Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 8

message: I have aquestion for all americans out there. Do you believe that all middle eastern people are terrorists and do you know anything about them?
:As an American, I feel like I am fully qualified to answer this question by this unregistered user.  No, Americans don't believe that all Middle Eastern people are terrorists.  Israelis, for example, are Middle Eastern people that are not terrorists.  ;)
:As for whether we know anything about Middle Eastern people, that's a tough call.  I would bet that many Americans don't know anything about Middle Eastern people, but I would also bet that many Middle Eastern people don't know anything about Americans.  --GHcool 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Israeli -Palestinian issue and US policy.

message: The history section appears to include virtually no history more recent than the past five years.  After opening with a brief mention that the '48 and '67 wars were part of this history, the section moves on to three completely unsourced paragraphs describing arguments purportedly made by people advocating various positions regarding the conflict.  I don't know if those paragraphs belong in the article at all (certainly not as unsourced as they are!) but they certainly don't belong in the history section.  The remainder of the history section describes events starting in 2002, which is practically current events rather than history.  So it seems to me that two things need to be done:
*Delete, or source and move, the two inappropriate paragraphs.
*Add some actual history to the history section.  Can someone who actually knows something about the conflict (not me!) try this?  You could try to summarize the main points of History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which seems to be a much better article. Elliotreed 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a little of both options are in order.  The history section is heavily focused on recent events, much of which can be summarized.  I would also like to see some information on the two Intifadas, the Oslo peace process, and the Camp David/Taba summit.  I'll see what I can do about this later this week.  --GHcool 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a history section which does not try to describe every development, but tries to document the broad historical trends which brought us to where we are now, in an existential sense, might be helpful. Just suggesting one possible way to look at it. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone put some history in the history section? 

message: I hope some fair and objective mind can help edit this article. A look at the section on Palestinian refugees for example shows some heavy pro-Israel bias. The claim that Palestinians have left voluntarily in 1947-8 has been demolished by serious academic work (Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, Walid Khalidi, Avi Shlaim, etc.) the unsigned comment was made by IP 85.90.69.35
:user "IP 85.90.69.35", i suggest you first create an account if you wish people to give more validation/respect/similar to both your words and your edits. i also suggest you refrain from making wikipedia into a soapbox via talk page attacks against invisible "enemies".Back off !!! and vandalismpoor Israel victimized. as for the recent edits you've made in the article, some seem good and some are written argumentativly and without proper sourcing.. i suggest you go over them and try to fix where possible/yousee fit. Jaakobou 16:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please, this article is in definite need of real editing ...

message: I have been advised to explain my recent revert of 85.90.69.35's recent edits. I have reverted these because, as a whole and individually, they seemed to be a perfect example of Vandalism. While much of what this anonymous editor had to say may be true, the sources he cited (when he cared to cite sources) did not substantiate his claims. He added material that was sloppily writted, unsubstantiated, and obviously in the wrong section. For example, he argued that Palestinian security was not a major issues in the "Major Issues" section. I hope that no one is objected to my revert. Screen stalker 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed wholeheartedly with your revert for the obvious reasons you cited above.  This was an obvious case of POV pushing vandalism.  --GHcool 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My comments were reverted because they are not politically acceptable to the www.giyus.org crew. Why has my adding that 700,000 Palestinians were made homeless in 1948 been reverted for example ? That is an essential fact for understanding the current conflict, even if you believe in the fairy tale that they left voluntarily. Is mentioning "Palestinian security" POV ? Come on you guys, it's a fact that more Palestinians than Israelis have died since the conflict started ! It's quite cynical and perverted to focus only on Israeli security. And why the hell was a link to a UN map of the West Bank removed ?!! Maybe because Israel is evidently the expansionist, colonial party in the conflict, as is obvious from the map ? I guess I'm too weak to struggle on my own against the whole Zionist cybercommunity and I guess it's also a waste of time ... do as you please. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! 85.90.69.35 09:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a reliable source that claims this as a major issue? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 85.90.69.35, wikipedia has many opinions and differnt editors, please read what i wrote to you earlier and try to follow that suggestion rather than ignore it. I also reccomend you read Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#The_Question_of_Palestinian_refugees and see how assersions and thoughts are given validation by proper refrencing. Jaakobou 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel's supporters are putting a lot of effort in influencing public opinion. The simple reason for this: Israel is in obvious need of whitewashing for its criminal policies. Repeating that Hamas does not recognize Israel, that Palestinian terrorism is terrible and that Gaza's schoolbooks are malignant serves one purpose: distracting the attention from an ongoing occupation with expanding settlements, collective punishments of a subjugated population and the impossibility for Palestinians to form an autonomous state. This I wanted to visualize with a map from the Financial Times ... the Zionist cybercommunity has removed that of course as it is some damning evidence against Israel. In any conflict an interested observer would want to see the actual geography, no ? The tone of the article now is clearly pro-Israel: just count in the introduction how many times Palestinian non-recognition of Israel is mentioned and how many times the plight of Palestinian refugees and occupied populations is.85.90.69.35 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you are not yet a registered user of Wikipedia, you might not be familiar with all or any of Wikipedia's guidelines.  For example, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Also, there is no cabal on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia users also insist upon using reliable sources in articles and that articles must be written from a neutral point of view.  I think I speak for everyone here when I say that currently the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very useful summary of the major issues in and the history of the conflict that satisfies.  One thing we could work on with this article is to get rid of some or all of the "citation needed" superscripts, but that is pretty minor especially for such a broad topic like this one.  There has been no attempt to "whitewash" anything here; the only thing we editors (from both sides of the conflict) "wash away" is stuff is personal editorials within the article that violate the neutral point of view guideline or information that is cited to an unreliable source or sources.  --GHcool 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Revert 

message: i've noticed that a refrence to standford was made in the "The_Question_of_Palestinian_refugees" subcat, but when i tried to fix this it did not resolve the issue. could someone more familiar with the article structure scan it for the stanford ref and fix this issue? Jaakobou 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikilink standford 

message: I think this section needs to be rebalanced in a couple of areas. Firstly, the Palestinian Refugee section is 5 times larger than that of the Israel settlement section. Both are crucially important, and hence such a large disparity in content cannot be justified on a NPOV basis. Secondly, the Palestinian Refugee section is hardly balanced itself. A weak 'pro' argument takes up barely 70 words, with the other 400 taken up by a pro-Israeli 'con' position. I would proffer that the issue is far more complicated than this article would make out, and hence the paragraph needs to be rectified. Thanks Suicup 13:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as balance is concerned, I would argue that the Palestinian refugee problem is an infinately more important issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the Israeli settlements from a historical and human rights point of view, and that I am 99% sure that both sides of the conflict would agree with me on this point.  On the other hand, I agree that the second paragraph in the refugee section with the bullet points can be trimmed.  --GHcool 18:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, because this article presumably is referring to the conflict in its present state. Both are deadlock issues. The issue of Israeli settlements is obviously hugely controversial. Both issues have separate articles, which are linked to via the 'main' template. This page is necessarily a collation of summaries. My point is that these summaries of the issues could be more balanced both in the size of the content, and the content itself. Suicup 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I tried adding a bit more. thanks. Steve, --Sm8900 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Palestinian notion of a literal right of return is a deadlock issue, but the Israeli settlements are not.  Israel is clearly willing to compromise on its settlement policy.  See Israel's unilateral disengagement plan.  --GHcool 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I accept that the Palestinian right of return issue is a larger issue than that of the Settlements, as long as Israel continues to build/expand settlements, that issue remains a deadlock. I don't really want to get into a discussion here re the virtues of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, suffice to say that there is no doubt that this is a controversial issue. Furthermore, you only have to look at Israeli settlement (the article the summary links to) to see that the current 'paragraph' is woefully inadequate at offering a summary of this issue. Two sentences (not including the sentence about the Gaza withdrawal) is both NPOV and intellectually dishonest. Finally, this logic should apply to the Refugee section anyway. Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a summary article. Thus all sections, especially those with a  template, should be summaries of the articles they link to, and should be a accurate and fair representation of those articles. In both sections this is not the case. Read the linked articles if you don't believe me. Suicup 05:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Tewfik reverted all my new material. Just wanted to note that. I feel this was unwarranted. --Sm8900 22:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sm8900 I read your edits, and applaud your efforts. I think it is unfortunate that compromise cannot be achieved easily. Suicup 05:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Tewfik didn't revert all of Sm8900's new material.  I think the way it is now is a pretty good, but I also thought Sm8900's unaltered version was also pretty good.  Honestly, I don't think either version is better or less POV than the other.  --GHcool 05:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That settlements' existence is the reason there isn't peace might be our analysis of the situation, but it is not an objective and undisputed fact. TewfikTalk 09:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I don't know what edits your referring to but I certainly didn't make any with 'colonial' or 'usurper' in them. Secondly, lets not beat around the bush here. In the context of the wider issue, as well as this article, the issue of Israeli settlements is an obstacle to peace. How can they be a factor and not an obstacle? You are merely obfuscating. Suicup 10:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suicup, you are promoting a POV. Another POV is that the real obstacle to peace is Arab (in particular, Palestinian) leadership's intransigence and propaganda of hatred. There is plenty of evidence. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that the Israeli settlement issue is the obstacle to peace, i'm saying it is an obstacle to peace. It exists as a subsection in 'Major Issues'. An issue is not Major unless it presents an obstacle to peace. Can you explain to me why that is POV, without telling me simply that it is? Also, i'm reverting the sentence, so that it remains that way until this dispute is resolved here, as it should be. Suicup 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me, the question here is not whether settlements are an obstacle to peace (since they are not). The question is whether they are an issue in this diplomatic process. (and whether Palestinians believe that settlements are an obstacle). They certainly are an issue, and that is how they should be included here. --Sm8900 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't read Suicup's edits until just now. Suicup, I totally disagree with you. Just wanted to note that. thanks. --Sm8900 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Issues

message: The uncited statement, "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are a key obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict," (emphasis added) should be changed to "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem represent a key factor in discussions for a peaceful resolution of the conflict" (emphasis added).  
*Support Many, many intelligent and informed people do not agree that the settlements represent an "obstacle" to peace.  These people make an argument from history showing that on two occassion (the Camp David 2000 Summit and the 2005 Gaza disengagement), Isreali concessions on the settlement issue were met with increased hostility and violence on the Palestinian side.  There are plenty who agree with this analysis, therefore calling the settlements an "obstacle" would be favoring one POV over another.  --GHcool 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I completely disagree with the use of a 'poll' to determine the outcome of this dispute. It is highly unsatisfactory. Polls are only useful if you have an appropriate sample of people participating - this clearly isn't the case here. Suicup 08:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: "obstacle" → "factor" (see new proposal below also)

message: The following is my proposal based on Jorditxei's proposal above:
Palestinian and international authors have justified the right of return of the Palestinian refugees on several groundsMcGeown, Kate and Martin Asser.  "Right of return: Palestinian dream?" BBC News.  18 February 2003.  15 July 2007.Flapan, Simha (1987):The Palestinian Exodus of 1948. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4. (Summer, 1987), pp. 3-26.Khalidi, Rashid I.(1992): Observations on the Right of Return. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2. (Winter, 1992), pp. 29-40.:
*Several authors included in the broader New Historians agree that the Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and IrgunInterview to Avi Shlaim in Haaretz's supplement.  A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948", dated 30 June 1948 affirms that:
"At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases...Kapeliouk, Amnon (1987): New Light on the Israeli-Arab Conflict and the Refugee Problem and Its Origins, p.21. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3. (Spring, 1987), pp. 16-24.Review by Dominique Vidal in Le Monde DiplomatiqueMorris, Benny (1986): What Happened in History. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Summer, 1986), pp. 181-182.
*The traditional israeli point of view arguing that arab leaders encouraged palestinian arabs to flee has also been disputed by the New Historians, which instead have shown evidence indicating Arab leaders' will for the palestinian arab population to stay putSee for example, Masalha, Nur-eldeen (1988):On Recent Hebrew and Israeli Sources for the Palestinian Exodus, 1947-49. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, Special Issue: Palestine 1948. (Autumn, 1988), pp. 121-137. and Childers, Irskine (1961): The Other Exodus. The Spectator (London), May 12, 1961. .  
*The Israeli Law of Return that grants citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world is viewed as discrimination towards non-Jews and especially to Palestinians that cannot apply for such citizenship nor return to the territory from which they were displaced or leftAl-Awda web site on points of unityEdward Said cited on the issue of the palestinian right of return and israeli Law of Return in www.samsonblinded.orgThe Arab Association of Human Rights criticises the israeli Law of Return as being discriminatory towards arabs in www.arabhra.orgJonathan Cook considers the support for the Israeli Law of Return together with the opposition towards Palestinian Right of Return as a way that "maintains the act of ethnic cleansing that dispossessed the Palestinian refugees more than half a century ago.".
*The strongest legal basis on the issue is UN Resolution 194, adopted in 1948.  It states that, "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." UN Resolution 3236 "reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return". Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem," however, Resolution 242 does not specify that the "just settlement" must or should be in the form of a literal Palestinian right of returnGlobal Policy Forum on Palestinians' right of returnRadley, K.René (1978): The Palestinian Refugees: The Right to Return in International Law. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 72, No. 3  (Jul., 1978), pp. 586-614..
Opinions? --GHcool 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your proposal GHcool. I have introduced the different sources to each claim so it cannot be dismissed as being original research, hope we agree is better to include them. Although I prefer my proposal, I will accept GHcool's proposal so we can agree and work on other issue. Nevertheless there is one change that should be made: the phrase "New Historians agree that many of the Palestinian refugees fleed Palestine" should be changed to "New Historians agree that most of the Palestinian refugees fleed Palestine". The New Historians do not argue that one of the causes for the exodus was israeli military actions but rather that it was the major/principal cause for their flight. Therefore they do not argue that many fleed because of that cause (I guess that this claim is even made by the "pro-israeli" historians) but rather that most of them fleed because of that cause (it is on this point that there is disagreement between both versions). There is a full agreement on this point by the New Historians: Morris, Masalha, Khalidi, Childers, Pappe, Segev, all of them agree on this point and that is what the SHAI document cited in the text says. I hope that this is ok with you. In my opinion, this change is necessary for the text to be acceptable. Cheers.--Jorditxei 10:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to reply briefly to say that i do not mind including the views of any specific group or faction, as long as they are indicated to be the views specifically of that group. therefore, your material on new Historians sounds fine to me. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Provide a source saying that the New Historians say that most and not many of the Arab population of Manatory Palestine were compelled by the Jews to leave and I'll be glad to accept it.  Also, please add another source in addition to or instead of the Al-Awda website for the Law of Return racism discrimination accusation.  Once those two points are cleared up, I think we can add this proposal to the article.  --GHcool 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't have time to look for such a reference of something I thing is clear, that is, that the New Historians say that the major cause of the exodus was the actions by Haganah and the others (do you really don't know this?). Nevertheless I will do something easier that I hope satisfies you. Here it says that the New Historians are scholars like: Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, Avi Shlaim and Tom Segev. Benny Morris says that most fleed for that cause (see the wikipedia article on the issue), if you dont believe this, then read: Morris (1986): "What happened in History". Journal of Palestine Studies Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Summer, 1986), pp. 181-182. where he again defends this thesis. Ilan Pappe says here: "For a short while at the end of the 1980s, several academics, including myself, caught public attention by publishing scholarly books that challenged the accepted Israeli version of the 1948 War. In these books, we accused Israel of expelling the indigenous population and of destroying the Palestinian villages and neighbourhoods." he later adds: "When Israel took over almost 80 per cent of Palestine in 1948, it did so through settlement and ethnic cleansing of the original Palestinian population.". Avi Shlaim also argues in favour of considering that most left bcs of Israeli actions in "The Debate about 1948". Int. Journal of Middle East Stud. (1995), p. 287-304. Haven't seen what Segev says about it but the following links make me think that more of the same: Here when talking about the New Historians says: "These documents did not reach the people except after 30 years, in the beginning of the 1980s. Opening of these documents for researchers led to the appearance of what is called no "Revisionist History" or "New History". Among the revisionist historians are Tom Segev, Simha Flapan, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pape, Yossi Amitai, SeptaTevt, Ory Milstein and the greatest historian in the recent age "Arnold Twinby" whom without his courage and objectiveness the world was never to know why did the Palestinians escape form their homeland. Also some of those who were honest are Miller Booz,  William Ernest Hocking, Alfred Lelental, Moshe Matohen, and the famous journalist "Dorothy Thompson". One of the most famous historians is "Benny Morris" who motivated researcher and studiers to research through issuing three important articles in 1986 before issuing his book in 1987:  "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1948-1949"." Here it says: "The second version, told by the Palestinian refugees themselves, is that they were ethnically cleansed before, during, and after the war. In their lexicon, the expulsion was Al-Nakba (The Catastrophe), the most traumatic event in Palestinian history. More recently, "new Israeli historians" (really the same historians but they now had declassified Israeli sources to draw on) such as Ilan Pappe, Benny Morris, Zeev Sternhall, Avi Shlaim, Simha Flapan, and Tom Segev debunked the established Israeli myths. Using Israeli archives and declassified material, they were able to discover much of the hidden history of Zionism and the establishment of Israel.". So I have presented evidence that many scholars, included in the New Historians, converge in this idea. If you want more sources just read the article Nakba, personally, I don't want to lose more time on this because I think is something obvious and with no interesting feedback for me. If you still disagree, then I would suggest that you show me one source that says that most of the New Historians disagree with that most of the refugees fleed because of that cause. Thank you.--Jorditxei 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, the entry New Historians says: "The main arguments of the new historians were summarized by Avi Shlaim as follows: (...) The official version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the New Historians said that the refugees were chased out or expelled." Hope it is clear now. As regards your second question, that I look for another source that says the same thing as Al-Awra, could I ask why? Thank you for your response.--Jorditxei 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the information you presented above conclusively say that most (meaning more than 50%) of the Palestinian Arab population were forced to leave by Jews.  At best, the information presented conclusively says that many (meaning a significant percentage) of the Palestinian Arab population were forced to leave by Jews.  Al-Awra is not acceptable because it is an unreliable, partison source.  --GHcool 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would ordinarily agree with you, Tewfik, but the way the section is currently written favors the Israeli position.  In order to keep the section NPOV, we should probably either delete the HonestReporting bullet points or add some of the New Historian bullet points above.  --GHcool 06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As GHcool says, that is the motivation for introducing this paragraph. Moreover Tewfik, the 1948 Palestinian exodus has not a single word on the palestinian refugee right of return and that is the subject of this section, so why should I do a summary of the Nakba? Moreover, the two phrases on the palestinian refugees (please, remark these are two phrases) are a good summary of what Nakba says on the issue: New Historians think the majority of refugees fled bcs of israeli military actions, New Historians have disputed the claim that Arab leaders instigated the flight and there are other historians like Efraim Karsh that instead support the traditional official israeli version and this argument is also in our section here in the Honest Reporting part. So all your claims are just not justified, we have here a summary of what is said in Nakba about the refugees but we should not do a complete summary-paragraph because as I say, we are dealing with the "right of return" here not with the history of the palestinian exodus, I hope this is clear now. Thank you.--Jorditxei 08:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As regards your claim GHcool, I find it hard to think that this phrase: "The official version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the "new historians" said that the refugees were chased out or expelled" just means that a significant number of refugees were chased out or expelled. No, it doesn't mean that it says that the major/principal/most important factor explaining the flight of the palestinian refugees is precisely israeli military action expelling and chasing them, that is what it says. I don't think that such phrase means only that "a significant number of palestinians fleed for that cause" no. It clearly says that the more significant number of palestinians fleed for that cause. Saying "many" is a common euphemism I am starting to get used to here. But in any case, I don't want to keep losing my time with this. So given that I have given you this source stating: "the New Historians said that the refugees were chased out or expelled" I rewrite the text accordingly, that is: "Several authors included in the broader New Historians agree that the Palestinian refugees fleed Palestine due to the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun." which is the same as saying the refugees were chased out or expelled, in your opinion this means that many were in mine it means that most but in any case it is what the source says. If you want we can change it to:"Several authors included in the broader New Historians agree that the Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun."  I think we have an agreement here :) Thank you. --Jorditxei 09:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way I have changed the phrase accordingly: "Several authors (...) agree that the Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun". Cheers. --Jorditxei 09:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new sources you asked for have also been introduced. I hope some of them will satisfy you. Thank you.--Jorditxei 10:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added a new reference and a new UN Resolution cited by that reference. Cheers.--Jorditxei 10:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Your arguments are good ones.  I'll accept your proposal.  The only complaint I have left is that there are a lot of direct quotes (mostly from the Shlaim source) that are not attributed to Shlaim.  Feel free to add the exact text above to the article and I'll format it later when I get a chance.  --GHcool 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How about if we say "diplomatic basis" instead of "legal basis"? --Steve, Sm8900 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi. i would just like to post briefly to indicate mys suggestion and feeling. i would suggest that we should go ahead with Jordixtei's text. I do not see anything excessive in this text. i feel the best way to address issues of this type is to allow editors to make their edits, and then to add, if desired, some compensating information and views. I don't mean to sound overly conciliatory. However, I prefer not to see contention over individuals' edits. I prefer to see a gradual process of allowing text and entries to evolve. in this case, the proposed text does not seem overly problematic; it seems well enough to include, and then add alternate or compensating views, if needed. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of Sm8900's suggestions.  --GHcool 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep not understanding the issues raised by Jayjg. So you think that an opinion of Masahla should not be in the section, nevertheless you have not criticised, at least not so far, the text already in the section here which as you can see cites only one source, the HonestReporting in which it bases the israeli opinion on the issue of the palestinian right of return. On one only source is that section developed and takes no account of the palestinian opinion on the issue. I have presented here a text of  very few lines with 14 references (even more I think), the text already in the article has 7 and is only based in the HonestReporting, still you argue that this is original research, that one source does not prove anything (what should it prove I wonder), etc. Don't you think that something should  be said about the palestinian opinion on the issue? Then lets work together like GHcool has done to agree on the text. You have been of no help here, you give no concrete explanations of the reasons why you refuse to accept the text, for example GHcool made a proposal, and we have agreed on the wording of a sentence, what are your concrete proposals please? Thank you to GHcool and Sm9800, I appreciate that we reached an agreement on the "most"-"many" issue. ;)Cheers.--Jorditxei 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Jorditxei, I suggest that you go ahead and add the text. We can still continue the discussion here, in any area. --Steve, Sm8900 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I have introduced the text in the section. Thank you. Cheers.--Jorditxei 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to ask other editors not to remove Jordixtei's material. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GHcool's new proposal based on Jorditxei's proposal above