Talk:Struggle over Palestine

For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

---

I disagree with the vote to delete this page. I do not understand the reasoning.

Policy is that info should be preserved.

This deletion smacks of censorship.

The occupation of Palestine and Israeli occupation of Palestine articles are as accurate and neutral as I can make them. If anyone can point out any sections which are inaccurate or biased, please do so. That would be better than simply eliminating the articles.

The info in those articles has not, AFAIK, been moved into Arab-Israeli conflict or any other suitable article. Until it has been, a summary REDIRECT is out of line. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, there is nothing stopping you from moving this contents yourself, definitely not the fact that the page is now a redirect. Please clean after your own mess. Gadykozma 15:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't see why this page should be a redirect. That option got only 29% of the votes - far less than a consensus.
2. The usual practice is: move the info first, then replace the old article with a redirect.

If you're trying to impose your will and disregard the vote, I may have to report this to the, er, authorities here. Please don't make me do this; I'd rather work with you then see you get admonished, or worse, banned. --Uncle Ed 15:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The consensus was quite clear Ed; get rid of the content, either by pure delete or by re-direct (see Cecropia's comments on the Vote to Delete talk page). You've gone off on your own tangent here with an entirely new article (make that pair of articles), and now appear to be abusing your admin status in order to enforce your preferred solution. It is you who is imposing your will and disregarding the vote, and any consequences which devolve from that might well be applied to you as a result. Jayjg 15:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, Jay, and I will withdraw from any article edits whatsoever for the indefinite future. I consider myself chastened. --Uncle Ed 16:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, there was not a clear consensus to "get rid of the content":

• Delete (18)
• Redirect (4)
• Redirect or Delete (1)
• Keep (13)
• and Ed's vote to move.

That's 23-14, and a good number of the people who said "redirect" were objecting to the title and the separation, not to what it said, and were explicitly suggesting that Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the right place to take this up. -- Jmabel 17:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, you somehow missed 8 votes for "redirect and protect", which makes 31-14. That's almost 70%, which is considered a consensus for this purpose. Gadykozma 19:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By "get rid of the content" I meant there would be no independent "Occupation of Palestine" page; i.e., the "Occupation of Palestine" page itself would have no content, whether it was simply deleted or whether it was a re-direct. There was a large majority in favour of this; in fact, the consensus was quite clear, as I stated. Incorporating the content back into the original Israeli-Palestinian conflict was of course, always an option; indeed, as a person who voted delete, I suggested doing so several times, on the very day I put up the VfD notice. Anyone can contribute content to any page, whenever they like. However, this is not relevant to the vote itself, which is really about what happens to Occupation of Palestine as an independent page, and not about the ultimate fate of the content in it. Attempts to characterize this vote in a narrowly legalistic sense ("delete" vs. all other options) are disingenuous at best; I encourage all editors to re-read Cecropia's comments under Consensus demonstrated in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine on the topic. Jayjg 18:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to have this page. The issues being described are either about the Arab-Israeli conflict, about the Palestinian Authority, or about some other number of issues. The term "occupation" is inherently problematic as a location of an article, and the issues being described here don't naturally all fit together, IMO. --Delirium 18:10, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I made the final choice to keep this article. I did not read the debate, but the box listed votes as being 18 delete, 13 keep, and 12 redirect. There was no consensus to do anything, thus the article had to be kept. While some might argue there was consensus on the middle option because "25-18 voted against deletion" or "31-13 voted against keeping." I consider it a very bad idea to choose the option with the fewest total votes because of a failure to reach consensus. If this became standard practice almost every contentious article would end up being redirected. We have many VfD votes along the lines of 5 delete votes, 3 keep, and 1 redirect. If what is being proposed became standard behaviour all of these would be redirected, despite it being an unpopular option. We must respect that 31 people, for one reason or another, felt that a redirect was not appropriate. I am also certain that this page will appear on VfD again in the future. If at that time consensus is reached towards deletion I shall gladly delete it, or if the consensus is to redirect I shall with equal delight create a redirect. Until that time, however, the wiki system has decided this article should stay. - SimonP 16:10, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oh no you don't. It's a fairly safe conclusion that most, if not all, of those who wanted to delete the article would want it redirected instead of being kept as is. It'd be patently illogical to do otherwise. The wiki has decided, 31-13, that this article should go, and no amount of wiggling on your part (short of another vote, or an alternative consensus here) will change that. Sometimes we lose deletion votes. It sucks. Deal with it. Ambi 22:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dislike your accusation that I somehow like this article or am in favour of keeping it. I do believe in the VfD process, however, and for many months now I have not been counting deletion votes as being in favour of redirection. I am not going to suddenly change because some people feel a certain vote has gone against them. If you want this page deleted or redirected relist it on VfD and hope for another outcome. Others who have objected to the results on close votes, such as for European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics, have taken that route rather than debase themselves by engaging in edit wars. - SimonP 17:42, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

SimonP, I think you do need to read the page. A number of people have stated explicitly that if there's no majority for delete, redirect is their second choice; There is a section that suggests this interpretation (i.e. that delete should count towards redirect) that was there during most of the voting stages and raised no objections; etc. In short, your interpretation is uninformed. Gadykozma 18:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

KEEP ARTICLE, END OCCUPATION AND COME INTO SENSES

irismeister 18:39, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC) (first we occupy, then we delete article on occupation, then what?) When the occupation will end (it's really a matter of when) we'll see about this occupation of Palestine page being deleted. In the mean time, what's the point in deleting a page on occupation, when occupation continues? Are we believing our own lies? Poor us!

Proposal

The current redirect is POV and unhelpful. It equates Occupation of Palestine to the current conflict, which is inaccurate. I propose that it should become instead a disambiguation page, pointing to both History of Palestine for previous occupations and Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the current positions. The page is currently protected, and I believe it would be an abuse of sysop powers for me to edit it. As soon as it can be unprotected let's give this a try. Andrewa 09:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with that but you really should ask the other side. BTW, see my "special disambig" text on Hebrew Bible, maybe you can use it here too. Gadykozma 09:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this in principle. However, I agree only on the basis that this stays a disambiguation page. I don't want to have to have this discussion every time another POV warrior comes along and wants to make this a rant page. Ambi 10:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with all three of you :-) --Uncle Ed

You guys can do whatever you want with the page, but leave it alone until saturday PST. Thanks for understanding. Christopher Mahan 16:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm under Martha Stewart-style house arrest until Monday, confined to my lovely estate in the Hamptons. Me only haunt talk pages till then. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because Ed's been so conciliatory, I'm happy to leave the article as it is. However, I strongly disapprove of Chris' unwanted and unrequested attempt at playing arbitrator. Ambi 01:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually did ask him to arbitrate, though he said he wouldn't, so I am not sure how he defines his current activities. Gadykozma 01:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another compromise attempt

How about putting discussions on the term occupation under the title Occupation (Israeli-Palestinian discourse)? Gadykozma 02:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Ambi 05:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, relax. I meant an article describing how the term occupation is used by Israeli and Palestinians, which is what Pir, Node and Ed wanted, if I understood them correctly. Gadykozma 12:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, Node and Ed, in opposition to myself and thirty other Wikipedians. Sometimes the consensus goes against you. Tough. I don't think the disambiguation idea was too objectionable, however. Ambi 12:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, those 30 Wikipedians (including myself, if you remember) objected to the text as it stood with that title. Not to the very idea of discussing occupation on Wikipedia. Gadykozma 12:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Create the thing, and we'll have another vote. Happy? Ambi 12:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, threatening should come after an attempt to negotiate. Please state your objections to such an article so we can refer to them (and see also my reply to pir below). Thanks. Gadykozma 13:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not threatening. I'm just not keen to go through this again. Ambi 22:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Me neither. Jayjg 02:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a good attempt, but we should agree on some guidelines first, so that everybody's concerns are addressed. I suggest the following principles:

• the article is not to be an alternative account of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may include a brief summary of the conflict and should refer to that article ;
• the different meanings and definitions (as far as they are relevant to the article) of "occupation" and "Palestine" should be explicitly stated ;
• all the main different views of the concept of "Occupation of Palestine" should be described (NPOV), attributed to named people/political movements/organisations/institutions, and sources provided ;
• criticisms/responses addressed at these views by opponents should also be described, attributed and sourced.

Feel free to criticise and improve these. - pir 13:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, your 3rd & 4th points make this quite similar to the Occupation of Palestine. I had in mind a more discourse analysis page than a political one. It's difficult for me to explain exactly because I'm not a humanist myself. However, one thing for sure, the last thing we want is something similar to the "views" section of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That might be a solution for POV wars (and it might formally comply with Wikipedia NPOV policy) but it is disasterous for the reader. It conveys the information in a way which is almost impossible to read, and adds no insight to what you could get from the five o'clock news.

So, pir, do you like this views section? Gadykozma 13:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think the problem with the Arab-Israeli conflict article is the organisation, it is just split in two halves. But the content itself is important and not that bad. I think for that particular page, it would have been much better to contrast the two views item by item (e.g. by chronology of historic events). I don't really understand what you mean by "discourse analysis", but note that analysis itself cannot be NPOV because you can only analyse something based on a certain world view and certain political assumptions. MAybe you could explain how you envisage this? - pir 13:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, about the views section, yes it would be much better arranged by topics. Maybe we can get to it after a vacation of 2-3 months.

About this paper, what I don't want is discussion whether or not Israel occupies and what. Not even as an exchange of quotes. Not because its POV - because it is just plain boring. Spreading this kind of material over endless pages will make the reader leave Wikipedia. It should be concentrated on a few select pages, like the Arab-Israeli conflict. Smaller pages (not in the sense of length, Deir Yassin massacre is not short, just specific) should concentrate on bringing to the reader information he does not have.

So, I am only really familiar with the discourse of the Israeli left, but here the term occupation is used in many interesting ways (like the link I sent you ;-)) and I think that it can be expanded to an interesting section. Could you find interesting uses of the term occupation on the Palestinian side? Gadykozma 14:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean now. Could be very interesting. Need to ponder the question. - pir 14:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't figure out what this page is going to look like any more. Jayjg 02:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, what I have in mind is to somehow make a coherent article that will contain facts like these:

• Yeshayahu Leibowitz was the first to warn that occupation might lead to moral corruption. (Actually, I might start by translating his page in the Hebrew Wikipedia).
• Menachem Begin removed the term "occupied territories" from the official media (I really need more info on this piece of trivia. when? why? what was the replacement? what were public reactions?)
• Stop occupation [די לכיבוש] is an important left NGO in Israel

etc. I know it doesn't come together to something coherent yet, but I hope it might have some potential. Does this help at all? Gadykozma 03:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the article supposed to explain? What area of knowledge will it cover? Jayjg 03:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is supposed to be a discourse analysis article, i.e. an article that explains how people use terms, expressions, what is their cultural and political meaning etc., for occupation. Gadykozma 03:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've gotten a lot of mileage out of a "definitions of..." series of articles which I've created. The Definitions of Palestine article has stood the test of time, and has NOT ONCE had an edit war problem.

It's because it's an article which is only about the various definitions of terms. There are no factual discussions in it, so no 'accuracy disputes'. And so far, everyone has been happy to see "the way THEY use the word" defined in black and white.

So maybe we need a Definitions of occupation page. Since I'm still making delicious pastries and finger food with Martha Stewart at her Hamptons estate, I can't create the article; but house arrest should be ending for me, any day now.

• Occupation of a territory means military control by a sovereign nation of land outside of its recognized borders.
• An illegal occupation is similar control which the UN or other nations generally declare to be against international law.

If the info in the above bullet points is already at Occupation then maybe we don't need it. But these are just MY definitions. And I'm no expert on anything. --Uncle Ed 01:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but it would (or should) probably be covered at Occupation, I'd think. Ambi 01:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definitions of Palestine has had it's share of reverts, and has probably only not been involved in an edit war because very few people have found it. It lacks definitions of Palestine pre-1917 and 1917-1922, which are quite important, and misses the 1923 Golan Heights transfer. Jayjg 02:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, just start writing under your user space and leave a link here. Martha will be pleased. Gadykozma 03:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We made some lovely lace doilies Sunday night, so I was released on parole. I'm back to editing articles again; want to be my parole officer? ;-) --Uncle Ed

Factual Inaccuracies ??

Many countries

Many countries do not recognize Israel as a nation, so the non-Gaza, non-West Bank, non-Jordanian parts of Palestine are seen by some as "occupied territory".

Hmmm....Israel is recognized by the the United Nations and many countries. The block of Islamic countries (Organization of the Islamic Conference) has a number of countries that do not have recognize or exchange diplomats with Israel. Yet a number of OIC countries, do including: Jordan, Egypt, Morocco. (Please note that Egypt recalled its ambassador but has not revoked the credentials of the Israeli ambassador to Egypt...kind of a both sides of the fence position.)

I would like to change the "many countries" to "some countries, particularly those of the Organization of the Islamic Conference". Lance6Wins 14:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, a fact! Yes, facts are always welcome. It's POV that causes so much fuss.... --Uncle Ed 17:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Based upon you note Uncle Ed, i'll go ahead and make that change. Lance6Wins 17:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I wont...seems that the page is protected.

Pilate to crucify Jesus

How about this one?

a fact which is significant for Christians because a fact which is significant for Christians because Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus.

Hmm...."a fact which is significant for Christians because Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus." is this a fact? It is certainly a religous belief and may well be recorded in the Gospels (with being able to provide chapter and verse, i won't say "is recorded"). Are we to declare Scripture to be factual? Whose scripture? What of scriptures that disagree, say Christian Bible and Muslim Koran? Could we delete these words from the article? If not, I would like to add factual material based upon Scripture. Lance6Wins 17:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Web search produced this, if someone could validate it?

Tacitus says (Annals 15:44): To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.--Jirate 19:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jirate, excuse me I was not clear in my statement. What basis do we have for this statement: "Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus". To the best of my knowlege the only source we have is Scripture and other writings based upon Scripture. Lance6Wins 19:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected

Lance asked me to either add the protected page notice, or unprotect the page. It poses a minor dilemma for me. I don't think it would be "fair" for me to add the "protected page notice", because:

• I would (technically) be "editing a protected page", as well as endorsing the protection of my own favored version of the article.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the page should be 'unprotected'...

Let's hear some discussion. Meanwhile, of course, if some other admin 'unprotects' the page that ought to settle it. --Uncle Ed 19:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, why don't I just 'unprotect' the occupation of Palestine article. I hope that no one will turn it into a redirect without first moving the info somewhere good. But why do I feel like I'm leaving my homework on a seat in the high school cafeteria? . . . --Uncle Ed 20:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The page is now unlocked. --Uncle Ed 20:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it for the time being, but you can always get the information out of the history. When do you plan to move the information, Ed? Ambi 23:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• 16:44, 28 Sep 2004 (hist) Occupation of Palestine/temp (some info which is crying out for integration - Who can merge it in a good place?) (New) [rollback] --Uncle Ed 19:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge, move, redirect, etc.

Thanks for bearing with me, Ambi. I'm not planning any sudden or swift changes. I'm still trying to get up to speed on what "Palestine" means, and how this affects the various proposals made for the disposition of Palestine.

I only found out this month, that the term Palestine had been redefined! It turns out everyone but me has known all along that Palestine no longer includes Jordan. So when people argue that "there ought to be a Palestinian state" for "Palestinians" they just naturally never consider Jordan. After all, it's not even IN the region!

I've been laboring (rather ineffectively) under the misapprehension that Palestine included Jordan. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say:

• the eastern portion of what used to be called "Palestine" is today's Jordan; and,
• the region that used to be called Jordan now consists of two distinct territories: (1) Jordan and (2) modern Palestine.

Either I'm behind the times, or someone's trying one of those "shifting ground" arguments. (It could be a bit of both...)

The key problem, still, seems to be the clash between two very appealing arguments:

1. that the Jewish people desire or even deserve a Jewish homeland; and,
2. that the non-Jewish residents of 'the region known from ancient times as Palestine' ALSO desire or deserve a homeland

What makes things a bit tricky to understand, is that so many people use the term Palestinians to mean NOT 'any resident of the region known from ancient times as Palestine' but ONLY a certain subset of that population (what some newspapers call "Palestinian Arabs"). --Uncle Ed 00:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where's THE Occupation?

Apparently everyone occupied Palestine but Israel.

Palestinian resistance is described as 'unrest in the area, variously described as a "war", an "uprising", a "terrorist campaign", or even "anarchy".

But Israeli occupation is just "varying degrees of military and administrative control".

Come on, guys. HistoryBuffEr 07:06, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

As I've said before, according to the people promoting this page Palestine is a region that can only be "Occupied". Every single country and group which has owned it and lived there is apparently an occupier. This means that both the Palestinians and Israelis are "occupying" it now. Jayjg 16:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Buff, I see your point: there's a double standard. So, help us out here and write an article on definitions of Palestinian resistance, in the form of resistance by X to occupation by Y.

• resistance by Palestinian Arabs to the Occupation of Palestine#Israel

Is this (a) the meaning you had in mind, and (b) the only significant meaning used outside of Wikipedia talk pages? --Uncle Ed 18:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Democratic?

What's "democratic" got to do with facts in the sentence "The democratic government of Israel and the PLO-dominated Palestinian Authority each claim a patchwork of areas" --- other than to bias the reader to favor the party with such attribute (also note the "PLO-dominated", apparently intended as a slur).

Not to mention the fact that a country that treats its minorities as dirt cannot be called democratic at all. HistoryBuffEr 07:12, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

The word "democratic" describes the government of Israel, and the word, "PLO-dominated" describes the PA. Where is the bias? --Viriditas 08:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It does have the appearance of poisoning/sweetening the well. Gazpacho 08:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd have to disagree. We don't say here that democracy is good and (whatever form of social system PLO runs) is bad. In dry encyclopedic manner we describe the factual difference in the form of governance between two neighboring territories. The rest is in your head, as they say. Another attempt by HB to discredit Israel. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's not fight. History Buff is correct about the connotations of democratic and PLO-dominated. When I wrote those words, I was conscious of favoring Israel's side because it is democratic; and of disliking the PLO. If someone thinks this is poisoning the well, they have every right to bring this up on the talk page.

Anyway, Ambi is probably going to REDIRECT the occupation of Palestine article to another page. And I have withdrawn my objections to that. --Uncle Ed 13:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, the alleged "connotations" of "democratic" and "PLO-dominated" exist in your mind. Regardless of what you or the troll known as HistoryBuffEr thought or favored, it is not biased to observe the structure of a government and state it as such. Aside from the democratic republic of Turkey in Anatolia, democracy is very rare in Arabia and the Near East, which makes it even more important to state it as such. --Viriditas 21:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Missing Occupations

We seem to be missing some occupations, the Crusades for one. Shall I add it? Lance6Wins 13:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I've been wondering (for years!) when someone was going to get around to pointing out that Christians (not only Jews) have thrown their military weight around, in the Holy Land. (I'm not sure why I didn't just bring it up myself...) --Uncle Ed 16:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changed "Historic occupations" to "Occupations prior to 1948". Added sections for Rome, Crusades, Ottoman Empire, Great Britain using the Main article: Crusade style that is common on country pages such as Jordan.

Why? so that the information regarding each occupation is in one place. that way we can not end up with pages contradicting each other...and there is a lot? of information that would have to be copied here otherwise. Lance6Wins 16:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

If anybody makes this page into a redirect, I would like them to state explicitly the reasons for doing so (reasons related to the content of the article, rather than any previous discussions), in reference to relevant Wikipedia policies if possible. - pir 13:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, Gad, Lance, Jay, Buff & everyone -- please see my new article on Definitions of Palestinian occupation. I hope it will (or can) make a few things clear. I tried as hard as I could to suck all the POV out of it, particularly my own POV. But I know from experince that the hardest bias to detect is that which I put into my own writing ("I thought that was a fact!"). --Uncle Ed 15:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Hashemites are Arabian tribal leaders, and hereditary rulers of Mecca and Hejaz there, who were kicked out of Arabia by the ibn Saud family, and were given 70% of Palestine and all of Iraq by the British in compensation. They are currently occupying that 70% of Palestine; your article says nothing about that. Jayjg 16:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should that info go in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, or in an un-redirected occupation of Palestine article, or . . . ? --Uncle Ed 16:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Or in Definitions of Palestinian occupation or in Palestine or in History of Palestine or in Jordanian occupation of Palestine or...? Who knows, once you break logically connected content up into a bunch of tiny overlapping articles, then there are all sorts of choices, none of them good. Jayjg 18:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You caught my attention with that. I'm actually against breaking up logically connected content into a bunch of overlapping articles. In fact, I heartily dislike overlap -- more so of late, since I read a book about refactoring computer software.

I like info to be in one place: the place where reader is most likely to look for it. Duplication should be minimized, because if you have multiple copies of the same info then you have to keep track of each copy so that when you update the info in one place you'll remember to update it in others.

The only excuse I can think of for overlap would be (a) as a temporary measure (b) to help us repair an article that's all tangled up somehow.

I'm trying to straighten out the tangles in the reporting about the events and viewpoints regarding the disposition of Palestine. I don't want to shred a good article into confetti. (Now, a nice hot plate of spaghetti would hit the spot about now! -- but that's another story ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just "caught your attention" with that right now? That was one of the primary reasons I objected to the "Occupation of Palestine" article in the first place! Jayjg 19:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Losing NPOV marbles to bullies

We have a handful of pro-Israeli extremists here holding entire sections of Wikipedia hostage to their whims.

• What most of the world says,
• What international laws say,
• What the UN charter and resolutions say,
• What the Israeli Supreme Court says,
• Even what their Fuehrer Sharon says

does not mean anything to these crybabies -- they want articles titled and written exactly as they say, or else this gang will incessantly mutilate, delete, redirect or revert articles until they get their way.

Are we going to keep compromising and handing over NPOV marbles to colicky bullies kicking up the sand because we don't want them upset? Or should we simply write what MOST OF THE WORLD agrees on and let them cry, as they will always do? After all, there are probably more Believers in Flat Earth than there are Deniers of Israel's Occupation. HistoryBuffEr

Thank you for demonstrating the argumentum ad populum. I think it's quite clear who is the bully, here.--Viriditas 03:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The big question now arises as to why User:HistoryBuffEr is now resorting to personal rantings rather than contributing facts and staying rational and logical rather then taking on arguments that sound like classical Anti-Semitism. Makes it sound like he would vote for the "Final Solution" if that was possible. IZAK 06:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you IZAK and Viriditas for answering the roll call and confirming my point. HistoryBuffEr 18:21, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Personal remarks

Let's not use any of the following phrases to describe other Wikipedians:

• troll
• crybabies
• colicky bullies kicking up the sand
• resorting to personal rantings rather than ... staying rational and logical

How about using phrases like these?

• Excuse me, I meant ...
• one of the primary reasons I objected

Thank you. --Uncle Ed 12:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would definately add gratuitous accusations of anti-Semitism, and even racist genocide to that list. It's an extremely offensive remark to most people, especially when made gratuitously, and it trivialises anti-Semitism and racism in general. It also qualifies as a personal attack, a violation of Wikipedia policy - pir 12:57, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right, of course. And the next step, if policy violators don't take the hint from Let's not, is to drop a notice on their user talk page. I just hate to do that, because (a) it's so time-consuming and (b) I tend to wander away from compliance with policy myself from time to time (Hi, Jayjg!). --Uncle Ed 13:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Instead of replacing large portions of text with entirely different text

HistoryBuffEr, I'm going to request again that instead of replacing large portions of text with entirely different texts, you please bring suggested changes here first for discussion. This has been perhaps the single most difficult problem with your edits ever since you joined Wikipedia. You know these pages are highly contentious at best, and contentious edits are best worked out on Talk: pages so that edit wars do not develop. I have yet to see you actually propose a change on any page before going ahead and making it, and this is, in my view, a recipe for continued strife. Jayjg 16:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It takes two to dance.

• When you post in Talk what you disagree with in my edits, instead of reverting the entire article, and
• When you post your edits to Talk for prior approval,

then you'll have some grounds to complain. HistoryBuffEr 18:26, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

My edits tend to be small in nature; a few words changed, or two or three sentences. Yours are wholesale replacements of entire articles with completely different texts. Wikipedia norms do not support replacing articles or sections with radically different texts, essentially completely contradicting everything that was there before, and then saying "O.K., now lets debate the new article". The existing articles have been arrived at through a long process of negotiation and compromise; you can't just pre-empt the Wikipedia discussion and debate process because you think the final product is POV, you have to work with it (and the existing editors) to produce NPOV. Jayjg 20:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Really? Facts are not on your side:

• I had posted my objections in Talk (see "Where's the occupation" and "Democratic?") before editing a small section of 6 short sentences.
• You had posted nothing in Talk before completely rewriting my much longer text.
• IZAK and Viriditas had reverted the entire article (to remove my text) several times without posting anything in Talk, but you didn't complain about that, did you?

Case closed, try peddling your hypocrisy elsewhere.

HistoryBuffEr 22:55, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

1. While you raised objections, you didn't actually propose new text.
2. Rather than simply deleting your POV text this time, in the spirit of compromise I NPOV'd it instead. I did not insert my own text.
3. Since your text was a wholesale POV re-write and insertion, as previously mentioned, it is not surprising that those editors did so.

As I've mentioned several times, if you try working with other editors, rather than doggedly insisting on inserting and reverting radically new texts without consultation, you will find the Wikipedia process much smoother. Indeed, case closed. Jayjg 02:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Er, would you both be willing to follow my example? Last week, I messed up. Gady and Jay both scolded me, and I took it. In fact, I voluntarily confined my edits to talk pages for the rest of that week. --Uncle Ed 17:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV or Zionist extremist POV?

Unlike the pro-Israel POV warriors who revert entire articles if they disagree with a single word, let's list some POV problems with the current version here first:

• "Occupation of Palestine is a controversial phrase"

Not controversial as far as most of the world is concerned. It may be controversial only for a few Zionist extremists.

If it wasn't controversial, there wouldn't be a controversy, let alone soap-box hate rant such as below. Somehow anything Jews do or wherever they live for the last couple of millenia causes "controversy". Isn't it amazing how they manage to be both vicious "Zionist extremists" and eternal victims at the same time? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Humus, could you please stop equating a particular political ideology with a particular ethnic-religious group? It is plain BS, factually and logically wrong. It can be seen as a poisoing of the well attack. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Having said that, HBE's constant references to "most of the world" are unhelpful too. There is obviously controversy about this term. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point is: There is a clear consensus in the world regarding most of the issues here. Wikipedia articles are based on consensus, so saying there is a "controversy" about something disputed by a tiny minority is POV and silly, just like saying that there is a controversy about whether the Earth is flat or not. Opposing opinions should be presented, but characterized appropriately and given space and prominence in proportion to the quantity and credibility of those holding such opinions.

In this particular example, deniers of occupation are a tiny minority and should be labeled as such and mentioned briefly, rather than given the weight and prominence of a widely held opinion. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

The issue here is the definition you put on "Palestine"; while much of the world agrees that there is an Occupation of Palestine, by "Palestine" they mean "West Bank and Gaza Strip". You, on the other hand, mean "Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip"; on this there is indeed a great deal of controversy, and your opinion is in the distinct minority. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• "Many Arabs and their allies use it as a description for the Israeli presence"

Actually "Arabs and their allies" comprise most of the world. The word "presence" is used only by a few Zionist extremists.

If you think the word is POV, please provide a NPOV term that is likely to be acceptable to all sides. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saying "most of the world" is like saying "everybody knows"; claims must be attributed. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• "When Israel and its allies hear this phrase ..."

What about when Palestinians hear the violent Israeli occupation called "Israeli presence"?

There is enough space for all relevant reactions to be described. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) Ditto. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point was that only one side was presented, thus the article is biased. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

So add the opposing view. That's the way Wikipedia works. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• "Israelis may also perceive this phrase as a hostile statement meant to paint them in a negative light and delegitimize them."

What about the euphemism "presence" delegitimizing Palestinian Arabs?

There is enough space for all relevant views to be described. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My point, again: only one side is presented, thus the article is biased. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

So add the opposing view. That's the way Wikipedia works. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Numerous occupation subentries.

This is apparently an effort to spam the article to bury the current occupation. As these subentries are ancient history they should go into something like History of Palestine occupations.

All of these articles are as legitimate as this one. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point was readability, not legitimacy. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Why are a series of sections on different Occupations not readable? Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Intifada, Separation Barrier, Road Map

This section is apparently intended to preempt the "Current status" section below. The entire section is written from an Israeli extremist POV.

Please provide examples. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• "Current status"

This section should actually be named "Current occupation", in line with the previous section discussing historic occupations.

Don't assume bad faith. Poisening th well attack. A violation of Wikipedia policy. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My point: All other historic occupations are called occupations, but the current occupation by Israel is not called occupation at all. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Ideally none of them should be called Occupations; it's part of the propaganda war being waged on various pages which will one day, with luck and good faith on all sides, be NPOVd. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most of the recent section edits by IZAK and Jayjg are written from an Israeli extremist POV. Some examples:

• "... because [Israelis] believe it was promised them in the Balfour Declaration or that Arabs lost these areas in a wars of aggression ... "

These are laughable propaganda excuses.

• Using Balfour as an excuse is a new joke to me. No one has the right to give away other people's land (see the U.N. Charter), plus Balfour only promised to help create a home for Jews in Palestine, not that the whole Palestine will belong to Jews.
• The war gains argument is equally silly as no territory can be forcibly gained under int'l law (see above).

If this is the strongest reasoning that can be provided to support the Zionist argument, then readers will conclude that it is a weak argument. Stating it is perfectly NPOV because it describes the views that are held, and it is not propaganda. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ditto; you can't NPOV their views, you can only present them. Also, Talk: pages are not for the purpose of debating the conflict itself, but for discussing ways the article can be improved. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point is: Views of some extremists are here presented as views of (all or most) Israelis, which is both inaccurate and POV. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Nonsense; the sentence clearly says "some Israelis" not "most or all Israelis". Some Israelis, the ones who feel the territories belong to Israel, do indeed feel that way. If you feel they have different reasons for feeling this way, please present them. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• "West Bank barrier, which generally follows close to the 1949 Armistice lines"

This is a bold lie. The wall does not and was never intended to follow even the 1967 lines (See Israel Says West Bank Wall Will Not Follow 1967 Boundary). And it cuts deeply into the future Palestinian state in many places, not just some.

Agreed. This should be changed. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look at the map on Israeli West Bank barrier; the existing barrier generally follows the 1949 Armistice lines. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Maps used in Palestinian schools:

Have you ever seen any Israeli maps claiming all of Palestine? I've seen many of those everywhere, here is just one example Map of Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which labels the West Bank as Judea and Samaria.

So, either mention maps of both sides or none at all.

Agreed. I think both are a bit trivial. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The entire section is devoid of any factual information about the occupation itself: the killings, the destruction, the oppression, the occupation colonies, etc.

Agreed. Should be mentioned, evidence attributed, supported by sources. If written in a NPOV manner. This should take up a space that is proportional to its relevance to the article. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And, of course, what we'll end up with is an article essentially identical to Israel-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I could go on and on, but in short: this article is obviously written from a Zionist POV and needs a major rewrite.

Just try to improve it in the manner laid out by the Wikipedia:NPOV policy. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And because this highly POV version was written by the resident Zionists they should disqualify themselves from further editing of this article and limit themselves to suggestions in Talk in the interest of Wikipedia. HistoryBuffEr 06:37, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Stop disenfranchising other Wikipedians. Everybody has a right to contribute, as long as they make an effort to write NPOV articles. Many editors have strong and sincerely-held opinions and these may taint their ability to write in a NPOV manner, but as long as they make an effort to write NPOV and compromise, that's OK. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My point was precisely that these highly biased contributors are not making any efforts towards NPOV and are persistently getting in the way of other people making this article NPOV. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

You keep accusing others of being "highly biased" and calling others names when in fact it is you yourself who is demonstrating great bias and an inability to write from a NPOV. Your point is refuted. --Viriditas 22:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, his point is confirmed by your "refutation". It seems that nobody is willing to even respond to the concrete points he has raised here, which would be the very least effort towards NPOV. - pir 23:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I respecfully disagree with your POV. His "points" consist of calling people names, distorting evidence, and maiking illogical arguments. People are willing to respond, and by claiming they are not you are appealing to the argumentum ad ignorantium. HistoryBuffEr is not interested in a NPOV and his edit history demonstrates that fact. A stopped clock might be right twice a day, and so it is with some of the "points" raised in this discussion. --Viriditas 02:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks, stop assuming bad faith and engage with the points he's making. - pir 10:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maps and what they mean

The map presented as "claiming all of Palestinian territory for Israel" is a terrain map, not a political map. I failed to detect the word ISRAEL anywhere on it, and it did not show any cities in Jordan.

Now, it does raise a legitimate question:

• Is this a non-partisan map? Or,
• Does this map constitute a claim that the West Bank and Gaza Strip do not exist?

When I wrote that I had seen a P.A. map of "Palestine" which omitted Israel, I was mentally recalling a political map, not one which shows a multitude of terrain features.

Let's find a political map from an official Israeli source or used in any Israeli school, public or private -- and then resume this discussion.

I don't want to use the Israel and Palestine series of articles to prove any point. I want each article to be neutral, i.e., not endorsing or opposing ANY point. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, that was just one example (the first I stumbled on to provide a hyperlink); there are maps satisfying your objections. However, even this one supports my point:

• Word "Israel" is specified in the link text ("Map of Israel");
• Judea and Samaria are political, not geographical terms.
• Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a geographical society, any map they post is inherently political. HistoryBuffEr 19:43, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I had assumed that the Judea and Samaria were merely considered geographical areas, due to a steady diet of references to "the West Bank" served to me by American journalists. The possibility that anyone, anywhere, thought of these as political divisions had escaped me. But to be fair, I think I dimly recall that some Israelis regard Judea and Samaria as still being part of Israel. Is there a border dispute going on? Can you show us some maps? The maps I'm familiar with show Israel as the land remaining when you subtract Jordan, West Bank & Gaza Strip from the British Mandate of Palestine (with Golan Heights variously assigned to Syria or Israel).

There are no current political entities named "Judea" or "Samaria"; rather, these are geographical regions which in ancient times represented political units whose borders varied significantly over time. Jayjg 09:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've got to go now, one brief point:

Judea was never a purely geo term, as it means "where Jews live". Using this ancient ethnicity based term today is inherently political. HistoryBuffEr 20:28, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

All geographic terms are political and "Judaea" was a geographical province of the Roman empire. Your point is refuted. --Viriditas 22:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally judea does not actually mean "where jews live". it is derived from juda, which is the name of one of the jewish tribes, - the one that lived there (kind of like a state - e.g. new york). Xtra 06:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A problematic phrase

Deleted from article:

...in order to end the occupation by Israel of Palestinian areas

Two problematic terms:

• "occupation"
• "Palestinian areas"

If the word 'occupation' is used in a legal sense, then it's disputed (by Israel, at least). If it's used in a purely military sense (troops control the area), then it's okay. This should be clarified.

We can't used the phrase Palestinian areas here without endorsing the POV that the areas Arafat and the PLO were seeking are correctly defined as "Palestinian" in a political or nationalistic sense. I think it's pretty clear that the sentence is not talking about Israeli withdrawal from either:

• both sides of the Jordan River (i.e., all parts of the British mandate of Palestine); or,
• the western portion of Palestine (i.e, the non-Jordanian parts)

If it's not clear, then "occupation ... of Palestinian areas" is inadequate. We should say more precisely what we mean, e.g., "pull back from all or part of the West Bank.

Better link to an article explaining just precisely what Arafat was asking for. Would that be in Oslo Accords or Israel and the PLO, or what? --Uncle Ed 18:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, what do you mean by "we can't use the phrase Palestinian areas without endorsing the POV?

Israel is also disputed by some, so what about terms "Israel" and "Israeli areas", aren't these terms POV as well ? HistoryBuffEr 19:47, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

In what sense is the term "Israel" disputed? --Uncle Ed 19:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ever heard of "Hamas" et al? HistoryBuffEr

You just contradicted yourself, again. A few sections above you wrote: Wikipedia articles are based on consensus, so saying there is a "controversy" about something disputed by a tiny minority is POV and silly... --Viriditas 02:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep talking... --Uncle Ed 20:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, I believe I've shown many times that the term "occupation" is not really disputed by Israel (as evidenced by Israeli Supreme Court ruling, Ariel Sharon's speeches, Israel's signatures on peace plan proposals calling for withdrawal, opinion polls of Israelis, etc.) but only by a tiny minority of extremists.

As deniers of occupation are a tiny minority they should be mentioned as such and mentioned briefly, rather than given the weight and prominence of a widely held opinion. HistoryBuffEr 20:12, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Do you understand what a NPOV means? I've read every article you've ever edited, and every comment you've ever made, and it appears that you don't understand the term. --Viriditas 22:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How do you measure "tiny minority" and "extremist"? What land do you consider to be "occupied"? What do you consider "occupation" to be? Jayjg 09:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'What do you consider "occupation" to be.' Surely that's a quastion for Sharon and the Courts as they use the term.--Jirate 12:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The courts and Sharon consider any territory controlled but not annexed by Israel to be under military occupation. It is a technical designation. Surely this is different from the meaning that HistoryBuffEr intended. Jayjg 17:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the context of countries, named peoples or armed forces, on both sides, I think any use of occupation other than to mean 'military' would require explanation. 'Israel occupies a strip of land at the eastern end of the med' doesn't imply it as their is not contesting party.--Jirate 18:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Irate, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you possibly re-state it? Jayjg 01:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean that it is NPOV to state that the West Bank and Gaza are under military occupation by Israel? - pir 17:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many would not agree that the territories are under any sort of "occupation". I'm just explaining what the Israeli Supreme Court and Sharon mean by occupation, and even they wouldn't agree that all of the territories are under "occupation".Jayjg 01:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg that "tiny minority" and "extremist" bare pretty unhelpful characterisation in this context. However all these problems can be solved by attributing views, stating what groups/movements they belong to, and clarifying what people mean by the words they use if need be. - pir 12:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality policy

Viriditas raises an interesting point about HistoryBuffEr's writing. At the risk of making a personal remark, I'd like to ask Buff if it's okay to discuss his understanding of NPOV. If you say NO, I'll shut up about it. But if you say YES, it might help us all to cooperate better on the Arab-Israeli conflict series of articles. --Uncle Ed 13:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Will the real NPOV please stand up

It appears that some here do not really understand NPOV (esp. those who keep refering me to it.) Here are some actual NPOV points applied to statements in dispute here:

1. NPOV intro:

... we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute

Note the fairly, not just "represent all sides". Let's apply it to our discussion:

• Stating that terms Palestine/Palestinians are disputed in the very first sentence but omitting that Israel is also disputed is neither fair nor it represents all sides. (Burying this tidbit at the end of the page or in another section violates the fairly part.)
• Omitting that the majority does not dispute either term does not represent all sides.
• Stating that "occupation is controversial" does not fairly represent all sides. It equates extremist views of a tiny group (this is not mentioned, btw) with the clear consensus of the world. (This also violates the next NPOV commandment.)
• Statement "Most Arabs and their allies object violently to the Israeli presence" has more NPOV flaws than words.

• It implies that only Arabs and their allies oppose Israeli occupation, which is not true.
• It implies that anyone opposing Israeli occupation is an Arab ally, which is not true.
• "Object violently" implies that most Arabs and their allies are attacking Israel, which is not true.
• It mimicks a favorite canard of Zionist extremists who call anyone supporting the Palestinian cause an Arab-lover or a Jew-hater.
• It is not mirrored with "Jews and their allies", but with "Israel and their allies". "Arabs" is an ethno/racial term so a fair mirror term should be "Jews", not "Israel".
• "Arabs and their allies" and "Israel" are a minority compared to the world, so the views of the majority should be mentioned first.
• "Israeli presence" is a pro-Israel POV term disputed by most of the world, so it does not fairly represent all sides.

2. Space and Balance:

Different views don't all deserve equal space.

This comandment is violated in Arab/Israeli articles in almost every sentence. Views of a tiny minority (usually Zionist extremists) are regularly given equal, and often more space than views of the majority (or anyone else).

(Side note: in sciences, popularity of a view alone does not determine its importance, but in politics majority almost always determines consensus.)

3. Be careful with weaselspeak and Avoid_weasel_terms:

This rule is violated in Arab/Israeli articles more times than I can remember.

• Most Palestinian views are preceded with weasely POV attributes such as "they claim".
• Israeli violations, when mentioned, are often preceded with the weasely POV "alleged".
• Abuse of "some" and "many" is rampant, almost always in favor of the Israeli POV. Examples:

• "Many Israelis challenge the notion that the "Palestinians" ever had a right to this land". In fact, only a minority of Israelis endorse this view.
• "some Israelis ... believe it was promised them in the Balfour Declaration". "Some" is here an exaggeration because "a few" (extremists) do not really equal "some Israelis" , just like "some believe the Earth is flat" would be an exaggeration.
• "at some points cuts deeply into the West Bank". "Some" instead of "many" here mistates the facts (to minimize Israeli violations).

4. Attribute assertions

Many examples mentioned above also violate this rule. Few examples:

• "Many/some Israelis" in most cases can and should be replaced with "XXX, the right-wing pro-Israel advocacy group". This would avoid equating and tarring many Israelis with views of a tiny minority (precisely what these extremists want.)
• "Some countries ... do not recognize Israel as a nation, and would like to see it destroyed". Same thing in reverse: if there is a country that has stated that it "would like to see Israel destroyed", such country should be named, to avoid equating and tarring many countries with views of one or two.

5. Integrate, don't append:

The subsection "Intifada, Separation Barrier, Road Map" is just a pro-Israel POV version of the text in the section "Current status" below. This subsection should be either merged into "Current status" or titled "Israeli view".

6. Don't overwhelm readers with detail up-front:

Most readers assume that Occupation of Palestine means "the current occupation of Palestine". Writing about historic occupations is useful, but these ancient stories just impede the reader who wants to get to the present.

Many countries have long histories of being occupied but none are so heavily jammed by occupation histories before getting to the present. To improve readability, these historic entries should go into History of Palestine occupations, or maybe OccupationS of Palestine.

7. Last but not least: NPOV is Consensus of the Reasonable (from The basic concept of neutrality):

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

This highlights my often repeated point that Arab/Israeli articles should not be held hostage to a few extremists.

Moral of the story: Check the actual NPOV policy rather than assume that your edit is endorsed by it.

HistoryBuffEr 18:58, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

"Palestinian"

Uncle_Ed, I see you have sprinkled quotation marks around Palestine and Palestinians all over the place. This is, to put it mildly, both silly and offensive. HistoryBuffEr 18:58, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Sorry about the scare quotes, but people use the word Palestine in such jarringly different ways that I have to do something to indicate the differences. Also, there is a POV that the true Palestinians (note, no quotation marks) are are a particular group -- i.e., not all historical residents of Palestine but a subset which is significantly smaller than the whole. Moreover, the definition of "Palestine" (sorry, have to use quotes here) has been consciously changed (see definitions of Palestine). In the mid-twentieth century, the meaning of the term Palestine was changed (as I suppose you may know) so that the lands east of the Jordan River were no longer considered part of Palestine.

There's also sometimes confusion between Palestine the region and Palestine the prospective nation. I can use parentheses if that's more polite than quotation marks.

As for your detailed remarks on NPOV above, I really thank you. I actually agree with some of those remarks 100%: Like the use of alleged and claimed should be consistent. Other points are at least well-founded and clear, even if I don't agree.

I wish people would stop bad-mouthing you, and instead look (as I have done) for ways to cooperate. I'm not the best writer here, and certainly not the fairest or nicest, but if we ALL were te TRY to fair and nice, we could whip this series of articles into shape together. --Uncle Ed 19:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to consider views of others.

The Palestine/Palestinian manner of citation is not a vexing issue: pretty much everyone, including Israel, never uses quotes for these terms because the meaning can be easily derived from the context. So, no need to argue over these widely accepted terms.

I've taken a break from this article to let others move the article towards a neutral POV, or at least some consensus (meaning text acceptable to those outside of the pro-Israel extremist gang who have made a joke of this article), but I haven't seen any major outside edits and the gang keeps littering on and on.

Wikipedia needs neutral articles on these topics if it is to have any credibility, so I'll be back with a sharp editorial axe. HistoryBuffEr 03:20, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Primary meaning; citation

I haven't been involved in this article, and I can see it's a powder keg, and there is too much else I'm doing for me to give a lot of time to contributing to an article where probably most of my edits will be deleted, but I do want to say: it would seem to me that the intro should include something like, "In contemporary political discourse occupation of Palestine most commonly refers to the presence and/or hegemony of Israeli military and civilians in the portions of historic Palestine outside of the generally internationally accepted borders of Israel. The expression is particularly (but not exclusively) used by opponents of that military and civilian presence."

Given Jayjg's remarks below, revise the proposed passage to "In contemporary political discourse occupation of Palestine most commonly refers to the presence and/or hegemony of Israeli military and civilians in the portions of historic Palestine outside of the generally internationally accepted national territory of Israel. The expression is particularly (but not exclusively) used by opponents of that military and civilian presence." (Italics not proposed for article, here just to indicate what is changed.) -- Jmabel 18:33, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I also think it would be useful to track down a variety of citations of the usage of the phrase, including some by Israel's supporters (I believe that George W. Bush at least once has referred to Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank). I'd also think it was useful to try to find citations for anyone who controlled Palestine before the British being referred to as an "occupier" in any context not intended as commentary on the present situation. I suspect that we may be guilty of a neologism or an anachronism in referring, for example, to Ottoman presence in Palestine as "occupation". If it's an anachronism but not a neologism, that's fine, but it deserves citation. If it's a neologism, then at the very least we should be clear about that. If there is a consensus among those actively working on the article that tracking these down would be useful, let me know on my talk page and I will start assembling a representative set of citations. I'm not interested in starting that just to have it ignored, though, so I'd want to know that consensus was there. -- Jmabel 06:59, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

The only internationally accepted borders Israel has are those with Egypt, Jordan. It also has armistice lines with Syria and Lebanon. The 1949 Armistice lines are not borders, internationally accepted or otherwise. Jayjg 07:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can refer to military control of territory as "occupation". In its simplest meaning, occupation is merely shorthand for "control by military forces". The issue is really whether Israel's control of West Bank, Gaza Strip (or maybe also Golan Heights) is an illegal occupation - either as defined by international law or as claimed by various parties citing international law. (And don't forget that Jordan "occupied" West Bank for a while, too.)

It's the connotation of the phrase occupied territories which is at issue. If it's routinely used as a synonym for "territories which Israel occupies illegally", then I think we should spell it out, rather than assuming our readers will figure out the fine points via context. --Uncle Ed 14:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are the parts of the West Bank and Gaza which are military occupied by P.A. and Hamas forces also "occupied"? Jayjg 17:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. Jmabel, one link to Bush's speech referring to Israel's occupation was posted during the VfD discussion here.

• Yes, by me, before I got the general sense that a lot of people didn't want to be "confused by facts". -- Jmabel 18:28, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

You got that right. "Facts are stupid things" [Ronald Reagan]. HistoryBuffEr 18:36, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

2. Let's not waste time on sophistries (Is Israel occupied by Jews?).

No rational person is disputing that there is occupation. A handful of extreme Likudniks have used "so called occupied territories" for legalistic reasons, to avoid implicit admission that Israel is subject to U.N. resolutions; the few loonies who sincerely deny occupation are just that. HistoryBuffEr 18:17, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Taking Jay's question as "WB & Gaza ... militarily controlled": then I'm not sure how Wikipedia ought to characterize that control. Should we say that they "occupy" them (in the legal sense), or not? I hope the Occupation of the West Bank article will answer this question. AFAIK the last "occupier" of the West Bank was Jordan, then Israel wrested control from them. From there, viewpoints diverge.

Some say the entire area is a legal no-mans land. Others say the Oslo Accords govern, i.e., are the "law". Still others say that whatever the UN declares ought to determine it. Before Wikipedia says who is right, it will have to list the various different legal opinions. Er, actually, even then Wikipedia won't be able to endorse any of those. It could, however, say how many people or how many UN General Assembly reps support any particular view. --Uncle Ed 18:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uncle_Ed, we are not a Legal Arbitration Body on ME. Let's just assume that the U.N. is and take it from there. HistoryBuffEr 18:36, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Context

The usual context of occupied Palestinian territories is in the following argument, which goes (roughly):

1. The true Palestinians are the non-Jordanian, non-Israeli Arabs indigenous to the British Mandate of Palestine.
2. The world owes this group a homeland.
3. The homeland should be a sovereign nation.
4. This sovereign nation should be called "Palestine"
5. Anyone illegally occupying a territory should give it (i.e, return it) to its rightful owners.
6. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip rightfully belong to the "true Palestinians".
7. Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

Therefore, Israel should give the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the "true Palestinians", so they can create a sovereign homeland in these areas, to be called "Palestine". --Uncle Ed 14:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uncle_Ed, you are on the right track. You have practically rephrased U.N. Resolutions (the main diff is that Israel has grabbed much more territory than any resolution allowed). HistoryBuffEr 18:26, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Israel has not "grabbed" anything! Israel was willing to live in peace but: In the 1948 The Arabs attacked Israel; in 1956 and 1967 Egypt blocked the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping, a provocation inviting retribution. Israel withdrew from Sinai in 1956, and in 1976 after the Camp David Accords, gave back to Egypt what it conquered; Israel subsequently signed a peace treaty with Jordan and commenced the Oslo Accords with the PLO to hand over the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians (who nevertheless prefer "Jihads" to real peace)....all of these actions by Israel are the exact opposite of "grabbing". Syria remains hostile and the Golan Heights are controlled by Israel until such time as Syria is willing to "normalize" relations with Israel in the same way that Egypt and Jordan did. Israel also pulled out of land in Lebanon...so the notion of "grabbing land" is such sheer hog-wash... IZAK 21:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Authority of the UN

HistoryBuffER (may I call you "Buff" for short? :-),

I take it that you consider the UN to have the legal standing (or authority) to make legal judgments about the land disputes in Palestine (er, the region). Perhaps we should mention UN votes or policies, then, as in:

• According to a UN Security Council resolution, Israel must...; or,
• A General Assembly vote urges Israel to...

That is, it would be the point of view (POV) of the United Nations that Israel is obligated to do this or that. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed

Fine by me.

Note that the pro-Israel lobby likes to dismiss the U.N. (and, implicitly, most of the world) as "biased", but forget that Israel was created by the U.N.

(P.S.: Funny how they insist on disclaimer "non-binding" for G.A. resolutions condemning Israel, but omit that disclaimer for the also non-binding G.A. Partition resolution, which created Israel.) HistoryBuffEr 19:10, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC

Yes, the 1947 Resolution was non-binding, which is why, in fact, the U.N. did not create Israel. Rather, the (future) citizens of Israel themselves created the country, in an act of auto-emancipation; the U.N. itself did nothing to help that process. Jayjg 22:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No-one is "forgetting" the UN's role in 1947 in assisting with the creation of the State of Israel for which most of world Jewry is very grateful (even though all the Arabs at the UN voted against it then). However, since then the UN has been inundated with over one hundred new states mainly in the Third World (some of these "countries" are just islands with a few hundred thousand people in them) who would gladly recognize and accept help from Israel in large numbers, but due to the pressure, blackmail, and fear of terrorism from the mostly Anti-Semitic Islamic Arab nations (and previously also from the now defunct Anti-Semitic Soviet Union) the bulk of these poor nations cave-in to pressure from the oil-rich Arab states' hate for the existence of the Jewish State of Israel. IZAK 21:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am "forgetting" it; all the U.N. did was vote, the rest the local inhabitants had to do. Jayjg 22:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Food for thought

Jay, Buff, IZAK, great debate points all around. Now can we take the ideas you three just expressed, and add them somehow to the relevant articles? --Uncle Ed 13:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, provided that the views of the U.N. (ie. most of the world) are featured prominently, not just casually mentioned and buried behind the views of Jewish and Islamist extremists (which is the case in current articles). HistoryBuffEr 18:08, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

Maybe we can introduce United Nations POV like this:

• According to the UN, Israel's control of the West Bank is an "illegal occupation". A vote by the GA or Security Council condemned, etc.
• Attempts by Israeli military forces to move suspected terrorists from their homes has been condemned by the UN as "genocide" or "crimes against humanity" (okay, this sentence obviously needs some work).

Even though I often think that the UN is wrong -- consisting, as it does, of many dozens of small third world countries who vote en bloc for resolutions which IMHO violate the UN's founding principles -- still, I don't think Wikipedia should SAY that the UN is wrong or EXCLUDE its points of view. If it indeed represents much or most of the world's opinions, then our articles should say so and include those opinions!

Like:

• Hardly anyone in the world protested when Jordan occupied the West Bank, but condemnation has been swift and steady for Israel. Its control of many areas of the West Bank has been called an "occupation" so often that people interested in the Middle East are liable to forget that Syria occupies Lebanon.

I'm not offering FULL cooperation -- I think you and I may be at odds on certain points, but if we can agree on NPOV we can make a start. --Uncle Ed 19:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Occupation is THE Cause

To be NPOV, articles on Palestine must present a big picture based on facts:

Israel's Occupation Is The Main Cause of this continued conflict.

NPOV is consensus, and consensus is what most of the world thinks. Thus:

• If Israel were not occupying Palestinian lands it would be able to claim self-defense. As Israel is occupying Palestinian lands, Israel's claims of self-defense (implicit or explicit) must be placed in proper context.

Only Palestinians can legitimately claim self-defense under the international law; this point should precede and counterbalance any such Israel's claim.

• If Israel were not occupying Palestinian lands it would be able to claim it was being unjustly attacked. As Israel is occupying Palestinian lands, claims (implicit or explicit) that attacks on Israel are unjust or result of irrational hatred should be preceded and counterbalanced by the fact that Israel has refused to withdraw, and continues to bomb, kill and destroy Palestinian people and infrastructure.

• If Israel were not occupying Palestinian lands it would it would undoubtedly have support of most in the international community. As Israel is occupying Palestinian lands, any claim that the Arabs, the Muslims, the U.N., the Europeans, and most of the world are biased must be placed in proper context.

Israel is in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions (resolutions supported by Israel's best friend, the U.S.) and continues to kill Palestinian civilians in plain sight of the world every day. These facts should precede and counterbalance any Israel's claim of bias.

HistoryBuffEr 18:47, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

POV of just one side

Buff wrote:

To be NPOV, articles on Palestine must present a big picture based on facts: Israel's Occupation Is The Main Cause of this continued conflict. NPOV is consensus, and consensus is what most of the world thinks.

I disagree for at least two reasons:

1. It is not an objective fact but merely one side's point of view that the main cause of the conflict is Israeli "occupation". Another widely held POV is that Arabs are using the refugee problem and the nationalist aspirations issue as excuses to destroy Israel; i.e., no concessions Israel makes will satisfy the Islamic world (give them in inch, they'll take a mile, as the old Arabian saying goes).
2. NPOV is NOT consensus. It is not "a viewpoint which everyone can agree on" but "an agreement by everyone to include all viewpoints"!

But I do agree that articles on Palestine should present a big, fact-based picture. That is, I believe what you just said, and if you believe it too then we agree.

The big picture, if based on fact, should consider that three wars were fought; that Jordan and other Arab countries aren't helping resettle or assimilate Arab refugees; Jews in Islamic countries aren't treated NEARLY as well as Muslims in Israel, the US and other democratic countries; etc. --Uncle Ed 19:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a rather fuzzy view, because you are too buried in trees to see the forest. Did you ask yourself:

• Why Arab countries attacked Israel? Or,
• Why they are not assimilating refugees? Or,
• Why they are hostile to Jews?

The answer to all these questions is simple (see the title above if you need a hint). So, when a bank robber claims that it's all the bank's fault and that the police is arresting him because they are biased, take a deep breath and think about it before saying "He's got a point there." HistoryBuffEr 00:59, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Oh, pardon me, who is a bank robber ??? Is there any point in talking with someone so biased? IZAK 03:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, please don't make personal remarks. If you object to the "bank robber" argument, just say so. You might have said, "I don't think the analogy of the bank robber is valid, because I disagree with the view that the land in question ever belonged to the fillintheblankians. If you don't mind, I'd like to delete your remark entirely... --Uncle Ed (Rod Poe) 18:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Getting started

To get started with an NPOV version, I suggest we lay out the facts first and then agree on a fair interpretation of those facts. Keep in mind that our goal is not to please all fanatics or cover every irrelevant detail. Here is a brief overview of essential facts:

To help the process along, I'll present a version of the facts that is as POV as and more accurate than the version you have presented. Please keep in mind our goal is also not to over-simplify the situation, or divorce it of any context, nor is it to provide a soapbox for propaganda and insults of those who disagree, even in Talk: pages. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The area of (1947) Palestine was inhabited by various groups (Philistines, Caananites, Jews, etc.) from pre-biblical times.
• The number and composition of residents changed over time. Since about 1,300 years ago Jews became a minority and Arabs a majority in the area.

• Jews were a majority in the area from around 1,000 BCE to around 700CE; Arabs became a majority after conquering the land, and through a series of discriminatory policies meant to increase the number of Muslims in the territory. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Influential diaspora Jews in 1917 convinced Balfour, an official of Great Britain which colonized Palestine at the time, to issue declaration of support for establishment of a Jewish home there. Palestinian residents were not asked for opinion and they opposed this idea.
• The pogroms of Jews in late 1930s and 1940s greatly increased support for a safe-heaven for Jews. After the WWII the British empire began crumbling. Facing increasing terror by Jewish groups in Palestine, the Brits decided to leave and hand over the area to the U.N.

• The Holocaust was more than a "pogrom". Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• In 1947 the UN GA voted to partition the area in roughly 2 halves + Jerusalem. One half was assigned to Jewish control, the other to Palestinian control and Jerusalem to international control. Palestinians and other Arabs opposed this plan.

• There was little distinction between "Palestinians" and "other Arabs" at the time. Arabs opposed the plan. And this ignores the earlier dividing of Palestine in 1920, which gave 80% of the land to the Hashemites. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Israel proclaimed an independent state and began ethnically cleansing the area of Palestinians. These acts violated the Partition resolution.

• Nonsense. Israel did not begin to "ethnically cleanse" the area; the history is vastly more complex than that. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Also, a larger number of Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab lands, most ending up in Israel. Similar large 20th century population transfers have not historically been "rectified" by "return". Jayjg 07:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Some Arab neighbors attacked Israel. Israel invaded and occupied areas outside of its partition and occupied some neighboring lands as well. Israel was condemned numerous times for these acts by the UN SC and GA.

• All Arab neighbours attacked Israel after it declared independence, and some Arab non-neighbours did so as well. During the course of the fighting Israel conquered areas outside of the partition. What neighbouring lands did it conquer? The UN Resolutions made demands of both Israel and the Arabs. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• After several wars, Israel ended up occupying more than 80% of 1947 Palestine, plus Jerusalem, plus parts of neighboring lands.

• After 1948 the majority Palestinian country Jordan ended up occupying over 80% of 1917 Palestine, plus half of Jerusalem, and still occupies over 80% of 1917 Palestine. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Current status:

• Israel is:

• Illegally occupying areas outside of its U.N. assigned part.

• Occupyting disputed territories outside of the U.N. assigned part. Even the U.N. recognizes these territories as part of Israel, and does not expect Israel to relinquish them. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Illegally occupying parts of Syria and Lebanon.

• Israel occupies none of Lebanon, as certified by the U.N. Israel has legally annexed land captured from Syria in a defensive war. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Regularly attacking, bombing and killing Palestinian civilians.

• Incidentially killing Palestinians civilians in response to armed terror attacks by Palestinian militias and terrorist groups. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Employing helicopters, tanks, APCs and other advanced arms (against mostly unarmed civilians).

• Employing helicopters, tanks, APCs and other advanced arms (against mostly armed terrorist groups).

• Israel has killed over 3,300 and wounded over 40,000 Palestinians since 2000 (about 1.5% of population.)

• NPOV source for wounded? Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Israel has killed approximately 2,500 Palestinians. Palestinians who are killed by other Palestinians, or who blow themselves up, don't count on the Israeli totals. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Regularly bombing and demolishing Palestinian buildings, orchards and infrastructure, leaving tens of thousands homeless and impoverished.

• Palestinian policies and its kleptocratic leadership have left Palestinian impoverished. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Engaged in collective punishment, killing or imprisoning relatives of suspects, destroying their homes (over 62,000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed or damaged by Israel since 2000.)

• NPOV source please. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Imprisoning more than 10,000 Palestinians without trial or even charges.

• NPOV source please. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Torturing Palestinian prisoners, using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

• NPOV source please. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Maintaining and expanding occupation colonies throughout Palestine.

• Israeli towns and villages in the disputed territories are not "occupation colonies". Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Blocking Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes (while inviting Jews from all over the world to immigrate.)

• UN Resolutions do not require Israel to do so. Anyway, the vast majority of Palestinian "refugees" have never lived in Israel, so they can't be "returning". Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Maintaining Jewish-only roads and taking most water resources for Israel.

• Myth. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Preventing anyone but Jews from owning land or other real property within Israel.

• Mythical nonsense. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Preventing Arabs living in Israel from marrying Palestinians (in effect.)

• Prevented Jews living in Israel from doing the same, though the "in effect" is a wild distortion. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Restricting movement of Palestinians within their areas, with numerous checkpoints and curfews.

• Israelis equally restricted, and searched before they enter any building. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Holding 1.2 million Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip penned in a giant cage.

• POV nonsense. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Building a wall around WB Palestinian towns, cutting off many from work or school, and grabbing more land.

• POV and silly simplification. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Violating the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention and 69+ UN resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw, cease attacks on civilians and violations of human rights of Palestinians.

• No violations of the UN Charter or the Geneva Convention. Have ignored 69+ biased and non-binding UN resolutions, which have generally been ignored by the Arabs as well. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Violating peace plans it signed (the Oslo and the Roadmap.)

• In response to blatant violations by Arabs. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Refusing to acknowledge the Palestinian right to self-determination and state, while most Israelis support these rights (if there is peace.)

• There is no such "right" under International Law. I don't see the Kurds or Tibetans getting it. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• A major military power, in posession of at least 200 nuclear bombs.

• Speculation, and irrelevant. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Above the U.S. in GDP budget expenditures per capita.

• Irrelevant. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Receiving from the U.S about US$ 6 billion in military and financial aid each year.

• Nonsense. $3 billion. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Palestinians are:

• Engaged in violent resistance against Israeli occupation.

• Engaged in a war of annihilation against Israel. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Attacking and killing Israeli soldiers and civilians, mostly using suicide bombers.

• Attacking and killing Israeli civilians and occasionally soldiers, mostly using suicide bombers.

• Launching improvised rockets (mostly duds) into Israel and occupation colonies.

• Launching thousands of rockets (sometimes lethal) into Israel and Israeli villages in the territories. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Palestinians have killed about 1,000 and wounded 5,600 Israelis since 2000 (about 0.1% of Israeli population).
• Frequently throwing stones at Israeli tanks, APCs and soldiers.

• Attempt to trivialize real conflict. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Frequently firing guns, rifles, and rockets at Israel civilians, and suicide bombing them. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Not complying with the peace plan promise of best efforts to reduce attacks on Israeli civilians and disarm militias.

• Actively supporting attacks on civilians. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Officially recognized Israel's right to exist, some extremists remain opposed (while there is occupation.)

• Unofficially recognized Israel's right to exist; still haven't managed to modify official Charter. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Also, Palestinian schools still do not teach that Israel has a right to exist, and most Palestinians continuing support terror attacks on Israel even if they were to have their own state in the territories. The PA itself has supported the creation of a culture of shaheed, or martyrdom, where children are encouraged to kill themselves in attacks on Israelis. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Receiving food assistance from the UN Refugee fund, about US$ 300 million from EU, US$ 500+ million from Arab/Muslim world (after recent Saudi aid increase) + US$ 20 million from the US (since 2003.)

• Assistance from UNRWA considerably higher, and food is not the primary assistance. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• More than half the work force is unemployed, nearly 2 million (60%) are poor, live on US$ 2 per day, with many incidences of severe malnutrition.

• Not relevant to the conflict itself, but certainly designed to sway emotions. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Views of others:

• Most of the world supports Palestinian right to self-determination and Israel's right to exist and condemns Israel's occupation, killing and oppression of Palestinians.

• Unattributed POV. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Most of the Arab and Muslim world strongly supports Palestinians, many refuse to trade with Israel, some refuse to recognize Israel while there is occupation, Arabs have offered recognition and trade in exchange for peace.

• Many Arab countries have been at war with Israel, or supported boycotts of Israel. Even Arab countries officially at peace with Israel support unofficial boycotts of any contact. Most Arab countries have never offered recognition for peace; some post 1967 have offered recognition for land. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The U.S. government strongly supports Israel, but also calls for Israeli withdrawal and a viable Palestinian state.

That's it in a nutshell. Let me know if I missed something IMPORTANT. Otherwise, propose how to word these facts in a way that is both neutral and readable. HistoryBuffEr 07:17, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Note: I have edited facts above: added more numbers, added Arab/Muslim view, fixed typos and wording. HistoryBuffEr 18:24, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

You missed many IMPORTANT facts, and included many non-facts and much trivia and nonsense as well. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HBE - (I) much of what you write here is factual. However this is the wrong article - this kind of information should go to Israeli-Palestinian conflict where it would really improve the article. (II) "our goal is not to please all fanatics or cover every irrelevant detail": (1) calling other Wikipedians "fanatics" is not at all helpful - no matter how strongly we disagree on things here, in the end we will have to settle by hammering out a compromise based on consensus (2) our goal is not to find out "The Truth". Our goal is to write a NPOV article, and according to current NPOV policy, this means essentially that in cases where there are disagreements, the conflicting views are described to maintain neutrality. - pir 10:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, pir, and we're back to square one. HistoryBuffEr created this article in order replace Israeli-Palestinian conflict with his own POV, and the topic still belongs in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In an NPOV world there would be just one main article on the subject. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not NPOV titled, so it cannot be the main article. Word "conflict" is the term used by Israel and denigrates the suffering of Palestinians. Also, "conflict" is not specific -- a specific term should be used whenever possible (we don't say "US/Iraqi conflict" but "US Invasion of Iraq".) HistoryBuffEr 18:24, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Buff, I feel you don't understand the nature of NPOV. The NPOV policy is designed to enable us writing an encyclopedia in a POV world. You cannot decide to just ignore the NPOV policy. If you do, you will never achieve anything at Wikipedia, all your edits will be reverted and your efforts will be futile. The willingness to engage with opposing POVs, to accept their legitimacy/existence and incorporate them into articles is the key to writing stable articles. Those who reject this will ultimately not be successful.

Also, NPOV is not about determining The Truth. It is about describing opposing views and trying to find formulations that can find consensus. It is for readers to judge the opposing views and determine what the truth is, and much truth is already expressed in the faultline that runs between the opposing views. It is for us editors to enable readers to do this by describing the opposing views in a fair way. Right now that is not the case for the I//P articles, and we ought to redress that.

As for the title "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", I agree that there are minor POV problems with it, mostly because it suggests that it is a conflict between to equal groups. However it is a very descriptive title, free of emotive language, and it expresses the core of what it is about. If you can think of a better title that is likely to find consensus, please name it - I certainly can't. - pir 13:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As HistoryBuffEr has made clear, he will not accept any NPOV title, because it doesn't tug at the heartstrings, or advertise "the suffering of Palestinians." In fact, as he has stated before, he believes any title with the word "Israel" in it is inherently POV. It's hard to create NPOV when working with people of such extreme views. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The specific and accurate term here would be "Palestinian war on Israel", but I suspect we'll have to make do with a bland term like "conflict" instead, even though it denigrates the suffering of Israelis, and masks the true intent of the Palestinians. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Refuting HistoryBuffer's Israel bashing (categorically)

• It's not merely "pre-biblical times". There is four thousand years of recorded history, and the Bible itself describes God's giving the land to the people who are known as the Jews.
• Arabs are foreign invaders who conquered the Middle East and North Africa, after the rise of Islam, areas which were not their homes.
• To say that the Balfour Declaration was issued due to "Influential diaspora Jews in 1917 convinced Balfour" sounds like an Anti-Semitic back-handed swipe at those Jewish people who in fact supported the Allied War effort. The British had also promised the Arabs many things through Lawrence of Arabia.
• To say "The pogroms of Jews in late 1930s and 1940s greatly increased support for a safe-heaven for Jews," sounds like outright Holocaust denial, as it was NOT "pogroms" but the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Talk of getting "facts" straight...
• 1947 Partition...yea, isn't it interesting that he overlooks the earlier unilateral first partition of Palestine by the British in the 1920s when they lopped off the major chunk of territory of Palestine on the East Bank creating Jordan by giving it to the Saudi Hashemite Arabs. So the territory that the Jews got later from the UN was in reality only about a FIFTH of original Palestine and not "half". Again, facts are being overlooked here.
• Israel did not commence "ethnically cleansing", which implies "genocide". On the contrary, Israel was taking in Jews who had survived the real Holocaust in Europe and simultaneously took in about ONE Million Sephardic Jews during their Immigration to Israel from Arab lands which was very much a case of "ethnic cleansing"...again facts are being overlooked...
• It's pathetic to say: "Some Arab neighbors attacked Israel. Israel invaded and occupied areas outside of its partition and occupied some neighboring lands as well" ...because ALL of Israel's Arab neighbors attacked it! Israel DEFENDED itself, by holding onto a little territory as both Egypt and Jordan then took military control of the Gaza Strip (Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt) and the West Bank (Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan). It's sickening to see that Arab aggression is overlooked.
• "After several wars, Israel ended up occupying more than 80% of 1947 Palestine, plus Jerusalem, plus parts of neighboring lands" makes it sound like a "rampage" when in actual fact Israel fought at least five wars of self-defense, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1956 Sinai war (when it was forced to withdraw by the US), the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1968-70 War of Attrition. In 1973, Yom Kippur War, it was attacked by both Egypt and Syria. It has already returned the Sinai Peninsula as part of the Camp David Accords (1978) which brought PEACE with Egypt and then the 1994 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace which brought PEACE with Jordan illustrating Israel's willingness to make sacrifices in order to attain peace with its former opponents which it would like to NEGOTIATE with the Palestinians also, yet the latter have chosen to wage Jihad forcing Israeli counter-measures.
• "Illegally occupying areas outside of its U.N. assigned part" ignores the fact that Israel has agreed many times to hand over the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords yet the Palestinians have fought on such as with the 2000 Al-Aqsa Intifada.
• "Illegally occupying parts of Syria and Lebanon" is wrong! The UN itself has certified that Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon, see: "UN Security Council Resolution 425 from 1978. The UN Secretary-General had concluded [1]that, as of 16 June 2000, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with resolution 425 (1978). Lebanon has not extended control over south Lebanon, though it was called on to do so by UN Resolution 1391 ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/233/04/PDF/N0223304.pdf?OpenElementand urged by UN Resolution 1496[2]. Israel has lodged multiple complaints regarding Lebanon's conduct[3]." Furthermore, "UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calls on Syria to cease intervening in Lebanese internal politics, withdraw from Lebanon, and for the disbanding of all Lebanese militias (See: Hezbollah). This measure was adopted in 2 September 2004.". One tiny area called Shebaa Farms remains disputed. Syria refuses to sign a PEACE TREATY with Israel, and hosts many anti-Israel terrorist groups, so it cannot expect Israel to view it kindly.
• "Regularly attacking, bombing and killing Palestinian civilians" is NOT Israel's goal and never has been! Israel seeks to fight the leaders who are behind the terror organizations such as Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi violent men who hid themslves and their organizations behind civilians who unfortunatley come into the crossfire, but NEVER does Israel target civilians in the fashion of Palestinian Suicide bombers.
• "Employing helicopters, tanks, APCs" ...these weapons systems MINIMIZE casualties as they are NOT used for indiscriminate missions, instead they focus on specific targets engaged in combat.
• "Israel has killed over 3,300 and wounded over 40,000 Palestinians since 2000 (about 1.5% of population.)" Israel did NOT deliberately "kill" most of these unfortunate victims. Many DIED as a result of clashes between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli soldiers, and were caught in the cross-fires. Many Palestinian casualties have been caused by their own people firing into crowds and the killings of "suspcted" informers who are executed without recourse to a trial or any form of human justice.
• "Regularly bombing and demolishing Palestinian buildings, orchards and infrastructure, leaving tens of thousands homeless and impoverished" does NOT happen as frequently as this makes it sound. It also happens to be a relatively more "humane" method of punishment than the summary executions performed by Palestinian gunmen against their own people.
• "Engaged in collective punishment, killing or imprisoning relatives of suspects, destroying their homes (over 62,000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed or damaged by Israel since 2000)" is just a repeat rendition of the above point and is meaningless out of context as Israel is most certainly NOT on a "rampage". Rather it is attempting to fight what is in effect a Civil war with its hands tied behind its back, forgetting that Israel is the victim of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. What is the source for these figures by the way?
• To state that "Imprisoning more than 10,000 Palestinians without trial or even charges" ignores the fact that these people are basically " Prisoners of (a civil) war, they will also benefit from the fact that Israel is the ONLY Democracy in the Middle East and treats all its prisoners fairly.
• To say that Israel is "Torturing Palestinian prisoners, using Palestinian civilians as human shields" is sheer garbage! Israel's courts have intervened many times to control any abuses of prisoners by any Israeli officers and soldiers who are subject to punishment. And talk of inverting reality...it is the Palestinians who hide their munitions and arms factories within civilian areas knowing full well that Israel does NOT hit civilian targets in principle.
• "Maintaining and expanding occupation colonies throughout Palestine" ...ignores the fact that Israel will always surrender territory for peace as it did with Egypt (see Yamit). Presently, even the hawkish Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has announced Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2004, which must be noted.
• "Blocking Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes (while inviting Jews from all over the world to immigrate)" is a clear Anti-Semitic "red herring". It was first raised by Yassir Arafat at the Camp David 2000 Summit and contributed to its collapse. It misses the very fundamental point that Israel was created as the national home for the Jewish people. The Palestinians are Arabs and they are welcome to live in the many Arab and Islamic countries all over the world. In addition, there has already been a fair exchange of populations when Israel took in Jews from Arab lands. Israel will not commit national suicide to make its enemies "happy".
• "Maintaining Jewish-only roads and taking most water resources for Israel" is sheer rubbish as Israel has over one million of its own Arab citizens who are free to use all the roads. It has been Arab states that sought to cut off water to Israel and they have been warned that such an act will be translated as a hostile act of war.
• "Preventing anyone but Jews from owning land or other real property within Israel" is completely wrong. Israel's Arabs own and buy land freely in Israel. Foreign governments, churches, and Islamic institutions, and foreign investors (often PLO supporters) own and buy land in Israel itself and are protected by Israeli and international law.
• "Preventing Arabs living in Israel from marrying Palestinians (in effect.)" This is not true, as they can marry anyone at any time. There is no law preventing marriage between people in Israel and others. In fact there are thousands of JEWISH women who have married Palestinian and Israeli Arabs...that's life in a democracy...
• "Restricting movement of Palestinians within their areas, with numerous checkpoints and curfews" occur when Palestinian suicide bombers or car bombs go off, and the perpetrators need to be found and arrested...otherwise Palestinians who are peaceful have nothing to fear.
• "Building a wall around WB Palestinian towns, cutting off many from work or school, and grabbing more land." The idea behind this is NOT to "grab" land, as Israel was prepared to hand over these areas to the Palestinians had there been peace. Due to the constant flow of suicide bombers, Israel is trying to protect itself, and this is far better than having to physically harm people through constant war.
• "Holding 1.2 million Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip penned in a giant cage." It's not a "cage", they are free to leave if they so desire. For example, Egypt is welcome to take them in if they like or any other of their oil-rich Arab brothers, after all, the Jews took in their brothers and sisters after the Holocaust.
• "Violating the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention and 69+ UN resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw, cease attacks on civilians and violations of human rights of Palestinians." You know, picking on Israel is not the solution to all the world's problems...
• "Violating peace plans it signed (the Oslo and the Roadmap.)" I don't get it...when did Israel "sign" the "roadmap"? And is Israel solely responsible for the breakdown of "the Oslo"?
• "Refusing to acknowledge the Palestinian right to self-determination and state, while most Israelis support these rights (if there is peace.)" This statement is a contradiction in terms. It actually validates that Israelis want peace...can the same be be said about the Palestinians right now?
• "A major military power, in posession of at least 200 nuclear bombs." So?
• "Above the U.S. in GDP budget expenditures per capita." This is another Anti-Semitic swipe about Jews and their supposed "wealth"...when in fact it is the Arabs who control and own all the TRILLIONS of PETRO - Dollars and the powerful OPEC.
• "Receiving from the U.S about US$ 6 billion in military and financial aid each year." This is one of the favorite gripes of Neo Nazi Groups and has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue as Israel has always been a loyal military ally of the USA.
• "(Palestinians are) Engaged in violent resistance against Israeli occupation. Attacking and killing Israeli soldiers and civilians, mostly using suicide bombers." No, they are commiting Terrorism and MURDERING innocent Israeli civilians mostly, cynically manipulating gullible followers to commit suicide for Jihad, because they want to destroy the Jewish state compeletely through a reign of terror.
• "(Palestinians are) Launching improvised rockets (mostly duds) into Israel and occupation colonies". Wrong again, as these are deadly Qassam rockets. The use of the word "colonies" is POV and does not help the discussion.
• "Palestinians have killed about 1,000 and wounded 5,600 Israelis since 2000 (about 0.1% of Israeli population)." It is not "Palestinians" but it has been terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command that have MUDERED mostly Israeli civilians in COLD BLOOD, often boasting sadistically that they know how much Jews love life and how much they "enjoy" spilling innocent Jewish blood.
• "(Palestininians) Frequently throwing stones at Israeli tanks, APCs and soldiers." This is most often done by children and teenagers who are goaded into this foolish and dangerous behavior by militant terrorists who seek confrontation with the Israel Defense Force in front of foreign journalists and their cameras.
• "(Palestinians) Not complying with the peace plan promise of best efforts to reduce attacks on Israeli civilians and disarm militias." Finally, an admission of wrongdoing!
• "(Palestinians) Officially recognized Israel's right to exist, some extremists remain opposed (while there is occupation.)" Ok, and what do they mean by "occupation"? Does "occupation" include Tel Aviv also..? This needs clarification, as many still deny Israel's right to exist as Jewish state.
• "(Palestinians) Receiving food assistance from the UN Refugee fund, about US$300 million from EU, US$500+ million from Arab/Muslim world (after recent Saudi aid increase) + US$20 million from the US (since 2003.)" Now, who is monitering all this money and why are there constant complaints of Arafat's meddling, nepotism, corruption, and siphoning off of relief funds? After all, these questions must be answered in a democracy, right?
• "(Palestinians) More than half the work force is unemployed, nearly 2 million (60%) are poor, live on US$ 2 per day, with many incidences of severe malnutrition." So why did their "leaders" choose war over peace? What is the logic at work here exactly? They want to destroy Israel but Israel "owes" them all jobs? What kind of "logic" is that?
• "Views of others: Most of the world supports Palestinian right to self-determination and Israel's right to exist and condemns Israel's occupation, killing and oppression of Palestinians." Oh, and the violence of the Arabs against Israel is OK? Again, Israel is not "killing" people, it is the Palestinians who chose to launch Intifadas in 1987 and 2000 and Israel is responding in self-defense.
• "Most of the Arab and Muslim world strongly supports Palestinians, many refuse to trade with Israel, some refuse to recognize Israel while there is occupation, Arabs have offered recognition and trade in exchange for peace." It has nothing to do with "Palestinians" alone, each Arab country has its own idiosyncratic reasons for scapegoating Israel. Many political observers maintain that Arab governments fear for their own survival in the face of Al-Qaida type Islamic fundamentalism and seek to hold on to their powers as undemocratic monarchies and dictatorships, and Israel provides the best "diversion" for the Arab masses.
• "The U.S. government strongly supports Israel, but also calls for Israeli withdrawal and a viable Palestinian state." BUT, they do NOT want Israel to commit suicide and disappear to suit the wild fantasies of Arab or Anti-Semitic fanatics. IZAK 07:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ed suggests a new article

I'm not sure which article this should go into. I'd rather start a new one, and spend the next month or two working with you (Pir) and HistoryBuffEr on it. My experience with software development taught me that it's almost always quicker to start fresh, than to "improve" an old version of something which is shoddy or "buggy".

Buff, you have laid out every point of interest to the Arab side, and quite a few of those which are of interest to the Israeli side. If we can flesh out one or two points per week, we can create a breathtakingly superb article!

To all others watching this discussion ("lurkers" ;-) I hope you appreciate the effort HBE has made to list the points of contention first and to offer his cooperation in writing about them neutrally. It's not often we find a contributor who believes strongly a point of view but is willing to help write an article which tolerates or even welcomes other points of view. (I hope I can recruite Mustaphaa or Gary D. to help, too.) --Uncle Ed 15:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I very much oppose the creation of alternative articles. True, it will be very difficult to write a single article that will still be readable and not just a point-counterpoint list. But the whole point of the NPOV policy is to avoid the proliferation of alternative articles. If it happens for Israel//Palestine, then it will set a precedent to be imitated on all controversial topics. Also, if there are alternative Israel//Palestine articles, they will each tend to become far more POV than they are now. I think that we need to write an article that manages to incorporate fair descriptions of the conflicting POVs into one single narrative. This would be very hard work, and it would require a lot of editors on this topic to open their minds and change their intransigeant stance, but if we succeed, it would be a very big achievement, and (at the risk of sounding a bit pompous now) I think it might actually contribute to the understanding necessary for a genuine peace process.

On the other hand you are right that it is much easier to start fresh. Also, all attempts to improve tha current Israel//Palestine articles are pretty futile, because they always descend into bickering about details. We really need to focus on the bigger picture, that's essential to writing a readable and enlightening article. I think Buff has given us a good outline of points of that bigger picture. So here is what I suggest:

1. Those who share a similar critique of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict article get together and make a thorough analysis of where that article fails ;
2. We make a list of the main points where the article fails, as well as a list of what we can keep ;
3. Those who agree with the criticisms list get together and start a draft for a completely new article (at this point, those who disagree with the criticisms would not be allowed to pick it apart through the usual bickering about the details) ;
4. This new draft article would be based on Buffs outline above as well as the two lists from the current article ;
5. Only after we finish with the new draft do we ask those who defend the status quo of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article to contribute and edit the draft, and adapt the broad narrative to incorporate their views - but edits by those (from both sides) who do not try to engage constructively will be rigorously reverted ;
6. When the draft has stabilised somewhat, we make it into the new Israeli-Palestinian conflict article.

In a nutshell, the strategy I propose for writing a NPOV Israel//Palestine consists of:

• hammering out a narrative supported by a broad consensus - when we have achieved that it won't be too difficult to deal with the details
• thereby marginalising those who refuse productive co-operation and try to destroy a consensus-based narrative (which has always been the aim of the NPOV policy)

Tell me what you think of this. - pir 13:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestion is better; I have opposed the proliferation of tiny overlapping POV articles from the start. Jayjg 15:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, so have I. I for one am glad that Buff made this list and that both you (Jayjg) and IZAK have responded to it. I think it demonstrates that we can talk to each other about the facts, rather than debate consisting of (personal) accusations only. - pir 15:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would very much like to stick to discussing the facts, and propose that ad hominem comments be left entirely off the Talk: pages. Jayjg 16:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Title

By HistoryBuffEr 18:47, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC):

• I agree that tweaking existing POV articles is a waste of time and a new article is needed.
• I propose the title "Occupation of Palestine", because it is accurate and neutral.

1. Term "conflict" is neither specific nor neutral.

a) It is obvious that "conflict" is not a specific term.

b) "Conflict" implies dispute between roughly equal parties, which contradicts the facts above.

c) "Conflict" implies that claims of both parties are equally valid, which contradicts the consensus of the world.

d) "Conflict" cannot be neutral here because this term favors one side -- the occupier. It implicitly denies that there is occupation and elevates the claim of extremists to the pedestal of consensus (and relegates claims of the occupied and consensus of the world to inferior status.)

2. "Occupation of Palestine" is the fact (denied by just a few loonies; consensus rather than extremists should dictate what is NPOV.)

3. "Occupation of Palestine" is a specific term.

4. "Occupation of Palestine" is a neutral term because there is no serious dispute about terms "occupation" or "Palestine".

a) The disagreement of extremists on both sides over the exact area or extent of occupation can and should be noted within the article, rather than in the title.

b) The denial of Palestine by some extremists should be mentioned within the article, rather than in the title.

5. Also, "Occupation of Palestine" gets more Google hits than any other term. Currently it gets 763,000 hits vs 282,000 hits for "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (both terms without quotes.)

HistoryBuffEr 18:47, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

See Google Test. "...the google test checks popular usage, not correctness". --Viriditas 22:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've missed the point. Google proves that "Occupation of Palestine" is the consensus title. HistoryBuffEr 23:56, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

I've missed nothing, and in fact I have caught you distorting the Google test. Also, you violated number 4 of the new Minimum basis of principles that you agreed to follow: "focus on the bigger picture rather than bickering about details". Google does not prove anything. "Google test checks popular usage, not correctness." --Viriditas 00:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You continue to fail the reading comprehension and common sense tests. Discussion over. HistoryBuffEr 00:25, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Actually, Google prooves that the term "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" [4] is more often used on the internat than the term "Occupation of Palestine" [5]. You need to put it in "". Let's stop the bickering for now and have the fight about the best title some other time. - pir 00:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wrong, most people don't use quotes when searching, see 1. Most Google help examples are without quotes, see 2. Quotes are only recommended under advanced help for famous phrases or proper names, see 3. HistoryBuffEr 00:35, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Buff, when you search for 'Occupation of Palestine' without quotes, google returns all articles which contain the word "occupation" and "Palestine" somewhere on the page, and since lots of articles about this topic contain both words, you get lots of articles and the result is highly distorted. It doesn't mean however that all of these article contain the term "Occupation of Palestine". If you want to know the total number of hits that contain the complete term, you need to put it in quotes. Or is it because you are opposed to putting quotes around Palestine ;) - pir 01:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How do you know this, and why would it possibly be relevant anyway? Using quotes restricts it the exact phrase, which is the point. Jayjg 00:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And we're talking for the most popular phrase. Jayjg 00:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Strategy for cooperative writing

Hello, I trust everyone had a good weekend?

Jay, Buff and Pir, I would really like to work with you on the, er, list of bullet points.

Some open issues remain:

The title of the article we are writing

Is it Occupation of Palestine, Arab-Israeli conflict, or what?

The names of the sides

Which leads to what we should call the sides which advocate the POVs expressed by Buff & Jay's, ah, 'duelling bullets' above. Arab vs. Israel? Worldwide consensus vs. a few extremists? PLO vs. right-wing Jews?

How to work together

I think we can get started on the article, even if we can't yet agree on where the article should go, and what we should call the "sides". But if the name of one side becomes a stumbling block, I don't know what to do. Buff, you're not going to insist that the POV you outlined on Friday (and which led me to hope for a peaceful Sabbath :-) is the Palestinian side, are you? Can we attribute that POV to a particular person or organization instead? (We can note in the article that he or it claims to represent a side...)

Let's list some working titles:

• opposing views on the disposition of the region called Palestine
• views of homeland creation in the Middle East
• why there is no peace in Palestine
• background of the Arab-Israeli conflict
• your entries here

All I know is that HistoryBuffER is trying very hard to conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and that pir is being very nice and harmonious, and that Jay knows 100 times more history than I do. ----Uncle Ed (Rod Poe) 18:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention IZAK. He's helping, too, and knows some points of history. So, this brings our "list of players" up to:

• Buff - "pro-Palestinian" but hates scare quotes!

Disagree with POV characterization. Being pro-facts and pro-fairness means just that. If facts and fairness favor the Palestinian side that's just the fact of life and is not necessarily POV -- fairness is not always blind. HistoryBuffEr 19:40, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

"HistoryBuffer" is now teaching us the "fact(s) of life", is this a biology class or something? IZAK 23:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Ed - tries to be neutral but is really pro-Israel
• IZAK - hotly pro-Israel
• Jay - pro-Israel

• Well, if Buff is just pro-facts and pro-fairness, then I am doubly so. :-) Jayjg 00:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Pir - very nice, harmonious person

No Buff and Jayjg, you are both horrible POV pushers and extremists, I am the only one who's really, honestly, genuinely pro-facts and pro-fairness :-) - pir 13:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are we all on board now?

Minimum basis of principles for co-operation

OK, I am willing to work together with all of you, but only on the following basis:

1. that we all accept the existence and the legitimacy of our "opponent's" POV in the article. In practice, I think that this would mean that, if a particular POV is described in a paragraph, the "opponent" will not remove it, nor edit it so as to distort it, nor even weigh in with counterarguments (!). Counterarguments should receive their own paragraph, to describe them more thoroughly, they shouldn't be used to destroy a POV ;
2. no personal attacks
3. that we work in several stages, i.e. one side of the debate writes a full draft, and only after they are done can the other side edit the draft. In this way we could approach NPOV in several iterations.
4. that we focus on the bigger picture rather than bickering about details
5. that we leave the debate on the title for later. once we manage to write a full article, we will be so proud of ourselves that we will be able to solve that problem easily

Who can agree to this? - pir 20:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Agree, with caveats: Factual and consensus statements should lead the paragraph/section, statements disputing that should follow. When 2 or more POV statements are present their order should be alternated so one side's POV is not always presented first. HistoryBuffEr 21:16, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Factual statements require good sources that must be quoted so that other people can examine them in order to arrive at consensus. --Viriditas 22:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Agree, with the addition of the following:

1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox
2. Wikipedia is not a battleground

--Viriditas 22:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Agree, with Viriditas' additions. Jayjg 00:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could both of you maybe clarify what the practical consequences are of Viriditas' additions when it comes to our collaborative writing effort? - pir 01:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You say we should accept our "opponent's" POV, but we should also make mention of those who abandon reason and fairness, and instead choose to climb soapboxes. Regarding battlefields, we should work towards agreement and actively defuse divisiveness. I have noticed that some users will put more energy into forming a dispute rather than working towards a harmonious resolution, possibly because it entails working out a compromise, which is essentially the end result of an article with a NPOV. I suppose a basic reminder to adhere to Wikiquette is necessary, nothing more. --Viriditas 01:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the soap-box stuff. There should be no problem here - we are not politicians or spokesmen for any political movements, we are just Wikipedia editors trying to describe the conflicts/debates/arguments that happen in the real world. We just report these things and try to describe them fairly. For example, if the Israeli government argues that it is their right to invade and bomb Gaza because Hamas was launching Qassam rockets, then we just report and describe their justification in an honest and fair way - whether we think they have "abandoned reason and fairness" is completely irrelevant. If Hamas argues it is their right to blow up Israelis because Israel is a militarised society that's oppressing them, then we just report and describe their justification in an honest and fair way - whether we think they have "abandoned reason and fairness" is completely irrelevant. No soapboxes are involved here! OK? - pir 12:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are soapboxes involved, and they involve editors who stray from simple reporting to promoting an agenda. Also, your strawman argument completely avoids the question of biased editors and instead blames the bias on the opposing sides, which was not the topic. I was clearly discussing the soapboxes of editors, which you seem to think is not a problem. Editors are not simply reporting the facts, and that is the issue, which is why I ask those editors to post sources and citations so that others can examine the "reports". --Viriditas 23:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like pir's description of the recent fighting in Gaza: Israel says that they are "responding to attacks", i.e., just trying to suppress rocket fire, and when the rocket attacks cease, they will (er) 'uninvade' Gaza. Hamas, et al., say the rocket attacks are (a) designed to end the "occupation" and sometimes (b) in response to the invasion (you know, the one Israel launched to stop the rocket attacks).

Whether I have the details right is immaterial. What we contributors need to agree on is that we are NOT trying to produce a consensus true version of history and current events but a neutral article which describes and explains utterly opposite points of view: Israel is wrong and should give up this and that piece of land to its rightful owners versus Israel is right and is entitled to keep or take something... --Uncle Ed (Rod Poe) 13:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please explain that to HistoryBuffEr. He thinks we are trying to produce a conensus version of history. --Viriditas 23:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's negotiate: an outline

OK, I've written an outline for the draft. Let's negotiate the general structure of the article first, and when we're done with that, we can just copy it to /draft of an untitled article and start writing. Some important suggestions:

• to implement minimum principle No.1 above, we subdivide the whole article into "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" territory. Each side has the right to do whatever they want in "their territory". No side has the right to invade the other side's "territory". However each side can grant the right to the opposing side to reformulate or edit stuff on their "territory" but only after they have asked for it on the talk page, explained their intentions and been granted permission to edit. In practice this means that each side needs to build as strong an argument as they can but only on their own territory. Each side can launch "pre-emptive strikes" to counter the other's argument, and can "fire back" - but only from their own territory.
• regarding sources and attributions: as much as possible, everything should be attributed and sourced. All kinds of sources are allowed (they don't have to be NPOV), but it is obvious that, if you want to build a strong argument, it's in your interest to use NPOV sources. If you can't find any, it says something about the case you're making.
• regarding the outline: please have a good look at it, it's extremely important. If you want to reformulate something, just go ahead. If you have more serious objections, bring them up at the bottom of the outline, and then we can negotiate.
• regarding the order of views: I tried to make this as balanced and logical and possible. Overall I think it is fairly balanced. The POV which is described first is usually the one of the side who took the initiative, or who is most tightly assiciated with the heading. I'm sure the order will appear unfair to all of you, you will feel your particular side is disadvantaged. But please don't foget that coming first does not necessarily work to your advantage: on one hand it does allow you to kind of frame the debate ; but on the other hand, if you manage to refute the preceding view, that is what will stick in the readers mind.
• very important : if we aver manage to get this article written, it will represent a compromise that we fought over quite hard. We will need to defend the compromise from being ruined by newcomers. I suggest we designate a handful of people from both sides, whose role it will be to defend the compromise, by removing any edits that distort/undermine the compromise (even if they support our own POV!!) and only leaving those that improve the article's quality. If any newcomers are unhappy with the compromise, they can raise it on the talk page, and we can renegotiate if we think they have a point.

Please list your Dis/Agreement to these suggestions here. -pir 15:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict article states in its introduction: Today the conflict is mainly over these issues:

• The status and future of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem
• The question of creating a Palestinian state
• The fate of the Palestinian refugees.
• The settlement policies of Israel

to which I'd add:

• security

One of the things which make that particular article so unbelievably crap is that almost everything after that concerns the "Peace Process". Obviously it's not just one big fluffy peace process!! It's a brutal conflict! The article never actually explains what the conflict is about, and how it came to be. So it seems to me if we event want to uphold the pretense of writing an article about the conflict, we need to explain how we got into the situation that caused the five bullet points above. The outline contains three main parts:

• the history and other aspects contributing to the conflict. This should answer the question: How did we get into this situation of conflict
• the various forces involved in the conflict. This should answer the questions: 'Who are they? What do they want to achieve? What are their actions?
• conflict resolutions. should answer What are the possible outcomes? What concrete steps have been taken?

So, above we agreed to focus on the bigger picture rather than the controversial details. For this reason, we should constantly aim in our writing to answer the questions outlined above. All the details (no matter how important), especially if they are controversial, should be dealt with in other articles. Try to link to other articles as much as possible, it saves space and edit conflicts. If we all try to be as succinct as possible, I think we can write a readable article, and shift the bickering about controversial details to all the linked articles. Is this OK with everyone? Please state your Dis/Agreement here. -pir 15:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

---

Outline for untitled, yet to be written, new article

(Introduction) (to be written at the end)

==History==

===The Declaration of Independence and the Nakba===

1. pro-Israeli view
2. pro-Palestinian view

===The Six Day War===

1. pro-Israeli view
2. pro-Palestinian view

===The two Intifadas===

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

==Other important aspects==

====Israeli aspirations====

1. pro-Israeli view

====Palestinian aspirations====

1. pro-Palestinian view

====the use of violence against Israelis====

1. pro-Israeli view
2. pro-Palestinian view

====the use of violence against Palestinians====

====alleged anti-Semitism====

1. pro-Israeli view
2. pro-Palestinian view

====alleged anti-Arab racism====

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

====the economic situation of Israelis and Palestinians====

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

==The Players in the region== (someone please think of a proper title)

===Successive Israeli governments=== (Likud&Labour)

1. pro-Israeli view

[# pro-Palestinian view]

===The PA and the PLO===

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

===The Israeli far-right and the settlers===

1. pro-Israeli view
2. pro-Palestinian view

===Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and similar organisations===

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

===The Israeli peace movement and left-wing parties===

1. pro-Israeli view
2. pro-Palestinian view

===Palestinian human rights organisations etc.=== plus international orgs. like ISM etc.

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

==External Players==

==The US==

1. pro-Israeli view
2. pro-Palestinian view

==The UN==

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

==Arab neighbours==

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

==Others== EU, USSR/Russia,

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

==The Peace process: possible outcomes==

first the different possible outcomes

===The status quo===

1. pro-Israeli view
2. pro-Palestinian view

===The two-state solution===

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

===The binational solution===

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

===Destruction of Israel: the politics of Hamas===

1. pro-Israeli view
2. pro-Palestinian view

===Destruction of the Palestinians: the politics of "transfer"===

1. pro-Palestinian view
2. pro-Israeli view

==The Peace process: concrete initiatives taken==

===Oslo Accords===

===Camp David 2000 Summit===

===The Road Map for Peace===

===Various other Peace initiatives===

==See Alsos and Links==

---

Please state Comments, criticisms, praise,disagreements, agreements etc. below. - pir 15:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Negotiations

I don't like the "pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian" division. It would be better to quote specific advocates on each topic.

For example, on whether the "Palestinian people" are a special subset of the residents of Palestine (the region), there are various opinions: Golda Meir and some Arab leaders have said there is no such distinctive group (i.e., it's an ad hoc classification) -- while others maintain that non-Jewish, non-Bedouin Arabs indigenous to the region are the "real Palestinians".

Similarly, on the transfer of control of portions of the West Bank, many Israelis favor creating a second Arab state in Palestine (the "State of Palestine", perhaps) --which the PLO and most Islamic countries favor, too.

We have to be careful how we label the POVs: pro-this and pro-that is simplistic. ----Uncle Ed (Rod Poe) 15:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and I agree it is simplistic. But I think this is the best way of organising the collaboration. Simple concepts often work best. I wouldn't actually label myself pro-Palestinian, all this is just purely to organise the way we work, it's really not intended as an accurate label for the POV's.

Would it be OK to form two teams - they can choose a name for themselves. The title I suggest for my team is Committee for the Defence of Equal Rights between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs and against the Chauvinistic Branch of Zionism ;) - pir 16:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course, if you were truly interested in a NPOV, you would have added Chauvinistic Branch of Pan-Arabism. --Viriditas 23:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't being entirely serious, and that's covered pretty extensively already. - pir 02:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It really depents on what we contributors are trying to do: (A) Lay out our own ideas (and optionally, fight for them here"); or, (B) Describe the major points of view of non-Wikipedians worldwide.

I was hoping we would take each point and describe the POV of the Untied Nations; the PLO, Yasser Arafat, Hamas & other terrorists; the Arab League, leaders of various Islamic countries; Muslim religious leaders; Israeli prime ministers, generals, party leaders and judges; Jewish lobbying groups, Jewish religious leaders; US presidents; etc.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but each point has multiple points of view: not just two! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In my case, I am interested in (B) Describing the major points of view. --Viriditas 00:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's what most of us want. The problem is that, after we have written a nice logical description of why the Israeli government did this or that, someone will come, rewrite so as to distort it and add "AND THEY KILL BABIES". And nice logical description of why Hamas or the PA did this or that, someone will come, rewrite so as to distort it and add "AND THEY KILL BABIES". Unless we organise ourselves in a way that prevents that from happening, we will not be able to write such an article. - pir 02:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Civility. There are loose guidelines already in place for the issues you describe. It is up to us to implement them. --Viriditas 07:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Outline version 2

There are problems with the proposed outline, some already mentioned above, plus:

• Presenting this as a mere bickering between 2 parties:

• Does not help the reader understand the big picture, and
• Ignores the interests of the region and the world.

The article and sections should present what's consensus and undisputed first.

• Having entire pro and con sections on the same subject is similarly unhelpful. Let's put all relevant views inside the section; the "territory" of one side will be "their" paragraph.
• We should, of course, use existing articles whenever possible. Unfortunately:

• Too many of related articles are POV.
• Transferring edit wars to such articles does not solve much.

If some article is not agreeable to majority, we should make an NPOV summary instead, right here.

• The order of views is important and they should be alternated.
• We need to strike the balance between the big picture and details. The current proposal has too many subsections. Most relevant details can be covered in a paragraph or two instead.

Here's my proposed version 2 of the outline:

---

Outline for untitled, yet to be written, new article

(Introduction) (to be written at the end)

==History==

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If an existing article is not NPOV, outline and/or create a new title.)

==The Partition and Consequences==

Describe:

• The Partition resolution,
• Declaration of the state of Israel,
• Disposession and Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
• Response of the neighbors and the world

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

===The Wars between Israel and Neighbors===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian/Arab views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

===Palestinian Uprisings===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

==The Current Status of Occupation==

Briefly summarize:

• Which areas Israel occupies,
• Violence stemming from the occupation
• Policies and effects of the occupation,
• Politicial processes to end the occupation

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

===Occupied Areas===

List all areas occupied and/or disputed.

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

===Violence related to the occupation===

Describe:

• Israeli attacks on Palestinians,
• Palestinian attacks on Israelis,

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

===Policies and effects of Occupation===

Describe:

• Military activities
• Destruction of property
• Occupation colonies
• Walls around Gaza and West Bank
• Checkpoints and Curfews
• Economic effects of the occupation

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

===Politicial processes to end the occupation===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

==The Regional Context==

===Israeli governments, parties and factions===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

===Palestinian organizations, parties and factions===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

===The Neighbors===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

==The International Context==

Summarize:

• The role of the UN and other intl orgs.
• The role of the US.
• The role of EU and Russia.
• The role of the Islamic world.
• The role of Christian Zionists.
• The role of Int'l Peace movements and orgs.

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

===The UN===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

===The US===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

===EU and Russia===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

===The Islamic world===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

===Christian Zionists===

A brief summary with links to other NPOV articles for details. (If there is no NPOV article, write an NPOV summary, add new title.)

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

===International organizations===

Describe:

• Int'l Peace movements,
• Human Rights Watch,
• Amnesty Int'l, etc.

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

==The Future: Possible Outcomes==

Summarize the possible outcomes.

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

===The status quo===

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

===The two-state solution===

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

===The Bi-national Solution===

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Palestinian views
  3. Israel's views
  4. Other views 

===The Extremists' Solutions===

• All of Palestine controlled by Jews, Palestinians ethnically cleansed or subjugated.
• All of Palestine controlled by Palestinians, Israel ceases to exist.

  1. Consensus view (UN, world)

Follow with statements disputing consensus:

  2. Israel's views
  3. Palestinian views
  4. Other views 

==See Alsos and Links== HistoryBuffEr 19:19, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a consensus view

There is no way of defining a "consensus view", since there is little consensus on these topics, despite claims to the contrary. For that matter, even terms like "extremists" are POV. Also, the choice of "POVs" is heavily weighted, unlike Pir's arrangement, which at least gives each side equal air-time. Ed is right, you need to describe specific views and attribute them to specific groups; that, in fact, is exactly how Wikipedia recommends achieving NPOV. Jayjg 21:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I've said before, I completely agree that there are many PsOV in this conflict, no doubt about that, and in theory there should be absolutely no problem in describing all of them. However, in practice, there is a huge problem, and there are constant edit wars, and many of the articles are complete rubbish.

To adress the problem, we first need to diagnose it properly. The problem is that most of the people who edit the articles in question have extremely strong views of what they believe to be the truth, and they do not tolerate opposing views being described in a fair way. Instead they mutilate opposing PsOV beyond recognition. They do not engage in this destructive behaviour because they are morally defective people, they behave in this way because they honestly believe that the opposing POV is nonsense, and they think that by deconstructing the other side's argument they actually improve the article. In the end the most persistent and dedicated editors have the biggest influence on the articles. That is however not a big achievement for them either, because the articles are very unstable and generally of bad quality.

Although there are multiple views in the real world, at Wikipedia the editors can be subdivided into two groups: (I'm not trying to pin some unfair label at anyone here, I'm just trying to state quite clearly what I believe to be the distinguishing feature ; please replace it with your own preferred labels) (1) those who I would describe (from my biased POV) as uncompromising and dedicated defenders of Israel, who do not tolerate any substantial criticisms being levelled against Israel, in particular apologists for the way successive Israeli governments have treated Palestinians ; (2) those who are generally very critical of Israel and condemn the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Israel. There are, I believe, few people who don't fall into one of these two categories.

What can be done to redress the problem and write informative, readable articles? I think the solution is that we all agree to give our opponents the space which they deserve. This has to be the first step. Without that we will never be able to work this out. Having two groups allows us to organise ourselves in the way we write the article. More groups will fail, fewer will fail too. And I genuinely believe that there is no problem with having two groups cover the multiple points of view. If anybody can think of a better solution of organising ourselves please say so. But if not, I suggest that we adopt this one. I believe anything else will fail. - pir 22:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If what you're describing is presenting two views, one pro-Palestinian, one pro-Israeli, then I agree. It's the presenting of the mythical "consensus" view, which will (surprise suprise) turn out to be identical to the pro-Palestinian view, that I don't agree with. Jayjg 22:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Questioning Consensus

Consensus is questioned by, for example:

• Believers in flat Earth,
• Holocaust deniers,
• Deniers of Israeli occupation, etc.

These extremists believe that only their view is correct and that no other view can be called consensus, because consensus is only what they agree on (credit to User:VeryVerily).

Most reasonable people will agree that consensus exists on facts or views which:

1. Are not disputed by most, or (if there is a dispute by many)

2. Are not disputed by major players, or (if there is a dispute by major players)

3. The majority of observers believe to be true or justified, or (if there is still a dispute)

4. Are determined to be true or justified by an impartial authority.

The moral of the story: Just because you won't accept it that does not mean that consensus does not exist. If we allowed the extremists to veto, there would be no laws and no civilization -- we'd still be stuck with them in the cave.

HistoryBuffEr 23:26, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

We desire editorial consensus, not historical consensus. Please have Uncle Ed explain it to you. --Viriditas 23:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Conflating un-related and dissimilar groups does not make for a good argument. "Most" in your examples is undefined and undefinable, as is "the majority of observers". And there are no impartial authorities in this case (and very often not in others). Jayjg 16:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

" (Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then.."

Please see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#The war for Palestine where User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. He also insists on editing-away lots of NPOV's that don't suit him, take a look at [6] please as this relates to this subject.IZAK 08:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He has posted similar claims on this page before, as well. To date, he has been unable to cite any good sources for this claim. While he appears to want to work towards a POV, his edit history says otherwise. --Viriditas 09:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Massacre at Baldat al-Shaikh, YEHIDA MASSACRE,KHISAS MASSACRE,QAZAZA MASSACRE,The Semiramis Hotel Massacre,The ,Massacre at Dair Yasin,NASER AL-DIN MASSACRE,THE TANTURA MASSACRE,BEIT DARAS,MASSACRE,THE DAHMASH MOSQUE MASSACRE,DAWAYMA MASSACRE,HOULA MASSACRE,SHARAFAT MASSACRE,Salha Massacre,The Massacre at Qibya,KAFR QASEM MASSACRE,Khan Yunis Massacre ,The Massacre in Gaza City at least accroding to [7]. It's amazing at the dishonesty of Israeli's supporters.--Jirate 11:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Try using a more credible and NPOV source. Also, it would be helpful if people recognizes multiple simultaneous actions, players, and events produce history, rather than trying to pin all history on extremely simplistic and narrow causes. Jayjg 16:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You haven't said anything to demonstrate that a single one of those accounts isn't credible, and that the site isn't NPOV. Most people do recognize the complexity of the world, it's the supporters of Israel who do not. Specifically by not recognizing the terroist activities and gangs that helped in the formation of Israel.--Jirate 17:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A page which refers to Israelis as "Nazi Jews" can't really be seriously considered as credible or NPOV. Jayjg 17:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why not? Some Israeli act like Nazi so the get called Nazi, its as simple that. The National Religious Parties manifesto views the west bank as Israels "liebensraum". The bit you disingenously refer to is a quote "The Nobel Prize of Literature Jose Saramago compares the suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation as the same suffering of the jews in the Nazi boot camps. ""The repression from Israel is the worst form of Apartheid. Nobody has the faintest idea of what is going on here, even the best informed people. Everything is in pieces, the land is destroyed and nothing else may be planted. All this smells like a boot camp, like Auschwitz. The israeli have turned into NAZI JEWS"" it's right at the top of the page. and again it's quite noticeable you haven't actully disproved anything on the site.--Jirate 18:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hardly disingenuous; the webpage authors put the phrase directly in the title of the page, and after Saramago's quote say "He is correct.". As for the analogy, only someone profoundly ignorant of Nazism and Auschwitz would make such a claim; see this relevant article [8] and this somewhat longer one on the same issue [9] Jayjg 18:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is highly disingneous and you know it. your missing out of the next bit which says "let us see why" and then list massacres commited by Israeli's, non of which you have disproved yet or even atempted to. With you external references are you trying to suggest that most poeple don't know 6 million jews died in the final solution? I think it is you that is profoundly ignorant about Nazism and what it is all about, which is why you cannot see that the NRP is a Nazi party, and that the actions of Israel are fully consistant with Nazi ideas like racial purity and designating various groups as sub-human. Just because it's a different group this time doesn't change anything. It's a classic example of the bullied becoming the bully.--Jirate 18:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is hardly disingenuous; the page obviously wholeheartedly believes that Israelis are "NAZI JEWS", and such a page could hardly be considered credible or NPOV. As for the list, even if it were true, the analogy would be specious as best, and something far more sinister at worst. Jayjg 19:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You still haven't actually countered any of the items in the article, and until you do that you haven't countered the association. All you've done is highlight what you consider to be an inflamtory phrase. Why would the analogy be spurious because the victims aren't jewish?--Jirate 19:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We don't have to "counter" any of your claims. Those who make claims are required to prove them. That's the rule. And, you have failed to substantiate your claims with credible sources. In essence, you countered your own claim. --Viriditas 22:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This we you talk on behalf of, who is it? Surely your representing yourself. The sources credibility has been questioned but so far noone has explained what is wrong with it except that it doesn't confirm their view. Atleast some of the items on there like the King David Hotel is well known, and the massacres in Beruit is well known. Do you contest those? If not pick a test sample for detailed inspection?--Jirate 22:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, we don't have to counter your claims. You are committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. --Viriditas 06:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You haven't answered who this 'we' your talking on behalf of yet is. This isn't a court of law, and anyway in a court of law the descision is made by either a jury or neutral judge, and you are neither, comparing the two antagonistic arguments and as you haven't provide any argument other than 'I don't like your evidence'. --Jirate

Again, you are shifting the burden of proof and attempting to distract. Fallacies are not the domain of a court of law, as you clearly demonstrate. As the claimant in any sphere -- whether it be legal, scientific, literary, or any serious endeavor requiring logical thought -- you are required to prove your claims. Since your claims amount to nothing but cheap, prejudicial personal attacks, they are worthless. --Viriditas 12:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was nothing personal, it's you that keeps dishonestly characterising things as personal, as you have lost the argument. In criminal law you required to prove "beyond reasonable" doubt, in civil law the level of proof is far less stringent, and in both cases, if one side does not offer a case then it looses, you offer no case. Also again it isn't the antagonists which get to decide and you are one of the anatagonists.--Jirate 13:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, your argument is personal, and as such, it is ad hominem. You are required to prove your claim, so stop asking people to prove a negative. There is nothing to decide, since your claims are unproven and lack unbiased sources. --Viriditas 20:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to show the falseness of the accounts on [10], you haven't done that, you also haven't demonstrated that the bias in the source, simply stating you disagree is not an argument, you fail to understand the basis of the debate. The evidence is listed on [11] take a look and counter it if you can. Provide an alternative account of the King David Hotel bombing to the one provided by Menchim Begin, argue with Israel's own government report about Ariel Sharon's part in the Beruit massacre.--Jirate 20:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are shifting the burden of proof by asking us to "show the falseness of the accounts". We don't have to prove a negative. As the claimant, you are required to demonstrate the veracity of your claim, regardless of the venue. --Viriditas 23:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nope not shifted at all. Again who is this we you claim to be representing? http://www.deathmasters.com big list, lots of references, that no one has disputed is true. Someone has disagreed with the title but not voiced any objections to any of the items in the list. So I'll include them in the main pages. The veracity of any argument is demonstrated by it being tested, in science by experiment and in law in the courts, so far this lists veracity is unchalleged.--Jirate 00:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, you are fallaciously shifting the burden of proof by claiming "no one has disputed [sic] is true". No one has to prove a negative. The source for your claims is a site promoted by the Stormfront White Nationalist Community. The references cited on the page in question are impossible to verify and are not reputable. Your claims cannot be tested because your sources are not credible. --Viriditas 00:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That vile people will use vile actions to justify there views is not at all suprising. Using Alta Vista and searching for 'Qibya' produces [12] or even Qibya_massacre or 'Tantura' perhaps [13] from an Israeli site. Which ones do you think are only promulgated by facists? --Jirate 01:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chaps...toooo many indentations... IZAK 05:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Two points

1. This page is getting long (155 KB). It's probably time to archive it.
2. Viriditas said, "There are soapboxes involved, and they involve editors who stray from simple reporting to promoting an agenda." He's right, and I hope we can transform promotion of an agenda to writing about people who promote their agendas. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Categorizing people who have viewpoints

Pir noted that people tend to fall into either of the two following categories:

1. those who ... [are] uncompromising and dedicated defenders of Israel, who do not tolerate any substantial criticisms being levelled against Israel, in particular apologists for the way successive Israeli governments have treated Palestinians;
2. those who are generally very critical of Israel and condemn the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Israel.

I am looking for contributors who can write about the people in the above two groups. Note that being in either of these categories can be a handicap. It can be very difficult to write neutrally about something, if you yourself either (a) condemn it, or (b) cannot tolearate criticisms about it.

It's hard for me, too -- so I avoid my hot button topics. (Hmm, I'm not even sure I could list them without, er, pushing my own buttons! :-)

Can some of us say that we condemn the other side, but understand their reasons? "Robbing a bank is wrong. It's inexcusable. He's just greedy. He wants money without having to work for it." This becomes:

• Milly Yon Aire, professor of financial ethics at Babelson College, says that bank robbery is inexcusable. He believes that everyone should work for a living.
• Riah Zisstanz, Middle Eastern public affairs director for Shabazz, says that removing money from a bank by force is justified when it was deposited there wrongfully. He lists several cases, such as wire fraud ...

I'm using silly names and contrived examples, but this doesn't mean I'm trivializing the seriousness of the issues. It's just my, er, teaching style. I'm trying to show an example of the kind of writing we need here.

Our goal should be to create an article, which anyone can look at and say that it's accurate and unbiased. ----Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The two groups that Pir mentions are false and misleading. In fact, the two groups are

1. Those who try to vilify and demonize Israel in every and any way possible, and
2. Those who try to defend Israel against unwarranted and unsupportable demonization and vilification.

Of course, there are various shades of this as well. Regardless, labelling people (particularly editors) is not at all helpful; instead, we should be working on presenting the differing viewpoints of the conflict. Jayjg 16:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Misleading is you missing out the gang that defends Israel whatever.--Jirate 17:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the basic unit of humanity is the "Gang" wether that gang calls its self a race,religion,football team or political view point. What we see here and in Palestian/Israel fight is gang warfare, nothing else. People try to show their loyalty to "their" gang in all sorts of ways, deliberate and studied ignorance etc, never admit they are wrong, never compromise etc. What the gangs and the zealot members are after is victory so they can say they were right and all their gangs actions where justified etc. They aren't after peace.--Jirate 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poisoning the well. --Viriditas 00:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This won't work

All this careful laying out of rules and meta discussions are nice but irrelevant. As long as the Zionist Deniers horde (Jayjg, IZAK, Viriditas ...) is on board there will never be an article acceptable to anyone else but them. They keep denying obvious facts and removing them for articles, and have not shown even slightest inclination to change.

Take for example User:Jayjg:

• He keeps removing "occupation" from all Israel related articles (unless, of course, it is "occupation by Jordan").
• He keeps denying occupation regardless of what facts say. He denies even Sharon's admission of occupation.
• He keeps denying any fact unfavorable to Israel. He likes to play dumb and ask for "NPOV source" for every simple and widely known fact, which he could google in seconds if he really cared for facts.
• He even keeps removing notices that articles are disputed !!!

and, in case you're not in tears from laughter yet, he claims he is objective. Now, imagine the rest of the gang.

We should either form a group of editors who are amenable to accepting facts (regardless of which side they favor) or we should quit wasting our time here. HistoryBuffEr 17:47, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

If people believe "facts" can be found so easily, then they should have no trouble googling them and providing them. And disputed tags specifically say that one should look at the Talk: pages; one should actually raise a dispute in Talk: before labelling a page as disputed. As for the rest, please use the Talk: page for discussions about editing the page itself, rather than ad hominem arguments concerning editors. Jayjg 18:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jay did you really remove "occupation" from any articles? That sounds like something I would do -- not you. And if you have removed notices that articles are disputed, that wouldn't be right unless the disputes had really ended. (El Dunce) 19:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't remember every edit, I recall there were a number of disagreements about whether the territories should be called "occupied" or "disputed"; I do remember changing a number of references to "Occupation of Palestine" and "Occupied Terroritories" to the more exact and less controversial "West Bank" and/or "Gaza", whichever was appropriate. As for dispute notices, there were no disputes to begin with; HistoryBuffEr added "totally disputed" tags to pages on which he had said absolutely nothing in Talk: After being told several times that disputed tags refer directly to disputes on the Talk: pages, he said that the dispute was about the disputed tags, an amazingly circular argument. Jayjg 02:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We need some minimal common base for cooperation. I'm still hoping we can find something to agree on... --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr continues to violate Wikiquette by calling people names, i.e. "Zionist Deniers horde". --Viriditas 22:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can agree with that. :-) Jayjg 02:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV, edits for clarity and accuracy....very clear....so Iet's see how POVers disagree

This is NPOV

• According to the Bible, the land was promised to the Children of Israel, the descendants of the Biblical Patriarch, Abraham, who called it the Holy Land or the Promised Land. When Jews arrived there following their Exodus from ancient Egypt thousands of years later, they battled with the native inhabitants and their primary opponents were the ancient Philistines who were based in ancient Gaza. Eventually the ancient Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah were established which lasted until the advent of Roman times.

In this change you are clearly creating a split betweeen the Children of Israel and the Jews who are one and the same people. That's History and Bible 101 that you are missing. Also, when did Abraham call it the Holy Land or Promised Land? IZAK 06:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History, documentation of actual recorded events in human society, is not the same as the Bible (which Bible version?), which is an interpretation of particular beliefs and religious myths. Do you believe that the story of 7 days of Creation is history or myth?Alberuni 15:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about the Samaritans?--Jirate 14:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Bible is a good example of what HISTORIANS would call a primary document. It is a reliable text and does not deal with "myths" (that's the job of movie-makers and Holocaust deniars). The Seven Days of Creation described in the Book of Genesis are very complex and need study before you relegate them to "myth" as that would mean you deny the foundation of the Judeo-Christian tradition and you wouldn't want to do that would you..? IZAK 08:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for the Samaritans, they are long gone. Maybe 250 of them nowadays raising sheep peacefully somewhere in the Galilee. Why do you ask? IZAK 08:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Exodus from Egypt according to traditional dating was a few hundred years later, not thousands. The Children of Israel were the descendants of the Biblical Patriarch Jacob, a significant difference. The native "inhabitants" are described as nations. Jayjg 07:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In what year did Abraham die and in what year was Moses born? These dates are not known. Let us write "an unknown number of years, perhaps hundreds or thousands of years later". +

- According to the Bible, the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham, not just the descendants of Abraham through Jacob. The Jews of Egypt were not known as the Children of Israel until later, after they had arrived in Canaan and created Israel. Describing the Canaanities as a nation is fine with me but readers may confuse the Biblical term "nation" meaning ethnic or clan group, with the modern term nation, meaning "nation-state". Alberuni 15:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to traditional Torah scholarship, using the years and dating of the Bible itself, Abraham died in the Hebrew calendar year of 2123 which is 1638 BC (i.e. 5765 is the present Hebrew year, 5765 minus 2123 years equals 3642 years ago which makes it 1638 BC). My source now (there are other confirming this) is The Living Torah by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan Plate on page 23. As for Moses he was born in the Hebrew year 2368 which is 3397 years ago, thus he was born in 1393 BC. No mystery, just FACTS. IZAK 08:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is POV

• According to the Bible the land was promised to the Children of Israel, they called it the Holy Land or the Promised Land and who arrived there as a nation following their Exodus from ancient Egypt. They battled with the native nations and their primary opponents were the ancient Philistines who in fact lived in ancient Gaza. Eventually the ancient Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah were established which lasted until the advent of Roman times.

This is a simple edit for accuracy:

• The Islamic Mamluks of Egypt took control of the land after the defeat of the Crusaders. The Mamluk ruling class, descended from former slaves of foreign origin, built a powerful dynasty.
  • good

• The Islamic Mamluks of Egypt took control of the land after the defeat of the Crusaders. They were a nation derived from freed or captured slaves and became a powerful force of their own. They co-operated with the rising Ottoman Empire,
  • bad

The Mamluks were more than just a "ruling class" they were no different to the "nation/" of dozens of tribes who coalesced to eventually be called "Arabs". The Mumluks had a working relationship with the Turks, which you do not mention.IZAK 06:52, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, why is your version more accurate? Jayjg 07:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Mamluks were a dynasty, a ruling class. They descended from the slaves who were brought in by the Ottomans. The population of Egyptians didn't suddenly become slaves just because the Mamluk dynasty took over. Alberuni 15:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who says that the "Egyptians" became slaves? The Mamluks were obviously plentiful and powerful enough to rule as a class of people in their own right very much like what we would call a "nation" or "people" or what the Arabs may call a "clan" or "tribe". IZAK 08:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is NPOV

• However, to both Arabs and Jews, Palestine was seen as being occupied by the British. The Jews in particular organized the Irgun and Lehi to fight the British and the Haganah and Palmach to attack Arabs. In retaliation, some Arabs expressed their rage against the Jewish population in incidents such as the Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920, the Riots in Palestine of May, 1921; the 1929 Hebron massacre; and the 1936 Great Uprising (with incitement by the militant Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husayni who was appointed by the British). By the time order was restored in March of 1939, more than 3,000 Arabs, 2,000 Jews, and 600 Britons had been killed.

The Jews had no interest "to attack Arabs". This is clearly POV and makes them sound like the "agressors". The Arabs attacked innocent Jews and killed them in Palestine without provocation. Many of the Jews that were murdered were simple un-armed Orthodox Judaism worshippers who meant no harm to the Arabs. You also imply that because the British "appointed" the Mufti (is that claim even true?) that they have only themselves to blame for his wickedness, again this sounds like a variance of "blame the victim" here.IZAK 06:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I find "attack Arabs" problematic as well, why not just leave "fight Arabs" as it was? Also, why is it important that the Mufti was appointed by the British? Jayjg 07:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish underground certainly did attack Arabs as well as the British. The fact that the Grand Mufti was appointed by the British should be noted. He was not a representative leader of militants who was elected or rose up in his own right, like Menachem Begin. He was put in place by the British. Alberuni 15:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you prove what you are saying about the Mufti? From what I have read he was probablt THE most popular Arab leader in his time, perhaps the British had no choice, if they had a hand in it at all. You are trying to wiggle out of something here, give the Mufti his "due" IZAK 08:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is POV and grammatically incorrect

• However, to both Arabs and Jews, Palestine was seen as being occupied by the British. The Jews in particular organized the Irgun and Lehi to fight the British and the Haganah and Palmach to fight the Arabs. In return some Arabs expressed their rage such as during the Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920, the Riots in Palestine of May, 1921; the 1929 Hebron massacre; and the 1936 Great Uprising (particularly with the encouragement of the highest leader Amin al-Husayni who was the Mufti of Jerusalem). By the time order was restored in March of 1939, more than 3,000 Arabs, 2,000 Jews, and 600 Britons were killed.

This is NPOV

• The neighboring Arab states did not establish a Palestinian state following the 1948 war with Israel. They concentrated on the fate of Palestinian refugees. Relief work was overseen by such bodies as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. In their view, Israel was now occupying Palestinian (Arab) land that they felt the UN and the British had no right to give away. They absolutely refused to recognize Israel and enacted boycotts against the new state. Thus, hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees fled from the former war zone in Palestine to neighboring Arab countries where they have remained in refugee camps. Simultaneously, hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews who had lived in Islamic societies for over 2,500 years (having lived there long before the rise of Islam), fled from newly-nationalistic Arab states without material compensation and headed for Israel. See Immigration to Israel from Arab lands.
  • 2500 years, not 1500, is the length of time cited under Jewish refugees. You can change it to "communities established more than 1500 years earlier"

Why are you injecting "innocent" present-day [[Iraq}] into the discussion, which is purely inflamatory. Saudi Arabia was not under any colonial rule and it was producing almost all the oil.IZAK 06:52, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Iraq was not in the article, it was in the comment section to point out teh hypocrisy of the description. Alberuni 15:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Izak is right about both. Jayjg 07:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What "hypocrisy"? The rich Arab states are notorious for their own loathing of the Palestinians (whom they view as Carpetbaggers and often reject.) How many Billions from the TRILLIONS of Petro Dollars have the Saudis given to the Palestinians? Answer: Relatively zilch! As for Iraq, let's not get into that. Saddam abused the oil-wealth more than anyone else, go see some of his palaces...IZAK 08:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is very POV and unacceptable BS:

• The Arabs did not establish any kind of Palestine following the 1948 war with Israel. They concentrated on announcing the fate of Palestinian refugees to the world. Relief work was overseen by such bodies as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East with little financial aid from the oil-rich Arab states. In their view Israel was now occupying Palestinian (Arab) land that they felt the UN and the British had no right to give away. They absolutely refused to recognize Israel and its right to exist and enacted boycotts
  • this is written as if Wikipedia endorses the POV that Israel has a right to exist. Just leave it at the fact that the Arab states refused to recognize Israel without throwing in your own personal editorial. Alberuni 05:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your last statement is probably the worst: "this is written as if Wikipedia endorses the POV that Israel has a right to exist. Just leave it at the fact that the Arab states refused to recognize Israel without throwing in your own personal editorial." Now that is truly disgusting! I leave it to others to comment further on your own very twisted POV attempted edits. IZAK 06:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

His POV is less twisted than your Israeli jingoism and history denial.--Jirate 12:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah Jirate old chap, what in heavens are you saying? You mean that you agree that Wikipedia should have a "NPOV" concerning Israel's right to exist? Should we then by the same token apply that to every stretch of disputed real estate on this planet? Then if so, nobody has any claim to anything because everybody has a claim to so many things...which is just too ridiculous to be part of a logical discussion about statehood and nationality and how nations are born and exist (and sadly, also cease to exist, which is what the Israel-haters want, but they aint gonna get it!) IZAK 08:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does Iraq have a right to exist? How about the United States? Jayjg 07:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, Iraq's sovereignty did not mean that it had a right to exist in violation of UN resolutions, as a threat to its neighbors, and if it develops WMDs (just like Israel in every respect) without invasion, occupation and replacement by a less abusive government. Bad example if you are trying to defend Israel! The issue isn't whether you and I agree on Israel's right to exist or not. It is the NPOV rule. This statement should not be written as if to endorse one POV or the other. The Arab states did not recognize the new state and they invaded. That's a fact. Period. To say they did not recognize its "right to exist" implies that Israel's right to exist is an accepted fact when it is just another POV, albeit yours. Alberuni 15:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out this is the most disputed patch on earth.--Jirate 12:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Petitio principii. --Viriditas 12:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, the most absurd claim in the entire "Israel/Palestine Debate" is the so-called "right" for a nation to exist. A nation either exists, or it doesn't.--Josiah 14:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

AGREED Alberuni 15:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure International Law disagrees, which is why the U.N. Security Council sent an army into Iraq after it conquered Kuwait. Jayjg 15:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Iraq's abusive conquest of its ARAB neighbour Kuwait was meant as the road to the destruction of the Ibn Saud tyrants in Saudi Arabia and the capture of Saudia Arabia's and all the Gulf States OIL wealth. Similarly, Iraq's commencement of the Iran-Iraq War from 1980-1988 with its ISLAMIC neighbor Iran was meant to annihilate the malicious Ruhollah Khomeini's despotic rule and capture Iran's OIL wealth. Saddam and his cohorts were greedy, greedy, greedy...all the way to their doom. And he was the big "sponsor" of Yassir Arafat and the sucide bombers' families giving them a few thousand bucks after a family member would blow themselves up for Jihad against the Yahoods. IZAK 08:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abuse

I had a look to see where my UserId was referenced and found this. Must admit I do come from Liverpool as for the rest complete rubbish. The amount of fantasy is amazing

User_talk:IZAK#Jirate 'Jirate

You may be interested to know that I have linked Jirate to Stormfront Britain, a white nationalist group. He is most likely from Liverpool, U.K. He appears to be a young kid, raised as a fundamentalist Christian. The Stormfront group has tens of thousands of articles on this forum (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=39) devoted to hatred of non-whites and Jews. They appear to attract and actively recruit young kids like Jirate. --Viriditas 00:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This does not surprise me at all. Wikipedia, being an open format and forum, always has had and will yet continue to attract Neo-Nazi racists, Anti-Semites, bigots and other malcontents spewing their brainwashed hate against Jews and others on their "hit list". All one can do is be on guard and toss them out into the (cyber) gutter where they belong. Keep up your watchfulness and good work Viriditas! IZAK 01:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IZAK"

This page was last modified 01:42, 15 Oct 2004. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). '--Jirate 02:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Jirate: It was User:Viriditas who made some connections and sent them to my user page. All I did was make some general comments about hatemongers. It was not addressed to you personally as I am sure that what I said is GENERALLY a true statement. What is the "abuse" exactly that you complain of? That "Neo-Nazi racists, Anti-Semites, bigots and other malcontents spewing their brainwashed hate against Jews and others" should be gotten rid of? What's so bad about that? IZAK 07:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jirate pastes this at "Peer review" why?

See Wikipedia:Peer review#Occupation of Palestine:

"This article is the subject of many arguments and very agressive editing, it is being used for a political purposes. It realy need to be looked over by non of the current protagonists, and should be republished anyware without the discussion page, until it has been de politicised.--Jirate 14:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• User:Jirate is ignoring a very serious discussion about this article and its contents at Talk:Occupation of Palestine by many responsible users, and is is only misleading readers by placing it here for Peer review. IZAK 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

I will now remove the nonsensical request for peer review when so many "peers" are hard at work here.IZAK 06:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that a request for a peer review is unwelcome if it is felt by some participants as necessary. However, calling for having things republished anyware without the discussion page seems counterproductive to me (OTOH, IZAK, your use of the word nonsensical is probably countering the assumption of the good faith), as creating a lot of different articles on the same controversial topic means that it will take longer to make all of them merged and NPOV, chipping away whatever resources voluntary contributed by the peer wikipedians. Jirate, the sandbox and user pages are precisely for that – if you feel that somebody needs to create a stand-alone contribution to the same topic without being "aggressively edited" in the mid-writing, you should suggest doing it as a sandbox/user subpage article; after the hypothetical author feels the thing is finished, they should try to achieve consensus on this (or another controversial article's) talk page. This could, indeed, lead to more contributed information and faster consensus achievement. Suggesting yet another public controversial fork will not work – things can't be hidden on the Wikipedia. BACbKA 07:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Babka: Just read for yourself all the hard work and discussions going on at this very self-same talk page above, and you will see that there are many fine Wikipedians hard at work here working on this subject. User:Jirate is free to add all his wisdom and knowledge like everyone else. If he wants to invite more people, it is not by undermining the hard efforts underway right here at this very place. Why in heavens name would any reasonable person want to toss out this page as Jirate wants ("republished anyware without the discussion page") which is just a smokescreen for derailing all the positive and productive hard work going on here. IZAK 07:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)