# Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive 7

## Article Too Long

The article is long. What about summarizing the legal aspects (Israeli and Int'l) in about two paragrahs with a pointer to something like, Israeli West Bank Barrier, Legal Aspects? Any other ideas for dividing? -SeattliteTungsten 08:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Much of the history is irrelevant (who cares about the Shahal commision) and the route is covered 3 times (4th if we consider the map). Zeq 09:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I moved the text to the appropriate section in International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict with a short summary remaining here. The article is still too long. I need to get rid of Israeli West Bank Barrier, Legal Aspects. SeattliteTungsten 06:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

## "Realities on the ground" revisited

There is a discussion in the archives which debates the inclusion of Bush's April 2004 comments concerning "realities on the ground" and future borders and the relevancy of such comments to the Wall article. Objections relating to original research were raised and caused the edits to be removed. I have now returned them having conducted research which provides direct outside analysis and speculation linking the phrase with the Wall. I know it's an issue from last year but I thought better to expplain my revisiting the matter in Talk rather than just an edit summary, since the issue had been contentious.--AladdinSE 08:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Article too long without these added specualtion. You can describe it 8 words about the route "palestinian fear it will become the defacto border" Zeq 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is sourced analysis about history and purpose of the Wall from analysts and the PNA itself in direct response to the comments of the American President, comments which have been consistently described as "Earth-shattering" and a departure from 40 years of stated US policy. The comments and reaction to them are extremely important, and cannot be distilled. Do not delete sourced material again. --AladdinSE 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me,
• much of AladinSE's paragraph is relevant;
• "do not delete cited material" should generally be upheld;
• The following sentence seems immaterial, not relevant, possibly OR (linking Bush's 'realities on the ground' to the meaning implied by another source, and might be removed: "The American Task Force on Palestine, for example, says "the construction of a wall...";
• this is definitely not "history" and probably not "purpose" and might be better organized in the Effects and Consequences section;
• Yossi Klein HaLevy, correspondent for The New Republic, writes, "Building over the green line, by contrast, reminds Palestinians that every time they've rejected compromise--whether in 1937, 1947, or 2000--the potential map of Palestine shrinks. That message is the exact opposite of the left-wing trajectory of increased concessions under fire--from Camp David to Taba to Geneva. The fence is a warning: If Palestinians don't stop terrorism and forfeit their dream of destroying Israel, Israel may impose its own map on them. Indeed, the fence is a reminder that the 1967 border isn't sacrosanct. Legally, the West Bank is extraterritorial: The international community didn't recognize Jordan's annexation, and, because Palestine isn't being restored but invented, its borders are negotiable." [1] This could be added to a writeup of "barrier as negotiation tool" section. However, unless there is sufficient reference to this as an original purpose and not an incidental -- or even important -- after effect, it cannot be listed under "purpose" because this represenation is OR.
SeattliteTungsten 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Not every so called "relevant" idea should be at line 27 and take 10 lines. The idea in this long paragrpah can be sumerized in 8 words without too much specualtions. Zeq 06:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

These 8 words of yours conveniently exclude all mention of the actual comments Bush made that represented a major policy shift, described as "Earth-shattering" and "the most significant in 40 years". Six sentences for this kind of information isn't excessive in the least. This includes the reaction and analysis that followed, all of which was meticulously sourced. The ATFP material comes directly form the linked source, and is directly connected with the Bush quote, also contained in the source. The material goes directly to analysis and speculation by outside sources of the purpose of the Wall, and it belongs in the History and Purpose section.--AladdinSE 07:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not understand what you argue above. Do you want to inclucde 10 lines on what Bush said ? Zeq 08:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Including this as "Purpose" means there should be cited sources that describe (1) intent, and (2) desired causality not a side effect. (For instance, I boil water to make coffee. As a result, my kitchen window becomes foggy. It would be a mistake to claim that the "purpose" of boiling water is to make my window foggy.) Note that there could be sources that provide evidence that the purpose of the barrier was to create facts on the ground but these citations don't really do that. Hence, "Purpose" is not the right place for this.
• George Bush quote: should go in "International Opinions". There is already a paragraph for Bush quotes and policy there.
• "realities on the ground" effecting final status negotiations: should go in "Effects and Consequences". Note: interestingly, this effect can be described as "good" (Yossi Klein HaLevy), "neutral" (Bush), or "bad" (PA) which is consistent with NPOV -- showing all views.
Maybe one idea is to break up "History and Purpose" into "History", "Purpose/Purpose As Security", and "Purpose/Purpose As Negotiation" sections.
On the ATFP statements, I can't really see how their use of "realities on the ground" can be used to support that this is the meaning of Bush using "realities on the ground" which has traditionally used to refer to settlements. (The ATFP statement is still interesting but not, IMHO, related to the Bush statement.) SeattliteTungsten 08:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. Oh, first, Zeq: What's so difficult to understand? The 8 words you proposed are radically insufficient for such an important policy shift and reactions to it. There are six sentences by my count. I don't know what measure "10 lines" revers to. SeattliteTungsten: The sources consistently show that "realities on the ground" have been seen as including the Wall. Even though Bush does not mention it specifically, the PNA in their rebuttal said it amounted to a legitimization of the "apartheid Wall" among other things. Causality is described exactly as it appears in the sources, i.e. this type of language is vague and worrying and has been feared to include/legitimize the Wall as a land grab tool as a main intent, not a side effect. I already did put another Bush quote in the opinions section, July 2003 was my addition. This one is in the Purpose section because the reaction and analysis which deals directly with views that the Wall is being referred to and used to leverage an imposed border. This overpowers the reasons, which do exist, of placing it the "international opinions" section, which as you can see, includes mostly quotes without reaction/analysis. As for splitting History and Purpose, that is not a bad organizational edit, perhaps you should start a Talk section and illicit opinions. If this happens, I think there should only be one purpose section, with both claims (security and land grab) being described equally. Regardless, the Bush comments and related comments, reactions and cited sources are where they belong. --AladdinSE 08:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want to add. If it is about the future borders be accdurate. If it specualtion based on Bush owrds - this is not the place. Zeq 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Whatever Bush says and whatever the PA (rightly or wrongly) interprets the Bush quote as meaning are not central to "purpose" which must be supported by evidence of what the purpose for the Israeli's is.
• I did mean one "Purpose" section with two sections as you describe. My talking about it here is the talk in the talk section.
• These are my ideas... I'm trying to brainstorm here how to best incorporate what the three of us are saying. If I get motivated later in the week, I'll make some changes based on this and whatever other discussion is here. If you disagree, try not to revert but to make/suggest a compromise position consistent with Wikipedia values. Thanks.
SeattliteTungsten 09:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq: I added a quotation of a highly pivotal policy speech that Bush made, and the reactions to it as it relates to perceived purpose of the Wall. If you still don't understand, I am not the one to explain it to you.

SeattliteTungsten: The purpose section must, and does, describe opposing views of what the Wall is for, not just the Israeli perspective of what the purpose for them is. As for discussion about splitting the Purpose and History section, please do create a separate Talk section for that. Certainly I look forward to the results of your brainstorming, but as far as I can tell, Zeq wanted wholesale deletion of my edit, he has offered nothing that requires integration. As for Wikipedia values, I think you will find me ready to step up. Before I made this edit I started a Talk section and linked to the archive to facilitate full discussion and debate. If I revert anything, I will explain fully in Talk, and before I revert, I will consider carefully if there is a compromise wording. --AladdinSE 09:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the purpose should describe all POV including POV other than official Israeli government. In fact, I even added the quote (in talk -- looking for a place on page) from YKH suggesting pre-building intent of land-grab, "[t]he fence is a warning: If Palestinians don't stop terrorism and forfeit their dream of destroying Israel, Israel may impose its own map on them."
The difficulty is that to be included in the "Purpose" section the material must show or strongly suggest some pre-building intent otherwise it must be classified as an "Effect". The Bush quote does not in any way suggest what the intent was. It just say, "OK, here we are now... and this is how it should go based on the situation now." This cannot accurately be construed to be "purpose". Of course, there could be some other material that shows the U.S./Bush believes the purpose is to create a border or negotiating tool. SeattliteTungsten 16:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the reaction and analysis to Bush's comments that is the main reason for inclusion in Purpose. He said "realities on the ground," including Settlements as an example, and not excluding anything else. Those sources clearly speculated that the Wall is part of those realities. The material and sources discuss all of this in the context of purpose of the Wall as a land grab. --AladdinSE 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bush quote, and the reaction to it, are good examples of the effect of the barrier, i.e., actions and responses that follow. To show 'purpose', it must more clearly document the a priori intention of the people building the wall. Probably, it is possible to do this by finding writing and speeches from some right-wing Likud (or other) people. Otherwise such speculation is really not very appropriate in an encyclopedia article. SeattliteTungsten 16:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose the material be moved if the History and Purpose section no longer reads "and Purpose". This way, "Opinions about future borders" etc becomes an appropriate place for them. However, the deletions and curtailment of the analysis related to the Bush comments are unjustified. --AladdinSE 00:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? I'm not exactly following. (To be included in "Purpose" section, it much -- in the words of the Purpose page -- show "deliberately thought-through goal-directedness". Neither the Bush quote nor the commentary on it show that the builders of the wall (Israeli government) had intent or ""deliberately thought-through goal-directedness". The Bush quote only says, my paraphrase, "hey, I don't know why this was done but considering now that it is done here's the scoop...") SeattliteTungsten 16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I changed the section title to History and stated purpose. This justifies the movement of the material to the recently created "Future Border Opinions" section, as stated purpose now goes directly to the official Israeli government position and does not appear to give preferential treatment to Israeli claims over Palestinian ones. The commentary to the Bush quote does show deliberately thought-through goal-directedness that the PNA and most of the Wall's opponents have attributed to Israel of the Wall being a land-grab ploy. --AladdinSE 11:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, I'm still not exactly following, which may be my fault entirely. The only part of the third paragraph in "future borders opinions" that deals with "purpose", "intention", "deliberate goal-directedness" is the phrase that the IWBB is "meant to separate Israel from the largest concentrations of Palestinians", the key word here being "meant". The other parts have to do with the PNA's or the ATFP's opinions on the barrier or the barrier's effects not the Israeli's intention, purpose, or motivation. (Moreover, it is quite tautological to say that the purpose of a barrier is "meant to separate". This seems pretty obvious and is consistent with any POV.) SeattliteTungsten 20:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We are in direct disagreement here. The PNA and ATFP's comments most certainly do deal with, and unambiguously at that, what they consider to be Israel's true intentions regarding the Wall. Also, it is not redundant to say the purpose of the barrier is "meant to separate etc" because separation for purposes of defense, and separation as a unilateral action towards disengagement from the Palestinian population, as well as any number of other separation "reasons" can be applied, and they are all distinct matters. Also, since consensus has agreed to renaming the "History and Purpose" section to "History and stated purpose", I likewise agreed to the movement of the comments to the recently created "Future border opinions" subsection. Ergo, our disagreement about what constitutes "purpose" has become moot. --AladdinSE 06:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Which words from the PNA or ATFP in the citation address Israel's true intentions? SeattliteTungsten 08:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The PNA reaction to the Bush policy comments says that he is rewarding aggression, illegal settlements, and the "Apartheid Wall". That is, settlements and the Wall were placed there, in their opinion, for exactly the purpose ("the very essence"), Bush was now granting... unilateral imposition of borders. The ATFP's comments directly discusses the context of the Wall as one of those "realities on the ground" being created for the same reason. --AladdinSE 01:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The PNA reaction to the Bush policy comment is therefore addressing Bush's intention -- not Israeli intention. The ATFP may believe that a result of the barrier is that it is "the very essence" of realities on the ground but, again, this is a statement about the ATFP's opinions of the barrier and not ATFP's opinion of Israeli motives. The ATFP might believe this about Israeli motives but it's not reflected in these statements. The mistaken inference from a sequence of events that earlier ones "cause" later ones or that the purpose of earlier ones is to cause later ones is common. In fact, the mistake is so common that there is a name for it, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Example: I do a rain dance, then it rains. "Seattlite's rain dance caused the rain" is an incorrect inference. Or, I drive to the store because I ran out of milk. As a result, I cause air polution. "SeattliteTungsten drove to the store for the purpose of creating air pollution" would be an improper inference even though "SeattliteTungsten caused air pollution" is true. For this reason, I rewrote the awkward sentence with the word "leverage" and replaced it with "prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines" -- a phrase from the original Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel. SeattliteTungsten 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am aware if the causal fallacy you speak of, I studied it in my youth. It does not apply here. To put it succinctly, what we have here is either a failure to communicate, or a diametrically opposed understanding of English grammar and sentence structure. The PNA most certainly is addressing Israeli intentions regarding the Wall. What they see as Bush "rewarding" Israel for its "Apartheid Wall" goes directly to Israel's "real secret intentions" as to imposing annexation of West Bank land. It does not deal with "Bush's intentions" regarding the purpose of the wall. As for the ATFP, for goodness sakes, their opinion of the Wall IS that it is a part and parcel of Israeli intentions to impose borders. You cannot divorce the two; in fact there is no "two," They're talking about Israel's intended purpose, period. Your text change was completely unjustified and introduces material wholly unrelated to the quotation and moreover is covered elsewhere and is attached to a Bush quote that actually talks about the armistice lines, and urges temporary nature, etc. The compromises regarding the location of the material and the rewording of the subsection titles removed all cause for this debate some time ago. I sincerely hope that this matter is now closed; we have been repeating ourselves for some time.--AladdinSE 09:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a different understanding of the meaning of certain words. The PNA, using the word "reward" discusses Bush because Bush is the one doing the rewarding. It is possible for a "rewarder" to "reward" something that is either intentional or incidental (not purposeful). Therefore, it is OR and an inaccurate inference to claim that "reward" means the PNA thinks the behavior being rewarded was purposeful. (Example: I write a poem because I like to write poetry. You submit my poetry to a contest, and it wins. "Seattlite wrote poetry for the purpose of winning the contest" is an inaccurate inference.) I missed the phrase "real secret intentions" in the text. If this was somewhere, it should be included in the article and I agree that this would clearly show the PNA's view of Israel's intentions. On the ATFP, I also missed the word "purpose" which I cannot find in the quote that is cited. This is your interpretation and it would be OR to read this into the quote. The do say that the wall is "meant to separate Israel from the largest concentrations of Palestinians on the West Bank" but this could be for any number of purposes which are not stated in the citation.
Instead of just blindly reverting back, if you feel my latest (shortened) version is still not right why don't you try to rewrite it in a way that uses more direct citation of the material? Or, use other primary source material that can be better cited to flow the way you would like? In other words, instead of having an edit war over someone's interpretation of cited material, let's just write a paragraph that uses the cited material more directly and minimizes the non-quoted introductions so that we don't have disagreements about the accuracy or POV-ness of the non-quoted summary text. Thanks, SeattliteTungsten 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no blind revert. Your edit was read carefully, and the revert was discussed in Talk. "Blind reverts" entail no discussion, and revert to the editor's last version, wrecking unrelated edits that might have occurred in the interim. Now, very briefly as we are definitely in rehash mode here: The PNA's focus is unambiguously to make clear that Israel's original intention with the Wall, as they see it, has been validated by this US policy shift. To be OR, we have to be saying as a matter of course that this is in fact Israel's true "secret" intention, but it cannot be plainer that this is merely PNA speculation and POV and stated as such. In any case, the material was moved out of the Purpose of the Barrier section directly as a result of our previous discussion. The ATFP, in the citation, says "the very essence of creating realities on the ground" in direct context of the Bush quote. QED.

Moreover, your version is actually longer, and splices, in a most confused manner, other material into this section that has already been covered, where Bush urges the temporary nature of the Wall, and talks about not prejudicing final borders, etc. Why are you trying to dilute the speculation regarding Bush and reaction to the "realities on the ground" comments? The PNA and ATFP (and other sources) are being quoted, cited, and the material goes directly to their opinions about the Wall as a future border, and is in the "Future Border Opinions" not the History and Stated Purpose section. --AladdinSE 18:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, it does seem to be rehash but there is still a problem so let's take a different approach. (Deleting the cited material and non-collaboratively reverting isn't going to help: that's why we should try something else.) First, let's represent all POVs including the POV (a) that the statement isn't any change of policy [see original armistice agreement], as well as the POV (b) that the statement represents a new policy and is referring indirectly to the barrier. If you don't like the way I have incorporated both POVs, why don't you suggest a different way to do this? But, please, don't merely delete.
Second, the sentence with the word "leverage" is not an accurate representation of what the groups said. Let's find another way to introduce these statements. If it's difficult to agree on how to summarize them, perhaps we can just write something that excerpts the exact primary text. (It's difficult to argue that pieces of the primary text are not representative of the primary text -- although still possible if they are grossly out of context.)
[On "shorter", I meant relative to my previous suggestion not relative to your revert. Sorry for the misunderstanding.] SeattliteTungsten 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply, I was not able to get to Wikipedia sooner. Alright. First, I must say that this new approach of yours is indeed much easier for me to follow, and finally presents more for us to go on than a mere difference of interpretation, and rehashing of opinions. I see room for compromise here, principally regarding the rephrasing of what you found to be awkward and/or inaccurate as far as "leverage" goes. I will rephrase your edit somewhat, I hope you will find it acceptable.

I think we are making progress. The main sticking point is whether we believe some particilar Wikipedia summaries are accurate representations of cited material. I still believe "include the use of the barrier to prejudice the outcome of border negotiations" is not accurate way to summarize those citations. So, here's my new approach: just report what's actually in the cited material and use actual quotes instead of our rewrites, as much as possible. Then, we won't argue about the rewrites, summaries, and interpretations. "X says, 'Y is Z'" -- if "Y is Z" is really part of the cited material, then we can all agree "X says..." is accurate. We don't need to try to paraphrase what X said.
I took a stab at rearranging into three paragraphs,
P1: "Some people describe the barrier as the de facto future border..."
P1 includes people's opinion of a land grab/barrier-as-border, including the YKH one I added and "evidently intended to redraw Israel's borders" which I extracted from one of the cited articles.
P2: "On April 14, 2004, American President George W. Bush said..."
P2 is about Bush's quote and whether anything is new or rewarding occupation. One POV is that Bush, himself, says "all previous efforts.. have reached the same conclusion", i.e., nothing new. Another POV is that the PNA says he is "rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall", i.e., something new in response to the wall. Both POVs should be included.
P3: "The Foundation for Middle East Peace suggests..."
P3 is about the meaning of "realitites on the ground". Turns out, when I checked the references, two of them don't say that this includes the barrier. One quite clearly says, "[t]hose 'new realities' of course are large Jewish settlements" which is the traditional (pre-barrier) meaning: not the barrier. The ATFP believes the new realities include the barrier so this POV is presented, too. However, the ATFP's statement is not in reference to Bush's statement so it becomes a speculation on top of a speculation to say that the AFTP's meaning should be attributed to Bush's statement.
I believe I kept all of the references except MIFTAH [2]; I couldn't find a direct quote here that worked but feel free to try to incorporate something from this citation into the page. SeattliteTungsten 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel like for every step forward, we take 2 steps back. The wording "include the use of the barrier to prejudice the outcome of border negotiations" which you describe as inaccurate are in fact your words which I substituted for mine as a compromise because you objected to my version which used the word "leverage". Editorial summaries are indispensable and common in every corner of Wikipedia. Most of your edits have the effect of diluting the analysis of the sources about the Barrier as a border, relative to the phrase "realities on the ground".

• P1 edit is fine. I have only separated the Guardian material into a separate paragraph.
• P2: "all previous efforts.. have reached the same conclusion" has no correlation to your evaluation "nothing new". At least, it is not nearly that simple. Neither the quotation nor any citation makes the POV you are trying to splice into this paragraph. However I did merge some of the material you introduce in P3, into P2. MIFTAH's citation is perfectly valid, and goes directly to how I phrased the material on how realities on the ground are sometimes interpreted in the context of this conflict. No opinion whatsoever is attributed to Bush that he does not state.
• P3: Merged into P2. I have incorporated your citations here into the POV you insist on mentioning despite my opinion that the point has been made elsewhere. I added: While there is considerable consensus that Bush's comments singled out settlements as the most important factor [3] [4]

I have compromised repeatedly, and found common ground with you on several fronts. If you insist upon deleting references to "realities on the ground in the context of this conflict" despite my having incorporated your material and citations about settlements, then on this point I fear that we are at an impasse.--AladdinSE 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Actually, "the use of the barrier" was not my phrase. I do not think this phrase is supported by the citations. The phrase "[the existence of] the barrier will prejudice the outcome of border negotiations", based on the phrasing in the original armistice text, was my addition.
2. If you are accusing me of editing to "have the effect of diluting the analysis", you are correct. Wikipedia should not present original analysis. Accurate summary of cited material, yes; analysis, systhesis, and speculating about the meaning of cited material, no. Here is my challenge: if you are having a hard time using actual excerpts from the cited sources to write the paragraph the way you want it to read, it probably means that the cited sources don't say what you want them to say. Therefore, let's just stick more to the cited sources with less editorial precisely because we are disagreeing about what the cited sources actually say.
3. I'm wondering what the issue is when you write, "'all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion' has no correlation to your evaluation 'nothing new'" The PNC states that Bush's position is "rewarding... the apartheid wall" meaning that the PNC believes there is a cause and effect ("wall" causes "reward"; or "reward" given because of "wall") and that the Bush position would otherwise be different if it weren't a reward or caused by the wall. By contrast, Bush -- himself -- says, "all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion" which is precisely the opposite meaning of "wall causes reward". Bush says (my paraphrase) there is no reward because "all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion" -- nothing different this time.
4. I made several edits in succession; if you don't like them, at least you can reference them specifically. Please forgive this one: "23:33, 1 March 2006" because I accidentally move Bush-specific responses out of the Bush paragraph.
SeattliteTungsten 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize once again for the late reply. I've been having less and less time for the articles lately.

1. I beg your pardon but it was. Here is the edit where you replaced my wording with: "some people speculate that "realities on the ground" includes the barrier and that the construction of the barrier will prejudice the outcome of border negotiations in favor of the Israelis."
2. There is no original analysis. We have had this point out before. No opinions are being attributed to Bush that he does not state, and the sources clearly articulate the speculation that is backed up by the cited analysts. If you disagree, as I said, it may me we have reached an impasse. However, your last edits are mostly acceptable, as I explain further below:
3. "all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion" has nothing to do with the perception of the Wall as rewarding illegal Israeli expansion, and you have forwarded noting that supports this position. It's actually irrelevant now, as your latest edits are mostly acceptable to me. The only sticking point is the false declaration that Bush said and meant settlements ONLY by his use of "realities on the ground". He in fact said "including already existing major Israeli population centers". Including does not mean exclusively. There's no question that Settlements were singled out for attention, but we can't say that there is agreement that Bush only meant settlements, as of course several analysts including the PA have stated categorically that they believe Bush is including the Wall as a reality.

--AladdinSE 12:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The first analyst says, "the Bush letter adds... 'the new realities on the ground'--namely settlements" and the second analyst says, "those 'new realities' of course, are large Jewish settlements" so the summary "analysts interpret 'ROTG' to mean 'settlements'" is accurate whereas reading your interpretation into it is OR and inaccurate. Perhaps there are other analysts who support your view. If you find them and cite them, it would be appropriate to add your interpretation. Until then, the two cited analysts are clear that ROTG = Settlements. (Also, I'm not sure why you think I added the phrase "the use of the barrier" -- this was not my phrase in the diff you found.) SeattliteTungsten 17:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Namely" is not an "equals" (=) sign. It means mainly, principally. Also, you provide 2 analysts and assume a world-wide consensus. I changed it to some, and rephrased accordingly. As for the diff, look I don't know where we're going wrong here. I just checked it again, and the version you inserted in that edit is, and I am cutting and pasting here: "some people speculate that "realities on the ground" includes the barrier and that the construction of the barrier will prejudice the outcome of border negotiations in favor of the Israelis." That was your formulation. Mine was "by some analysts to include the use of the barrier as leverage for imposing a future border." Regardless, we've moved on from those edits.--AladdinSE 10:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

### This section need to be re-written

It looks like a badly writen editorial. Need facts , relvant facts not speculations.

"On April 14, 2004, American President George W. Bush said "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” [5] The phrase "realities on the ground" in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been speculated by some analysts to include the use of the Wall as leverage for imposing a future border. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] The American Task Force on Palestine, for example, says "the construction of a wall meant to separate Israel from the largest concentrations of Palestinians on the West Bank is now well under way, walling in a significant amount of territory east of Jerusalem that even moderate Palestinians hope will be a part of a future state someday. It is, to use a well-worn phrase from the region, the essence of 'creating realities on the ground'." [11] Furthermore, in direct reaction to Bush's comments, the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority replied: "The US assurances are being made at the expense of the Palestinian people and the Arab world without the knowledge of the legitimate Palestinian leadership. They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall." [12]"

Who can propose a re-write for this section ?

Zeq 09:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This material, which has been meticulously sourced, deals with analysis and reaction to comments by the US President, which represent a pivotal policy shift. They ARE speculation, and are clearly presented as such, not as facts. There are outside analysts, not Wiki-editorialization, backed up by sources. --AladdinSE 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

### Analysts / 'realities on the ground'

SeattliteTungsten, you cannot cite two sources and on that basis claim that "analysts generally interpret". I am not changing your formulation of their actual analysis, only that 2 analysts do not a cacophony make. "Some analysts" is more than fair. Also, the PNA most certainly does comment on Bush's phrase Realities On The Ground. Their comments were in direct reaction to the cited Bush quotation, not to some vague mention of "US policy". Specifically, the source says:

Speaking at a press conference beside a beaming Sharon in the White House, Bush publicly stated what his letter said: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949," meaning the Green Line.
The Palestinian leadership reacted vehemently to the outcomes of the Sharon-Bush meeting yesterday warning that the US assurances given to Israel would mean "clearly the complete end of the peace process" as well as security and stability in the region. President Yaser Arafat met with his Prime Minister Ahmad Qurei and representatives of the different Palestinian factions in an emergency session Wednesday afternoon at his battered compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah to discuss the "dangerous escalation". In a statement, Arafat stressed that the pact would prompt a "cycle of violence and end all the signed agreements" between Israel and the Palestinians. "The US assurances are being made at the expense of the Palestinian people and the Arab world without the knowledge of the legitimate Palestinian leadership. They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall," the leadership said.

This is indefatigable evidence of a the direct relationship of the PNA comments to Bush's ROTG quotation from the Sharon meeting.--AladdinSE 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree 100% that there is a direct relationship between the PNA comments and the entirety of Bush's statements. Therefore, the text, "In direct reaction to Bush's comments, the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority replied" is accurate and should be left in. However, the PNA does not actually comment on Bush's specific use of the phrase "realities on the ground" so it is not supported to say that the PNC would be an example of someone interpreting Bush's use of the phrase to include the barrier. Therefore, "whereas others, as well as members of the Palestinian leadership, have interpreted it to include the Barrier." We would be looking for a quote like, "realities on the ground [mentioned by Bush are]... namely settlements" [13] or "Those 'new realities' of course, are large Jewish settlements in the West Bank" [14]. In fact, the citation which you excerpt above mentioned the words "settler", "settlements", or "settle" nine times before the PNC quote but not "fence", "wall", or "barrier" even once so even if they made any reference to "realities on the ground" and to Bush's use of this phrase, which they don't, it might actually be a better inference to say that they are talking about settlements.
2. A quote like "those settlements are all scheduled to have a security barrier erected around them" is not support for the proposition that Tony Eastly (the analyst) believes Bush's use of 'realities on the ground' is meant to include the Barrier. He says very specifically, "[t]hose 'new realities' [mentioned by Bush] of course, are large Jewish settlements in the West Bank". He is clear.
3. I agree 100% that two examples of analysts cannot be generalized to "all analysts"; however, all (both) of the references here of analysts who are commenting specifically on Bush's use of the phrase ROTG in those particular statements by Bush speculate that Bush means "ROTG = settlements". This is the consensus opinion of what Bush means in this instance (not what other people mean in other instances) and there are two examples to support this. Therefore, "All analysts agree Bush means ROTG = settlements" is wrong; "some analysts believe Bush means ROTG = settlements" is misleading because it implies that there is other sourced material showing an analyst who believes that Bush, specifically in this instance, means "ROTG includes barrier"; "Some people use ROTG to include the barrier" is true, e.g., the ATFP quote but this doesn't mean that whenever someone else (not the ATFP) uses the phrase we could assume they also intend to include the barrier. We can't assume this.
4. "namely" really does not mean "principally" but "to wit", "specifically" or "in other words" or "i.e.". The only accurate interpretation of "realities on the ground [mentioned by Bush are]... namely settlements" is "ROTG means settlements". This cannot honestly be cited as a reference to "maybe ROTG includes barrier".
5. (Also, I apologize for writing 'See Talk' with no talk. I got pulled away on other things with my Talk entry open but not sent.)
SeattliteTungsten 00:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We are now regurgitating settled disputes. Your own repeated edits [15] [16] settled most of our discussion above, leaving only the disagreement as to what the Guardian citation supports. Now you return to gut the past consensus and begin afresh.

• The PNA does actually comment on Bush's specific use of the phrase "realities on the ground", and is presented as such in the source. The source quotes Bush and then, like a film director, cuts directly to the comments about the apartheid wall. No reasonable person can fail to distinguish this direct relationship. There is no question that settlements have been clearly and repeatedly singled out for distinction by Bush and analysts, and I agreed with much of your edits that supported making this more obvious. Nevertheless, the sources and extracts I quoted also leave no room for dissemblance that there is direct and unambiguous speculation that Bush's ROTG directly includes the Barrier.
• Yes the analyst is quite clear, only you are incorrect as to who the analyst is. Eastly is the interviewer, the quoted analysis is provided by Mark Willacy. He mentions the ROTG and specifies settlements just as Bush does, and then talks of the barrier encircling the settlements in direct context of a border. Here is the excerpt, again (bold emphasis added):

GEORGE BUSH: In the light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And all previous efforts to negotiate a two state solution have reached the same conclusion.

TONY EASTLEY: President Bush speaking there. Mark Willacy, how does this then affect a future Palestinian state?

MARK WILLACY: Well, it totally redraws the borders of any future Palestinian state. In fact, it threatens to carve large chunks out of it. The settlements which are earmarked for annexation stretch from Ariel in the northern West Bank down to Maale Adumim on the outskirts of Jerusalem, right down to Kiriat Arba in the southern West Bank. Now, those settlements are all scheduled to have a security barrier erected around them.

Eastly quotes Bush's ROTG comments, asks Willacy what they mean for a Palestinian State, and Willacy responds directly by fingering settlements and the Barrier! It's black and white.
• The "some analysts" qualifier is applicable and in no way misleads as to what else is or is not speculated by other analysts. You are overcomplicating a simple sentence that limits itself to what is explicitly stated. The sentence says some analysts say such and such and provides the links for it. It makes no mention, direct or implied, about what others say or think. You cannot pretend that "analysts" is better than "some analysts" and that it is somehow distinct from "all analysts".
• No problem about forgetting to include a Talk entry which you cited in an edit summary. I used to be too apt to doing the same myself when I first joined, so now I try to always make my discussion entry before my article edit. --AladdinSE 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• No, your interpretation is just your point of view of what you think the citation means but does not actually say. Politicians everywhere (American, Israeli, European, Palestinian, etc.) are expert as saying vague things that each interest group interprets to believe what they want. The actual text here could be interpreted to mean any number of things that it does not actually say. Two examples, among many, are "The US assurances THAT THE FINAL BORDER WILL NOT BE ON THE ARMISTICE LINES... WE REMIND THE WORLD AGAIN THAT They are rewarding A COUNTRY WHICH HAS ENGAGED IN illegal occupation, settlement -- NAMELY 'REALITIES ON THE GROUND' -- and the apartheid wall WHEN THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHING SUCH A COUNTRY FOR THESE BAD ACTIONS" or "The US assurances THAT THE BARRIER AND SETTLEMENTS HAVE PREJUDICED BORDER NEGOTIATIONS IN FAVOR OF THE ISRAELIS... They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall AS REFERENCED BY THE PHRASE 'REALITIES ON THE GROUND' -- NAMELY SETTLEMENTS AND THE BARRIER." We don't actually know which of these meanings, or some other meaning, was the intent of this statement by the PNA. It would be OR to ascribe your belief of the meaning of the PNA phrase to one possible meaning and not the other. Therefore, to say the PNA has "interpreted [the phrease 'realities on the ground' to include the Barrier" is not appropriate. The PNA statement does not even use the phrase 'realities on the ground' so it is a very weak case to claim that in the statement the PNA is interpreting this phrase. How can they interpret the phrase when they don't even mention it? It is very ambiguous so we should omit OR and POV introductory comments.
• (I think they both can be called analysts.) Notice that Willacy is answering the question 'how does this then affect a future Palestinian state?' and not 'what did Bush mean by ROTG?' In this exchange, Eastley says that 'Those new realities of course, are large Jewish settlements' and Willacy agrees that 'Those new realities of course, are these large Jewish settlements' so the black-and-white inference would be that this is a conversation between two people who state clearly that they both believe Bush's use of ROTG means "settlements".
• I believe "analysts generally" (the text) is different from "all analysts". How about "two analysts"? I will make this change.
• Good idea. Actually, I didn't forget; I just got pulled away by other unexpected things; I remembered. Thanks for the suggestion. I will do this.-SeattliteTungsten 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I apologize for removing your comments from where you placed them. It has been my experience that in a protracted discussion, interspersing comments paragraph per paragraph can lead to extreme confusion and difficulty in following and replying to a particular fork . Please do not disrupt the contiguity of my posts, and let us keep to the earlier format. Bullet points should be sufficient to help us reply on a point by point basis.

• It is not my point of view. We simply have to disagree about this. The PNA does not use the ROTG phrase but the source has it replying directly to that phrase. Your analogical mock quotations are superfluous because you've done them before, and I've replied to those arguments. Note that the source quotes the PNA's reaction right after they quote the Bush ROTG comment. Splitting hairs will not obfuscate the clear connection. Your own edits [17] [18] left this format in tact. For the life of me I can't understand why you want to gut the consensus (and my many compromises due to your input) that we achieved after exhaustive discussion. I would summarize my position thus: The PNA statement said "The US assurances are being made at the expense of the Palestinian people and the Arab world without the knowledge of the legitimate Palestinian leadership. They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall,". NO WHERE in any of those US assurances quoted by the source is the Wall explicitly mentioned, only "Realities on the ground", including but not limited to, Settlements. Therefore, saying that the PNA speculates that the Barrier is included and thus rewarded, since they replied to those Bush comments with references to the Barrier, is perfectly valid, unambiguous and entirely supported by the source.
• Of course Willacy is answering the question 'how does this then affect a future Palestinian state?' And what is the "this" that he is asking about? You are misrepresenting the sequence of the quotations and responses. The previous line clearly quotes the Bush ROTG line and asks what it means for a Palestinian state. His reply is: "Well, it totally redraws the borders of any future Palestinian state. In fact, it threatens to carve large chunks out of it. The settlements which are earmarked for annexation stretch from Ariel in the northern West Bank down to Maale Adumim on the outskirts of Jerusalem, right down to Kiriat Arba in the southern West Bank. Now, those settlements are all scheduled to have a security barrier erected around them." The settlements quotations you bold-faced are from elsewhere not from this exchange which I have used to illustrate that the speculated link is in fact made between ROTG and the Wall. The parts you referenced certainly mean ROTG includes settlements, that has never been disputed. Settlements are the clearest and most oft-mentioned "reality" by both Bush, Palestinians and analysts.
• This brings me to your suggestion that we use "two analysts" instead of "some analysts generally". This would only be necessary if I were disputing that more than 2 analysts believe this. I have said before that Settlements are often and repeatedly singled out in this manner. I don't need more sources actually cited for me to accept that more analysts think this way. My objection only goes as far as removing the false premise that all analysts think this to the exclusion of the other POV that ROTG includes the Barrier. This is why I prefer "some" to "two". I will agree to the removal of the word "generally" as a further qualifier though, to illustrate that some analysts do see ROTG exclusively as settlements, or at the very least make no connection with the Barrier.

--AladdinSE 13:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

## East Jerusalem

Does anyone here know if East Jerusalem will be divided from the West Bank by the separation barrier? I ask this question because the figures given for the number of Palestinians left on the Israeli side of the barrier vary from about 10,000 to 49,400, but these figures obviously don’t include the approximately 250,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, the majority of whom do not have Israeli citizenship, if I understand correctly. Can anyone explain this to me? Perhaps I misunderstand the barrier route. In any case, the article could be more clear on this issue. Gregor Samsa 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They have Israeli "green-card" and most of them would be on the "Israeli" side of the barrier. (excpet those in Kfar Akeb and Shuafat camp) Zeq 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

why did you remove this: [19] Zeq 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is POV, not least in using the terms "fence", "judea and samaria". It is also a history and propangada piece for a little-known pro-barrier group: if we include every pro/anti barrier group in this article, well, what's the point of that? It almost certainly does not belong in such an extended format in the history section between Rabin's decisions and the Israeli Supreme Court's decision. Why not just include a link to it in references? Lokiloki 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a history of how the barrirer came about. "Fence" is part of their name. Zeq 04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am undecided about the prominent exposure of this one group in the article. There must be several organizations advocating the same thing. Are there any reliable sources that cite this organization's work or influence? If it is not very influential, I think it would only beong in the external links section. If it is shown to be rather influential, it should stay, with a possible reconsideration of the heading title.--AladdinSE 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Fence for Life", Dani Atar [20] and Uzi Dayan [21] were instrumental in pushing the Sharon goverment to build the barrier. FFL was the biggest among these groups. It was really te Israeli public that demanded it. Sharon used the public outcry for security fence to set the route in an outragous political way. Zeq 05:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PS settler groups mostly objected any fence because they knew it will lead to removal of settlments beyond the fence. Indeed this is Kadima party platform now. Zeq 05:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, neither of those links you provided even mentions the organization "Fence for Life". Furthermore, Hayom Hashvie is not a recognized reliable source. You have to cite the actual influence of the organizxation itself, not the activities or influence of individuals who happen be members. If you have no other reputable sources that show a consistent view that this is as influential an organization as you say t is, it belongs in the external links section only. Note that deletion of the section does not invalidate the arguments made by that particular organization. Indeed, such arguments are fully articulated elsewhere in the article.--AladdinSE 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

if you delete ffl maybe you dont have the information that they conceived the security fence they started the struggle for the security fence as they do untill now here are only a few of the links that you asked that mentions this organization and shows it's big influence. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] i think you also better read this: (wait untill it goes up): [37] there are lots more if you didn't convinced yet, i will give you more i hope that you will be an objective and that you will decide to put back the section of ffl i hope that you dont have something personal against ffl ffl 18.4.2006 0008

84.229.1.208, this is the English language Wikipedia. Every one of your links is in Hebrew! How are English-speaking editors supposed to read them? How can I have something personal against an organization so obscure, I never heard of it in international news coverage (And I watch and read a lot of news)? There must be some minimum level of acknowledged influence attributed to an organization in order to build an entire section on it. --AladdinSE 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

it looks like you don't have an information about the civil struggle to built the security fence and how was the public pressure on the government- you can see again what zeq wrote to you - it look that he knows about this- you can also give me your phone no or I give you mine. we can talk and give you all the information. here are the international news coverage that you have asked for [The Washington post [38] and the same at [39] [40] The Jerusalem post [41] [42] [43] [44] cnsnews [45] [46] katifnet [47] arutz sheva [48] Associated Press [49] And the same at fox news [50] And ctv news [51]

if still needed I can pass you scanned articles from haaretz in English and from Ney york times and I can try to get the full 2 of the articles from jpost not just the summary. there were also at the cnn and others that I cant find you can see - everyone wrote about fence for life in Israel in and abroad. as it is written in the first article- the idea of fence for life- security fence the only way - was security fence without connection to withdrawal the same which is now being implemented -and ffl began with the civil struggle to built it and made a big pressure on the government in many ways- contrary to other organizations that were talking about fence with withdrawal. you can also see the story of the sf in fence for life web site. Waiting for your answer. sincerely yours ffl 22.4.06 18:51 barouh@zahav.net.il

Some of those Washington Post and other links look a bit dodgy, as they are not links to the paper itself. Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Post and some other links like Fox News seem like verifiable English-language reliable sources to me, therefore I have returned the section.--AladdinSE 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks. i deleted the end of the section and i am asking for your permission for the deletion, because otherwise if you want to put it back i can try to rephrase it to be more accurate because this specific campaign of building a fence by self means at the gilboa was led by dani atar. 23.4.06 07:30 ffl

## WP:Point

To Loki : I suggest you read the above policy.

If indeed you have a source that show what you claim (that the effort is not succesfull) or you think that not enough facts about how succefull the grassroots effort was - than, please feel free to change the headline to a more approrpriate one.

Instead you choose to disruopt and delted the whole section. Well you made your point but now you will need to fix it and restore the section you un justifaiably deleted. Zeq 19:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, not having been a part of a very exhaustive discussion about the links of analysts speculating about the Barrier, you perhaps underestimate the meaning of the 2 links you removed. They illustrate the breadth ad range of the existence of this kind of analysis. Please stop deleting these two links. Thanks.--AladdinSE 06:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This wall is also commonly known as "Wall of Shame". Some users are deleting the link to the term without explanations. Please stop. Boninho 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

## Possible impersonator

Please check this edit and other edits by 65J7 (talk · contribs), a suspected impersonator of 6SJ7 (talk · contribs). ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

## Change "with little common ground between supporters and opponents"

I was thinking it would be a good idea to change this statement, "The barrier is a very controversial project, with little common ground between supporters and opponents" because in many ways there is a great deal of common ground but people have different values and different emphasis. For instance supporters claim the intention was for security and opponents claim the effect is a land-grab. However, these are not inconsistent. They could both be true. Or, supporters claim a major effect is to save lives while opponents claim a major effect is to create hardships. Again, both of these could be true. Does anyone else agree with this and is there a better phrasing that could capture this idea that there is some common ground but different perspectives? SeattliteTungsten 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are both true, in both cases. My feeling is, on this and a number of other related articles, we are doing too much telling and not enough showing.Timothy Usher 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

## Reliable sources

I've commented out the section stating:

The International Solidarity Movement describes the barrier as part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," which effectively constitutes a feature of Israeli apartheid, [1] a term used as an analogy for South African apartheid.

To begin with, it's not about the phrase "Apartheid wall" itself, but actually an opinion about the barrier. Even worse, it's from a highly partisan unreliable source, known for controversy. Apparently the book is also self-published. Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The International Solidarity Movement may well be an unreliable source for facts about barrier, but Peace Under Fire, published by Verso, is reliable as a source documenting their opinions, which are generally representative of those activists who use the "apartheid wall" epithet. Gregor Samsa 01:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

## Economic Effects

We had a long debate above that ended with what I assumed was compromise after you stated that

"If you are no longer arguing for any changes in this section, seems like we're all set. SeattliteTungsten 17:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)"

You have taken advantage of the passage of time to re-introduce the exact original research that you tried to do before, namely your hypothesis that the barrier has caused an improvement in the Palestinian economy. If you insist on stating this, you must use a reliable source to back you up. Otherwise, as I explained at length above, you are pushing a malicious POV. I don't agree with most of your past edits, but I didn't fight your Excel figure, and didn't argue with all the info you wanted to add to the paragraph. I was content with providing all the information you'd like, just not tying them together because no publication that I can find has even suggested the hypothesis that you are pushing. Quite the opposite, in fact. So I hope you will either stick to what I thought was a compromise, or we can request arbitration because, while I'm not in favor of censorship on Wikipedia, I'm also not in favor of disseminating false or deliberately misleading information. Thank you. Ramallite (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is problematic for a few reasons,
1. the section is "Economic Effects" of the WBB so the most relevent facts about GDP are real growth numbers after the start of the WBB, not before. "Effects" are things that happen after.
2. the absolute GDP numbers comparing 1999 and 2002 are not very useful here because they are before major construction which only started in late 2002.
3. we somehow lost the footnote for "it is not know if these numbers are nominal or inflation-adjusted" so the numbers for 1999 and 2002 are not very useful, anyway. I think they should be removed.
4. there is no OR here or establishing causality; it only shows how the GDP changed during the relevant time period. Certainly, in a section on "Economic Effects" of X, you would want to start with "what was the economy before X?" and "what was the economy after X?" This is only a basic starting point- not establishment of causality.
[Kindly refrain from ad hominem attacks- just stick to the topic at hand. I am editing in good faith. I took another look at this and it still has problems so I'm trying to fix them.]

SeattliteTungsten 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph to start with the economic changes after the barrier because this makes more sense for "effects" or "possible effects". For instance, if someone said "I think the steak we had for dinner Tuesday night was bad. Were you sick?" you wouldn't say "I was sick all day Tuesday." You might say "I was fine Tuesday night and Wednesday" or "I was sick Tuesday night and Wednesday." You might also say, "I was sick Tuesday night and Wednesday but I have had the flu since Monday." In other words, the most logical arrangement to "possible economic effects [of WBB]" is to study how the economy changed after the WBB. Like this example, the structure might be "The GDP changed [like this] after but also [changed like this] before." SeattliteTungsten 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry but I don't follow the steak analogy at all, especially that I prefer shrimp. Accusing me of ad hominem attacks may itself be an attack on me because I'm don't like being accused of something unless there is merit for it. From my point of view, I do see merit in questioning your good faith because you discarded everything we seemingly agreed to above and re-established the same ideas that we had argued over in the past and re-introduced a direct link between the barrier and the GDP. So yet again, I'm going to have to present my arguments:

1. the section is about "Economic Effects" of the WBB so the most relevant facts about GDP... STOP. Economic effects do NOT only mean GDP (read my old entries above). It is you who have introduced what could be considered a strawman's argument, i.e. the economic effects automatically refer to the GDP and GDP only, and then proceeded to argue against it. In fact, the Palestinians said "economic activity" which could mean anything from unemployment, poverty, per capita GDP, transportation costs, inflation, cost of living, etc. If you want to argue that everything about the wall and the economy is just real GDP, source it please. Find a reliable source that defends the hypothesis that the barrier caused an increase in Palestinian real GDP. That's all I ask. If you can't, then just let it be. There are more important things in life.
2. the absolute GDP numbers comparing 1999 and 2002 are not very useful here. The GDP numbers for 1999, 1889, or 2009, are not relevant at all from my perspective. Remember it is you who started the GDP business. I would have focused on the other aspects that are based on verifiable sources. But if you want to keep GDP, we can certainly incorporate more recent numbers and projections.
3. we somehow lost the footnote for "it is not know if these numbers are nominal or inflation-adjusted". I saw that, I don't know who did it but I can reinsert it.
4. there is no OR here or establishing causality; it only shows how the GDP changed during the relevant time period. Who determined the "relevant time period" here? You are referring to a time when less than a third (anywhere from 2% to 15%?) of the barrier was completed. Your last GDP entry is 2004, a full year before the barrier even reached 33% construction. As far as I'm concerned, even I am being ridiculous here, because we don't have a source for any of the assertions we're trying to make, except you seem to want to add them to the article anyway.
5. Believe me, I am very much sticking to the topic at hand. You took another look at this, you find it still has "problems", then you should have come back here and discuss them before re-stating the same original research statements that got us into this debate in the first place. That is good faith editing. Ramallite (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1. You are correct that Economic Effects/Changes/Consequences can be reflected in things other than GDP like unemployment, poverty, etc. Feel free to add how these metrics changed, too, if you think they are useful. (If you want a source that GDP is considered important by economists to determine economic well-being (or whatever), look in any Econ textbook. Mansfield, 4th Ed., says GDP "is important... [because it] indicates how prosperous we are", and GDP is "one of the most closely watched numbers in existence.") There is no need to "find a reliable source that defends the hypothesis that the barrier caused an increase in Palestinian real GDP" because the article text does not say this. The article text says, "Real GDP growth in the West Bank increased modestly in 2003 and 2004" which is sourced and that the World Bank calls economic activity since 2003 a "modest economic recovery" which is also sourced.
2. I am not sure what you are suggesting. Soon, some reliable GDP numbers for 2005 should be available. We can add them.
3. Rather than (i) reinserting a footnote saying the data about absolute GDP is not useful to compare, it would be better to (ii) find the correct data about absolute GDP that can be compared or (iii) remove the absolute GDP data. I vote for (iii) but if someone else wants to do (ii), they should go for it, but (i) is not a good solution, IMHO.
4. I am not sure that you are suggesting. As I mentioned, when 2005 numbers are available we can add them.
5. Let's just talk about the article.
SeattliteTungsten 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1. It's frightfully simple: You say There is no need to "find a reliable source that defends the hypothesis that the barrier caused an increase in Palestinian real GDP" because the article text does not say this. The article text says, "Real GDP growth in the West Bank increased modestly in 2003 and 2004". Good. This is something you added, not something that miraculously appeared in the article, but the point remains What does that have to do with the barrier? Is there any relationship between this and the barrier? If so, source it. If not, it shouldn't be in this article, it should be in another article about Palestinian economy. Full stop. A vague statement referring to a "suppressed economy" by the Palestinian ministry of finance in which several factors were pointed out, with the barrier being last on the list, just doesn't suffice. I could also cite statistics about infant mortality rates between '99 and '01, and compare them to the rates from '02 to '05. But unless it has something to do with the barrier, it just doesn't belong here. Secondly, you say Feel free to add how these metrics changed. I will only do that when I use a verifiable source that explicitly or even implicitly blames or gives credit to the barrier for any such changes. Otherwise, I'd be a hypocrite wouldn't I?
2. What I am suggesting is that stating GDP numbers without any reason or verifiable source to tie their existence in this article to the barrier itself, is original research.
3. But I assume you'd be okay with comparing GDP numbers from '01-'02 with numbers from '04-'06? (Before barrier, after barrier?) Of course, again, unless there is a publication out there that is blaming the barrier in whole or in part for such numbers, I am not going to copy your style of introducing unsourced concepts.
4. What I am suggesting is extremely simple: You wrote above "there is no OR here or establishing causality; it only shows how the GDP changed during the relevant time period", and I am simply disagreeing that the time period between '02 and '04 is relevant, because first (I re-re-re-reiterate) the relevance of any of this to the barrier is unsourced, and second, '04 cannot be the "after X" in your argument where you say: "you would want to start with "what was the economy before X?" and "what was the economy after X?" ", because 2004 is no where near "after X", it's not even in the vicinity of "after X", because 2004 is a whole year BEFORE the barrier was... only 33% complete?. So at the end of 2004 maybe it was, I don't know, 19% complete? Would 19% qualify as "after X"???? If so, according to who? You? That's original research. So again, instead of arbitrarily setting your own &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;before" and "after" dates, find a source for the claims you're trying to make, or at least find a source that states that the commencement of barrier construction caused in increase in GDP (which is the POV you are trying to push as I understand from your January comments).
5. You're right, I will cease discussing the natural habitat of the Australian outback, the personal philosophy behind Ehud Olmert's bowel movement habits, and my great aunt's ingrown toenail and focus only on the barrier. And excuse me, I don't see how you can call my assertion that you 'reneged' on a compromise a personal attack (ad hominem, ad absurdum, ad popsiclum or otherwise), especially when you did it so blatantly and unapologetically. Ramallite (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand your point WRT to the time period. It's improper to use 2003-2005 GDP figures to show improvement in the economy because only 33% of the barrier had been completed by then, but it's ok to use 2001-2002 figures which show a decline in the economy, when even less of the barrier was complete? Isarig 15:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I already wrote above: "The GDP numbers for 1999, 1889, or 2009, are not relevant at all from my perspective." This should answer your question of what I think is ok and what is not. If you read the debate that occurred several months ago you will see that none of this belongs in this article in my opinion, because there is no source whatsoever (that I can find) that links GDP to the construction of the barrier per se. Unless there is a source, the initials "GDP" do not belong here at all, at least not in the way presented now. The writings were an attempt at compromise with an editor who in my opinion is performing original research and adding misleading snippets of information out of context. This all will be moot anyway if the GDP turns negative again this year and the next as the World Bank predicts. And even then, it wouldn't belong here, this is an article about the barrier not the Palestinian economy. Ramallite (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This whole section needs to go. Isarig 16:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The relationship between GDP growth and the barrier is that the PNA Finance Minister specifically states that "[r]eal GDP growth in 2004 is estimated to have remained weak" and attributes causal factors to this including that "[e]conomic activity in Palestine continued to suffer in 2004 as a result of ...the construction of the separation wall." This citation is included in the text. Here (as elsewhere) "economic activity" is measured in GDP. These terms are pretty much interchangeable because it is definitional, i.e., GDP is defined as the sum of all economic activity. The World Bank has a different take on the economy since 2003 namely that it is an "economic recovery" albeit a "modest" one. SeattliteTungsten 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

## "Realities on the ground"

There seems to be some obsession with the phrase "realities on the ground", to the extent that some poorly written irrelevant material laden with original research is being pushed into the article. I've retained the main point of the section, that some people assert the barrier is creating "realities on the ground", while removing the irrelevant discussion about what "realities on the ground" might or might not mean in various contexts. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

it's better now- before it was awkward. there was also a problem of clarity and meaning because it implied that there was "one meaning" of the term, or that when one analyst interprettted the meaning in some context, that meaning could be applied to or inferred from another context. it cannot. certainly, before there ever was a barrier the meaning did not include the barrier so one never knows what it means in any context unless the speaker, who is using the term, says 'i mean this phrase to be settlements' or 'i mean this phrase to include barrier'

## POV/NPOV Intro: "Supporters argue...", "Opponents argue..."

It seems to me that the sentence starting "Supporters argue..." should use the phrasing, or defer to the phrasing, of the supporters like "terrorist attacks", or whatever. And, "Opponents argue..." should use the phrasing of the opponents like "illegal settlements", or whatever. Obviously, a single sentence ("Supporters argue..." or "Opponents argue...") is going to be POV. The whole paragraph should have all POVs summarized and will, therefore, be NPOV. HailMaryFullOfGrace 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but have observed that edits by Rudyab have now made the intro very POV. It now says that opponents of the barrier "note" and "understand" certain things, but supporters "argue." Give me a break. I almost reverted the whole thing back to Bibigon's last edit, but there are probably a few words of Rudyab's edits that are ok, and I don't have time to go through it word for word right this second. Instead I put a POV tag on the article. In addition to POV, the intro is now just a mess. At least one sentence is now repeated in the same paragraph, and the last paragraph of the intro has been changed from grammatical to ungrammatical. 6SJ7 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

## 7% vs 5%

hi folks - just wanted to point out that the article contradicts itself - mentioning 5% as the figure for concreted sections, then reverting to 7% in section "4.5.1 Opponents of the term" - i have no idea which is correct, so just thought i'd point it out here so someone can fix it as appropriate! cheers.

## Apartheid Opinions

1. removed "The barrier is called the 'apartheid wall' by some of those who oppose it" which is redundant with earlier text "some opponents of the barrier refer to it in English by the epithet, 'Apartheid Wall'"
2. change subsection title to "Apartheid opinions" more parallel with previous subsections; nomenclature is already covered earlier in the article. SeattliteTungsten 07:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing renaming and moving this section to the top of the opinions section, and expanding it to summarize the opinions which follow. It's a little odd to give all the opinions on the controversy first, and then explain what the controversy is at the end, right? Kendrick7 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

## Israel News Agency

There has been protracted discussion of this as part of several AfDs and DRVs; the consensus is that whether or not it is notable, it is not a reliable source. It is also the subject of sustained SEO spamming by its creator. And given his opinion of Wikipedia I'm sure he would not want his blog agency associated with us anyway :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No probelm. I had them confused with a different agency Isarig 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

## Names of the barrier

"Names of the barrier" is a succinct, simple, neutral heading. There is no need for a long extended phrase especially in the heading since "names" is neutral. An epithet is a type of name. When kids say, "she/he called me a name" they are not talking about a compliment :-) so I think "names" covers both positive and negative. Also, "the naming of the barrier is itself controversial" seems like a relevant point that someone unfamiliar with the topic should know. SeattliteTungsten 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think a distinction needs to be maintained between the "name" (or names) given to it by its builder and owner (Israel) and the "name-calling" names. I also don't agree that an "epithet" is equivalent to a "name." However, as of yet I have not changed it back. 6SJ7 17:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a distinction needs to be maintained between the "name" (or names) given to it by its builder and owner (Israel) and the "name-calling" names. This distinction is important and is clearly explained in the text. However, it need not be explained in the heading. The heading should just be a simple, well,... heading. The previous longer phrasing was unusual and awkward. SeattliteTungsten 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

## Removal of CNN citation

Someone removed this citation: "U.N. court rules West Bank barrier illegal" (CNN). That was inappropriate. It's a ruling from the International Court of Justice reported by CNN. --John Nagle 18:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I added a brief description of what the article says. The article says that the ICJ issued an advisory opinion, which was non-binding, and that Israel did not participate in the hearings, so I put that all in. I did not put in that Israel does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of that court, although arguably that should be in there as well. 6SJ7 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. --John Nagle 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

## Article summary paragraphs

The summary paragraphs to this article should be short, concise summaries. To this end, I am moving some details about the ICJ to the ICJ section instead of the top summary. The current version (before the edits I am about to make) has about 55 words for 'Supporters argue...' and about 110 words for 'Opponents argue...' It should be realistic to get both of these to nice, short, concise summaries of about 50 words each. The format I propose is, simply, "Supporters argue A, B, and C. Opponents argue D, E, and F." There is no need to rebut A-C or D-F in these summary paragraphs. SeattliteTungsten 00:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

## Copyright question - can we use this picture?

The Israel Defense Forces have a nice picture of the fence system. [52]. Can this be used in Wikipedia? Not sure about copyright in Israel government output. --John Nagle 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

## StandWithUs

I am thinking of taking out the recent addition of source from StandWithUs. While well-meaning, this is not the best addition to this article for the following reasons:

1. the article is long and since there are serveral volumes of material that could be written about the barrier, we need to be careful about what goes in.
2. most of these points are already made elsewhere in the article -- very little is new
3. some of the points are out-of-date (e.g. percentage wall/fence)
4. the organization is based in LA and is probably not a valid "Israeli Opinion"
5. this source is not the ideal, preferred source according to Wikipedia guidelines; while it could be used (especially if it contributed something different), better sources would not have a stated agenda; would be academic, government, or recognized publications; have PhDs; etc.

Comments? SeattliteTungsten 05:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

StandWithUs is probably not a reliable source. It's not clear who they really are. They don't give the names of their officers on their web site, and their domain registration info (123 Street, Los Angeles, CA 12345 Phone:+1.3335556666) is phony. --John Nagle 02:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I would hardly call adding propaganda sites like StandWithUs "well-meaning", although rarely are edits on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict "well-meaning" these days. I would most definitely agree that using it as a source is against policy. Sites such as StopTheWall.org, which though partisan (they call it the apartheid wall), are actually much more informative given that they include first-hand accounts from Palestine and can be sourced as such, but nevertheless have been refused on WP. If third-hand account propaganda sites like StandWithUs are allowed to stay, then that will open the door to other partisan sites as well. That's as far as StandWithUs goes. Now as for the specific material added here, it's terribly redundant, and thus not really helpful. Ramallite (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

## "Conflict" vs. "Peace Process"

Somebody changed "Conflict" to "Peace Process". That was a bit too much happy-face, even for us in California. --John Nagle 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, its important to understand context. We did create a template on the conflict but after a while it seemed to be more focused on the peace process. Thus we moved that template from "Conflict" to "Peace Process". We are now in the process of making a second template that deals with the conflict aspects. I was fixing all the double redirects that were created by the move. Please join in the discussion here Template_talk:Israel-Palestinian Peace Process -- see especially the bottom, more recent section. Best. --Ben 18:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

## Apartheid wall

Call me crazy, but am I the only one that thinks Apartheid wall should redirect here? -- Kendrick7talk 18:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly do you wish to change the redirect page?Bless sins 04:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Reverted the redirect at Apartheid Wall per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall. --John Nagle 05:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I disagree with the loaded term "apartheid wall" and think it should be deleted, it obviously refers to the Israeli West Bank barrier, so it should redirect there if it must exist. Abe Froman 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The article Apartheid Wall should not redirect here. We have already determined that the term "apartheid wall" is a biased term and flagrant propoganda. Furthermore, calling this wall an apartheid wall is an insult to everyone who suffered during the apartheid in South Africa. If Apartheid Wall were redirected here, it would supply readers with false and misleading information, for they would assume that the practices of the Israelis are the same as the practices of the Apartheid government of South Africa. User: Notecardforfree 18:58, 15 Jan 2007