Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 5

message: The only (possible) reason behind this intifada isn't that Sharon visited a muslim site, there have also been some discussion that Arafat had planned this intifada since the ongoing discussions with Israel weren't going his way. Also, is there a section about the peace summits during the 90's and early 2000's? If there is, I must have missed them. Shandolad 07:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Aqsa Intifada

message: :"If you advocate the abolition of Israel ... that means in fact that you're against the people who live there. If you are, for example, against the existence of Malaysia, you are anti-Malay. If you are against the existence of Israel, you are anti-Jewish."  (As this is quote, it needs a citation)
Bauer never says State of, he says "Malaysia" and "Israel," and I think he may be using (possibly a product of imperfect English), the word 'abolish' and 'annihilate' interchangebly, but this isn't a published work, it takes place during unrehersed conversation. From the interview with Michael Krasny, Tue, Jan 11, 2005:
:A. Contd. There are [Unclear: certain intellectuals who] ... propogate a type of anti-Israeli propaganda which crosses the line between a perfectly legitimate criticism of any Israeli or any other government, I mean, one can and should perhaps be opposed to policy they dosen't [sic.] like, one oppose things that are wrong, certainly I would be part of that. But, on the other hand, the Israeli media that are probably more critical of the Israeli government than any one outside of Israel, are critical because they want to better Israel, have a better and more prosperous and secure and humanistic and so on and so forth Israel. Now, when you cross that line and advocate, in fact, a war against Israel in some form or way, you are getting very near to a genocided [sic.] propaganda against the Jews of Israel. [unclear few words] But, again, you have to emphasize, this is a minority, and the majority of media and intellectuals and so on would not subscribe to that, but, it's the ones who raise their voices which one hears.
:Q. That's a very vexing question, though, where do you distinguish, how do you distinguish, between anitsemitism and being anti-Israel, well, you know [unclear; Bauer interjects]
-----
:A. Well, it's simple, if you advocate either the abolition of Israel, or you support a war -not only of words, but you know, terrorism and so on and so forth - to reduce Israel to compliance with a policy which would abolish it, annihilate it, that means, in fact, that you are against the people who live there. Now, if you are against the existence of Malaysia, for instance, you are anti-Malay, if you are against the existence of Israel, you are anti-Jewish.
------
So this underscores how important it is for one to cite their sources, qualify them for what they are, and be cautiuous and very selective in ..., well, you know ... El_C 04:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying this; it's good to know that this was just a badly phrased throwaway comment rather than something he seriously believes.  Out-of-context quotes can be a terrible thing...  But it seems kind of off-topic here; do you think it might be better to move this to Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict? - Mustafaa 10:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, which is why I wrote: Heh, I seem to have placed the link where the contents should be, and the contents where the link should. Bah. El_C 10:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, sources, sources: Yehuda Bauer revisited 

message: so, does anyne want to organize this?  headings like treaties, summits, etc.? gren 07:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related links / External links 

message: * It is not POV to write that Israelis "claim" such and such; and it does not make the article less POV to take out such qualifiers when it comes to the Arab POV.
* It would really take a sick mind to dispute that Jews in continental Europe between 1933 and 1945 desperately needed a safe haven from persecution.  This does not need a qualifier.
* The only edit that might need further clarification has to do with the ability of the land to absorb more people.  But from what I know, there are no or very few Israelis that doubt whether there is room for all the world's Jews and all the world's Palestinians - the reason they're resisting letting Palestinians move in, is because they have noted that a) that would lead to an Arab majority in the country; and b) Palestinians are demonstrably hostile toward the existence of a Jewish state.  You may disagree with that as well, but let's be clear what the assertion is.  --Leifern 13:04, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
I have just introduced an edit to these contested phrases. NPOV does not mean placing "they claim" before Arab views and leaving Israeli claims as statements of facts. Please refrain from inflammatory rhetoric (like "sick mind"). The acute need for relief from persecution is not disputed. It is the some-time Arab view that they were being made to pay for European atrocities that is a valid POV to be listed in an encyclopedia. --AladdinSE 13:43, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Of course it is valid to state the contention; what I object to is questioning the need Jews had for protection against Nazi atrocities; so I think we're in agreement about that.  I made on correction - "mainstream Zionists" (whatever that means these days) aren't - as I've pointed out - concerned about it being too crowded in the area; they fear than an influx of Arabs/Palestinians would cause an intolerable demographic situation.  There are (solvable) issues related to fresh water supply.  --Leifern 16:38, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
: Works for me. --AladdinSE 17:37, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing POV about the fact that "the Zionist immigrants arriving in Palestine from the late 1800s on did so with the intention of taking it over and establishing a Jewish majority state, in some cases by force".  That is the definition of Zionism: an effort to establish a Jewish national homeland.  As Israelis (including Leifern's own edit) constantly remind us, this involves establishing and maintaining a Jewish majority state, and that was their stated intention.  And indeed, the need for relief from persecution is not disputed - but the a Jewish state in Palestine would not have prevented the Holocaust any more than it prevented the persecution of Soviet Jews, and if someone claims it would have that needs to be labelled as a claim. - Mustafaa 10:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your own premise is counter-factual: would not have, that itself needs to be labled as a claim just the same as the opposite one which you cite. El_C 10:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed it would, if I were attempting to insert it in the article - but I'm not.  Making your claim meta-counterfactual... ;) - Mustafaa 10:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Supra-counter-factualities aside, it's just a bad example. Sorry. :) We should probably avoid including historiography that speaks in these what if terms (unless it's especially notable, at least). El_C 10:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV qualifiers 

message: Why are there only anti-Israel caricatures? Where are the anti-Arab ones? --Ezra Wax 17:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's NPOV. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I think I understand your emotions, but please don't be so self-centered. Nobody says "all Arabs", but it doesn't even matter. I am sure all Germans were not ready to murder Jews either. First, all are not required. Second, with leaders reckless enough, propangda loud enough, technology advanced enough  and some economic incentives, it's possible. I am afraid finding a similar Israeli anti-Arab cartoon won't be so easy, because AFAIK the mainstream Israel's press (while brutal towards the Israeli govt) does not demonize/dehumanize/calls to genocide their neighbors. I have a 1949 picture of Arab women voting in Israel that can be considered. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One sided caricatures 

message: This one is so touchy I feel I should explain even one word changes... (Settlement building in disputed areas) is roundly condemned by most of the world except Israel and usually the United States. I have added "usually" as the U.S. does occasionally criticize Israel over settlements. 
A few other notes:
*The shark cartoon is on the mark in terms of relevance and I really see no merit in the above arguments for its removal.
*I think a separate section on the Israeli-Egyptian "cold" peace is warranted as it provides the template for future normalization(s). It's mentioned discontinuously at present. Marskell 09:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yikes 

message: Just came across this on a random link... I see a lot of arguing about whether something is POV, which is understandable considering such a contentious issue. A couple of things that would, IMHO settle a few of them:
*Simple wording:
:An example:
::Israelis and supporters cite a source of the Arab-Israeli conflict as the traditional interpretations of...
:If this were reworded to avoid an us-and-them sentiment then it would appear less POV. As in get rid of the Isaelis and supporters and change it perhaps by deleting it all and making it start "Traditional interpretations of...".
:And another:
::Some Israelis contend that one of the primary reasons for continued Muslim Arab hostility towards Israel is that sharia forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims.
:Could be changed to
::(Also) Sharia forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims - if this is not a fact then add Some interprettations at the start.
:And the picture:
::Caricature illustrating the US as biased towards Israel, a view predominant in (but not limited to) the Arab world.
:Even I've seen this picture before and so:
::A often cited example of a caricature illustrating the US as biased towards Israel.
:Adding the "often cited" makes it clear the articles not trying to push a POV case. Taken out the Arab world because it is very disdainful, and kind of obvious. It would be great if it could be referenced and most importantly dated (I seem to remember it was the 60s/70s). I'd just like the say the other caricature's labeling is a good example.
:In summary, talking about "Arabs/Israelis view this ...." sounds inherently POV (and adding "Generally", "Some" or "Predominantly" before doesn't help). It doesn't mean what it's trying to be asserted is POV. Use "Observers", or "Reasons for the conflict may include" rather than "Israelis" and "Arabs".
*More refereces:
:Wikipedia aims at being an accademic resource so sorting as many statements as possible especially the contentious ones would be great. If possible every subsection within "Reasons for the conflict" should have something supporting that it is not an original idea.
*Length
:The article is hideously long. Not related to POV, but would be nice if new articles were made out of it. I probably only managed to read a fifth of it before giving up.
It is a good article, and if you sit down and read it without the points above it is reasonably NPOV. Thoughts welcome. -- Tomhab 22:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Vs POV 

message: Irishpunktom labels different interpretations of sharia law mean that not all might agree:
:Certain Israelis and their supporters cite a source of the Arab-Israeli conflict as what they view as the traditional interpretations of sharia (Islamic law) which they believe requires, among other things, that Muslim territory encompass all land that was ever under Muslim control.
----
:I guess it depends on whether there are different opinions of sharia law or not... I have no clue :) -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is controversial that some Muslim groups insist that Israel (and Spain etc.) are Muslim land, is it? Al-Qaeda has made the claim often enough. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharia law

message: From:
:Since the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine once was part of the Ottoman caliphate, some Islamic clerics believe that it is unlawful and unacceptable for any portion of it to be usurped by non-Muslims.
to
:Since the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine was ubder Muslim rule from the time of the second Caliph, these Israeli's and their supporters promote their belieif that some Islamic clerics believe that it is unlawful and unacceptable for any portion of it to be usurped by non-Muslims.
----
:Not sure I see any problem (other than the spelling) or unless wrong. The line these Israeli's and their supporters promote their belieif seems out of place however and IMHO should go. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the change it you take out the POV "these Israelis" section. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Since the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine was under Muslim rule from the time of the second Caliph, some believe that Sharia law dictates it to be unacceptable for any portion of it to be usurped by non-Muslims.
Hopefully we can at least get this one done. I know this may seem like a petty change but its these kind of consessions which revolve conflicts. -- Tomhab 22:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: You left out "Islamic clerics"; it's not Jews or Christians who claim this. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of when Muslims controlled the area 

message: Changing the wording from Muslims to Others.
----
:As said above I feel this is very relevant. Its not only Muslims who might say this. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which others defend sharia, or say that it does not say that? Muslims comment on Sharia, not non-Muslims. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: But the wording at present implies that only Muslims could possibly comment on sharia nicely (which irishpunktom has shown is he's not a muslim). It just sounds very POV and relatively offensive and thats why you'll get people agreeing with the  or  tags. I think its a very small concession for making the article sound less judgemental. -- Tomhab 22:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, if non-Muslims have defended sharia in this way, I'd like an example.  Second of all, Irishpunktom has not shown that he is not a Muslim, but rather that he has been deliberately misleading in his comments.  In fact, he admits converting to Islam, as his "Whenever people misquote Islam, or ask why I converted I can qupte it back to them." here shows. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assuming that the Wikipedian is the same person as the poster who chose that username on ezboard - which has not been proven. - Mustafaa 23:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, there must be dozens of Irishpunktoms roaming around, all incredibly bad spellers who like to capitalize random words, and who are obsessed with Islam and bashing Israel.  Well, aside from those no-doubt coincidences, there are a number of other pieces of information which I will not reveal publicly in order to protect Irishpunktom's identity, but which are easily available to anyone who cares to spend 5 minutes investigating this, and which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed the same person. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: K no need to go ape over this. -- Tomhab 00:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Irishpunktom has been fundamentally dishonest about any number of things, including this, his stalking, his reverts out of pique, etc. from the very start.  He has reverted pages time and time again without even looking at the content, often complaining about text that wasn't even in articles, or alternatively claiming sources weren't there simply because he failed to read them.  He has inserted POV that is rarely, if ever, supported by sources, and in general completely ignored Wikipedia policy.  His every edit is for the purpose of propaganda, yet has the nerve to accuse others here of "bias".  I think there is a reason to go a bit "ape" over this.  Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh well - can't comment on his religion, but the point remains that its just an interprettation. Unless you're implying the only reason why they defend it is because they're Muslim, I still don't see your point. If you are saying the only reason why they defend it is because they're Muslims then it sounds very judgemental, thus making it POV. -- Tomhab 23:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslims -> Others

message: :In December 1997 The Times of London noted: "Life in (PA ruled) Bethlehem has become insufferable for many members of the dwindling Christian minorities." (Source: The Beleaguered Christians of the Palestinian-Controlled Areas)
----
:Personally, I think this quote should be changed for a short summary such as
::"In recent years tensions between the Muslim majority and Christian minorities have occures."
:Thats a personal preference as I never like quoting direct for copyright reasons and they often may be POV (as this one can be seen as). Definitely think it deserves a mention. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer quotes, especially when I don't think the paraphrase captures the essence of the quote, as in this case. And quoting like this is specifically allowed under copyright law, there is nothing whatsoever controversial about it. Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Its just a preference which I'd like others to consider (but not necessarily support). I believe my point is made. -- Tomhab 22:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Christian problems within the PA ruled area

message: :dhimmi, or protected people
to
:ahl al Kitâb, or People of the Book, and given Dhimmi, or protected, staus
----
:A very relevant change for a uninformed reader. Nothing even contentious about it -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dhimmi clarrification 

message: Adding
:Jewish
to describe Benny Morris.
----
:Looking at what was written and the fact that he has a wiki link I personally don't think its entirely needed as all he does is summaries without any POV language (unless he is refuted - which he isn't at present within the article). Don't think its necessary. (I realise this goes against what I said above but what can we do) -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible poisoning the well 

message: Removal of
:though a later insertion to the pact allowed Muslim rulers to tear up the agreement at will and expel the protected communities
----
:I can see why this might be contentious but does sound odd and only semi-relevant IMHO. If a Muslim ruler were ever want to expel the protected communities they would. Certainly would stop and go "oh no - theres this pact so we can't do it". Fair comment? Anyway, I can see why others might disagree. Tear-up is emotive and should be changed to terminate. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Terminate is fine. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "right to tear-up" 

message: Moving the line
:and under particularly repressive regimes that lasted a short time
implying that the statement also covered
:were allowed to ride asses only, not horses or camels, and then only sidesaddle; were not allowed to build new houses of worship or repair old ones;
----
:This depends on if it is correct. Was a Jew or Christian never allowed to ride a horse or camel normally, or build a house of worship during the period of the dhimmi? I don't know enough about it. Perhaps a reword may be relevant. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving of line 

message: Adding
:Iraqi Jewish
to describe Elie Kedourie.
----
:I take it this is correct? I notice that Muhammad Hamidullah is described as a Muslim. Although I felt Morris didn't require labeling Jewish, this quote is quite emotive and his bias needs labeling. I personally feel that both should stay (although pro-israeli rather than iraqi jewish). -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible poisoning the well 

message: Removal of Morris quote documenting persecutions by Muslims over the previous 900 or so years.
----
:As above I'd much prefer a summary - no direct quotes as the wording is not important. I don't feel it requires deleting however. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct quotes is the only way to go to ensure accuracy; and, again, there are absolutely no copyright issues with this. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but generally, quotes are not needed unless the exact wording is what you're after (which its not). There is no need for it to be so long. Anyway small point which I think I'm heading towards conceeding -- Tomhab 22:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Morris quote 

message: Tomhab, even nothing ends up changing, thanks and well done for your Mediation. --Irishpunktom\talk
Heh well I'd helped start the mess. Lets just see how people respond. It is important to remember that the changes are important, not who and why it was done. -- Tomhab 21:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Tomhab|Tomhab]] 

message: I just want to let everyone know that this article is very biased. Just a little inside note, be careful about any sources that date prior to the 1980's. This is when the Israeli government opened government vaults for selected access. Much has been discovered about the war since then, which is why websites are untrustworthy.
:How very pedgogically magnanimous of you, anonymous editor. ;) But that link is, at present, inaccessible. El_C 04:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, yes, well, you could always choose to actually share your thoughts with the other editors about any specific items you would highlight as most in need of Wikipedia:NPOVing. A daring thought! El_C 15:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  == watch that neutral point of view == 

message: Looking throught the talk page, it appears that many people have made negative comments about the organization of this section (or of the entry as a whole). I think that there is some merit to the idea of reorganizing the entire "reasons for the conflict" section. I think the section often makes it difficult (for somebody unfamiliar with the conflict) to determine which points of view are representative of which side. I also think the section does a poor job of prioritizing (clearly some points of disagreement of created far greater amounts of discord than others) and of relating the various arguments to each other.
I propose reorganizing the section on a point by point basis. Each subsection ("Historical claim to the land" might be one) would have an Israeli position subsubsection that cites the arguments commonly used by pro-Israeli commentators, an Arab position subsubsection that cites the same for pro-Arab commentators, and where appropriate a reconciliation subsubsection section, citing points of commonality, arguments made by pro-Peace factions, and information that nether side likes to cite (like the recent study showing that Jewish and Palestinian mitochondrial DNA are more similar to each other than either is to European or Saudi Arabian).
The subsubsections would not try to argue the positions per-se. They would just try to provide an encyclopedic reference of the arguments that have been made and their relationship to each other.
Of course I acknowledge that the diversity of viewpoints on both the pro-Israeli and pro-Arab sides creates challenges, but it will create challenges no matter how we organize the material, and we shouldn't allow this difficulty to impede progress. Arguments that are made by extremist minorities can be cited as such, and positioned towards the bottom of their respective subsubsections.
I will leave this here for discussion and further ideas. If at the end of the month people seem to be in favor of this, I will use the talk page to propose an outline for a new "reasons for the conflict" and after discussion implement this.
--Jsolinsky 12:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On a personal note I think it could work. The only problem is someone will have to do it. Can you be bothered? :). Wait for more comments than just mine though. -- Tomhab 12:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise some care over original research, here.  There is always the urge to frame any war to seem pointless (Look, they have the same genetic background! or nobody liked Franz-Ferdinand anyway!), but, unfortunately, the conflict is real and needs to be addressed based on real sources.  I would suggest that a good starting place are the pro-israel and pro-arab links that I added awhile ago when sorting the references for this article.  They lay out the arguments from both sides, and address the other's posiitons.  Use them as a framing device, rather than an orginal approah. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My prefered approach is to cite directly from Pro-Israeli and Pro-Arab literature, as I did in the small edit which I recently made. Any failure on my part to do so will be a consequence of laziness, not a belief on my part that we need some new narrative of the conflict. As far as the possibility of making the conflict seem pointless, while I believe that there should be a place for including Pro-Peace arguments (certainly in recent years comparatively neutral arguments have become an important part of the dialog) I don't think there is any danger that including such arguments will make the conflic seem like a silly misunderstanding. --Jsolinsky 04:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Suppose we had a "Historic claim to the land" section. It probably should reference the argument that Jews aren't native to Palestine, but instead are of European or Khazar descent because there are still some Arabs who make and publicize this claim, along with the standard rebutal. Similarly, it should probably reference the claim that Palestinians aren't a distinct people and/or are the result of Arab invaders from the period when Islam spread throughout the region because there are still some Jews who make and publicize these claims, along with the standard rebutal. Neither of these belong at the top of their respective subsubsections, but they ought to be discussed given the significant number of contemporary arguments that still make these claims. If we present those claims, shouldn't we also reference information that argues against both of them? --Jsolinsky 04:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing the "reasons for the conflict" section 

message: I have heard of the Irgun and the Stern Gang but I am not aware of any Arab Militias. Can anyone provide a link? -- Anonymous
::First of all, please sign your entries.  Second of all, give me a break.  The Jordanian Legion was a highly organized and trained military unit, commanded in part by British officers.  Without question, among Arab military forces the Jordanian military has the most to be proud about in the wars against Israel, both from the point of view of conduct and accomplishments.  Many of the Jewish/Israeli communities were attacked by Arab irregulars, i.e., people with guns and a cause.  In at least one known case, soldiers from the Jordanian Legion prevented rape and massacre by these mobs  By and large the irregulars were roundly defeated, and even when they weren't, the Israelis put up resistance way out of proportion to the odds.  As for being "highly prejudicial" to Palestinian nationalism, it's hard to see how blowing up discos, pizzerias, restaurants, shooting at random cars, stabbing random individuals, etc., helps.  --Leifern 19:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Most of the attacks by local Palestinian groups are simply identified as "arab militias". For example:
::On December 10, 1947, Arab militias attacked a convoy bringing food and water to Gush Etzion, and killed ten Jews.
:Abdul Khader al-Husseini was a famous (and very successful) leader of the Arab militias in and around Jerusalem. If you are interested in this subject you could research and write an entry about him. He was effective in leading and coordinating a series of attacks that made it extremely difficult for Jews to get food and supplies to Jerusalem during the months leading up to Israeli independence. His death on April 9th or 10th of 1948, seems to have been a big loss for the Arabs.
:Also the Arab Legion attacked numerous Jewish settlements before Israeli independence (see, for example, Kfar Etzion massacre), but I wouldn't call them a militia. Although in this and many other instances, they acted together with arab militias, those militias remain poorly documented.
:There is a good reason for this. Whereas Jewish terrorists like those in Irgun and Lehi often bragged about their exploits, even to the point of exagerating casualties (see Deir Yassin massacre), and claimed some credit for the ultimate result of the war, most Arab participants in the war consider it to be a catastrophe (Nakba). They are unlikely to brag about their role in the war. Also, written accounts of thousands of Arab militiamen shooting civilians and raping women would be highly prejudicial to the cause of Palestinian nationalism.
:Here is a time line of events from December 1947 to March 1948, including numerous Arab attacks. Since it contains factual errors that are both pro-Arab and pro-Israeli, I suppose it satisfies some defintion of NPOV :) --Jsolinsky 15:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish and Arab militias? 

message: I made some minor changes to certain sections.  I changed the Israeli viewpoint on Muslim law section to show that Palestinian Christians themselves regard the creation of Israel as the cause of the diminishment of their community.  I also took out the part that said "considered by many to be a pre-emptive strike" since it was a pre-emptive strike.  My edits were reverted within 20 minutes by an anon ip.  If you wish to revert my edits, please revert edits on specific sections and not the whole version.Yuber(talk) 17:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about Palestinian Christians is not off-topic.  That paragraph contains a Pro-Israeli argument about the numbers of Christians dropping being a result of Muslim persecution.  It is very relevant to that paragraph that Palestinian Christians themselves think that it is Israel responsible for their decline.  I have re-added that edit for now, as for the others I will check other articles to see what I can reinstate.Yuber(talk) 21:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I have added two more sources.  One of them is a Christian zionist source that talks about Palestinian Christian revisionism and how Palestinian Christians blame Israel for their problems.  It also says that Palestinian Christian theology cannot be disconnected from Palestinian nationalism.  In reality, the sentence should say "most" but I kept it as "many".  However, your reasoning that it is a minority view is very POV.Yuber(talk) 19:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Your removal of the part about the Anglican bishop is blatant censoring of information.  I will reinstate that part and then address your points.Yuber(talk) 02:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I just added a source from the American Jewish Committee that says that Christian groups around the world hold Israel responsible for the diminishment of the Palestinian Christian community.  This refutation has to stay in order for the section to be NPOV.  You can't claim that I'm using biased sources as it is the AJC that has recorded this, not a Pro-Palestinian source.Yuber(talk) 19:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Here is the exact quote from the AJC:
Mainline denominations increasingly relied on churches in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza as a primary source of information and spent time with Palestinian Christian counterparts during frequent visits to the Holy Land. Many viewed Israeli military operations as an attack on their Palestinian Christian brethren and, hence, on peaceful Christian communities. They also held Israel largely responsible for the shrinking Palestinian Christian population in the region.Yuber(talk) 19:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, it's marginally close to the topic, once it has been NPOVd; unfortunately his summary of the source, as usual, didn't actually match what the source said.  Nevertheless, since Yuber is so desperate to find anything at all to support his POV, and this is the best he can come up with, I think we should try to accomodate him. What do you think? I've edited his insertion to actually match the source in a NPOV way, let me know. Jayjg (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "best I can come up with" is a direct reference to Christians holding Israel responsible for the shrinking Palestinian Christian population.  Not to mention it was from the American Jewish Committee, so none of your usual labeling of my sources as  "hate-sites".  If you are going to suppress this source as well, then it is clear to me that you are not committed to the NPOV policy.  In any case, that information was included to refute an Israeli claim.Yuber(talk) 20:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Sigh. It only took a couple of minutes for you to add some completely unsourced claims again to that properly sourced, though improperly summarized, claim.  Yuber, please do not insert information which is not supported by sources.  There is no evidence that the claim that Muslims are responsible for oppressing Israeli is "widely disputed" by anyone; in fact, you have yet to bring a source which even comments on it. As for the "best you can come up with", it was indeed some American Protestant denominations which held Israel largely (note, not completely) responsible, which is why, though it didn't actually comment on the claim that Muslims suppression was (perhaps also) responsible, it was at least almost relevant, and why it was left in (after the obvious need to make your text actually reflect its source). Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: How could your finally bringing an on-topic source destroy my argument?  My argument was that you hadn't brought relevant sources, which was correct.  Remember, the Talk: page is not a place for re-enacting the conflict; we are not here to decide which side is correct, but merely to quote correctly sourced and relevant material.  I'm quite pleased you have at long last found some relevant material to add, it helps bring balance to the article.  This source actually discusses the argument that Islamic fundamentalism has led to the emgration of Christian Arabs.  Please use this source as an example in the future for the kinds of sources which are relevant and on topic. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, all the sources were relevant.  Dr. Bernard Sabella is dismissing your unfounded argument.  But even if you are quite pleased, Guy Montag has just removed all the sources and the quotes that were worked to a compromise.Yuber(talk) 21:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, I haven't made any argument here; the article simply quoted a properly sourced argument saying the cause is Islamic fundamentalism. Please stop personalizing this.  As for the rest, Guy clearly explained why these sources were not relevant; some were dead, most were off topic. I explained that as well, so your claim about "compromise" was illusory. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the sentence "this claim is disputed" along with the 5 sources that blame Israel (and not the PLO) for the diminishment of the Christian population is NPOV.Yuber(talk) 21:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: But the section isn't about that, it's presenting arguments regarding the effects of Islamic fundamentalism and Muslim law; as such, arguments pitting the PLO against Israel cannot possibly be included here, since the PLO is a nominally secular organization.  I urge you to remove this sentence, since it is not only off topic for this section, but also indicates yet another complex revert 3RR violation. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some minor changes

message: I replaced the embattled Yom Kippur War section with summary language from the Yom Kippur War page. The notion that Israel's victory in the war is a direct consequence of American assistance is one that I hadn't heard before. If true, something should probably be written about it on the Yom Kippur War page, and citations provided there. Reguardless, I am highly sceptical that US aid was of such magnitude that it belongs in a three sentence summary of the war. (I'm not disputing that the 1973 war was a textbook example of Cold War politics, but a) that's not what the old language said and b) I still don't it belongs in a three sentence summary of the conflict.) --Jsolinsky 03:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no surprise there; it was part of a huge unsourced POVing introduced by a User:Alberuni sockpuppet last December: Jayjg (talk) 04:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yom Kippur War 

message: Theres a section in the text that refers to "Jewish refugees from Arab nations and Arab-controlled areas of Palestine".
The most prominent definition of refugee in wikipedia is:
:a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion... and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.
I agree it occurred in mass numbers, but refugees? When people moved to the Americas during the colonisation they weren't refugees because their religious rights were restricted in Europe but not in the New World (or were they?). My point is, wasn't the Jewish exodus voluntary because although they were persecuted, they had no intention of returning. In otherwords I'm suggesting it might have been emigration. I note that Emigration says ethnic cleansing is one push reason for emigration.
Compare this to Palestinian refugees who had the intention of returning. Even after the Arabs lost the 1948 war, they cannot possibly return. I think many would agree that a fair few would want to return even though an Arab victory over Israel is particularly unlikely.
Using the same word for both in this article is slightly misleading as it suggests equal or similar circumstances. Particularly unfair as being a refugee doesn't fit in with the original Zionist "returning home" idea.
In summary my arguments:
*Arab Jewish exodus was voluntary and had no intention of return so emigration
*Jews in a fair few places still could return (if the original person who emigrated/refugeed is still alive)
*Palestiniain refugees had intention of returning but cannot
Just in case anyone's preparing a flaming reply, I'm asking this out partly of ignorance (not knowing any arguments against). If I was 100% sure I was right and no way of being convinced otherwise I'd have already made the changes. -- Tomhab 16:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term refugee is consistently used with respect to conditions in the country of origin, not the country of destination. So yes, the Pilgrims have many times been characterized as refugees because they fled a place where they faced persecution and "took refuge" in a place where they did not. Many, if not most refugees have no intention of returning to the land they came from, and willingly choose to leave behind the place where they were persecuted. Not many people would want to return to a place where they felt they had been be persecuted. The Palestinians are the exception to this, in a large part because they have an expectation that they will be able to change the nature of Israel as a primarily Jewish state simultaneous with their return. --Jsolinsky 09:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I was more questioning the status as a refugee but didn't realise it only meant some of the jews (I thought it meant every jew that wanted to go to israel rather than those expelled). My mistake. Although palestinians refugees endure harder times calling all of the jewish refugees emigrants would, imho be unfair -- Tomhab 16:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Jews didn't just "leave" Arab countries, they were forced out by persecution and in some cases expulsion.  They suffered greatly when they arrived; the initial conditions were no better than what faced the Arab refugees.  The subsequent difference is due to the fact that Israel integrated them into Israeli society, whereas Arab countries (except Jordan) kept them as refugees for political purposes. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish refugees 

message: I tried to put some organization in place without messing with the content, but it is clear that the "reasons for the conflict" section is unreadable for anybody seeking to understand what is going on.  It makes it entirely unclear which reasons are generally believed and which are not as generally accepted as consensus views.  Even worse, many of the "reasons" include arguments, counter-arguments, and debates in a way that often invalidates their own internal consistancy.  The pages are so full of allegations and fuzzy words that the information content is very low, and the set of arguments on the page borders on original research, since they are not tied to any outside sources.  I would propose that we take a bit of time to try and develop a way to make this page more useful and readable in the future.  To that end, I wanted to suggest a few possibilities:
*Proposal 1: Every "reason for the conflict" needs to be backed up with some sort of outside source that actually states that this is a reason for the conflict. Even better, these cites should come from something reputible, "Foreign Affairs," "Foreign Policy," or an author with some credentials.  Enough people have written about this conflict that we should not have to construct our own arguments from scratch, and it is clear that many of the editors here are well read.  We would cut issues that are not backed up.
*Proposal 2: We work in teams to rebuild the page.  I would propose that we entirely rewrite the Israeli viewpoint and the Arab viewpoint from blank paper.  We limit each side to 15 kilobytes and no more than 5 "reasons." If we really want to embrace the spirit of NPOV, we could have people draft the opposite argument from their viewpoint.  For example, Jayjg and Guy (or whomever) would write the Arab viewpoint, and Yuber and Irishpunktom write the Israeli viewpoint on some scratch page, then we exchange the content.  We would then have a new, and hopefully coherent, section to work from, as well as a Wikixperiment(tm).
*Proposal 3: We leave the page as is, but we at least start trying to make the tone of each section consistant, and spend some time attaching facts (like the poll numbers and NY Times quotes I added).  Better to edit down for awhile rather than just adding new reasons.
I hope none of this sounds too naive, but it would be great to actually make this page work, so feel free to add your own suggestions as well. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Commendable. I support Proposal 3. The page reads like a diatribe at the moment. The section supposedly on Arab viewpoints, for example, is full of counter-arguments! --Ian Pitchford 09:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and a Proposal

message: The article quoted Nasser's May 26, 1967 speech to the Trade Unionists as follows:
: If war starts our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.
The article had a link to a translated transcript of Nasser's speech on the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.  There is also a translation in Laquer/Rubin's Israeli-Arab Reader, and the texts are very close.  What Nasser actually said that day was:
: If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.
The BBC broadcast of June 5, 1967, omits the crucial context "If Israel emarks on an agression..." and is therefore not reliable.  I have deleted the reference to it and to the New York Times article.  There is simply no reason to reference secondary sources about what Nasser said that day when the full transcipt of the speech is so readily available.
In the 1967 war summary, I have supplied the context, which shows that Nasser was clearly expecting Israel to launch the first blow.  In the Arab Hostility section of the article, I have simply corrected the text.  I'll leave it up to others to decide if the corrected quote is sufficiently demonstrative of Arab irrationality and hatred to be worth keeping in the collection.
I will point at that this is the only quote in the Arab Hostility section that I have been able to trace an primary source, and I have found it to be  misleading as presented.  This does not give me much confidence to the other quotes in that section, all of which are referenced only to Zionist advocacy literatare.  Those who believe that Arab hostility can be demonstrated by "statements made by Arab leaders during and preceding the wars" would strengthen their case by finding primary sources for the quotes in this section.
Brian Tvedt 05:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy: Nasser's "basic objective" statement misquoted 

message: The article's getting very long;  can I suggest a possible split along the lines of the "history" and "reasons" article?  At least the second, and perhaps the both, could be split out into sub-articles and summarised here.  Alai 03:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: I think this section need a little more information in following sentences:
"Israel maintains that it offered to return the Golan Heights to Syria and the Sinai Peninsula (including the Gaza Strip) to Egypt in exchange for peace treaties and various concessions". This sentence needs information on those various concessions. If they are significant, they should be mentioned, if not, it should be "various minor concessions".
"Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian President at the time, proposed negotiations towards peace with Israel in the early 1970s but Israel refused the offer, claiming that it held unreasonable preconditions." What were the preconditions? The reader should be given possibility to decide whether the preconditions were indeed unreasonable. --Heptor 14:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more information on Reasons for conflict -> Israeli views -> Israel is forced... 

message: About 70% of the text under this seems to be Zionist views:
"Their opponents argue"
"Critics of this position argue"
"However, supporters of the Israeli position maintain"
"Supporters of the Israeli position note"
"Finally, Israel's supporters argue"
"Opponents of this viewpoint"
"The detractors of this argument"
"The supporters of Israel argue"
"Others, particularly some Israelis, claim that these statements betray a hidden agenda"
The other 30% seems to be what Zionists imagine are "Palestinian and other Arab views".
There is not much that sounds like it was written by Palestinians.
I think most intelligent readers will smell the blatant Zionist bias.
And if they bother to look at the "Talk" pages, they will see how the bias comes about, and who is behind it.
24.64.166.191 04:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll probably find you get better results if you assume good faith. Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that the article has a heavy pro-Israel slant.  But the only way it will ever improve is if people with other views contribute.  Find the most objectionable part and fix it.  It's got a long way to go towards providing a truly balanced account of the conflict, but if we all chip away little by little it will get there. Brian Tvedt 01:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian and other Arab views 

message: The caption on the map :"Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state". How is this neutral or unbiased? Any objection to adding the "Palestinian's right of return" to this caption?24.64.166.191 05:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to insert "Palestinian's right of return" as it is a euphemism for expression "destruction of Israel as a Jewish state". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats POV, just as "Israel's right..." is. The refugee question is certainly central to the conflict. Oh, and you do realise your argument could be spun around to ""Israels right..." is just a eupemism for Israels refusal to allow the refugees their right to return"? --Cybbe 06:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: When you complained about this same thing last May 25, perhaps you failed to notice one response: This article is only going to improve if people make beneficial edits to it, but I'm surprised to see complaints about a Zionist POV direct towards the caption for a map that clearly shows the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as being separate from Israel. --Jsolinsky 16:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state 

message: Given the discussion of the difference between 1949 and 1967 borders (or armistice lines), I thought it was worth pointing out that there were actually agreed-to border changes between Egypt and Israel  in Gaza that amounted to 43 square kilometers net gain for the Gaza Strip during this period.  An article that discusses the difference, and trouble with "1949 borders" is here, from Haaretz. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find!  For me, this URL works, but not the one given. Belongs in the armistice lines article I guess - there's none on the June 4 lines, and probably shouldn't be; needs a section on the differences.   Interesting Israeli usage of "internationally recognized borders"  Last couple paragraphs are a bit confusingly written, maybe translation problem - Bush wasn't "surprised by" the "49 borders" he surprised everybody by using the words. Also interesting for Arieli to prefer to the SC 242 June 4 Lines over the armistice.  Israel is starting to sound like Hafez al-Assad!John Z 13:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Borders

message: Jayjg: Rather than getting into an edit war over the choice of words ("entered" or "invaded"), I'd prefer to discuss the matter with you.  I have two questions at the end, which I would like you to answer directly.
I find it absurd to speak of "invading Palestine" for the simple reason that most of the residents of Palestine welcomed the "invaders", who were fighting on their behalf.  But let me address your comparison to Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
Lebanon in 1982 was an internationally recognized state with well-defined borders.  Israel's invasion was therefore a violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.  Since you're saying the situations are comparable, that means you recognize that Palestine was a recognized, sovereign state with well-defined borders, even after the termination of the British Mandate.  If that's the case, one could argue that if anyone was violating the territorial integrity of Palestine, it was the Jewish Agency, who did so by declaring a new state within it.  (The endorsement of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly was of course not binding.)
The questions I have for you now are:
# Was Palestine or was it not a recognized, sovereign state with well-defined borders at the moment the British Mandate ended?
# Did the Jewish authorities in Palestine intend their new state to be defined only within the areas alloted to the Jewish state in the Partition Plan, or did they intend to create their state in a larger area?
Brian Tvedt 11:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the Arab League "invade" Palestine in 1948? 

message: This section seems rather unfair. While the section above speaks of outside sources critiquing and supporting the Muslim treatment of minorities, the section on the Israeli treatment of Minorities is almost entirely from the mouth of Zionist beliefs. Far too many sentences start with "the zionist belief is..." or something to that effect. There is no critique of Israeli treatment of minorities. There needs be some balance in that section. I would even suggest deleting it, since all it adds is politicized information. Admiralakbar 05:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can all of the people residing in parts of Israel vote to leave, and make, say, the west bank or Jerusalem, its own nation? Does any minority group living in, or traveling to, Israel have the same rights for obtaining settlement lands and funds? Are they forced to have badges like stars, or separate license plates? Can 100,000 moslems, or 100,000 mormons (for that matter), get the same benefits as 100,000 jews, to move into settlements? Yes, they are treated "fairly" well, if dhimmi are treated fairly well, by the same yardstick.... which seems to mean the same way blacks were treated in the south during the 60s. Ronabop 11:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ehm, the Arabs in the West Bank are not a minority in Israel, as they are living in a territory occupied by Israel. In any case, minorities do not neccesarily have the right to create separate states on their land. AFAIK the Israeli Arabs indeed do not have the right to move to the settlements, that is what I meant by "relativly". Jews that are moving to Israel automatically get Israeli citizenship. Other european nations do the same: Somebody who can prove that he has some German anscestry can move to Germany any time, this applies to many Russians with German origin. Non-Jews may not move to Israel at any time, but neither are they a minority in Israel. To sum up, you are talking about people who are not a minority in Israel, and in any case are not mistreated. --Heptor 14:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're new at this.  Most of the self-proclaimed "supporters of Israel" on Wikipedia will not admit that the West Bank is occupied by Israel.  The reason is that the Fourth Geneva Convention limits what an occupier can do, and it explicitly prohibits much of what Israel is doing there: the settlements, the deportations, using the West Bank aquifier to supply water to Israel proper, and so on.  This is a hugely important issue that is not treated well in this article (yet). Brian Tvedt 02:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli Treatment of Minorities 

message: :For the nineteen years from the end of the Mandate until the Six-Day War, Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip. In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank, but this annexation was recognized only by the United Kingdom. Both territories were conquered (but not annexed) from Jordan and Egypt by Israel in the Six-Day War. Neither Jordan, Egypt, or Israel during their respective periods of control ever allowed the creation of a Palestinian state in these territories.
Problems with this:
# There is debate raging elsewhere in WP about whether on not the word "occupation" is neutral, but it is certainly POV to use it for Jordan and Egypt but not Israel.
# It is false to say that Egypt "never allowed the creation of a Palestinian state".  There was in fact a short-lived All-Palestine Government based in Gaza.  It was supposed to represent all of Palestine.  The effort faltered largely because of King Abdullah's claim to Palestine, which nearly got Jordan thrown out of the Arab League.  This is why the PLO called for the overthrow of the Hashemite Kingdom prior to the Rabat summit of 1974.  By the way there are definitely quotes from Nasser before June 5, 1967 referring to the "rights of the Palestinian people". (unsigned by User:Brian Tvedt)
:# I don't like the word myself, let's use one of its synonyms (rule, control, etc). 
:# In 1948, both Egypt and Jordan wanted to spread their infulence onto as much territory as possible, preferably the entire ex-Mandate territory. We can reword the text (for example to include Nasser's quote) but the fact is, no independent Palestinian state was established by either. "A key feature of the Arabs' plans was the complete marginalization of the Palestinians... This aptly reflected the political reality: The military defeats of April-May had rendered them insignificant. The Arab League through the first half of 1948 had consistently rejected Husseini's appeals to establish a government-in-exile... Under strong pressure from Egypt, which feared complete Hashemite control over the Palestinians, the League Political Committee in mid-September authorized the establishment of a Palestinian 'government.'" (Benny Morris, Righteous Victims 1999. p.222). 
:# I'd be happy to discuss 1974 but since the Six Day War changed a lot, I propose to leave it out of this talk. The Palestine National Charter of 1964 (Article 24) states: "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area." ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your original edit did bring in post-1967 events, by referring to the "respective periods of control" not only of Jordan and Egypt, but of Israel as well.  Since you inserted it into the historical timeline at the 1948-1956 interregnum, better to leave Israel out of it. Brian Tvedt 01:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humus sapien's copy-paste