Talk:Israel and the United Nations/Archive 1

message: This is a distinct stub, done by a newbie to writing new pages. Help editing it and expanding it would be appreciated. There are many issues, so I figured the subject could use a page. However, I'm unsure how to expand this. -Penta 01:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: :I hate you all right now. I just wandered back to this article, and saw the hell it's undergone. Though nobody's bothered to use the Talk page, I've readded the TotallyDisputed tag. Why I readded it: This article is fairly obviously the object of partisan squabbles. Bound to happen, but still. Right now, it looks somewhat scarred.
What I see as the issues to deal with here, though I don't have the info or the time to do the research:
#Israeli position in the UN
#Someone try to get data: How much has Israel paid (and how much was it supposed to pay) in UN dues? Try to get both general budget dues and peacekeeping dues; They're separate bills each member state has to pay, and work off of different formulae, I think.
#Israeli public opinion on UN - anybody able to get polling info?
#Membership actions - has anybody seriously threatened suspension/expulsion? Has there ever been serious thought in Israel to withdrawal?
#Chronology of, ah, incidents.
--Penta 04:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Penta hates you all

message: What happened to that section? I don't see any talks on its disappearance. Restoring... Also, I think this is a good time to archive old discussions. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the section on the current situation? 

message: Unbehagen repeatedly removes the extlinks section but is unwilling or unable to discuss it. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of External links section 

message: http://www.unwatch.org/pbworks/UNA-UK_Report.pdf is now bad.  I was pottering around on  http://www.una-uk.org/ , and couldn't find an obvious new location.  AnonMoos 02:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: The article is bias, it talks of bias in the UN but not of Israels intransigent 'iron wall' position and it's persistent disregard the the opinion of the Security Council members. Israel has broken countless UN resolutions.
        I agree completely.  
The fact is that the Article provides an effective point of the UN's relation with Israel if and only if the UN were bias towards Israel.  It makes no mention of why the UN had to draw up so many resalutions concerning Israel; the fact that Israel has yet to obey resolutions from twenty-nine years ago, namely resolution 242 and 446.  Also, though the information does not belong in the article of Israel's relationship with the UN the question can be asked why should the UN not draw continuous resolutions against a country in constant violation of the Geneva conventions, namely the fourth Geneva convention; Article 49.  The void of a decenting voice from the perspective of the UN is largly effective in making this an obvious (pro) Israeli article.  Heck, if the article was going to criticize the UN for drawing various resolutions against Israel, it should at least link to an article showing how many resolutions were veto-ed by its largest weight pulling ally the United States of America.  Lets not forget the real reason Israel recieves so much attantion.  It is the only real western ally in the worlds richest oil region.  It is still maintaing the longest military dictatorship in history and can somehow still be "praised*" by the UN for withdrawing from a country it illigaly invaded even after leaving a "million bomlets**" of un-exploded cluster bombs in the country it withdrew from. it has always been a PR strategy of Israel to point the finger at the negative attention its gotten.  This article only reaffirms such a beiefe. 
*Sunday, 1 October 2006 (BBC News Article: UN hails Israel's Lebanon pullout)
**Tuesday, 26 September 2006(BBC News Article: 'Million bomblets' in S Lebanon)
Please explain how the invasion was illegal.  The way I understand international laws is that if a country make a cross boarder attack, a country is allowed to defend itself. --יהושועEric 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel's Breaking of UN Resolutions 

message: Was this written by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs?  Wikipedia normally offers a generally accurate, impartial background to issues such as these, but this article is a clear exception.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.91.49  (talk • contribs) 02:47, July 30, 2006   (UTC)
:Would those editors dropping by and proffering concerns about bias please kindly offer suggestions for improvement? Ronabop 04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staggering Bias 

message: While I have rewritten the statement to be more NPOV, it is a sourced example of apparent anti-Israel bias of the UN and its leader, and as such needs to remian in that section of the article. -- Avi 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No - it a reference to a single editorial. As such it is OPINION not fact and so unencyclopedic. Pl;ease stop pushing POV. Thansk. 86.27.55.184 21:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, there are four citations, including from General Lewis Mackenzie, who was Chief of Staff for the United Nations Protection Force or UNPROFOR in Yugoslavia in 1992. this is not a POV, this is a well-documented phenomenon, much more so than Annan's off-the-cuff statement without benefit of any military experience or data. Read Mackenzie's article, you may find it interesting. -- Avi 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry you feel that way, but they are no les opinions than Annan's own statement, they show how Annan demonstrates anti-Israel bias, and at least they include the statements of military personnel. You are trying to push a POV by keeping them out of the article, and, you have violated 3RR to boot. -- Avi 13:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I note with interest that you choose not to point out your own violation of the 3RR rule. One rule for you and another for me?? 86.27.55.184 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Please re-read the rule exspecially the section about "gaming the system" and abiding by the spirit. Waiting untill JUST after 24 hours then reverting (as you did) to avoid the letter of the rule is clearly prohibited. Why are you POV edit warring on this article?86.27.55.184 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  No - you took a simple assertion of fact and tried to spin it into an POV comment showing up some percieved bais against Israel. Not on I'm afraid. Please dont accuse me of acting in bad faith - you're in danger of breaching WP:NPA yourself - you say of me "The only POV warring here is your own." - again one rule for me and one rule for you? 86.27.55.184 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have demonstrated a number of times why it is inappropriate to include this - you have yet to address thaqt arguement in any way other than saying "there was bias" (your POV) and asserting "it is appropriate". If you would like to do so we can debate. 86.27.55.184 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annan's statement 

message: I've just did a few changes to the following:
* ...the 1947 UN Partition Plan supported an aim of Zionism: the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in Land of Israel. - Changed Land of Israel to Palestine as the UN Partition Plan states Palestine instead.
:OK, that is a fair point, thank you. -- Avi 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. -- Szvest 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What is your opinion about the multiple allegations that the anon user is determined to remove? -- Avi 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked this ...Without any futher evidence for this, many describe Annan's statement as another example of the UN's anti-Israel bias seems fair as it is a commentary and a POV of some media organizations which deserves to be mentioned. No problem w/ that. However, i still have to read the entire article to see what is considered POV.-- Szvest 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the epitome of WP:WEASEL.  Editorial pages are hardly a credible source of NPOV. Tarc 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have completely misunderstood WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. As WP:NPOV states The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have not analyzed that as of yet. -- Avi 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it, since there is a section in that article that deals directly with this topic. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and accurate edits

message: I think it would be appropriate to cite the relevant pages for each principle finding. PJ 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNA-UK Report 

message: The fact that Annan's statements indicate his bias is just as relevant as the statement itself. Annan stated an opinion, and exposed his beliefs. Removing properly sourced material from wikipedia is vandalism. -- Avi 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annan's bias take 2 

message: The whole section on "allegations of anti-israeli bias" is completely unsuitable as a piece of reference work. The fundamental problem cannot be resolved by the tit-for-tat arguments that can be read on this page about minutiae such as what Annan said or didn't say on a particular day.  The key thing is to get away from the narrow minds of the pro-Israeli lobby (and the other side for that matter) which insist on treating Israel as some weird entity not like the rest of the world.  Is there any reason that relations between the state of Israel and the UN should be analysed any differently than any other state?  I suggest not.  Guess what you would find in a page written about Myanmar by supporters of the junta?  Their section on anti-Myanmar(Burmese?) bias would probably look pretty much the one here on israel.  Remove Myanmar and insert apartheid South Africa, pre-1960s southern states of the US, Soviet russia, or Northern Ireland pre-civil rights ... it's all boringly predictable.  
People don't like being unpopular and the natural reaction is to shoot the messenger.  The impartial reviewer should not take these normal petty reactions as gospel and repeat them without some sceptical analysis.  Adding numerous citations repeating the same agitprop adds nothing.  Adding 'balance' by including the odd counter-argument is just as phoney.  
The article would be enormously improved if this section was eliminated entirely.  Alternatively (to keep on board those who measure a thesis by weight) leave in a one-liner stating the tediously obvious fact that supporters of Israel constantly complain that the UN is biased against Israel.  Think of all the reader time saved to be spent on the really good stuff in wikipedia.
: I must say that I agree with most of the above. I think it would be much better to either shorten this section drastically, as it just seems to condemn the UN more than anything. Or, alternatively, include an extra section explaining why Israel is so often the subject of UN resolutions - for example numerous (alleged) transgressions against international humanitarian law. At the moment there is no indication of why Israel receives this treatment, other than a (perceived) unjustified bias among member states. It ought to be up to the reader to form their own opinion; at the moment it reads as though the UN is only concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people as a means to bash Israel. There are enough reports by international NGOs (e.g. Amnesty International) that condemn Israeli action - surely a testimony to the fact that there is no smoke without fire. There is no section that details any "sensible" resolutions passed condemning Israel, just a list of rather farcical examples of political bickering. Whilst they may well have their place, they currently do this article no service by ignoring those resolutions that are/were "reasonable". Where is the info on the situation of the settlements on occupied land (illegal according to international law), for example? If you read this article with no further background knowledge on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, you would be led to believe that Israel is a shining example that, for some unknown reason, is picked on by a certain proportion of the countries in the world. To me the article undermines its own credibility by going out of its way to portray Israel in the role of a victim - and thus, at least to me, is quite POV.
: You could probably write exactly the same article from a Palestinian point of view, listing the number of resolutions that were vetoed by the US, and, given the right selective quotations make it appear that the UN has no concern for the Palestinians and is nothing more than a puppet of the US. Both articles would be equally out of place on wiki. It's one of the infuriating things about the conflict - it's practically impossible to hold a decent discussion with either a Palestinian or an Israeli on the subject of the middle east conflict, as they immediately resort to saying "but they did this to us!", as if that is any kind of justification for anything. Hopefully most of us here grew out of that phase shortly after kindergarten...
: For that reason, I find that the tit for tat (Re: Palestinians) nature of some of the statements are missing the point - that Israel, as a state, and member of the United Nations is subject to certain international laws. That suicide bombers are criminals ought to be self-evident to all but the most extreme amongst us. However, the article neglects the important fact that "Palestine" is not a country, and as such not a member of the United Nations. It is thus neither bound by the UN charter, nor does it have any real clout in the UN. As such, Palestinian aggression is (unfortunately) in something of a legal limbo.
: Furthermore, the entire "Lack of criticism of Arab mistreatment of Palestinians and vice-versa" section has nothing to do with Israel's relation with the UN at all - it's an obvious attempt at POV. Again, this belongs in an article dealing with the Palestinian relationship with the UN. It has nothing to do with Israel at all. Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy! I'd advocate removing this section immediately or moving it to a more appropriate article.
: n.b. I think they're all mad, and wish they'd just get on with living together. It's not like they have a choice... ;) Steevm 06:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "Lack of criticism of Arab mistreatment of Palestinians and vice-versa" sub-section as it is WP:OR. When you talk about UN anti-Israel bias and you say the US ambassador John Bolton criticized the UN for promoting anti-Israel agenda, i agree that it is not OR because it is sourced and referenced, maybe we can add more specific referenced quotes. But, but when you say The United Nations has not made resolutions against or has virtually ignored Palestinian violence on fellow Arab states such as.. and bring no single ref except POV editorializing than the section must be removed. I also read Furthermore, the number of Palestinians killed in Arab states exceeds the number of Palestinians killed in Israel during the First Intifada and Second Intifada combined by far. This is obvious WP:POINT.  -- Szvest 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. It is a list of violence that the UN has failed to criticize or recognize. You say: "I also read Furthermore, the number of Palestinians killed in Arab states exceeds the number of Palestinians killed in Israel during the First Intifada and Second Intifada combined by far. This is obvious WP:POINT." Actually, no it isn't. Many people are surprised to read that fact. Besides that, it shows how Arab countries have been cut slack for their mistreatment while Israel is stuck with a mess to clean up. Simple is that. --Shamir1 17:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  But what does poor treatment of Palestinians (as is the case in most countries; no one really wants several million unemployed refugees in their country) acutally have to do with Israel's relation with the UN? And what does a lack of criticism of Arab mistreatment have to do with Israel's relationship with the UN? Wrong article as far as I can tell. The entire section doesn't mention Israel at all! You're confusing two separate issues here. Steevm 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Shamir, your last phrase on your comment above may be a fact (personally i believe it is somehow true) but it remains a POV. We are not allowed to editorialize or to introduce self-made analysis which are not backed by statements; i mean references to quotes in which X accuses Y of a specific bias. In our case, it should be a notable body (i.e. Govt of Israel, an Israeli politician, a notable critic of the field, etc...) who would accuse the UN; especially not not you, not me, not Wikipedia. I hope it is clear. While waiting for your comment, i'll not remove the content for now. -- Szvest 22:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article would make much more sense if it was called Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I created this page and redirected it here, but I think it should be the other way around. This change would address some of the criticisms in this thread. Emmanuelm 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inappropriate agitprop 

message: I saw they cite the BBC website. But this is just wrong. Ben Gurion was an avid supporter of this plan and did his best to try to convince other Zionist leaders (especially right-wing leaders) to support it.
83.130.188.226 13:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Gurion's Opposition to the 1947 Partition Plan 

message: I removed the tag. --HIZKIAH (User  Talk) 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: Why isn't this a featured article yet? Or candidte for that matter? Colonel Marksman 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding?  This article is real junk.  --Zerotalk 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: This section is entirely devoted to an attack on the UN without any effort at balance.  Many of the sources are standard pro-Israeli outlets. Where are the citations of independent analysts, or the arguments in the other direction?  --Zerotalk 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find reliable sources that bring an alternative opinion, then please do so. -- Avi 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag on "Allegations of Anti-Israel bias" section

message: Please go see the new page called Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I wrote it with the intention to replace this page. Please vote on this replacement here. Emmanuelm 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Emmanuelm, I should have mentioned this before. WP Policy asks that you not put drafts into the main article space. Instead, I suggest you create a subpage, e.g. of your user page, while working on the draft. The draft page can then be deleted (you can ask for a speedy delete). Better to do this yourself than let the mere existence of the draft become an issue. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HG, thanks for the suggestion, I did not know about subpages. But I still do not understand your comment: I did not put a draft into the main article space, I created a new article, then expressed the hope that the two will eventually become one. The way things are going so far, my new article is unacceptable and needs to be rewritten completely. So I do not intend to touch the original article for a long while, while I digest NPOV and NOR policies. Emmanuelm 13:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Hi again. Your new page is a "complete re-write" of an existing article, so it covers basically the same subject matter. If you're unfamiliar w/WP policies, then it's charitable to call your page a draft, otherwise it would probably be classified as a POV fork (pls read), which should be deleted from the mainspace. Also, if the new article needs to be rewritten completely, it also doesn't sound like it belongs yet as an article. Finally, if you don't mind my saying so, it appears that you feel some sense of ownership over the new page. However, in Wikipedia, we are encouraged to avoid acting  as if we own the article (pls read, too). For instance, you wrote an edit summary today: "Undid JohnZ edit; this page is not ready for external edits yet" which sounds as if you're deciding who gets to edit the page. I'm not trying here to judge either your work on the existing article, only trying to impress upon you the importance of certain key policies about article creation and redrafting. I strongly recommend that you read subpage, which explains how you can move your page to your user area. Take care. HG | Talk 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My new article is now at User:Emmanuelm/Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. Thanks for the comments.Emmanuelm 14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Israel, Palestine and the United Nations is currently deleted, will be recreated later. Emmanuelm 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcing new page with complete re-write of article

message: I rewrote the lead section of the article. I tried to stick as much as possible to the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. I hope you like it. Emmanuelm 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting of lead section

message: I rewrote the history section of the article, emphasizing events directly involving the United Nations. When editing, please do the same; for a general history of this conflict, see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope you like it. Emmanuelm 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of History section

message: I moved this article to Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I feel this title reflect better the content of the article, which contains as many references to Palestinian as to Israeli issues. I think the two subjects are inseparable. I think that the creation of a separate Palestine and the United Nations would be counterproductive (I created it and redirected it). As for the use of the word Palestine to designate a people and an as yet non-existent country, I used it for the sake of brevity. Any other phrasing would have rendered the title painfully long. Emmanuelm 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article moved

message: Can somebody move this page to Talk:Israel, Palestine and the United Nations? For some reason it wasn't moved along with the article itself. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Malik, as you can read immmediately below this, I requested this move, which apparently can be done only by an editor (why?). It will apparently take a few days. Emmanuelm 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request II