Talk:History of the Arab–Israeli conflict

message: Where are the previous discussions from this page? --MZMcBride 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives?

message: All three of these articles seem to discuss the same things in varying degrees of detail.  Let's merge all three of them under the name of "Arab-Israeli conflict."  --GHcool 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges 

message: Does anyone else think Operation Summer Rains should be added to the history or is it just a part of the al-Aqsa Intifada? --GHcool 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Summer Rains 

message: I'm tempted to delete the section on the Hamas-Fatah conflict since I don't believe that it fits under the rubric of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  It seems more localized to the Palestinian people only.  Perhaps in the future if and when Israel becomes more directly involved in the conflict, it might be worth mentioning here, but right now I don't see how this is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict any more than changes in Israeli administration are part of the overall conflict.  I'm willing to hear other opinions before deleting it.  --GHcool 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant because it's a direct consequence of Israeli/international sanctions on the Hamas government and the refusal of Israeli to recognize Hamas. It hardly needs its own heading though, it could be just as well included in the previous section - although that section too is in need of some work. Gatoclass 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this measure.  I'm going to include it under the above section.  --GHcool 00:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas-Fatah conflict 

message: This section need to be combed a lot. First it has already been noted that this section was POV. Nothing is false in this section, it is just that there are details about only one side of the conflict. Logically, the details should amount to less than on a page about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict history; this is not the case! I would suggest that shorter is better, first it will solve POV problem, second it will be easier and faster to read through, and reader can always find complete info on the page of the intifada.
As first draft for a more neutral section I would suggest this(taken mostly from the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict history)
The al-Aqsa Intifada was a wave of violence which began in September 2000 between Palestinian Arabs and Israelis; it is also called the Second Intifada. Many Palestinians consider the intifada to be a war of national liberation against foreign occupation, whereas many Israelis consider it to be a terrorist campaign. B'Tselem, estimated the death toll to be 3,396 Palestinians and 994 Israelis [6]. The Intifada also created "heavy economic losses to both sides" of the conflict.[4]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Aqsa Intifada 

message: Who believes in the Israeli perspectives should say yes. Heroes who have cut off the Egyptian third army and were able to destroy it but were fool enough not to do so...never the less, they even gave the Egyptians back the Suez Canal. think that's surprising?...here is the kicker, they even left the Sinai with it's tourist attracting sites, and oil fields which were their only long term source!!, they even kicked their own citizens out of the Sinai. Of course all of that is because they love Egyptians, and the proof of that is that the percentage of them visiting Egypt is less 3 times than that of the Egyptians.
A missing part of the story is  then why the heck did not they do so from the beginning, and why did they occupy the Sinai in the first place?
but of course the one who believes what was mentioned above would say  maybe those ideas did not pass through their minds it the time, or that they changed their opinions, and decided that they had had enough war with the Egyptians so give the a NARROW STRIPE (WHICH IS 15 KILOMETERS WIDE, AND 163 KILOS LONG!!).
donot be surprised when such a person is asked then why didnot they just SPARE Egypt, but at least keep the October 24 lines, or the October 22's? where the answer would be  they did not like Africa :)D.
A person who believes in the Egyptian perspective such as me, would be believing in the following:
the Egyptian light armed infantry faced the heavily fortified bar-lev line, and won within 6 hours.
artillery unites along with the air force had the major rule in tiring the Israeli reserve in the Sinai.
the commandos held back the Israeli reserve until the armored forces finally crossed the canal.
the out-dated Egyptian armour was aided by the anti-tank infantry who were the main reason for Israeli armour set backs.
in the second phase of the war, the Egyptian armour advanced in a major attack to help the Syrians, that attack was repelled.
finally, the Israeli forces found a weakly defended gape between the 2 Egyptian armies which was actually used for transporting supplies. out numbered, and out gunned, the small force there was taken by the IDF which crossed in the narrow gape. Not a matter of surprise, the UN led by USA finally realized whoa, there is a war up there and made the first cease fire decision. the decision was not respected by the Israeli side which attacked cities of the canal, but failed to hold them due to the civil defense forces supplied by the army. the rest is the same in the Israeli version.
The IDF cut off supplies on the 3rd army, but latter, in return of sparing the Israeli POWs, the 3rd army was supplied with food, water, and other non-military needs. finally, the war ended with the Israeli side withdrawing not "allowing the Egyptians to get back so, and so..." as deep as approximately. one third of the Sinai, the land appandoned by the IDF was occupied by Egyptian forces, and the canal is back into service under Egyptian control. other long-term results of the war were fare more better case for the Egyptian side.a
and I tell u what, u have the absolute right to believe the perspective u want, but if u want a real neutral source, I recommend the american government documentaries which stayed classified for a period, now it can be found, and downloaded from the George Washington university web site.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by One last pharaoh (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:SOAPBOX.  Thanks.  --GHcool (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The title of the publication is The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East.  Your edit erroneously asserts that the title of the publication is The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, Avraham Sela.  I hope this clears things up.  --GHcool (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it does. but the publication donot have a wikipedia article, or maybe there is a one i donot know. so the reader who donot already know much about The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East would be laking illustration, and most important, the informations about the editor. the editors name is the primary part here not where did he mention his opinion. so u may edit the publication title, but with out deleting the editors name. i did not object editing the publication title, so it's fare that u donot object editing the editors name which has a wikipedia article that enable the reader to know about him if he donot.One last pharaoh (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is has a footnote at the end of it (footnote #4) which has a link to Sela's article.  --GHcool (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  are Israelis fool heroes?? 

message: Pharaoh, you can't be serious.  "rv. vandalism, ur personal interest or opinion is not supposed to influence the article".  Vandalism?  The phrase you keep inserting, with emphasis yet, simply has no logical connection with the preceding phrase or the context.  Or am I missing something?  Israel didn't have 264,000 troops in the peninsula, or even mobilized, so what, then, is the relevancy?  This is about improving the article, not about my "personal interest or opinion".  What about your own, for that matter?  Why not try explaining and justifying your edit, rather than attacking other editors? Hertz1888 (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: so now ur talking about attacking other editors? well, i am not the one who attacked other editors first. i have mentioned no thing about that israel had it's troops in the sinai. u can edit that it did not have them in the peninsula although it would be silly, but donot delet the information. it's taken from the wikipedia article about the war, go check the sources there. and i donot know what to say about it's relevance, or more likely what u want me to say. the article mentions how many troops did egypt have in the peninsula, and it doesnot matter now weather that's all the troops in egypt back there or not, but mentioning how many troops did israel have is totally relevant just like any conflicts info box mentioning the man-power of combatants. also, it's said here in wikipedia, that israel attacked the arabs after its success in egypt, so virtually the israeli military man power was opposed to egypt then to arabs.One last pharaoh (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: look Hertz, i always try to avoid making enemies, and make friends, but u shocked me when u throw away that confort. maybe we can continue the discussion latter if u want, because i have to go now. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good way to antagonize others is to throw around that accusation of "vandalism" baselessly.  That is what I meant by "attacking other editors".  If you want to demonstrate a more collaborative approach, please consider removing the warning on my talk page, with an explanation. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A point that needs no discussion is that i donot intend to antagonize any user. may u consider deleting ur warning on my talk page - with the difference here is that i wasnot aware of the vandalism stuff, and did not deserve such a warning level-, if u accept a more collaborative approach. That is what i meant by i am not the one who attacked other editors first. i would be glad to delete my warning then. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be glad to do it, but not on that basis. I committed no vandalism, only routine editing, but was accused of vandalism.  You were merely informed that the three-revert rule might apply to what you were doing at the time. That hardly constitutes an "attack".  You might find it helpful to read WP:AGF. Hertz1888 (talk)
P.S.  Quoting WP:VAND: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Hertz1888 (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: apparently that wasnot a good-faith One last pharaoh (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis?  My edit summaries give routinely editorial explanations. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a description i agree with u about when u talk about the last edit, which represents a mid-solution, or a solution that satisfies all sides, not reverting an edit. so as u can see, i support that solution rather than reverting.One last pharaoh (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you support mid-solutions, but please keep in mind that reverting, in itself, especially with explanations (which all my edits had), is not automatically an unfriendly act.  Assume good faith. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of 1967 

message: Claiming Palestine as a big motive for al-Qa'eda seems quite incorrect, since Bin Ladin barely mentioned Palestine at all for many years (in clear contrast to the burning grievance he expressed over the issue of the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia).  Al-Qa'eda conspicuously failed to launch any attack aimed mainly at Israelis or Jews until over ten years after the organization was founded (i.e. the Kenyan hotel bombings). At most, generalized overall Arab or Muslim resentments made it easier to find recruits for al-Qa'eda -- but saying that al-Qae'da attacked New York "beacause" of Palestine seems pretty much nonsensical. AnonMoos (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: besides, claiming that it's an arab motivation is incorrect too.One last pharaoh (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-Qa'eda claims more than dubious

message: Some snippets from Time Magazine to use as food for thought:
* Monday, Aug. 04, 1924
At London, in an address before a session of the World Zionist Organization, Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner of Palestine, waxed enthusiastic over the upbuilding of the Jewish National Home and the general progress of Palestine. Said he:
"The industrial exposition in Tel-Aviv revealed the development of Palestinian industry, and was a convincing indication that Palestine may become the industrial centre of the Middle East within our generation."
* Monday, Dec. 21, 1936
Profoundly disapproving of the Zionist policy of discrimination against Arab labor, he concluded that Jewish nationalism encouraged Arab nationalism, while the depressing of Arab wages made conflict inevitable. Jews who had been persecuted in Germany now persecuted Arabs and preached a doctrine of racial purity as relentless as the one under which they had suffered. A little dizzy from following this vicious circle all the way around, Gessner came reluctantly to a doubtful conclusion: "If we can't get along with the Arabs, we have failed."
* Monday, Aug. 16, 1948
They talked confidently—indeed, stridently—of a state of ten million, not necessarily confined to the present boundaries of Israel. It was a bad joke, and also a sober observation, that the idea of Drang nach Osten lived in the new nation of Hitler's victims. As they looked around them at a disorganized and unproductive Arab world, Israelis showed some of the reactions of the prewar Germans looking around a disorganized and unproductive Europe. The new blood of nationalism ran fast and hot in Israel; sometimes it seemed to be gushing out on the ground. Pleading for more understanding and tolerance of Israel, one sympathetic observer warned: "This could become an ugly little Spartan state."
--Stor stark7 Speak 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media reporting has evolved over time? 

message: Article has a robust discussion of Arab violence but just one 'afterthought' sentence about Jewish violence. Without that sentence, this would be a public relations release. Content needed by someone with a complete understanding of this history. A neutrality alert seems appropriate. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add material that doesn't violate WP:Undue weight and is cited to reliable sources, but don't add a tag just because you don't like it.  --GHcool (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of discussion of pre-1948 violence

message: Given the importance of the conflict articles to our project I had hoped for more feedback at this RFC, but I think I overcomplicated the description. Some editors may also be thinking "we've been just fine for 10 years so is there really a problem here that needs solving"? I would like to encourage more editors to contribute.
The core issue behind the RFC question is that most readers know very little about the conflict and therefore need one single summary article to read and begin their journey, and we need that single summary article to broadly match the picture that the 1,000s of books summarizing this conflict take. Instead we have sat for many years with three primary articles (IPC since 48, AIC since 48 and ICMP 20-48) which are fine but are missing something above them to thread them together into the 100-year-narrative of the conflict presented by the vast majority of books on the topic. 
I recognize that many editors may find the question is a little more dry and boring than many of the debates around here, but its importance to the average Wikipedia reader can hardly be overstated.
Oncenawhile (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A plea for a 100 year narrative 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517012132/http://www.ismi.emory.edu/JournalArticles/MESapr84.html to http://www.ismi.emory.edu/JournalArticles/MESapr84.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606212650/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883%21OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883%21OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210072629/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/3e33d676ae43229b85256e60007086fd%21OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/3e33d676ae43229b85256e60007086fd%21OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927025252/http://www.lebanonundersiege.gov.lb/english/F/Main/index.asp to http://www.lebanonundersiege.gov.lb/english/F/Main/index.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/pna_two.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526013534/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument
*Added  tag to http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/pna_two.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19990420223841/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mideast.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mideast.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909180057/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad167.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad167.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.cfr.org/publication/14841/khartoum_resolution.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Dessential_document%26page%3D69
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003055522/http://polisci.ucsd.edu/~bslantch/courses/nss/lectures/19-detente-malaise.pdf to http://polisci.ucsd.edu/~bslantch/courses/nss/lectures/19-detente-malaise.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120911042033/http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/Middle_East/Iran_Ahmadinejads_Woes.html to http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/Middle_East/Iran_Ahmadinejads_Woes.html
*Added  tag to https://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070118/wl_csm/otalking_1
*Added  tag to https://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070118/wl_nm/lebanon_hezbollah_shebaa_dc_1
*Added  tag to https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070121/ap_on_re_mi_ea/syria_palestinians_16
*Added  tag to https://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070121/wl_mideast_afp/mideastpalestinian_070121221113
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130825010519/http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ArabIsraeliWar to https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ArabIsraeliWar
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070123054626/http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.threat19jan19,0,2874659.story?coll=bal-pe-asection to http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.threat19jan19,0,2874659.story?coll=bal-pe-asection
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  —Nnadigoodluck███ 12:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: History of the Arab–Israeli conflict →  – Per general title structure of similar timeline articles on conflicts, such as Timeline of the Syrian Civil War, Timeline of the Iraq War, etc GreyShark (dibra) 11:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 October 2020 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeline of the Arab–Israeli conflict →  – This is not a timeline. The reason that Timeline should be in the name of the article was that ; but Wikipedia has other articles called History of the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. See WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CRITERION Parham wiki (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 September 2023