues relating to the straits, but I'm very familiar with legal issues relating to the occupation, so I can help with that. The occupation is illegal, which is to say, it's in violation of international law. This is uncontroversial. Israel is a member of the U.N. and remains in violation of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, beginning with 242, emphasizing the principle of international law on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and calling upon Israel to withdraw. This has also been affirmed by the International Court of Justice. The international consensus on this point is also reflected in numerous UN General Assembly resolutions, such as 32/20 (1977), which expresses deep concern "that the Arab territories occupied since 1967 have continued, for more than ten years, to be under illegal Israeli occupation and that the Palestinian people, after three decades, are still deprived of the exercise of their inalienable national rights". JRHammond (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The changes here are not neutral: [10]

Its an occupation of the Palestinian territories including Jerusalem according to the worldview, so that is what it should say. Not "disputed" or "administration"

Also "provided it with defensible natural boundaries" is extremely pov and sounds like propaganda. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

and when you insert bullshit saying the only reason for no treaty is israel's "occupation" it's ok? made me laugh. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To IP

[11]

Didn't you read the name of the article? "Assad: Golan withdrawal before peace"

Here is another one: "Al-Moallem: No Peace without Restoring Occupied Syrian Golan, No Alternative to Turkish Mediator" [12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(UTC)

just because assad says some bullshit doesn't make it factual 174.112.83.21 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Defensible natural boundaries

Two of the three sources cited in support of this claim say nothing about "defensible natural boundaries". On page 307 of his book Oren says "Exceedingly vulnerable before the war, its major cities all within range of Arab guns, the Jewish state now threatened Damascus, Cairo and Amman." On page 84 of his book Sadeh says "This concept of secure defensible borders was premised on defense without a first strike initiative. It paved the way to a deterrence strategy based on counterstrike punishment whose efficacy was not based on a system of red lines, but on an ability to mitigate the Arab temptation to attack based on Israel's miltary prowess." Ian Pitchford (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I stand by my edit, which was reverted by Ling.Nut. I won't get into any warring, though. Let's hear what others have to say about it. From your fact-checking, it's quite apparent that the previous formulation about "defensible borders" is not an option. Shoplifter (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is clearly propaganda and not neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is not neutral. I've discussed this at length elsewhere. As of right now, there have been numerous editors who've objected to this line, and only one who wants it included (Ling.Nut). It should be removed. JRHammond (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead shenanigans

Regarding this edit that removed the 'The status ..blah balh blah..far-reaching consequences..etc', I'm okay with that and considered doing that too. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence establishes the importance of the topic. The exact phrasing may be improved perhaps, but deleting it altogether is unwise. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with that too so let's see if we can do that sensibly without me have a very strong urge to ask an admin to block editors who confuse writing articles for Wikipedia with writing articles for CAMERA or the JCPA. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

yes right, how could we forget!!! the standard for writing wikipedia articles about israel is more closely aligned to that of al jazeera arabic. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the standard for Wikipedia is to comply with mandatory policies and in articles like this there is the added obligation of complying with the discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some thoughts:

1. Deleting 'the status blah blah blah' is pretty much the same as deleting what's probably gonna be the cause of the next nuclear war. It is certainly deleting a daily topic in the global news.
2. The three soldiers killed by a landmine is waaay too much detail. And the same goes for several other bits that IPs keep stuffing in.• Ling.Nut 00:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ling.Nut. The sentence is extremely important context for understanding the consequences of the war on the subsequent history of the region, right up until the present, with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And yes, mention of the soldiers killed is way too much detail. Raids are mentioned. That is enough for the lede. Details can be added in the body. JRHammond (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• About the broad statements in the lead: Goodness gracious, I could source those in my sleep, and so could you. Verifying those statements would be trivially easy – almost as easy as looking out the window to verify the weather! Umm, let's see, I only need to pick the best 1 or 2 or even 3 of each of the following:

• Google books: "arab-israeli conflict" "international law" (13,700 hits)
• Google scholar arab-israeli conflict" "international law" (4,750 hits)
• (For "global affairs", note that that term has a number of synonyms that I could also check)
• Google books: "arab-israeli conflict" "global affairs" (172 hits)
• Google scholar arab-israeli conflict" "global affairs" (338 hits)
• I haven't even tried JSTOR or Academic Search Premier or any other good database yet, and yet I'm already home free.
• They aren't sourced because sourcing them is not necessary. It isn't necessary because it is trivially easy. Adding sources after common knowledge like that is overkill killed over.• Ling.Nut 14:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This would be an excellent example of WP:SYNTH. The fact that you can demonstrate that much has been written about the Arab-Israeli conflict in and around global affairs and international law does not provide justification for this edit. JuJubird (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut is absolutely correct. This objection is patently ridiculous. Is anyone here really going to contend (a) that the consequence of the '67 war of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is not a central concern in the Arab-Israeli conflict, (b) that the occupation does not raise issues under international law, or (c) that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have far reaching consequences in international affairs? Is anyone seriously going to argue that these are in even the slightest way controversial observations? JRHammond (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mention of the false Soviet intelligence report in the lead

• Some thoughts:

1. Sure the Soviet Union gave the Egyptians false reports. But drawing a direct causal link is totally unacceptable. It is undocumented, and even a little unlikely, that that was the only or the direct cause of Nasser's actions. Nasser never said, "The Russian info made me do it!"

.• Ling.Nut 00:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is my original edit that is being complained about:

"In May of 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. In response Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (16 May), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (19 May), from:Shlaim, Avi (2007) Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace Vintage Books ISBN:9781400078288

Ling.Nut changed to "On May 14, 1967, Nasser began sending Egyptian forces into the Sinai Peninsula, and, after UNEF withdrew at his request, his forces took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran" saying we could not use the idea of response.

• But the Original source, Shlaim wrote Shlaim, Avi (2007) Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace Vintage Books ISBN:9781400078288

"Thrown on the defensive, Nasser took a series of steps designed to shore up his prestige at home and in the Arab world. What he did do was to embark on an exercise in brinkmanship that went well over the brink. On 13 May Nasser received a Soviet intelligence report that falsely claimed that Israel was massing troops on Syria's border. Nasser responded by taking three successive steps that made war virtually inevitable: he expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Gaza Strip and Sinai on 19 May; he closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping on 22 May."

• Another source, Jordan in the 1967 War by Samir A. Mutawi says the same: "This situation entered a new phase with Russia's announcement to Syria and Eqypt on 13 May that Israeli troops were massing on the Syrian border and intended to attack on 16/17 May with a force of eleven to thirteen brigades.[45] This evoked an immediate response in Nasser who now had an ideal opportunity to demonstrate his readiness to come to the defence of his ally and the strength of his commitment to the Palestinian cause. Ignoring all protestations from Israel and the UN that the Russian report was mistaken, the following day he announced the mobilization of the Egyptian army. Two divisions were ordered into Sinai to support the reinforced division already there. This was followed two days later by his demand that UNEF withdraw its forces from Sinai. Three days later UNEF had vanished and Egyptian troops faced the Israeli army on the other side of the border. As UNEF troops left Sharm Al-Sheikh overlooking the Straits of Tiran Egyptian paratroops were flown in to occupy it." Pg 93

Notice how both sources use "respond" to refer to the massing of troops. Also please note that both say Nasser "expelled" UNEF or "demanded" that UNEF leave, not "withdrew at his request."

The as-Samu incident was triggered by the mine that killed three Israeli soldiers. It was in response to that incident that as-Samu happened. This is a fact that provides context and clarity and is only half a sentence or so long. If it is too long, let's drop both. 172.190.31.25 (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some scholars may draw a causal link between the disinformation and Nasser's response, but e cannot do so. That would be swallowing their word for it, uncritically. We ca mention the Soviet disinformation, in four words or less, but we cannot uncritically swallow the causal link that some people write in their books. Nasser never mentioned the Soviet info.
• The land-mine incident is covered by the words "cross-border raids". I am amazed that you cannot see this. Israel didn't suddenly and specifically become shocked or amazed because of the land-mine incident. I'm sure other soldiers had died before. Israel certainly cared about the ongoing (and perhaps escalating) series of raids, and perhaps it also cared about the defense pact. Sigh. Why is this so endless? • Ling.Nut 02:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

  [13] says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." It defines secondary sources as "second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." I have presented secondary sources (2) that say specifically that Nasser "responded" to the disinformation provided by the Soviets, as well sources (of which I can provide many more) that say that Nasser "expelled" or "demanded" that UNEF withdraw. My edit has secondary sources which support it and is perfectly appropriate. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to be critics of secondary sources unless we hold them to be unreliable which you have not indicated. It is quite acceptable that we use the "analytic or evaluative claims" of our secondary sources. Your argument here is based on false premises. 172.190.204.235 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• In May of 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. In response Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (16 May), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (19 May)...

This wording is fine with me, except for "on Israel's border", which needs to be removed. It's misleading. Egyptian troops were well within Egyptian territory in the Sinai. This implies they were all lined up right at the border, which is false. Look at this map, for example: [14]. Moreover, it implies offensive position, when, according to U.S. intelligence, they were defensive positions.[15]

However, I prefer Ling.Nut's wording: "On May 14, 1967, Nasser began sending Egyptian forces into the Sinai Peninsula, and, after UNEF withdrew at his request, his forces took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran..."

I don't understand what objection there is to this. JRHammond (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two secondary sources that say "on the border" so unless you have a secondary source that claims otherwise my version should stay. Virtually ALL RS say that Nasser expelled UNEF, or demanded that they leave. This gives an entirely different understanding to an event that is currently described as "UNEF withdrew at his request." 172.190.204.235 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the sources you refer to here, as I did with the map demonstrating that Egyptian forces were not "on the border" but well within the Sinai. Simply ignoring clear evidence demonstrating your error will not make it go away. Your "on the border" wording is misleading and must not be used. Currently, this claim is made elsewhere in the article, apart from the lede. One source given is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs![16]. I should hardly need to point out the problem with citing the MFA as a source for this assertion. But even this elementary point is moot, since that webpage doesn't even support the "on the border" wording; it states "As a result of Soviet prodding, Nasser mobilized and sent 100,000 troops to Sinai." I made the necessary edit to fix this. JRHammond (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

False claims on UN Res 242

• The framers of Resolution 242 recognized that some territorial adjustments were likely, and therefore deliberately[j] did not include words all or the in the official English language version of the text when referring to "territories occupied" during the war. The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English.

This paragraph is extremely problematic. I've edited it to fix it, but someone reverted and requested I take it to talk. Interestingly, the objection stated was that I offered no source. Yet, the current version has no source, either. So the revert may have been for a legitimate reason, but was not made without hypocrisy, which is unfortunate, particularly since this reverted version contains a FALSE statement.

There is this myth out there that the absence of the definite article "the" before "territories" means the UN approved of Israel keeping some of the occupied territories. This is absolutely false.

(1) All quotes from Caradon, Rostow, Goldberg, Eban et al expressing this view in the documentary record are well post-'67. This is revisionism. The relevant documentary record is the time between the war and the passing of the resolution. That record does not support this assertion, it contradicts it.

(2) The concern of the U.S. was a call to the June 5 lines would be a tacit acceptance of that line as a border, so it worked to have reference to this line removed from the draft. However, this was not because the U.S. agreed Israel could legitimately keep territory. The U.S. wanted a U.N.-negotiated settlement in which a final border status would be established, with minor and mutually agreed upon changes to the '49 armistice lines.

(3) The U.S. concern was moot, since none of the other UNSC members interpreted any of the draft texts calling upon Israel to withdraw to imply the establishment of a final border. Most UNSC members interpreted the text of 242 to call for a complete, not partial, withdrawal, which is what the actual text actually calls for, with a final settlement to be negotiated following that withdrawal, and not vice versa.

(4) UNSC resolutions are not open for unilateral interpretation from individual member states, but must be understood according to the actual language and the consensus understanding of that language among UNSC members.

(5) The absence of the article has no effect on the meaning. "Territories", plural. The simple litmus test is: Is it a territory Israel occupied during the war (i.e. West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, Sinai)? If yes, then under the wording of 242, Israel must withdraw from that territory. Period. That's the meaning of the language, with or without the "the". Suggesting otherwise one has to effectively argue that no "the" means we may interpret the resolution to mean "most of the" or "some of the", which is patently ridiculous logic.

(6) Furthermore, the present assertion that only the English version of the text is legally valid is absolutely false. The French version of the text, which does contain the definite article, is equally valid under international law, so the argument addressed in the previous point is moot, anyhow.

(7) 242 emphasizes the principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The interpretation that 242 allowed for Israel to keep some of the territory is absolutely irreconcilable with this emphasized principle, and therefore any such interpretation must be rejected as wholly unfounded and contrary to the clearly intended purpose of the UNSC.

(8) The logic of this ridiculous argument about the word "the" being missing defeats itself. Observe that the very next clause of 242 states "For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area". This is a clear reference to Egypt's closing of the straits of Tiran. According to the logic of the people arguing Israel may, under 242, keep some occupied territory, since it says "international waterways" and not "THE international waterways", Egypt may therefore close SOME of the straits to Israeli shipping. Obviously nonsensical logic.

I'll be re-implementing my fix. I'll include a source as to the equal validity of the French text (no source is currently given for the FALSE assertion that only the English text is legally valid). Here is the French delegate speaking at the UNSC prior to the vote on 242:

We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories".[17] JRHammond (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

all of your analysis is WP:OR and false. as for the french being equal to the english, if you find a source that says that, you can go ahead and put it. the quote you found isn't adequate. it's the FRENCH delegation saying it... the only thing that is good for is if you want to say something like: "the french delegation claimed that the french is equivalent to the english", but not in the encyclopedic voice. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't even tried to demonstrate (much less actually demonstrated) that a single point I made is "false", as you claim. The facts are as I've stated them. JRHammond (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't tried because I don't have to. It's a waste of time. Your analysis not properly sourced and therefore, whether or not you believe it is true, it is unacceptable in this article. The French delegate's opinion is not enough to justify writing in the encyclopedic voice. At very most, you could say that the french delegate claimed it, but this would be against WP:FRINGE. The rest of your analysis was completely unsourced. I know that this analysis is full of lies, and anybody who does research knows that it is full of lies. But you can't demand that I prove it, because I don't have to. Your claims are unsourced. That means they don't go in the article. Period. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The facts are as I've stated them. You claim I've lied. I welcome you to try to demonstrate that any point of fact I stated is false. You won't be able to do so. I've not proposed anything I've said here be included in the article. But by your own logic, the assertion that only the English version of the text is legally valid must not be included in the article, since it is unsourced (besides being false). So your argument defeats itself by its own logic. JRHammond (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Meaning of the Withdrawal Clause

Dean Rusk served as US Under Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs during the Truman administration and as Secretary of State during the Johnson Administration. He commented on the validity of the French text and on the intent of the resolution:

There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I'm not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War. See Rusk "As I Saw It", Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389

The Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, George Brown, also commented on the French text

It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included. But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less. The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word "des" is used before territories, meaning "from the", implying all the territories seized in the '67 war. The Israelis knew this. They understood that it called for withdrawal with only minor border changes from the old frontiers - just to straighten the lines. I told the Israelis they had better accept it, because if they didn't they could be left with something worse, and with our version there would be something to argue about later. See Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN: 0863722229, page 209

President Carter asked for a State Department report "to determine if there was any justice to the Israeli position that the resolution did not include all the occupied territories". The State Department report concluded:

Support for the concept of total withdrawal was widespread in the Security Council, and it was only through intensive American efforts that a resolution was adopted which employed indefinite language in the withdrawal clause. In the process of obtaining this result, the United States made clear to the Arab states and several other members of the Security Council that the United States envisioned only insubstantial revisions of the 1949 armistice lines. Israel did not protest the approach. -- State Department Study of the Meaning of Resolution 242, by Nina J. Noring of the Office of the Historian, and Walter B. Smith II, Director of the Office of Israeli and Arab-Israeli Affairs, Department of State, The Withdrawal Clause in UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, Its Legislative History and the Attitudes of the United States and Israel since 1967, February 4, 1978 cited in Donald Neff, The Clinton Administration and UN Resolution 242, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter, 1994), pp. 20–30.

The Foreign Relations of the United States documents the fact that Ambassador Goldberg could not draft a resolution that was acceptable to all of the members of the Security Council. In Document 467, Memorandum From the President's Special Assistant (Rostow) to President Johnson, McGeorge Bundy said "Goldberg is no longer the ideal negotiator." Ambassador Goldberg subsequently reported on numerous private meetings with the British representative to the UN, Lord Caradon. Goldberg asked the UK representative to draft the proposals and negotiate agreement with the other members of the Security Council. [18]

Glenn Perry and Arthur Lall (a member of the Indian UN delegation in 1967) all wrote that Caradon not only negotiated the adoption of the resolution, he even stage-managed the statements made by the other delegates to prevent a Soviet or USA veto. The USSR, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, France, India, Mali, Brazil, Argentina, and Nigeria all made statements on the record that Israel was required to withdraw from all of the occupied territory. McHugo notes that of the other states on the Security Council, Canada, China, Denmark, Japan and the USA made no statements on the record, which contradict the meaning the others attached to the withdrawal phrase. See John McHugo RESOLUTION 242 – WHY THE ISRAELI VIEW OF THE “WITHDRAWAL PHRASE” IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Winter 2000–2001; and RESOLUTION 242: A LEGAL REAPPRAISAL OF THE RIGHT-WING ISRAELI INTERPRETATION OF THE WITHDRAWAL PHRASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS.[19]

Glenn Perry says "The absence of any rejection of the "full withdrawal" interpretation was the result of a behind-the-scenes agreement. Until November 22, there was uncertainty whether the United Kingdom would expressly reject any clarification of the meaning of the draft, in which case the Soviet Union was prepared to veto it. According to Lall:

A crucial meeting took place at 3 p.m. [on November 22] between the Arabs and Caradon. He was able to reassure them that their position on the question of withdrawal remained unprejudiced. Further negotiations followed between Parthasarathi [the Indian representative] and Caradon which involved also the French and Nigerian delegates. As a result of these late exchanges Caradon agreed to delete from his proposed response to the Indian delegate's projected statement the words "But the Indian interpretation is not binding on the Council." On this basis Parthasarathi decided to vote for the resolution and so informed the Soviet Union. See Security Council Resolution 242: The Withdrawal Clause, Glenn Perry, Middle East Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Autumn,1977), pp. 413-433, page 429

During the subsequent Security Council session, the Indian delegate said the resolution required Israel to withdraw from all the territories. He quoted George Brown's statements on British policy, which set out British rejection of the practice of territorial aggrandizement and which stated that Israel could not expand its borders as a result of the war. See S/PV.1382 (OR), 22 November 1967, paragraphs 50-54. Caradon replied "As to the policy of my own Government, we stand by our votes and we stand by our declarations. We have throughout made our national position and our national policy quite plain." (paragraph 57). [20] harlan (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Harlan. Good info. JRHammond (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

One must stand in awe of harlan's grasp of the source material. Shoplifter (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of the Withdrawal Clause pt II

I would like Shoplifter to stand in awe of my grasp of the source material too. And JRHammond, please feel free to use this good info.

Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft , said, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:

• "... the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution." (UN DOC S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67) quoted in The United Nations Security Council and war: the Evolution of thought and...

Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:

Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"

• Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear; the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary... "

Quoted in Yonah Liberman Israel, 50 years in documents -pg 200

Present history Theodore Draper Page 292

Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"

• Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."

quoted in: The fight for Jersalem: radical Islam, the west, and the future of the Holy places Dore Gold p6 306

Commentary Magazine Volume 57 Page 28

Crescent and star: Arab & Israeli perspectives on the Middle East conflict - Page 234 Yonah Alexander, Nicholas N. Kittrie

Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:

• "As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."

Quoted in

A restless mind: essays in honor of Amos Perlmutter & Benjamin Frankel - Page 141 [21]

The fight for Jersalem: radical Islam, the west, and the future of the Holy places Dore Gold p6 306 [22]

International problems society and politics Volumes 10-11 Page 1963

Abba Eban: an autobiography page 452

George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:

"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, January 1, 1970)

quoted in

The fight for Jerusalem: radical Islam, the west, and the future of the Holy places - Page 306 Dore Gold

Israel 50 years: a history in documents page 200

UN Security Council resolution 242: the building block of peacemaking pg 31 Adnan Abu Odeh, Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

• "To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is... " (UN DOC S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67)[23]

quoted in

Israel 50 years: a history in documents page 200 Yonah Lieberman

Israel's foreign relations: selected documents Medzini, Meron - Page 842

The new world balance and peace in the Middle East: reality or ..., Volume 1973? - Page 260 Seymour Maxwell Finger

Joseph J. Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):

• "That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."

quoted in

The Arab world, Volumes 17-18 - Page 31 Arab Information Center

The June 1967 Arab-Israeli war: miscalculation or conspiracy? - Page 166 Elias Sam'o

'UN Security Council resolution 242: the building block of peacemaking Page 88 Adnan Abu Odeh, Washington Institute for Near East Policy,

Israel's foreign relations: selected documents - Page 842 Meron Medzini

Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:

• "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)

• "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized boundaries' between Israel and its neighbors 'free from threats or acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace." American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68

Vasily Kuznetsov said in the debate that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

• "... Phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... There is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (UN Doc S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)

Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:

• "We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States." (UN doc S/PV. 1382, p. 66,22.11.67 )[24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.52.137 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of Secure and Recognized Boundaries

Your grasp of the source material seems to be limited to the contents of the usual MFA/JCPA/CAMERA webpages.

• In 1950 the Federal District Court for the District of Colombia ruled that the Executive branch of the U.S. Government had recognized Palestine as a separate foreign state. The US had done that in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nation provision in treaties of commerce." See Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254. [25]

• The permanent lines of demarcation and the 1949 Armistice Agreements were negotiated and accepted by the UN under the auspices of the Security Council's Chapter VII powers. See pages 16-22 [26].

• After the armistices were signed, Abba Eban said that "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states." see "Effect on Armistice Agreements", FRUS Volume VI 1949, 1149

• The Armistice lines were internationally recognized boundaries. See "Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders : Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950" [27]; British House of Commons, Jordan and Israel (Government Decision), HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 [28];

• In 1978 the U.S. State Department published a declassified memorandum of conversation held on June 5, 1950 between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Abdel Monem Rifai, a Counselor of the Jordan Legation in which Mr. Rockwell explained that it was not the custom of the United States to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921.[29]

• In 1963, the US State Department Digest cited the resolution of the Palestinian Congress at Jericho and the subsequent annexation of the West Bank as a case of the acquisition of sovereignty over a territory as the result of a political union that had been ratified by the general elections and by the parliamentary Act of Union. See US State Department, Digest of International Law, vol 2, 1963, Marjorie M. Whiteman (editor), pages 1163-68

• Goldberg's quote above glosses over the legal difficulty of "terminating all claims and states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the states in the area", while one of the parties still maintains a continuing "state of belligerent occupation". During a meeting with Goldberg on October 18, 1967, Caradon expressed concern because the US was circulating a new draft resolution which did not refer to withdrawal at all. Goldberg explained that every effort to produce agreement in past had floundered over the relationship between the wording of withdrawal and of non-belligerence.[30] Kuznetsov's remarks above were made about the US draft S/8229, not the UK draft. The US version didn't mention Israel at all. See paragraph 151 on page 18 [31] Goldberg assured the members of the Council that the text of the resolution would not prejudice the position of those directly concerned (para 190, page 22). Strangely enough, he subsequently claimed that the fact the definite article was missing from the text of the resolution somehow prejudiced Arab interests.

• Walt Rostow advised President Johnson, that Secretary Rusk had explained to Mr Eban that US support for secure permanent frontiers did not mean that the United States supported territorial changes. See Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Page 942, Document 487 [32]

• In a 1976 interview, Lord Caradon said that all of the parties assumed that withdrawal from occupied territories as provided in the resolution was applicable to East Jerusalem and the West Bank. He explained that "secure and recognized borders" had nothing to do with territory or geography. Caradon suggested that the armistice lines could be rationalized by mutually agreed upon exchanges of small parcels of land for the benefit of all. See “An Interview with Lord Caradon” (1976), 5 Journal of Palestine Studies 142, at pp. 145-6

• Sidney A. Freifeld, the legal counsel to the Canadian UN delegation in 1967 wrote a letter to Commentary magazine complaining about Eugene Rostow's interpretation of the withdrawal clause. He said that, while there was a proviso that permitted border rectifications, the resolution had indeed called for Israel to withdraw to the armistice lines. He also said that Rostow's claim that the resolution authorized continued Israeli control over the territories was incorrect. See the full text of the letter online [33]

• Eugene Rostow, claimed that he "helped produce" UN 242, and repeatedly argued that it authorized Israeli control over the territories. David Korn, former State Department office director for Israel and Arab-Israeli affairs, responded that "Professor Rostow may think he `helped produce' Resolution 242, but in fact he had little if anything to do with it." He was an "onlooker," like "many others who have claimed a hand in it." "It was U.S. policy at the time and for several years afterward," Korn continues, "that [any border] changes would be no more than minor." Korn confirmed that "Both Mr. Goldberg and Secretary of State Dean Rusk told King Hussein that the United States would use its influence to obtain territorial compensation from Israel for any West Bank lands ceded by Jordan to Israel," and that Jordan's acquiescence was based on these promises. Deterring Democracy Copyright © 1991, 1992 by Noam Chomsky. Published by South End Press. Afterword

• Golda Meir said that as she saw it, there was no such thing as a secure boundary - only security. US National Archives, box 2071, 11 January 1971: cable from US Ambassador Yost, USUN to the Secretary of State.

• U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recalled the first time he heard someone invoke "the sacramental language of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, mumbling about the need for a just and lasting peace within secure and recognized borders". He said the phrase was so platitudinous that he thought the speaker was pulling his leg. Kissinger said that, at that time, he did not appreciate how the "flood of words" used to justify the various demands obscured rather than illuminated the fundamental positions. According to Kissinger, those "clashing perspectives" prevented any real bargaining and explained: "Jordan’s acquiescence in Resolution 242 had been obtained in 1967 by the promise of our United Nations Ambassador Arthur Goldberg that under its terms we would work for the return of the West Bank of Jordan with minor boundary rectifications and that we were prepared to use our influence to obtain a role for Jordan in Jerusalem." See White House Years, by Henry Kissinger, Little, Brown and Company, ISBN: 03164966181979‎, Pages 341-345 harlan (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of the Withdrawal Clause pt III

The purpose of the U.S. and U.K. as reflected in these statements is that 242 result in recognition of a permanent border settlement, with minor and mutually agreed-upon changes to the '49 armistice line. These quotes support that U.S./U.K. POV, but do NOT support the claim that 242 called only for a limited withdrawal. Also, again, the relevant documentary record is prior and up to the passing of 242, not subsequent revisionist interpretations. Notice also only U.S. and British officials are quoted here. There were 15 members of the UNSC who voted on 242 (it passed unanimously), and all of the other 13 members rejected attempts by the U.S./U.K. to interpret the wording as including conditionality. WP:WEIGHT is at issue here, and this "limited withdrawal" interpretation taken from selectively quoting from the documentary record of deliberations over 242 must be balanced with the contrary POV of the great majority of Security Council members who rejected this in passing the resolution.

Additionally, there are matters not of POV, but of fact, at issue here. Caradon's subsequent assertion that "the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries" is simply false, for example. Read 242. It calls for BOTH an Israeli withdrawal AND and termination of a state of belligerency and respect for territorial sovereignty. As a point of fact, there is NO conditionality between those two things. The former is no more conditional upon the latter as the latter is upon the former. This is a point of fact. It's also a point of fact that any interpretation of 242 that Israel may keep any occupied territory (apart from minor and mutually agreed upon changes to the Green Line) is irreconcilable with the emphasized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. Any such interpretation is thus prima facie invalid.

The attitude of the British Government is clear. We want the area to be at peace. We recognize that, peace demands the greatest measure of justice in its political arrangements. And on this foundation the progress of its peoples, especially of those whose need is greatest, must be based. I should like, if I may, to set out certain principles which I believe should guide us in striving collectively for a lasting settlement. Clearly, such principles must derive from the United Nations Charter. Article 2 of the Charter provides that: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State ...'. Here the words "territorial integrity" have a direct bearing on the question of withdrawal, on which much has been said in previous speeches. I see no two ways about this; and I can state our position very clearly. In my view, it follows from the words in the Charter that war should not lead to territorial aggrandizement. -- George Brown, British Foreign Secretary, June 21, 1967[34]

I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw. -- George Brown, September 26, 1967[35]

As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both I withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear. -- Lord Caradon, British representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379)[36] If I had to sum up the policy which has been repeatedly stated by my Government, I would go back to the words used by my Foreign Secretary in the General Assembly less than a month ago. These were his words: "I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw. But equally, Israel's neighbours must recognize its right to exist, and it must enjoy security within its frontiers...." In our resolution we stated the principle of the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and in the preamble we emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". In our view, the wording of those provisions is clear. We believe that it would be a serious error to attempt at this stage to vary or add to them. -- Lord Caradon, November 20, 1967 (S/PV.1381)[37]

We know from the statements of Israel statesmen, and in particular from that made yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel and just published in The New York Times, that Israel makes a definite claim to keep some of the territories seized from the Arab States. Consequently, the United States draft leaves open the possibility that Israel's forces may not be withdrawn from all the Arab territories they have seized and that part of these territories may be kept by Israel. If this is not so, we hope that the United States representative will give us a clear and unambiguous explanation to the effect that the United States supports the withdrawal of Israel's forces from all the occupied territories to the positions occupied prior to 5 June 1967. It is obvious that the provision for the withdrawal of troops must be so clearly formulated as to leave no loopholes whereby anyone can interpret it in his own way. -- Vasili Kuznetsov, Soviet representative at the UNSC, November 15, 1967 (S/PV.1377)[38]

As long as Israel troops occupy the Arab territories they have seized, as long as no stop is put to the colonialist appropriations of these lands by the aggressor, and as long as he is not forced to leave them, there will be, and there can be, no peace in the Middle East.... During Security Council debates, the Soviet delegation has repeatedly drawn attention of all members of the Security Council to the fact that the key question, the crux of the problem in the Middle East is the question of the withdrawal of Israel troops from all the Arab territories they have occupied, i.e., the question of removing the main consequence of, the Israel aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan in June 1967. The statements, of a number of Council members have shown that this view is widely shared in the Security Council. It cannot be denied that only the withdrawal of the aggressor's troops from the territories he has seized, from all the territories he has seized, can pave the way for a lasting and just peace in the Middle East. Any other assertion would be opposed to the most elementary rules governing relations among States, rules which must be respected if there is to be peace in the world. -- Vasili Kuznetsov, November 20, 1967 (S/PV.1381)[39]

However, we voted for the United Kingdom draft resolution, as interpreted by the representative of India, whose views we share. Thus, in the resolution adopted by the Security Council, the "'withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" becomes the first necessary principle for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Near East. We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/8247] which stresses the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"…. It has been made clear, both from representatives' statements in the Security Council today and from the many statements made during the preceding days, that this is the basic content of the resolution and that it has thus been interpreted by all the members of the Security Council. – Vasili Kuznetsov, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [40]

The aggressive Israel forces continue to occupy territories of Syria, Jordan and the United Arab Republic and territories under United Arab Republic administration. The duty of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter, as well as with the various decisions previously adopted by this Organization, is very clear, that is, to secure the withdrawal of the Israel forces from all the territories which they have occupied after 4 June 1967. Our position on this question is absolutely firm. -- Mahmoud Riad, UAR representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379)[41]

Today, I wish to affirm once again our position that the first step towards peace lies in the full withdrawal of Israel forces from all territories they have occupied as a result of their aggression on 5 June. The efforts on behalf of peace which would then follow would of necessity be within the framework of this Organization and its Charter. The provisions of our Charter prohibit aggression and require all States to assume in good faith their obligations arising from the Charter as well as from international agreements and other sources of international law. – Mahmoud Riad, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [42]

The immediate stumbling block in the crisis is the withdrawal of the Israel forces from the territories of the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Syria which they occupied following the aggression of 5 June 1967. Their withdrawal is a prerequisite for any political solution to the crisis. The first task of the Council is therefore to secure, in application of the provisions of the Charter, the withdrawal of the Israel forces to the positions they held before the aggression. -- Mamadou Boubacar Kante, UNSC President and Mali representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379)[43]

My delegation therefore wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text, namely: first, that the withdrawal of all the armed forces of Israel from all the Arab territories occupied since 5 June cannot be made subject to any condition whatever…. For all those reasons my delegation, in voting for the draft resolution on the Middle East submitted by the United Kingdom, was anxious to record its unshakable adherence to the principles of the Charter. My country therefore continues to believe more than ever that the withdrawal of forces from territories occupied by military conquest is a prior condition for any solution of any armed crisis. – Mamadou Boubacar Kante, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [44]

The States, although adhering to the views expressed in its draft resolution of 7 November [S/8229], will vote in favour of the United Kingdom draft resolution for two principal and prevailing reasons. First, the United Kingdom resolution commands, in our opinion, a substantial con-sensus in the Council and is entirely consistent with the policy of my Government as set forth by President Johnson in his statement of 19 June and as stated by me in the several interventions I have made in the Council, I reaffirm that policy without any reservation today. -- Arthur Goldberg, U.S. representative at the UNSC, November 20, 1967 (S/PV.1381)[45]

It goes without saying that the withdrawal of the Israel aggressive forces from occupied territories is at this stage the central point of the problem and should be the focus of the attention and efforts of the international community. The advocates of the draft resolution must know this axiomatic fact very well. -- George Tomeh, Syrian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)[46]

With regard to the principles that need to be affirmed, we deem it most essential that due emphasis be put on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and hence on the imperative requirement that all Israel armed forces be withdrawn from the territories occupied as a result Of military conflict, and likewise on the need to ensure conditions of permanent peace in which all States in the area can live in security free from threats or acts of force. It follows from this that we seek the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and consider that there should be, mutual respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and, political independence of all States in the area. -- Endelkachew Makonnen, Ethiopian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)[47]

Members of the Council will recall that during the fifth emergency special session an overwhelming majority of Member States of the United Nations, whether they voted for the Latin American draft resolution 2/ or the non-aligned, Afro-Asian draft resolution, had reaffirmed the principle of non-acquisition of territory by military conquest and had supported the call for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces to the positions they held prior to the outbreak of the recent conflict on 5 June 1967. On this point there was universal agreement among the membership of the United Nations.... The principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by force is absolutely fundamental to our approach and we cannot accept or acquiesce in any decision that leaves out territories occupied by military conquest from the provision of withdrawal.... It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories--I repeat, all the territories occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967. In other words, the draft commits the Council to the withdrawal of Israel forces from the whole of Sinai, Gaza, the Old City of Jerusalem, Jordanian territory west of the Jordan River and the Syrian territory. This being so, Israel cannot use the words "secure and recognized boundaries", contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragraph 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict. Of course, mutual territorial adjustments are not ruled out, as indeed they are not in the three-Power draft resolution co-sponsored by India. This is our clear understanding of the United Kingdom draft resolution. -- Mr. Parthasarathi, Indian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967[48]

We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories". -- Armand Berard, French representative to the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [49]

We note with satisfaction that in the resolution adopted, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, proclaimed in the preamble as a general principle, is clearly and explicitly confirmed in the first operative paragraph, which calls for the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Thus it is a definite call for the withdrawal of Israel's troops from all the territories occupied since 4 June 1967. That is a practical application of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war stated in the preamble to the resolution. – Milko Tarabanov, Bulgarian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [50]

In the present crisis the basic issue which has to be remedied as an essential step towards peace is the immediate and complete withdrawal of Israel armed forces from all the territories they occupied in the recent conflict. The resolutions which were adopted both by the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the statements made on the question, have stressed this basic requirement. – Abdul Monem Rifa'I, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [51] JRHammond (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

When doing pending changes to remove a change of my revert to restore the article I inadvertently accepted both changes including one pending from the IP user regarding this issue. At this point JRH I would say there is not consensus support of your position on these documents, especially when you're going to pains to point out particular version of the document that is different from others. It seems this is very much in dispute and not settled. --WGFinley (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is only one version of Resolution 242 under discussion here, and that is the one unanimously adopted by the UNSC. If you conclude that the issue as to interpretation "is very much in dispute and not settled", then you must certainly agree that asserting the fringe POV interpretation of 242 as permitting Israel to remain in possession of some of the territory occupied during the war must not be asserted as fact in the article. I'm glad to see we are in agreement on that point. JRHammond (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

JRH, I'm not getting involved over what's valid and not valid that's for editors to do. I'm saying, as an admin, based on what I've seen here you have objections to this material and there is no consensus to add it, that's all. --WGFinley (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

He added it again and violated 1RR. Can you please do something to stop this consistent edit warring? 174.112.83.21 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources Provided

My fix was reverted. The objection included in the edit summary was that the source I provided for the statement that the French text is equally authoritative as the English was not enough to establish the fact. It's highly instructive that certain editors demand sources to include this statement, and yet require none to assert the opposite. This double standard is most unreasonable, and demonstrates a lack of good faith. I've reinserted my fix, and added further sources to satisfy the stated objection:

However, the definite article is included in the French text of the resolution ("des territoires occupés"), which is equally authoritative as the English text.

• The concept that authorized texts in multiple languages are equally authentic is well founded in international law: "When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language..." Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 [52]

• French is an official language of the United Nations and of the Security Council: "The present Charter, of which the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts are equally authentic...." U.N. Charter, Article 111 [53]

• "Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be both the official and the working languages of the Security Council." S/96/Rev.7, Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council [54]

• "Similar to Article 111 of the Charter of the United Nations which stipulates that 'the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts are equally authentic", the texts of constitutive acts of treaty-based organizations or the texts of treaties administrered by them have been signed in one or a given number of languages and such texts are considered as authentic texts." Implementation of Multilingualism in the United Nations System, Joing Inspection United, United Nations, 2003 [55]

• "[F]rom the strictly legal viewpoint, the French version of the resolution [242] carries, in every respect, just as much weight as its English counterpart." Toribio de Valdes, The Authoritativeness of the English and French Texts of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) on the Situation in the Middle East, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 71, No. 2 (Apr., 1977), pp. 311-316 [56]

• The French delegate at the U.N. Security Council meeting prior to the vote on resolution 242 observed, "We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories"."[57]

• U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk has acknowledged that "the French version ... is equally authentic" as the English, adding that the U.S. "never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war." "As I Saw It", Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389

I'm fine if someone wants to edit the footnote to minimize it. I felt it was important to at least initially include not only references, but citations from those references, so as to stop the pointless and unreasonable edit warring behavior. JRHammond (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One more:

• "[T]here are six official and working languages of the Security Council, and resolutions of the Council are adopted and published in all six. In princple, all six language versions are authentic." Michael C. Wood, "The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions", Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 2, 1998[www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/wood_2.pdf][58] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRHammond (talk • contribs) 11:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the volume and quality of the sources which indicate, both implicitly and explicitly that the French version is equally authoritative I can only conclude that the article should mention this position. I endorse and support the reinstatement of this edit, or one substantively similar. If editors take exception to 'Some' we can attribute the claim to Yehuda Blum for starters. Unomi (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"cost/benefit" analysis of Israel's occupation re: security

"The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region and left it in control of more defensible boundaries, but at the cost of significant increases in military expenditure and personnel and of a polarization in Israeli society over issues surrounding the control and management of the occupied territories."

Ian Pitchford revised the article to read as above. If there is going to be a "cost/benefit" analysis of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory in terms of security, I would suggest it absolutely must be noted that the occupation itself has been a major cause for grievance and thus arguably made Israel more insecure, including by escalating the threat of Palestinian terrorist attacks against itself. If this element of the equation is to be ignored, than the whole "cost/benefit" analysis shouldn't be included at all, at least in the lede. It could be a quite large discussion in the body, but I don't see how it belongs in the introduction. It's just too broad a topic, with too many varying viewpoints and factors to consider. Perhaps note that fact itself: state that there are numerous viewpoints among analysts as to whether the consequences of the war mitigated or escalated the threat against Israel's security -- but leave the discussion for the body. Any number of possible solutions, but I hope other editors will recognize my concern and that we can come to a consensus solution to end the constant changes to this part of the article. JRHammond (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree somewhat, but not at all how you put it about the occupation. The analysis should not be in the article, definitely not in first-person WP. You seem to be reading too much into the intentions and outcomes of the war and also inserting this analysis. --Luckymelon (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand your point. Do you agree this kind of "cost/benefit" analysis from Israeli POV should be removed from the lede? Because that is my own point. This needs to be removed from the lede. It could be included, along with a fuller discussion, in the body. But it absolutely must be removed from the lede. Agreed? JRHammond (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

as Samu incident

The as-Samu incident was a response not only to cross-border attacks but specifically to the 3 paratroopers killed on November 11. The supporting source from Segev includes the following context.

On Friday night, November 11, three paratroopers doing their compulsory military service were killed when their command car drove over a land mine not far from Arad, in the south. They were on their way back from Mount Hebron, where they had collected some soldiers after setting an ambush for terrorists. Tracks leading to the border with Jordan were identified at the site. The next day, the Sabbath, Israel had to decide how to respond. The General Staff met in the morning and the generals agreed that there was no way to prove Syria responsible and that action could only therefore be taken against Jordan.

Clearly this is relevant material that needs to be added to the lead to avoid POV. 172.130.52.137 (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you register an account? I think you're making worthwile contributions to the discussion, but it's hard to take you seriously when all I see is an anonymous IP. Shoplifter (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I prefer it this way. Maybe later. 172.130.52.137 (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your argument would seem to be based on the logic that the Nov. 11 attack you refer to was in addition to the raids mentioned in Ling.Nut's version. That is nonsense logic. Of course the Nov. 11 is included in the reference to raids. Add details in the body. The lede should be brief and just hit the main points. Restore Ling.Nut's briefer, equally neutral version. JRHammond (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead

"At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs.[9]"

• This sentence does qualify as original research. It may appear obvious and factual, but it is a conclusion as someone else has said, and an opinion. Its inappropriate in the lead or anywhere except maybe a section on opinions. Since it was not in the reference, I removed it and reinserted template. Verification here: [59] 172.130.52.137 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you have the Hinnebusch book at hand? Because your link to Google books doesn't contain pages 171-173 either and there is no rule that says we need an online link for each ref. Therefore I have reverted your edits to the referenced version. De728631 (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Another piece of analysis placed in the article. Need to reword, not source to one author. --Luckymelon (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here seriously wish to argue that: (a) the consequence of occupation is not a central concern in the ongoing conflict, (b) the consequence of occupation raises no issues in international law, or (c) the consequence of occupation does not have far-reaching consequences in global affairs? Because unless you're willing to argue one or more of those points, this is totally a non-issue. The present wording (Ling.Nut's version) is completely non-controversial. Furthermore, no source is required to state self-evident truths disputed by precisely nobody. JRHammond (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen there was a citation there, you removed the citation (wrong) and then claimed it needed more. Instead of removing the citation perhaps you would add more sources? If you're stating it didn't you should provide YOUR sources instead of removing others. --WGFinley (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There was originally (a week ago, two weeks maybe) no citation there. The sentence was removed altogether as a "summary analysis" but it was returned again as "obvious" and "unanimously agreed upon." (The last is not factual) Since I did not want to re-revert ,asked for a citation instead. The citation was provided, but I was able to check the book and it does not say anything even similar to the analysis as written! I removed the link for that reason, and did not ask for more; just for one. The author(s) of that sentence should provide the link. If they cannot, it demonstrates the OR nature of it. The Google link was given as a courtesy, and all the (referenced) pages are available to readers. [60] 172.129.241.59 (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As WGFinley said, it is you then who must provide clear evidence and sources that the given reference is not sufficient or even faulty. Especially since you suggest that others should provide links. De728631 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We have to source a negative? Anyone who reads the material can see that reference is faulty. There is no mention of any part of the challenged sentence in the reference given. Do you suggest editors copy pages of material to prove that something isn't there, especially when there is a link provided so that anyone can see for himself? That would be crazy as anyone could claim anything at all, assert anything as a reference, and not be held to account. No, references are supposed to be WP:V, and this one is not. 172.129.241.59 (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I could live with the following without requiring a source. Can I get feedback or shall I just be BOLD? "Besides adding to an already difficult refugee problem, the Six-Day war had far-reaching political and legal consequences." 172.129.241.59 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here seriously wish to argue that: (a) the consequence of occupation is not a central concern in the ongoing conflict, (b) the consequence of occupation raises no issues in international law, or (c) the consequence of occupation does not have far-reaching consequences in global affairs? Because unless you're willing to argue one or more of those points, this is totally a non-issue. The present wording (Ling.Nut's version) is completely non-controversial. Furthermore, no source is required to state self-evident truths disputed by precisely nobody. JRHammond (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In Regina v Jones, the Law Lords ruled that the crime of aggression, as defined and used by the International Military War crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-6, is still part of international law. They also ruled that despite a crime of aggression being illegal under international law, it is not a crime under any UK statute. [61]

Many states are parties to treaties which explicitly prohibit the occupation of the territory of another state. Any state can, in theory, exercise universal jurisdiction for crimes of aggression under the auspices of the customary prohibition. Some treaties or equivalents are:

• The Montevideo Convention Article 11

  The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

• The Charter of the Organization of American States Article 21

  The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized.

• Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX)[62] also includes invasion and occupation. In the ruling on merits in "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)", the ICJ said that portions of the definition reflected customary international law. The General Assembly has stated that Israel's failure to implement resolutions calling for withdrawal and its continued occupation of the captured Arab territories is aggression, e.g. UNGA 39/146.
• The Review Conference of the Assembly of State parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recently defined the crime of aggression "in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX). The ICC Prosecutor is currently studying a Palestinian declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in connection with the situation in Palestine since 2002. harlan (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One Last Warning

As previously mentioned, this article is under a WP:1RR restriction. This is to reduce edit warring and, yes, promote the status quo. What does this mean? If someone adds something and that change is reverted and someone, ANYONE puts it back in, that's a 1RR violation.

There seems to be a lot of editing and talking in edit notes and not on this talk page. Discussion needs to happen here and consensus reached on an article like this. It can't continue this way and unfortunately if some can't put their axes away then article bans are going to be the next step. I would really rather not do that, I would really rather people work out differences. But for an event that is over 40 years old to have this much editing going on is ridiculous, it's plain out edit warring and needs to stop. --WGFinley (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the normal definition of 1RR is it ? Revert counts are normally counted on a per editor basis aren't they (which inevitably leads to self assembling edit warring tag teams) ? Your definition is far better in my view but is it supported by policy ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think WGFinley's understanding of 1RR is the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, the rule would permit people to implement edits rejected according to consensus on Talk, and would punish editors who reverted to accepted wording according to consensus for reverting back to the approved version. That interpretation of 1RR would make no sense whatsoever, and only contribute to rather than help resolve the problem. Again, I would observe that according to 3RR, leeway must be given to editors whose reversions help improve the article. Clearly, that would include any reverts restoring versions that have been discussed where consensus or overwhelming majority approval has been reached. Granting such leeway, as demanded by the policy, is the ONLY solution to the edit warring. JRHammond (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sean, you're correct, this isn't strictly what 1RR is under normal circumstances. I've put it in place in this form for this article under general sanctions to try to keep the peace. And JRH I would encourage you to let admins come and deal with situations where there are those going against consensus. As in this case I found something that was reverting a revert (of something that has been consensus), I pointed it out to the person and clarified for everyone here what I meant by 1RR. Again, this is only for this article. --WGFinley (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"And JRH I would encourage you to let admins come and deal with situations where there are those going against consensus." Yes, that is my whole point, that admins should do so. It would be very much appreciated by most editors here, I'm sure. JRHammond (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Analyzing specifically

Regarding this revert, which broke the 1RR as listed above. The sources for the edit are as follows:

• An editorial in the Guardian's Comment is free section by Ron Prosor who argues that this is really the underlying problem in the I/P conflict but doesn't mention this conflict. And even if it had, this source would only be appropriate for what former Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs thinks, not for a statement of fact
• Paper by the ITIC, a partisan think tank, which does not once mention this conflict.
• The one RS cited, a news article in Haaretz. Now this does mention the conflict, but only when defining the Green Line as the border prior to this conflict.
• AJC director opinion piece that does not once mention this conflict, and even if it did would only by good for the opinion of the director of the AJC
• CFR background information on Hamas. Mentions this conflict but never makes the point that the article makes. It says that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, not that the refusal to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" is a central issue in the conflict and so obviously does not discuss that supposed central issue within the context of this conflict.

What we have here are a couple of op-eds that say this is really the most important issue in the I/P conflict. Those are synthesized together to make the statement of fact that this is true and that it is somehow relevant to this conflict. None of the sources cited discuss this supposed central issue within the context of this conflict. nableezy - 05:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is even disputed. The Arab nation's refusing to recognize Israel isn't even disputed. I suppose "Jewish state" could just be "the state". It looks like an underlying cause at the time deserves to be in. It deserves prominence in the lead as part of the background. Here are just a couple books that do that exact same thing: second line!again the second line and this is fromBarron's Educational Series. There is nothing controversial about it. It is a simple piece of history that is repeated in multiple texts (do you really want more?). So maybe remove "Jewish" and maybe move the line to another part of the lead but it is something that deserves prominence as sources do it.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And it appears that JJG thought he was balancing a harsh line from his edit summary ("Adding additional cause for I-A conflict, sourced. I'd rather the lede stick to the bare facts of the 6-Day War but since we're on a slippery slope...". Why is that line there anyways? Wouldn't it be better lower in the lead? It could be argued that that line focuses on general concerns of the region and is too much for the lead. I think it should be in since it is related fallout but it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. IF adding that part of the background was blatantly POV then it could be said that the preceding lines were POV as well. I say keep them both but move them to appropriate parts of the lead. We could also axe both and discuss it only in the body but that should not be necessary.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

While I would agree that the refusal of some Arab countries to recognize Israel as a state is an impediment to peace in the region, that's not what this sentence talks about. It needs to be read in context. The sentence before it talks about the immediate results of the war ("At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, ... the West Bank and East Jerusalem, ... and the Golan Heights"). This sentence talks about the long term impact of those results ("The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem... are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict"). The refusal of some Arab nations to recognize Israel wasn't a result of the Six-Day War in 1967, it was a result of the foundation of Israel in 1948, and Israel's subsequent refusal to allow the Palestinian refugees to return (most neighboring Arab countries viewed thousands of foreign refugees as a drain on their own resources). However, this sentence could be improved. First, it would be good if it was preceded by a count of how many Palestinian refugees were created in 1967; if there weren't many, I wouldn't mention them in this sentence. Second, the entire end of this sentence ("...raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs") is long-winded and veering off topic, and would probably be best removed. My two cents on the matter, anyways. ← George ^talk 10:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly George, the occupation of Arab territory was a direct result of this conflict. It is self-evidently relevant to the topic of this conflict. The line inserted by Jiujitsuguy is both poorly sourced and wholly irrelevant to this conflict. nableezy - 13:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yo George! Unbeaten streak baby.

I was looking at the edit and modified my reasoning because I did not realize that JJG was trying on tack it onto a passage on the long term results. I agree JJGs line should not be there. However, that paragraph may need to be in the last paragraph or removed as you suggest. A line about the refusal to recognize the state could be in as the sources point to it being important background info. If we are going to discuss the results in such a fashion than surely such an important part of the background deserves some mention in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should pay closer attention before making arguments and presenting sources from publishers of books for children. That is not "such an important part of the background". The sources you provided are of low quality. Googling only gives you results for whatever it is you are already looking for. nableezy - 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone doubt that Arab refusal to recognize the Jewish state was the cause of the Six-Day War? Pre-war rhetoric was fill with blood-curdling chants of "itbach al-yahud" or "slaughter the Jews." This mantra was repeated over and over. Moreover, there was no "occupation" before the Six-Day War. Yet the Arabs, led by Egypt, still called for "throwing the Jews into the sea." So the question is why? why would they want to throw the Jews into the sea if there was no "occupation." the reason stems from the fact that the source of the conflict has nothing to do with the so-called "occupation" and everythingg to do the persistent Arab refusal to recognize a so-called "foreign implant" or Western dhimmi presence in the "plundered soil of Palestine." Therefore, this edit [63] is accurate and adds balance. In truth, I'd rather see the entire sentence that precededs it, The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs, removed per the concerns raised by Cptnono. Also, it constitutes WP:SYNTH. It is summary opinion that doesn't belong and it is not encyclopedic. So I propose that either my edit be allowed to remain or in the alternative, the entire aforementioned sentence be removed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can doubt that. Can you explain how it is "synthesis" to say that a result of the war, the occupation of Arab territory, remains a central issue to the conflict. A lead section is supposed to be a summary, so saying it is "summary opinion" is close to meaningless as it is quite obviously not an opinion and being a summary is what it should be. Before answering how it is "synthesis" please read WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 03:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Jiujitsuguy proposal. Israel is a very small country, she is not up to the task to occupy anything. She wants to live in peace, and the only reason for all wars Israel fought has been her fight for her very survival. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Full-on support for a line in the lead about this aspect of the background. It is also clear that the "occupation" stuff would be more chronologically suited later in the lead if it needs to be in. And Nableezy prefers academic sources. I provided a source by educators for people going into college to create the sources he likes. Pretty neutral also. Disregarding it is laughable. Do you want other source? Really? I simply cannot believe that this is even disputed. But if you really really want I will pull up some more. I would rather get back to my soaps though. Has anyone asked for more sources on the occupation being part of the conflict related to this conflict? No, of course not.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for this partial revert[64] Nableezy. I usually give you a hard time about pushing the occupation thing (well usually it is with Israel, but same principle) but that was right on.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it must be balanced... what is this, Al Jazeera Arabic? Either take out all the crap or add in the sentence to show the other side. No brainer. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the removing it altogether for all the reasons previously stated but otherwise support Jiujitsuguy's proposal. Offered the following sentence to replace it: ""Besides adding to an already difficult refugee problem, the Six-Day war had far-reaching political and legal consequences." The refugee problem could be a "see also" and we could simply say that the 6 Day war had "far-reaching political and legal consequences." That would not be arguable, I think. 172.130.28.105 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

These arguments are changing too swiftly to keep up with. I opened this section about an edit that introduced text saying the following:

At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem, as well as continued Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict

The sources for this statement are listed above. This edit presents the view that "Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state" is both a central concern in the I/P conflict today and that it is a result of the 67 war. Now you would like to cite this Arab refusal as a cause of the war, not an effect. That is a different discussion. If you want to discuss what sources say are causes for the war I suggest you at least widen your google search a bit. That is a much more complicated question than your search for a predetermined cause that led you to that fine book published by Gareth Stevens. Yes, the Arab states refused to recognize Israel. Yes, that could merit a mention, but there are many other causes for this war. To the IP, this isnt about a "side", Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" was not an outcome of this conflict, it isnt even a cause of the conflict. Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a state may be part of a cause, but, again, it is not an outcome of the conflict. You are seeking to add "balance" in the form of word counts, as in it says "occupation" once in this sentence so the same sentence must also say "Arab refusal". And on the talk page I ask that you either be more polite or log in with your account so that we can put a username to those barbs. nableezy - 05:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the topic has changed somewhat but luckily we are not bound by what your original intent was. There are tw and a half good questions here: Where does the occupation line go in the lead (if at all in the lead) and should the Arab refusal to accept Israel as a state be mentioned in the lead somewhere since it is so important to the background of the war? Would you prefer if I opened a new section and copy and pasted the responses in? I could simply make the changes as I want to but know that it might be contentious and would prefer the input first.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The "occupation line" is following a line discussing the results of the war. The occupation of Arab territory is one of those results and it is one that continues to be a, if not the, defining issue of the overall conflict. Where else would it go? nableezy - 09:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a long term result so if it stays in the lead it should go next to the other line discussing a similar long term result: "The nature and outcome of the war caused a significant realignment in the competition for power between the Arab states, brought secular nationalism into widespread disfavor among Arabs, and led to a concurrent rise in the growth and influence of Islamism in the Arab world." It may be the defining issue for you but for many others it is the bombs and people being shot. I'm not really going to debate opinions with you (I understand how strongly you feel about it).Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an immediate result that has had long-term impact. The line is immediately after one that talks about Israel capturing those territories. You shouldnt try to "debate opinions" with me until you have read more than what a google search told you. nableezy - 03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed label

"The Six-Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war,[d]" is not supported by many of the sources in that that overly lengthy footnote. "Preemptive strike" is. There is a difference. Luckily, there are plenty of sources and the lead already says "The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War." Israel's claim should follow that though. All those sources should also be integrated into the body since it is similar to Wikipedia:Citation overkill with such a massive amount of text attempting to support one line.Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• That isn't a massive amount of text; you obviously haven't perused Jiujitusguy's contributions to the article. The reason there are several cites and a bit of extra verbiage is because it is hotly disputed in some circles. And I did look at the sources; they support the assertion.
• C'mon. Please. Can we get off the lead and move on to another section? The body text should drive what's in the lead, rather than vice-versa. As we write the body text, scores more relevant cites will emerge etc. And (for example) the importance of the Soviet disinformation will become more clear, and we'll be able to think of a good way to summarize that aspect, etc.• Ling.Nut 07:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to work on the body. The lead currently has a line takes the sources out of context. I don't care what the reasoning behind it is. If you don;t wan to discuss it then fine. I am happy to fix it myself but would rather not be overly bold.Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Out of context == "preemptive war"? If that's the case, then wait five minutes. I'll get you more. Holy crap. I feel like Jiujitsuguy. • Ling.Nut 07:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are 44 sources for it and only 3 call it a preemptive war. Now if those three are sufficient then that might be fine. I honestly don't know if they are or are not. However, the other 41 need to be removed.Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• OH WAIT. I'm sorry! You ARE talking about Jiujitsuguy's cites, not mine! I misunderstood. Yes, about 41 of those need to be removed. But I am not interested in the squabbling that will result. It's a low-priority issue... If you wanna rmv them, start a new thread titled "Trim the 44 cites to preemptive war to the three best ones" and ask for a !vote. I'll agree. It will pass easily, due to the numeric makeup of the two camps of editors. But expect massive amounts of wailing and gnashing of teeth. • Ling.Nut 08:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Originally I simply didn't see them but decided to do a ctrl+f to double check. I still don't know if those are good enough and I don't think it matters but I could be wrong. So part 1:

Remove 41 of the 44 sources used to call it a preemptive war when they instead say preemptive strike

Yes there is a difference and it is overkill.Cptnono (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not all the sources! Just all but three or so. There are tons of sources that call it a "preemptive war". Google it yourself, in Google scholar. • Ling.Nut 08:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops: 41 of the 44.Cptnono (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Do the three sources calling it a preemptive war make it noteworthy enough for the lead?

Not sure myselfCptnono (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Those sources may suck, but obtaining better ones is a snap. It should definitely stay in the lead. • Ling.Nut 08:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources that identify the attack as preemptive far outnumber those that say it wasn't. to give both views equal weight is misleading to say the least.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, I've cited journal articles for you based on reviews of the literature and the doctrine of sources which said that the majority view of legal scholars is that Israel's first strike does not pass the "Caroline test". I asked you then if you knew of a reliable published source which says that isn't the majority view. harlan (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to lean towards yes on inclusion after looking at it more. However, a mention that Egypt dismisses Israel's claim that an attack was coming might help. We are starting to tread on that over use of verbiage that Ling was talking about so if it can get done in a line or two I say go for it. We could also just drop it but part of me wants to WP:WIN after all my moaning about it.Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel's claim that Egypt struck first

"The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War." is already in the lead. Should "Israel says that Egypt had made a offensive thrust with tanks and aircraft." or something similar be added to the line.Cptnono (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• The lede will never be perfect. We cannot cover every little detail. No more verbiage, please. • Ling.Nut 08:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• It does not seem right to rule out one party's view on grounds that it is a little detail and mere verbiage. Readers have a right to have both sides of the story in the lead, and a half dozen extra words for this information will not make the lead overly verbose. 172.129.241.59 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already argued previously for including this fact in the lede. This used to be included:

Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces". Israel subsequently claimed it had taken preemptive action because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent, despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community. Egypt denied planning to attack Israel, saying the Israeli strike was not preemptive but an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression.

These facts should at the very least be included in the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRHammond (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

1RR For All Editors

To make this simple and so everyone is of clear understanding: per the discretionary sanctions highlighted by Palestine-Israel Articles, I am hereby placing Six-Day War under 1RR sanctions for ALL users editing this article. This means that you are only allowed one revert per twenty-four hours to this article, except in cases of obvious vandalism. In addition, you will be required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page (i.e. not just in the reversion notes). If you violate the terms of this sanction, you will be blocked. The duration of these blocks will be determined based on the user's prior history, block log, and the severity of the violation. Note that if I find this is not effective in containing the edit war we may have to go to one revert per week. It also does not prohibit blocks for other disruptive behavior on the article or on this talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the time for this restriction is indefinite at this time. --WGFinley (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Jordanian-occupied"

Epeefleche, in his very first edit to either the article or talk page, reverted my partial revert of the addition of "Jordanian-occupied". If I were paranoid I might be saying there is a pattern of certain users showing up at an article shortly after I edit it. But to the point; Epeefleche, would you care to explain why we should repeat "Jordnian-occupied West Bank" in the article? And also, do you think it would be "accurate and balanced" if I were to add "Israeli-occupied" to every mention of "West Bank" or "East Jerusalem" in a large number of articles, multiple times in each article? nableezy - 09:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverts made without discussion here are in violation of the 1RR on this article and may be reverted. --WGFinley (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Continued Warring over UN Res 242

Apparently with one editor blocked for putting material that is in dispute back into the article another editor has taken up the axe and put it back in, I have reverted it. I am making no assessment on this material, it is disputed. You need to discuss your change concerning this material and achieve consensus on it. I might suggest including both viewpoints on the material but whatever the solution is it needs to be discussed as simply putting it back in is edit warring. Editors who continue to put this or any disputed material back in without consensus or discussion are subject to being blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you point me to where this information is argued against? Removing sourced information presented in a neutral narrative is disruptive. If an edit is reverted but not sought argued against, with actual arguments, then that cannot be taken to be part of an effort at good faith editing. Unomi (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The entire section currently near the top of this talk page. You put disputed material that was reverted yesterday back into the article thus continuing the edit warring without any participation in the discussion on the talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wgfinley, I'm still trying to figure out who is disputing the edit. Even though the war ended decades ago, the United States government only declassified its documents on the Six Day War in 2000. That is when it published its own version of the negotiating history behind resolution 242 and the role played by the Johnson Administration in the events surrounding the crisis in the Middle East.[65] Israel recently announced that its own state archives on the Six Day War were going to stay classified for 20 more years. [66]

In the discussion that you cited, I had supplied material, including relevant quotes from US Secretary of State Rusk; British Foreign Secretary George Brown; Secretary of State Kissinger, the legal counsel of the Canadian UN delegation, and a State Department study conducted at the request of President Carter regarding the meaning of the withdrawal phrase, the legitimacy of the French version of resolution 242, & etc. Secretary Rusk addressed the authenticity of the French version and specifically stated "we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided." British Foreign Minister Brown said "Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw."See the verbatim minutes of the Security Council [67] Editors are certainly welcome to present opposing viewpoints, but that material is indisputable.

I included that talk page material because it appears an anonymous I/P is going to be allowed to make disruptive edits that remove well-sourced material from this article. Just to clarify, a Congressional Research Service (CRS) Issue Brief from the State Department Foreign Press Corps website supplies the relevant policy statements made by President Johnson in a speech delivered on September 10, 1968 and reaffirmed by Secretary of State Rogers in a speech delivered on December 9, 1969

"The United States has stated that boundaries should be negotiated and mutually recognized, “should not reflect the weight of conquest,” and that adjustments in the pre-1967 boundaries should be “insubstantial.” [68]

Israel's position on the borders is well known, e.g. Lieberman warns against '67 borders and Netanyahu rejects peace talks based on 1967 borders The International Court of Justice has ruled that, in accordance with Article 24 and 25 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions are binding on members, not vice versa. See for example paragraph 38, on page 19 [69] The I/P did not try to add those Israeli views to the article.

His response on the talk page is well-known material employed by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to cast doubt on US and UK policy. It consists of inconclusive and apparently contradictory quotes of various statesmen taken out of context in order to make it appear that the US/UK used the Security Council resolution to create a loophole in customary international law which allows Israel to retain or annex some of the captured territory. Here for example is a link to the relevant MFA webpage on resolution 242 [70] The use of that material by the government of Israel and the dispute between the US/UK and Israel has been discussed ad nauseum in peer-reviewed journal articles and books like: John McHugo, Resolution 242 – Why the Israeli view of the “Withdrawal Phrase” is unsustainable in international law, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin Winter 2000-2001, pages 84-90 (see .pdf file pg 6 & 7 [71]); Lynk, Michael S., Conceived in Law: The Legal Foundations of Resolution 242 (July 2, 2007) page 10, available at SSRN: [72] Glenn Perry, Security Council Resolution 242: The Withdrawal Clause, Middle East Journal, 31:4 (1977:Autumn) p.413-433: especially page 431; and John Norton Moore (ed.), The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Volume II: Readings, Princeton University Press, 1974, pages 1024-1144.

While the MFA is a reliable source for its own government's policy positions, its views are not a reliable source on Security Council decisions, or US and UK policy. harlan (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't mean anything by it Harlan but these things really should not be addressed to me. There's clearly a dispute or there wouldn't be editors who were reverting it. There's ample discussion critical of JRH's edit above and it was not all from the anon editor. This should also be clear -- just because someone wishes to be anon doesn't make their POV less relevent. They have the same editing and discussion rights as anyone else.

So we're clear -- I'm not making any judgment on the material. I'm just trying to keep the peace and contain the edit warring. I think there were some editors trying to help find that middle ground who got exhausted by the process. I think it's best for everyone to take a break from this, breathe a bit and then maybe some folks will pick up the discussions again. --WGFinley (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Wgfinley, I addressed the remark to you because you are the editor who inadvertently removed the material after we had discussed it here on the talk page. The only person who has ever disputed the edit in question in all of these talk page subsections is 174.112.83.21:

1. 10 False claims on UN Res 242

• 10.1 The Meaning of the Withdrawal Clause
• 10.2 Meaning of the Withdrawal Clause pt II
• 10.3 Meaning of Secure and Recognized Boundaries
• 10.4 Meaning of the Withdrawal Clause pt III
• 10.5 Comments
• 10.6 Sources Provided

WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded requires 174.112.83.21 to utilize "reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions", but he/she has never supplied a single citation to any published source which says that the French version of the resolution is not equally official, legitimate, and authentic.

Initially, 174.112.83.21 asserted that all of JRH's material in #10 was WP:OR. So, I posted 10.1 which contains many reliable sources which explicitly state the French version is equally legitimate. At the same time, I cross-posted one of those sources and some other secondary and tertiary sources on the subject at WP:RSN. [73] That material remains unchallenged. The material in 10.1 was discussed by JRH, and Shoplifter. JRH included one of the sources in his subsequent edit. 174.112.83.21 only responded by posting off-topic material about "secure and recognized borders" in section 10.2. Once again, there is no material there which discusses the legitimacy of the French version. 174.112.83.21 stopped participating after that post. I posted 10.3 in reply. It contains citations to reliable sources in which the authors of resolution 242 say the phrase "secure and recognized borders" had nothing to do with territorial changes or geography. Consensus is achieved through the editing process or through talk page discussion. JRH, Shoplifter, Unomi, and I should not have to engage in prolonged talk page discussions like this about 174.112.83.21's, or anyone else's unpublished personal opinions. harlan (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason why it was subsequently removed is because of technical reasons and, AGAIN, nothing at all to do with the reliability, sources, nature of the material or anything of the kind. I respect your knowledge on this subject and the way you've gone about this but it doesn't change the fact the edit warring needed to stop. This article is now protected because people can't work to resolve differences, they're more interested in proving they're right. Well, you can be right and still be going about it the WRONG way. --WGFinley (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you with regard to the edit warring. I think editors on both sides should welcome well-sourced opposing views, cite reliable sources which support their own edits, and get on with the rest of their lives. harlan (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And... it's protected

As I'm sure you have noticed, the article has been protected for a month. Yes, I know that's a bit long, but the edit-warring has gone on here for about that long, and continued to occur despite Wgfinley's every effort to put a damper on the reverting without protecting the article. If you feel all pertinent issues have been resolved and that the edit-warring will not continue, you are welcome to go to WP:RFPP. Or wait until September 17. -- tariqabjotu 14:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)