Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 1

message: Al-Haram As-Sharif -- should be Al-Haram Al-Sharif
: No - both spellings are correct.  Mustafaa 05:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: Please explain why you removed the following segment:
>>>>>
  
Since the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and its emphasis on suicide bombers deliberately targeting civilians riding public transportation (buses), the Oslo Accords are viewed with increasing disfavor by the Israeli public. In May 2000, seven years after the Oslo Accords and five months before the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, a survey by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at the University of Tel Aviv found that: 39% of all Israelis support the Accords and that 32% believe that the Accords will result on peace in the next few years. . By constrast, the May 2004 survey found that 26% of all Israelis support the Accords and 18% believe that the Accords will result on peace in the next few years; decreases of 13% and 16% respectively. Furthermore, the May 2004 survey found that 80% of all Israelis hold that the Israel Defense Forces have succeeded in dealing with the Al-Aqsa Intifada militarily.  
<<<
No one can deny that the terror attacks against civilian, fataly damaged the Israeli peace camp, which many of its supporters lost faith in peace with Palestinians. The downfall of the left pro-Oslo wing is not only manifests iteself in surveys, but also in election: the left has only 28+10 mandates in the Knesset, compared to 45+8 before the intifada.
MathKnight 15:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects on Oslo accords 

message: moved from article by —No-One Jones
Please don't use short dates such as 2/1/04 (for example in Human and Economic Costs). They are abiguous: 2/1/04 means 2 Jan to a Brit or Feb 1 to an American. Please either write the date out or use the international yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2004-01-02 for 2 Feb 2004.
Kingal86 21:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picky comment about short dates

message: It not NPOV to refer to Palestian militant groups as "terrorist organisations", even if groups have been known to target civilians. The IDF (and Jewish settler paramilitaries) is not described as a terrorist organisation in this article, even though they have killed more civilians than Palestinian  militants have. Under  international law armed resistance to foreign occupation, includig guerria warfare, is legal. Also, to be  NPOV only attacks on civilians should be described as terrorist attacks.
:The U.S. and other governments refer to them as "terrorist organizations" precisely because the deliberately target civilians, which the IDF does not do, even though the IDF has killed about 30% more civilians than the Palestinian groups have.  And it is not clear that there are any "Jewish settler paramilitaries" currently active in the territories, because the only known one had its members arrested and jailed by the Israeli government.  Regarding armed resistance, because the territories are disputed, and Israel has a legitimate claim, the actions of the terrorist organizations are not covered under "resistance to foreign occupation"; in any event, international law does not sanction deliberate targetting of civilians under any circumstances.  That said, I've left in your changes of "terrorist" to "militant".  Also, please sign your comments. Jayjg 17:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Terrorist organisations

message: It seemed fair to me to note that much of the aid from the US to Israel is as a result of the Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty. Israel and Egypt recieve (approximately) the same amount of aid annually (look at the funding bills each year). It's sort of a bribe, I suppose. It is in any case one hell of an inducement not to scrap the peace treaty. --Penta 22:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Egypt's population is more than 10 times Israel's so the per capita take for Israelis is more than $1000 while Egyptians get less than $100. And the figure does not include military aid to Israel and other freebies available only to Israel out of all the countries in the world, like the sale of tax free government bonds in the US. --Alberuni 23:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  US aid to Israel 

message: :I'm somewhat pro-Israeli, but any article with a title of "Engineering Civilian Casaulties" is sort of impossible to not characterize. Indeed, the characterization seems obvious. So, I moved it to Pro-Israeli. --Penta 22:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved "Engineering Civilian Casaulties"

message: Describing the killing of Israelis as "brutal" is POV. Is the killing of Palestinians ever described as "butal"? It seems not to be despite the fact that 1000s more palestinians are killed than Israelis. Who claims that the killing of Israeli soldiers were brutal? Some people might claim that the killings were appropriately harsh or not brutal enough. Attribution of source is necessary. --Alberuni 19:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed brutal already in my last edit, so your edit summary and comment makes no sense. Jayjg 00:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The descriptor "Brutal" is a POV description that is unattributed 

message: Will you go for 5? Jayjg 06:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of MathKnight's edits are fair and NPOV, from where I sit. I hope that you don't revert any more, Alberuni. It isn't helping your cause. I do think, though, the massive US subsidy of the IDF should be mentioned somewhere in there. Any objections to me adding that? Five 18:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 reverts on this article too Alberuni 

message: "At the same time, Netanyahu continued the policy of settlement construction which Palestinians viewed as a violation of the Oslo agreement, though this was nowhere outlined in the agreement itself" The point is not whether this was in the Oslo agreement, it was intentionally deferred because Rabin refused to agree to limit Jewish settlement construction. The point is that Palestinians viewed continued settlement construction as a violation of the Oslo agreement. The Palestinians agreed to allow Israeli military protection to all existing settlements and to settlers and Israelis traveling in PA territory. Palestinians felt violated when Netanyahu and Sharon stepped up settlement construction to "create facts on the ground" ahead of a final agreement on the issue. The way MathKnight and the other Wikipedia Israelis/Zionists write this line, they try to push their POV, argue the case for Israel, and make it seem that objectively, the Palestinian concerns were illegitimate. "though this was nowhere outlined in the agreement!" as if  "How dare those unreasonable Palestinians expect good faith restraint after signing an agreement with Israelis who don't care if the cancer of settlement construction in Palestinian territory subverts the peace process? We're Israelis! Did they forget who were they negotiating with? What were they expecting?" --Alberuni 19:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oslo agreement failure; its all the Palestinians' fault according to Israeli POV here 

message: "Especially fierce battles took place at the Jenin refugee camp. 32 Palestinian militants, 22 Palestinian civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting, while many buildings were reduced to rubble and hundreds of Palestinian explosives were detonated."
Why is the Israeli detonation of Palestinian explosives mixed in with the casualties to make the casualties look less important? This would be like writing, "Palestinian militants killed 22 Israelis and the bus and several cars nearby were severely damaged"
: The report on explosives appear right after "many buildings were reduced to rubble". MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you calling the killing of gunmen during combat a massacre, then you realy doesn't understand what that word means. You are the ONLY one insisting on a massacre in Jenin. Even the BBC report that "UN says no massacre in Jenin". Therefore, the allegations were false. MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The relevance? Let's say is related to inflating of numbers by PA officials.
These illiterate and factually incorrect edits were reverted dozens of times by Zionist editors who would rather promote their fellow hasbara propagandists' pro-Israel POV than bother to read and edit accurately. The future of Ziopedia is at hand; Israel first, facts last. 
This whole section should be deleted and referred to Jenin and that article should be NPOVed. --Alberuni 19:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: You are poisoning the well. Don't think I don't see your insults ans swearing, entangled in your flamming attacks on me. I will let other explain to you about Wikipedia etiquette. MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jenin; the Israeli POV inserted as objective fact, illiterate edits preferred over neutral facts, the future of Ziopedia 

message: "According to independent count by Haaretz, 87 combatants and 42 non-combatants were killed. Palestinian refugee camps were heavily damaged by the Israeli assault. The IDF announched that at least 12 Qassam launchings had been thwarted and many terrorists hit during the operation. Three Israelis also were killed (1 civilian)."
Haaretz gets its info from the IDF. Don't claim that it is independent. Using the IDF mafia terminology for killing people "terrorists were hit" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia although for Ziopedia, it makes sense.  --Alberuni 19:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Haaretz clearly stated that the count was made by its own reporters, and was reported side by side with IDF-given numbers (which were a little bit different from Haaretz count). MathKnight 21:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haaretz is NOT independent 

message: "On the Israeli side, the advantages of a strong economy and arms trade relations, in addition to a centralized command authority, have led to opposite tactics. The Israeli Defense Forces stress the safety of their troops, using such heavily armored equipment as the Merkava tank and various military aircraft including F-16s, drone aircraft and helicopter gunships. Sniper towers are used extensively in the Gaza Strip, and are being increasingly employed in the West Bank. Heavy armored bulldozers, such as the Caterpillar D9, are routinely employed to detonate booby traps and IEDs, and clear houses along the border with Egypt used to fire at Israeli troops, in "buffer zones", and during military operations in the West Bank. Israel has also established the policy of destroying the home of the family of a suicide bomber. "
"advantages of a strong economy," what a POV pro-Israeli crock. Israel is a US taxpayer-funded welfare state having siphoned $100 billion from the US over the past 30 years.
This is the NPOV version:
"On the Israeli side, the advantages of a highly organized military force armed with U.S.-supplied weaponry is capable of massive destruction against Palestinian civilians, Palestinian Authority infrastructure and the lightly armed Palestinian militants. The Israeli Defense Forces stress the safety of their troops, using such heavily armored equipment as the Merkava tank and various military aircraft including F-16s, drone aircraft and helicopter gunships. Sniper towers are used extensively in the Gaza Strip, and are being increasingly employed in the West Bank. Heavy armored bulldozers, such as the Caterpillar D9, are routinely employed to detonate booby traps and clear houses along the border with Egypt used to fire at Israeli troops, in "buffer zones", and during military operations in the West Bank. Israel has also established a policy of destroying the family home of suicide bombers. " --Alberuni 19:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel is armed and funded by the US taxpayer, September 11 is the day we commemorate that fact 

message: POV "no-guilt" version of Israel's assassination policy: "Israel also pursues a policy of "targeted killings", i.e. the assassination of prominent militant leaders, to single out as a target those involved in perpetrating attacks against Israelis, and to intimidate others from doing the same. This tactic has been condemned by some as unlawful summary execution, while others (such as the United States) see them as a legitimate measure of self defense against "terrorism". Many criticize the "target killing"s for placing civilians at risk, though its supporters believe it reduces civilian casualties on both sides. However, the practice of militant leaders to hide among civilians in densly populated areas, and the usage of helicopter gunships' missiles, is sometimes leading to civilian casualties. Unconfirmed reports claim Israel developed a new missile, designed to reduce civilian casualties and focus the impact only on the target."
The USA does not see Israeli assassination as legitimate. The USA condemns the policy while saying that Israel has a right to defend itself.
NPOV version: "Israel also pursues a policy of "targeted killings", i.e. the assassination of militants and especially prominent leaders, to single out as a target those involved in perpetrating attacks against Israelis, and to intimidate others from following suit. This tactic has been condemned as unlawful summary execution and for placing civilians at risk, though its supporters believe it reduces civilian casualties on both sides. However, if militant leaders live in densely populated areas, and the Israel uses helicopter gunship missiles to assassinate them, civilian casualties can be expected." --Alberuni 19:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israelis think they should have the right to kill anyone they want 

message: 6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni, you're on a hot streak today. Jayjg 04:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you and your team should read the article for a change. --Alberuni 04:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if you were willing to use the Talk: pages for their purpose, rather than as a soapbox and a vehicle for abusing other editors, you would find it easier to achieve compromise. Jayjg 04:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If only that were true. I have tried to assume good faith with you but you just use the Talk pages to engage in your usual duplicitous sophistry to block edits that offend your pro-Israeli perspective. You are rarely reasonable and respectful with me so why should you be treated any differently? By the way, just look up a few paragraphs and you will see I did use the Talk page for its intended purpose but you ignored my efforts to make positive headway. You just revert, revert, revert. --Alberuni 04:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you expect when a constant torrent of abuse and soapboxing issues from your fingertips with practically every Talk: comment.  Even comments that might have some valid content are also liberally larded with the same abuse and nonsense; look at the titles of the sections you created.  People are simply getting sick of it, and of you, as many Talk: page comments from many editors show.  If you want to achieve consensus and influence people, you're using the wrong tactics. Jayjg 04:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Its always my fault, of course, from your perspective. I'm well sick of you too, believe me. There's never been any hope of consensus with you and your POV buddies. Froim Day One you've been trying to harass me out of Wikipedia, as your User page said. "Block them until they move on to some other channel". You were referring to me. I don't appreciate that. --Alberuni 05:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I think you should at least quote me accurately.  My user page says "One of my important roles on Wikipedia is to protect Wikipedia from these POV warriors until they understand what NPOV is, become familiar with Wikipedia norms, and either decide they can actually work within the Wikipedia paradigm, or leave for other channels in which they can evangelize their POV."  Since all the things I am fighting for are exactly what Wikipedia demands of its editors, there is nothing objectionable in my stating it. Jayjg 04:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gentlemen, at the risk of stepping into the middle of a firefight, might I suggest you two step away from this for a day or so? This fight fundamentally isn't worth the energies you two seem to be putting into it. These words will not fundamentally change the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As it is, and as a newcomer, the article seems as close to NPOV as it will ever get. So, I'm suggesting you guys just back away, let it go, catch up on reading, whatever. Let tempers calm and energies focus on other things. Or not, and duke out your own private Thermopylae as you will. Five 05:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As a neutral 3rd party here is my take: factually, the killing of the 2 Isreali reservists could be described as a "lynching". The use of this term by itself would not necessarily demonstrate a POV-bias in my opinion, as the actions of the Palestinian mob pretty well fit the definition of a lynching. However, the entire paragraph describing the "lynching" almost certainly does exhibit a POV-bias, as it describes in greusome detail the brutality of the killing. Sure, the description may be factually accurate, but it comes accross as gratuitous in the context of the larger article. To then call it a lynching on top of that is simply redundant. Here is my proposed compromise: Either remove the explicit description of the killing and simply say they were lynched by the mob, or keep the description and remove the clause describing it as a lynching. I think that would at least reduce the percieved POV-bias as well as the redundancy. Kaldari 23:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni 

message: I believe that there is an element of truth to both arguments in this debate. 1) There does seem to be some POV bias in the way the killing of the 2 Israelis is described. 2) The term "lynching", however, is not innaccurate in this instance (although perhaps redundant). In an effort to reach a compromise between the 2 entrenched parties, I offer 2 alternate versions of the sentences in question. The first version uses the term lynching but removes the gratuitous description of the killing. The second version retains the description of the killing (edited down a bit for brevity) and removes the redundant lynching description. Either of these versions should be sufficiently NPOV to resolve this dispute, IMO. It will require a willingness to compromise by both parties however. As to the POV-bias in articles describing the killing of Palestinians, I would suggest bringing those concerns up in those articles rather than here. Since there is no unified editorial voice in Wikipedia, you'll have to challenge them one at a time. Complaining of a systematic policy of bias won't accomplish anything here. Anyway, here are my two compromise proposals. Feel free to comment...
An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station and lynched the two soldiers. The killings were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.
An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, beat the soldiers to death, and threw their mutilated bodies into the street. The killings were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.
These versions explain the events without either whitewashing the brutality of the killings or being unnecessarily gratuitous or belaboring. Whether the word "lynch" is used specifically seems irrelevent to me.
Here is the current version of the passage for reference:
An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, beat the soldiers to death, threw them out the window, stabbed them, dragged them on the road and mutilated their bodies. The killings, described as a lynching by international press, were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.
Kaldari 00:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Amnesty International and the BBC (among others) described the killings as "lynchings" Amnesty BBC. Jayjg 03:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his point is that calling them a lynching and then describing the act is redundant. Judge 'em as a lynching, which is abhorrent in and of itself, or describe the act. That's all I think he's saying, and not that calling the actions a lynching is unwarranted. (Side note: Jayjg, I tried to fixed your links. They weren't turning into links properly. The Amnesty one still doesn't. As a newb, if I've overstepped my bounds, I am sorry). Five 06:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in an attempt to provide a compromise, my version left out the contested word "lynching" altogether, and instead simply described the actions, leaving it to the reader to decide if it was lynching, or a justified and reasonable killing (as Alberuni has posited). Jayjg 15:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise suggestions 

message: The term "lynching" is a loaded term. It is used to label a particular killing as unjustified. It thus takes a moral position.
Wikipedia articles do not take moral positions, for one very important reason: that is, none of us contributors can agree on moral issues; and the battles over WHICH MORAL POSITION any given article should take would be endless.
It's so much easier, therefore, to say something like:
* two reservists were killed by Arabs in the wake of blah, blah, blah.
If we want to add commentary to this, I suggest we QUOTE SOMEBODY OTHER THEN OUR OWN SELVES. Like,
* the Jerusalem post called the killings "the worst lynching since the 1930s in the US";
* the Palestine News-Free Press praised the killings as "the right lynching at the right time".
Don't get all hung up on whet TERMS to use, when describing a killing. Was it murder? Was it "extra-judicial"? Forget interpretations, because you are not writing an editorial for your hometown newspaper; you are writing an encyclopedia article which transcends time and place. 
Stick to the undisputed facts. The men entered the area. They died there. (We all agree on this) Somebody killed them (i.e., it wasn't an accident). The killers were "Palestinian Arabs. (If we agree on the identity of the killers, fine. If not, we describe the dispute as "X says the killers were Arabs, while Y says the killers were Israelis or Chechnyans or Little Green Men from Mars").
Try to focus FIRST on the parts we can all agree on, would you, please? As a favor to me? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:49, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Ed, the article doesn't use the word lynching, it hasn't since I took it out a week or two ago.  Have you read the current version? Jayjg 20:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncle Ed wades in