Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:08, 22 March 2009

There is a request, submitted by Allen314159 (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "Important Subject in relation to Current Events".

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.

Israeli–Palestinian conflict was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 19, 2008, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Israel B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22

Archive 5 - an essay about "Hate, propaganda and information" Archive 6 (2004 to Sept. 2006) Archive 7 (2006-2007) Archive 10 - contains only discussions relating to the new introduction which was drafted between 23/2/08 and 3/3/08. If you have a problem with the intro and are considering editing it, PLEASE READ THIS ARCHIVE FIRST. Archive 11 - Disputed vs Occupied. This Archive contains copious discussion as well as TWO RFCs! Thus it is imperative that you read this archive FIRST if you wish to add anything as it is highly likely your grievance has already been discussed and dealt with. Archive 12 - Casualty figures discussion. Archive 13 various major discussions from Jan 2008-June 2008.

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Resolution of content disputes

Here is a record of consensus items on this article.

Controversy management on wikipedia

• Controversies must be detailled and all pov's must be pointed out.
• If they cannot be detailled (too long, undue weight) or if too many pov's should be explained (undue weight for the article), they should not be introduced but only their existence pointed out and readers sent towards more detailled article.
  
• Any editor who having know-how of the controversies and who tries to put forward only one side systematically is called a pov-pusher and should refrain editing[REDACTED] which is not the appropriate battleground for these matters. Ceedjee (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do insist. I have just reverted a "but Finkelstein considers that..." Ceedjee (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein refers to a consensus among serious scholars.

You want the article to state your pov, namely that the causes are controversial, while there is another pov that says there is a consensus on one part of the causes, namely that it was an ethnic cleansing and that the controverse is on whether there was a deliberate policy to that effect.

You are pushing your pov, I'm pushing Finkelstein's. According to Misplaced Pages policy, both should be in (at least if yours is reliably sourced).

Certainly Finkelsteins observation is not given undue weight. This is an article on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The exodus is the major cause of the conflict! --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How can Finkelstien refers to a consensus among serious scholars when none of them agree.

More what he calls consensus would be ethnic cleansing. Don't make fun of us.

I don't push any pov. There is no consensus : this is something extremely factual !

The only pov-pusher here is you ! Addtionnaly you are a problematic editor who wants to writes Finkelstein comments on all articles related to Israel. Nobody agrees with you.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please conform to[REDACTED] policy. In your pov there is no consensus, but you are not a source for[REDACTED] articles. Finkelstein is a RS saying there is consensus in some respect. It's relevant and reliable, so I add it.

Please stop pushing your pov, i.e. that it's all controversial. I will leave that pov in, although I don't agree with it. So I expect you to respect Finkelstein's pov. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply adding a relevant statement from a reliable source. The fact that you don't agree with the statement is no reason to remove it! --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You ADD one pov where there are many.

It is clear they are many pov on the matter.

You keep not respecting NPoV in only focusing on 1 pov.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should explain it again: there are 'povs on the causes of the exodus' and there are 'povs on the debate on the causes of the exodus'. You are referring to povs in the first category, but Finkelsteins pov is in the second category, like your pov that there is only controversy. You are pushing the pov that there is a controversy, while a reliable source says that, at leasst in some respect, there is not. Please think .... . --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I write before too :

If Einstein would write that the "water boils at 95°" but other scientists would write "water boils at 100°", "water boils at 90°" or "water boils at 105°".

Quoting "Einstein writes that all serious scientists think water boils at 95°" is pov.

Stop making fun of us now. Ceedjee (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh... But I have a solution :

Many scholars debate around the causes of the 1948 exodus (we can give 5 differents ones in reference with Karsh - Gelber - Morris - Flahan and Masalha) nevertheless Finkelstein thinks all serious historians share his mind. You can add this on Finkelstein article if you like.

Would this fit your mind ?

Ceedjee (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) i reverted because finklstein is not a reliable source - even more so when he subjectively talks about his perceptions of other scholars. Jaakobou 12:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is a very reliable source. He's been attacked ad hominem, but his attackers have always been powerless against his arguments. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, You would be correct about finklstein being an extremely reliable source... if we were to live in a holocaust revisionistic space-time continuum. Jaakobou 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot answering me just above, concerning these powerless arguments. Ceedjee (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, you are the only one here claiming Finkelstein is a "very reliable source". That hardly makes for a consensus. His writings are grotesquely against the mainstream and thus especially subject to what we call "undue weight" when and if we cite him. He is a reliable source not of solid, constructive scholarship but generally of attacks on the work of others. Contrary to your statement that "his attackers have always been powerless", I seem to recall that he lost his last academic job on account of questionable scholarship, and that it was not the first time. When you insist on quoting what he thinks of others' work, you are telling readers of this article nothing useful about what actually happened in history. Worse, you are misleading them, since any view other than Finkelstein's is branded, tendentiously, as coming from a scholar who is not serious. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Finkelstein is a reliable source, by the standards of wp:rs. He has published several books which have been controversial and gotten both favorable and unfavorable reviews. If Finkelstein claims that serious scholars concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, that's a legitimate claim of consensus by WP rules. I think it should stay in, unless you can come up with serious scholars who do not concede that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. If there's a controversy over whether Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, we should add to Finkelstein's assessment the names of some of the scholars who agree, along with the names of some of the scholars who don't agree.

I don't agree that Finkelstein's writings are "grotesque," whatever that means. They may go against the mainstream among the American Jewish fundraising establishment, but they don't go against the mainstream among Israeli Jews, where it is a subject of vigorous debate, or even among American Jews, many of whom agree with him. Nbauman (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nbauman, they don't go against mainstream israeli views? you have any reliable sources saying this? Jaakobou 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the citation, he claims that all serious scholars concede the point. He is not qualified to represent all serious scholars (perhaps no one is); "serious" is tendentious, and so is "concede". I think you will find, upon looking closely, that he is not widely respected for balanced views or scholarship. Why would you want to use him as a source, other than to steer the article away from objectivity? Hertz1888 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, who are the scholars that Finkelstein cites who concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed? Nbauman (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ilan Pappe for one. Suicup (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Some people think that Finkelstein represents a minority pov. Maybe this is so if the general public is considered. But the general public's opinion is not what should guide us here. We should be guided by reliable sources. By the consensus of scholars, not by public opinion. If 51% of Americans believe they found WMD in Iraq should we write that here?

@Hertz: You are misquoting me: I said his attackers have always been powerless against his arguments . Apparently you can't argue with that. His reliability has not even been scratched!

I'm not required to argue pro or con their powerlessness, and decline to be drawn into that highly subjective side issue. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore you acuse me of saying all other scholars are not serious. I've never said, nor implied that. If you can find a reliable source having another pov you're free to put it in the article.

You don't have to say it; the wording "all serious scholars concede" implies that anyone who doesn't concede is not a serious scholar. I am certain I am not the only one who would read it that way. Also, since to concede is to recognize a truth, use of that word "concede" is very sneaky -- implying that a truth has been established for the "serious scholars" of Finkelstein's choosing (and yours) to recognize. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Finkelstein is qualified to judge on the consensus of scholars on this subject. He has followed the discussion for twenty years, and he is a good scientist, as was confirmed by DePaul University.

That must be why they denied him tenure. Maybe it is time for you to find yourself a new hero. Please stop wasting our time here, and your own. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not specifying who he means with all serious scholars, but I can imagine he means

Flapan: the Jewish army under the leadership of Ben-Gurion, planned and executed the expulsion (Simha Flapan , 1987, ‘The Palestinian Exodus of 1948’, J. Palestine Studies 16 (4), p. 3-26.),

Morris: There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing. That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them ],

Pappe: The ethnic cleansing of Palestine,

Masalha: Expulsion of the Palestinians,

Walid Khalidi: Plan Dalet: master plan for the conquest of Palestine, J. Palestine Studies 18 (1), 1988, p. 4-33.

I think he also means Gelber: The local deportations of May-June 1948 appeared both militarily vital and morally justified., ... These later refugees were sometimes literally deported across the lines. In certain cases, IDF units terrorized them to hasten their flight, and isolated massacres - particularly during the liberation of Galilee and the Negev in October 1948 - expedited the flight. ... The vast majority of Israelis did not think that the Palestinians should fare better and wanted to apply this principle to the Middle East ], but I'm not sure of that. As you can read in the source, Gelber seems to be especially concerned with justifying Zionist behavior, and I'm not sure how serious Finkelstein thinks he is. Anyway, based on what Gelber says he can hardly deny that it wasn't at least partially an ethnic cleansing.

It seems quite clear to me that at least five of these serious historians now concede that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed and that Gelber probably also falls into this category.

Finkelsteins statement isn't as strange as you might have thought. In fact its true! --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The question was : how do you know he refers to them !??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceedjee (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Gelber and Morris do not. (your misquotation of Morris is explained in other topic).

Nor do Masalha. Expulsion is not ethnic cleansing. Read Pappe to understand the difference.

I don't know concerning Khalidi but he does not in the article about Plan Daleth.

And remain traditionnal historians such as Shabtai Teveth, Anita Shapira, Efraim Karsh and Laqueur. New historians such as Tom Segev and Avi Shlaim who do not use that for the whole exodus (Segev does for Dani and Hiram, referring to Morris). What about David Tal and Uri Millstein ? And Dan Kurzman ? And I can also refert to French historian Henry Laurens and up to now Dominique Vidal (but he has just published a book about that).

Ceedjee (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein refers to what scholars concede now. If your interpretation is different from Finkelstein's its probably OR (or you should find a RS confirming your interpretation).

Also your 'moral' appeals to me to stop putting in my (relevant and sourced) edits is totally unconvincing: each time you do this you accompany it by an edit reversing me. Shouldn't you give the good example if you want to be convincing? --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop talking about my interpretation and Finkelstein's one.

The only issue here is your interpretation of Morris, of Finkelstein and all others.

You have been answered on many talk pages.

concede now... now when ? Flapan died in 1987. Khalidi wrote his article in 1961. Stop making fun of us.

Ceedjee (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is dissapointing indeed. First JaapBoBo tried to add some of Finkelstein's pseudo-research into the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. When he failed, he asked me to participate in . I agreed, but JaapBoBo apparently lost interest in the mediation once we both agreed that unreliable scholars/scholarship were not to be allowed in the article. Then JaapBoBo asked an unknown entity (me? the mediator? the[REDACTED] community in general?) to provide a list of my arguments for why Finkelstein shouldn't be in the article so that he can rip the arguments to shreads. In fact, since it is he who wants to change the status quo, the exact opposite is true: he must provide the arguments and I am obligated to rip them to shreds. Now he's trying to add Finkelstein trash into other articles without continuing the mediation. Shame on you, JaapBoBo, for your dishonorable behavior. --GHcool (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, please behave properly. You are twisting my words. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If I am twisting JaapBoBo's words, and I deny that I am, then I think we can all agree that JaapBoBo's time and energy would be better spent clarifying his words at the mediation rather than shoving Finkelstein's pseudo-research down everybody's throats. --GHcool (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo *you* are twisting scholars'words. Ceedjee (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

@GHcool - your feelings about Finkelstein are obviously extremely strong. However, you've failed to make any dent in his scholarship, which most everyone agrees to be really very good. Not only does his book "The Holocaust Industry" get a hugely respectable score of 69 citations in "Google Scholar", but his thesis is now being tested in Israeli courts and the first conviction for fraud has just come through. If you have real objections to his work, and are not just sounding off, now is the time to present them. PR 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This si a real fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.141 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

I find the Casualties section to be somewhat one-sided, whereby it mentions various means by which Israeli actions have yielded Palestinian casualties (eg, artillery sheeling, settler violence, etc), yet it gives no examples of the types of terrorism used to infict Israeli casualties, particularly the universally-condemned massive use of Palestinian suicide bombers targeting Israeli civilians. Although a subtle point, the result of the current account is that the naive reader is presented with various ways in which to visualize Israeli violence, yet Palestinian aggression remains seemingly abstract, thereby implicitly giving the obviously-POV imprssion of aggressor-victim. I think that suicide bombers, at the very least, should be mentioned in this section as a popular means of inflicting Israeli casualties. Rabend (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --GHcool (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm the guy who originally inserted the data. In the sources used, there was no break-down of types of actions that lead to Israeli casualties, which is why this wasn't added. If you can find a reliable source with an adequate break-down (e.g. number due to suicide bombing, shooting, missiles, etc...), then please, add it! Cheers, pedrito - talk - 01.09.2008 06:42

There is a new edition of The Humanitarian Monitor now with the 2008 casualty numbers. . Plbogen (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives

What has happened to the archives for this talk page? They are all red-linked, and unavailable. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

good question. what happened? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant information to be removed

Curently, the section Core issues features some irrelevant information. Specifically, the subsection entitled Palestinian refugees goes at length to describe the works of "New Historians", which claim that Arabs were forcibly expelled by the Jews back in 1948. Without even touching on validity of their claims, I doubt it is appropriate to mention "New Historians" at all in this particular section at least. The point of negotiations between Israelis and Paletinians is the future of refugees, not their history. Discussing the history of Palestinian dispora has never been regarded as part of Israeli–Palestinian conflict, nor does it representthe "core issue that needs to be resolved". The whole nature of negotiations between Israel and PA is very much political, rather than academic. In this light books of "New Historians" and "Old Historians" appear to be irrelevant to this section. Keverich1 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Israelis-Palestinians

"dispute between Israelis and Palestinians" - in my opinion, this wording is more consistent and better reflects the ethnic side of the conflict. We know that conflict has started long before State of Israel came into existence, so to reduce the conflict to the dispute between the State and the people would be massively inaccurate.Keverich1 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Before the state of Israel existed, there were no Israelis (next thing you say: No Israelis, no conflict - solved?). And: today the state is occupying the occupied territories. I propose undo -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Israelis and Palestinians" is how the BBC uses them. That's good enough for me. --GHcool (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, BBC writes: "Jewish people of Israel" , which might be more accurate. Do the Israeli arabs have a conflict with the Palestinians too, then? So, lets change the title into Jewish people of Israel—Palestinian conflict. If that's good enough for you. -DePiep (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the same reference also writes the Arab-Israeli conflict (note the inversion of sequence)). Three descriptions in just over 150 words. You can pick anyone you like. But for[REDACTED] we can say: since the BBC is not defining, we can ignore that source. At least we should not exclude the state of Israel. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why we don't use people's own descriptions for themselves, viz Zionists and Palestinians. The second of those words is either debatable or inaccurate (would people prefer Arab?), but the first fits the case exactly. Please feel free to move this question out of the way else if it needs answering at length. PR 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The immense majority of the reliable sources talk of "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict/dispute. Stop the OR speculation, this is inserting novel ideas into the narrative, a huge break of pretty much every basic policy on content.

That said, there are plenty of articles on the conflicts before the founding of Israel between Zionist organizations and the local population of the British Mandate - perhaps we need a Palestinian-Yishuv conflict article, but it is beyond the scope of this article. On the Palestinian side, since they lack a widely recognized State, we must be more vague, but sources overwhelmingly support calling for describe Palestinian as such. Lets not be anachronistic: Zionists have a widely recognized State, called Israel, and are no longer a bunch of guerrillas fighting the British and the Palestinian Arabs; that said the period between the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the establishment of Israel can be included in this conflict as the pre-history of this conflict. Why is such a basic, widely embraced, fact is even under debate is beyond me.

BTW, Zionists overwhelmingly describe themselves as Israelis, so we are actually using the self-description. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be a little tricky when considering the conflict prior to the founding of the State of Israel. Before that time, both sides of the conflict were called "Palestinians," i.e. citizens of the British Mandate for Palestine. In that regard, the pre-State of Israel conflict was a kind of civil war. The way it is worded now ("dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians") is an accurate description of the 2008 reality of the conflict. It would be too cumbersome to start explaining the difference between an Israeli and a Jewish citizen of Mandatory Palestine, a Palestinian and an Arab citizen of Mandatory Palestine, etc etc. For this reason, I suggest that we keep it as it. --GHcool (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For this very same reason I suggest we (re)change the title to like Israel and the Palatinians. What would be ok in say 19xx, should be described, but not be decisive. Today is the fact, the rest is (to be described as) hstory. Now let s change the title. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea at all. Most scholarly works refer to the conflict as the "Israeli-Palestinian" or "Palestinian-Israeli" "conflict" or "issue" etc. I've personally heard it described most often as the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." "Israeli" is spoken first because it is alphabetically before "Palestinian" (just as "Arab" is alphabetically before "Israeli" in "Arab-Israeli conflict"). --GHcool (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

GHcool writes ("dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians") is an accurate description. Still that excludes the state of Israel, which is obviously involved. And it does not dicriminate between jewish and Arab Israelis. So, accurate: no. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I fear that a one sentence summary of anything as complex as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will never include every little nook and cranny of detail. The point is, broadly speaking, the Israelis believe they have a right to sovereignty and security over what is now known as the State of Israel and Palestinians believe that they have the right to sovereignty over at least some of what is now known as the State of Israel and they have shown little concern over the past 60 years over Israel's security. Again, that is the conflict in a nutshell: two people want the same land. The details are obviously very important, but the first sentence has to be short and punchy. --GHcool (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I object to this possible diminishment of the objective description of this specific topic. the conflict is not between individuals; it is between a state on one side which seeks to advance its views and principles, and on the other side a group of people who seek to advance their views as they see fit in accordance with their priniciples. So I feel the current phrasing should remain; it is Israel vs the Palestinians. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't entirely accurate, either. It used to be Israel vs. the Palestinian Authority. Now it is Israel vs. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a bunch of other Palestinian terrorist organizations. These organizations are hardly individual or helpless, and they've taken the rest of the Palestinian population hostage. ← Michael Safyan 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, we can debate all day long about the different subgroups of "Israelis" and "Palestinians" and where they lie in relation to the greater conflict. The point is that one group, Israel or the Israelis, supports the sovereignty and security of the modern State of Israel in the specified geographical area ahead of the Palestinians' rights at least some of the land while the other group, the Palestinians, supports Palestinian rights to at least some of the land ahead of the State of Israel's security and sovereignty. Each of the dozens of subgroups on both sides only support their nation's position by a matter of degrees. --GHcool (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RE GHcool, who writes here, in sequence, about the title: (1) is how the BBC uses them. That's good enough for me. (2)is an accurate description of the 2008 reality, (3) the Israelis believe ... and Palestinians believe ... (4) subgroups of "Israelis": the argument is changing along the way. Please make up your mind. Since (4) is the most recent one (at this moment), I can say: it's not about subgroups. The topic is: the state of Israel should be included in the title. Who is bombing Gaza today? -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me if the first sentence is, "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing dispute between the State of Israel and the Palestinians" (emphasis added). It means virtually the same thing. --GHcool (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Vitually? What are we doing here? Aren't we trying to write an encyclopedia? If it gets near a point, any point, you jump out of the answer. We do not need a delusive introduction, but as you suggest: the title should be: Israel–Palestinian_conflict. Thanx. Looking forward to your next pose (not really). -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Simplistic? (changed from section to bold. See 1srt reaction -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ) In the article it says "Essentially, it is a dispute between two national identities with claims over the same area of land." Don't you think that this simplifies the conflict too much? I feel that it should be removed because it doesn't fully represent the conflict. First of all this statement makes it seem as if Palestinians and Israelis are on equal terms, however Israel occupies Palestine and the land that is disputed. Secondly, most of the land Israel currently resides on land that was taken either by creating new laws which allowed it, or by forcefully and illegally taking over the land (such as illegal Israeli settlements and the illegal wall), the only claim they had to the land before 1948 was religious, and not everyone on earth is a Jew, therefore its not everyone's belief that its the "promised land." There are many issues entailing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as shown by this article) which have not been included in this overly simplistic sentence, and so I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo Alem (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a new subsection required. Changed into a re-no-indent remark DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What remains: the title should be "Israel-Palestinian coflict" (i.e. the state, not the peple). No serious remarks above on this. (Clearly, as pointed: text-related or, bad habit, changing view along the way does GHcool). -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I might have written a rebuttal to Jo Alem's argument if I could understand it. The diction and syntax are making me scratch my head. Perhaps English is not Jo Alem's first language. :shrug: --GHcool (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This talk is useless. Title canot be changed. Why talk then? I wish you a white phosfor. -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reporting DePiep's threat to here. --GHcool (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing subject again, (User:GHcool)? Lets change the title. That is the topic. It´s am Israel-Palestinian conflict. The white phosfor (you spell it as you like, they receive it as it is) is dropped by the state of Israel. Why do you take this personally? By the way, you forgot to mention the war. -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Current status and POV

I find the latter part of the Current Status section, marked by this week's operation in Gaza, to be rather blatantly POV.
Reducing about 8 years of rockets from Gaza directed almost exclusively into Israeli towns and villages into "rockets into fairly empty Israeli territory", followed by "bombing Gaza" and the quotation marks around the "Hamas militants" is an out-of-context, one-sided account. Rabend (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

PMW

1. This girl's opinion is insignificant in this article, who is this girl exactly? is she the spokeswoman for the Palestinian people?
2. Abbas quote was: "We ask of you, don't stop the ceasefire" ... etc. This does not mean that he lays responsibility for Hamas on what has happened, Israel takes blame too and Abbas has criticized Israel for it.
3. PMW reliability has been discussed at length here, here and here. There is really no point of discussing this over and over again. Imad marie (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced by the previous arguments that PMW's translators are somehow less reliable than any other translator of Arabic anywhere else in the world, however, this seems a moot point since Abbas was quoted on Al-Jazeera as blaming Hamas for the troubles in Gaza. --GHcool (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of the tables in the Casualties section

I propose that the Casualties section is re-structured such that the tables arrange the information starting with the most recent. Right now it's kind of just random. I think it makes sense to start with the most recent because that more likely to be the information people are after. I also proposed to move the "numbers in brakets represent casualties under the age of 18" phrase from the titles of the tables to footnotes (perhaps in a new bottom row). The phrase is too long, is repeated too many times so it clutters up the article, especially when printed. I will wait a while for other opinions but if nobody offers any I will just go ahead and make the change at some point in a week or two. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jason,

I originally added the casualty figures. The tables are already ordered in reverse chronology, starting with the latest figures from the OCHAoPt. The following two tables con==tain the figures from B'Tselem for the First and Second Intifada, in that order. The final table contains some historical data.

As for the "numbers in brackets", on my browser the title breaks anyway and it doesn't make the page any wider. I wouldn't remove them.

Do you want to move the tables around or the data within the tables? What do you want to change exactly?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 05.01.2009 15:28

Hi, perdrio. The tables go in the order, 1) post 2005, 2) First Intifada, 3) Second Intifada, and 4) 1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt. So, the first and second intifadas are not chronological. I am suggesting that they go 1) post 2005, 2) Second Intifada, 3) First Intifada, and 4) 1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt. Also I propose the individual rows of the tables start with the most recent and go back in time (2008 first, then 2007, 2006, etc.) Currently, the flow of the section is go forward in time, jump way back in time, go forward in time, jump way way back in time. My suggestions, I think, would make the section more lucid. What do you think? Jason Quinn (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading my first post, I see I wasn't very clear what I meant. Sorry. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Academic Boycotts

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3623714,00.html

Perhaps there needs to be a section discussing the collective punishment nature of the academic boycotts of Israeli academics?

121.44.214.65 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support something short on this subject. --GHcool (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I changed my mind. This phenomenon is not an important factor in a broad, general understanding of the conflict. --GHcool (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 conflict

The information on the most recent round of violence is already out of date. May I suggest using the casualty figures and references from the[REDACTED] page for "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict"? 173.32.62.74 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

i.e. 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict -DePiep (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish "exodus" from Arab countries

I have an issue with this paragraph:

"Since none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders—a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them."

How convenient to select a number higher than the corresponding number for Palestinian refugees. And how convenient that a "solution" has been offered for the issue of |right of return."

Though I scoured the Internet for days trying to find a site which would support this mythical and latest Jewish exodus I am pressed to find one.

Citing one source is insufficient evidence for a tragedy of this scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.213.115 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of citing two other sources. Thank you for your concern. --GHcool (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A handful of academics

I don't think it is solely or even mostly academics who support a one-state solution. A number of political parties and a large number of civil society groups also support the one state solution. I think we need to reconsider the sources and not only include Alan Dershowitz as a source for the "majority" support of a two state solution.--TM 14:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At present, Dershowitz is not cited as a source for the majority support of the two state solution. The two sources are here and here and I just added a third one. --GHcool (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli–Palestinian conflict infobox table

Template:Infobox Israeli-Palestinian conflict Does anyone object to using this infobox table in the article? 24.12.234.123 (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the idea of an infobox, but I do object to the wording of the proposed infobox, specifically to the following:

• The map is POV as it showcases the Palestinian territories (and strangely names them "Palestine"). This map is much better.
• "Location: Palestine" — try "Location: Israel and the Palestinian territories"
• The "History" section only details milestones in the peace process. Please change the heading to "Peace Process." --GHcool (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As you might see on the infobox to the left I have done the following changes:

• I have changed the image - now it says "West Bank & Gaza".
• I have changed the heading from "History" to "Peace Process".

Is the infobox good enough now ? please keep in mind that all infobox have to start from something and I am sure it would be heavily modified and become much better with time. 24.12.234.123 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this seems fine to me. Thank you for being so cooperative.  :) --GHcool (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a warning, the term "Israeli Occupation" is under dispute in the Israel article, so it might shift over here at some point. Goalie1998 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. In that case I'll add the infobox back to the article. 24.12.234.123 (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

GHcool, what do you think it should say instead of "under Israeli Occupation"? 24.12.234.123 (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that can simply be deleted without anything replacing it. Isn't it enough that it just identifies the West Bank and Gaza Strip? --GHcool (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamas-Fatah conflict -- the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

During this last Gaza war against Hamas, Israel was apparently aided by Fatah. Can we still call this an Israeli-Palestinian conflict? There should be a separate paragraph discussing this. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sometimes intersects with the Hamas-Fatah conflict, it is not one and the same. An analogy could be made with the Iraq War and the sectarian violence in Iraq. --GHcool (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, but I think there should be a paragraph explaining this. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic cost dispute

I read through the reference (number 130) that the section titled Economic Cost came from, and I'm not sure that all the figures are entirely true. The primary dispute I have is the final sentence, quoted below.

In other words had there been peace and cooperation in the Middle East since 1991, every Palestinian citizen would be earning over $2,400 instead of the $1,200 in 2010. Every Israeli citizen would be earning over $44,000 instead of the $23,000 in 2010.

Where are those figures from? The total opportunity cost of conflict numbers I agree with, though I'm just not sure how the above figures were calculated. This should be mentioned in the section, because they're not mentioned in the reference. Please explain? Cybersteel8 (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians initiated by Irgun

Could Ashley kennedy3 provide the quote from Morris to support the claim that "Attacks on civilians was initiated by Irgun and Lehi." In Lapierre and Collins's O Jerusalem, its pretty clear that the Palestinian Arabs began the violence on Jewish civilians. I don't have own O Jerusalem, but I could get my hands on it if asked (it may take a few days). --GHcool (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ref was already supplied..and the use of hasbara sites is not exactly RS in Israel-palestinian conflict areas...please use acceptable references...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your removal of "intellectuals such as Judah Leon Magnes of Brit Shalom and president of the Hebrew University" here seems a tad like politically motivated POV and rather strange...as is your adherence to Israeli founding Myths that have been exposed some time ago....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

why the adherence to falsity of "the Yishuv acted as one unit" within the article.....I think you'll find that the Yishuv had many parts all with their own ideas...quite similar to the Palestinian Arabs in that respect....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, let's stick to one topic at a time. The topic is the claim that the Irgun attacks preceded the Arab attacks. Secondly, I'll ask that Ashley leave the ad hominems alone as they are not helpful.

I reserved Morris's book from the library. I haven't picked it up in a while, but I would be shocked to find that he doesn't mention the Arabs starting the attacks on civilians. If and when I find such information in the book, I intend on adding those details for context as I have with many of Ashley's edits.

he mentions individual snipers in Haifa snipping at each other but doesn't say who fired the first shot. surprisingly enough the hasbara myths that the "Arabs wot dun it" has been challenged on many occasions. I was initially surprised to see it still lingering around on wiki but I have since found that many wiki editors prefer to use outdated Hasbara myths to actual facts. Very similar to claiming that the Yishuv accepted the partition plan with no reservations or caveats. Where the actual speech by Shertok does nothing of the sort...rejects parts and adds caveats so as to accept partition in principal but not the details of the UN plan....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I did note the removal of Irgun and Lehi when the actual quote from morris says Irgun and Lehi...Is there a reason for "adding the context" by removing the actual words used in Morris's book? such as Irgun and Lehi attacks on civilians and Arab retaliation...because obviously removal of actual words used in the book seems more like POV than "adding the context"....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon's entry into the war

Can the claim that "The Israeli forces only came in contact with Lebanese forces when Israel invaded Lebanon" be verified? --GHcool (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Every where..where as your claim can only be "substantiated" with the use of none RS hasbara...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Everywhere is overkill let's start with one specific reference, as required by WP:V. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

would you prefer RS or the palestinian equivalent to the hasbara sites that many Israeliophile editors use?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V requires reliable sources, so please provide one. And let's keep the snarky commentary out of the talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If the claim cannot be verified by even one reliable source (hasbara or non-hasbara ... it doesn't matter as long as its reliable), I will remove the sentence by tomorrow. --GHcool (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is clumsy. If there is a concept behind it ('Israel, unprovoked, invaded Lebanon,' seems to be what is meant, though again what does 'Lebanese forces' mean? The PLO in the south was responsible for nearly all of the initial resistance, having a 'para-state' there), then that concept should be clarified in terms of a reliable source's language. I agree with GHcool and Canadian Monkey.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, the claim appears to be made with reference to the 1948 war, not the 1982 war. If it were the 1982 war, then the sentence would not be dubious. --GHcool (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks for the nudge. Not my area of expertise, but there is something wrong certainly in including Lebanon among the 'five Arab armies' invading Israel. I.e. as in the article's remark:

'Palestine's five Arab neighbor states - Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia - then attacked the newly self-declared state. '

At least Yoav Gelber's account (Palestine 1948) consistently denies that Lebanon was involved: the Maronites absolutely refused, Israeli intelligence reports attributed to Lebanese army units activities conducted by the ALA. The LA's only role was to provide logistics to the ALA which it couldn't manage anyhow; it was too small to contribute; it was, according to as Iraqi officer, incapable of anything but a 'defensive posture'.

Some quotes from that work seem to support Ashley's point. I.e.

'The Lebanese army remained passive throughout the campaign in Galilee. It made no attempt to relieve the IDF pressure on either the Syrians or the ALA. The prime reason for this inaction was the Maronites’ unrelenting and strenuous objection to Lebanon’s involvement in the war. Moreover, the Lebanese army was too small for significantly contributing to the Arab war effort'. p.167

‘The ALA spread from Galilee into south Lebanon to safeguard its lines of communications. But the Israelis, who had come to the conclusion that it came under the Lebanese army’s command, interpreted that ALA’s deployment as a Lebanese occupation of Galilee. According to this perception, Lebanon’s army was supervising ALA activities, Lebanon had allegedly introduced a civil administration in Galilee, the AlA had forward positions, and the Lebanese army was concentrated behind it as a reserve force. Taking what appeared to Israel to be an “annexation of Galilee” in all seriousness, Eitan alerted Shertok and Sasson in Paris that Riad al-Sulh was merging Galilee with Lebanon. These baseless assumptions also impacted on planning of the next campaign against the ALA. Believing the border had dissipated at the hands of the Lebanese, IDF planners, too, ignored it.' p.221

One ALA battalion withdrew across the Lebanese border. Lebanon’s army did not intervene and ignored Qawuqji’s appeals for artillery support to cover his troops’ retreat. The Lebanese also made no attempt to defend their own territory against the IDF incursion. Leaflets scattered by the IAF guaranteed the Lebanese army’s immunity, as long as it remained idle, but at the same time warned of grave ramifications should it intervene in combat. p.224

After HIRAM a Syrian brigade secure a flank in Lebanon against a possible Israeli thrust via that route to the Golan, and remained there for several months despite Lebanese protests. The IDF presence in south Lebanon was a thorn in the Lebanese government’s side and put pressure on Lebanese leaders to seek an outlet from a war in which the Lebanese army had not taken part but the country had paid a heavy price.p.228

Lebanon’s army did not take part in HIRAM’s battles and made no attempt to frustrate the IDF advance. . .After the operation, Lebanese units took up positions to block further Israeli (or other?) advance along the main routes leading to the country’s interior. p.228 (Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948:War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem,Sussex Academic Press, 2006)

Given this, the text would seem to requite adjustment, and I trust the point will be rediscussed. Ashley appears to be right historically, but his phrasing looks like a synthesis, and it was only, apparently, this that was problematical.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

the above text only shows the Lebanese army was incompetent, but does not at all support the false contention that Israeli forces only clashed with Lebanese forces after they invaded Lebanon, or that Lebanese forces did not invade Israel. Lebanese forces were part of the invasion on day one, they attacked and captured Malkiya on May 15th, as numerous sources attest.NoCal100 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

can any one identify the supposed Lebanese units that supposedly entered Palestine because the only Lebanese unitis that benny says IDF encountered were after the IDF invaded Lebanon. Benny does say the the ALA were in central Galilee, and that the ALA was made up of Lebanese Syrian and Iraqis but that is not the Lebanese army. There is the contention over Hunin as to being in Lebanon or Israel or even being in both but again the IDF only met local militia again not Lebanese army....It is on these points that Benny removes Lebanese army from his list. As Benny is the person who has had access to the archives he would be the one to have found the details of any Lebanese involvement and as a Zionist Benny would have put that information up. In the whole of his books he doesn't...I sorry by JVL just doesn't cut the mustard as a RS...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you and Prof. Morris are such close personal friends that you refer to him as "benny". That aside, Lebanese forces attacked and captured Malkiya, on the first day of the invasion. And no, there no dispute about the location of Hunin - it is not part of Lebanon, as UN resolutions show. NoCal100 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll say it. You're a bad faith editor, know almost nothing of the subjects you edit, but track people there to team up against them. You know nothing of the subject here because (1) Mal(i)kiya was a border village in the Galilee panhandle whose status territorially was and still is disputed (2) You insist against the best sources that Lebanese forces attacked it:-

(a)'The armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan (The Lebanese never crossed the border)invaded Palestine on 15 May’. Benny Morris,The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, I.B.Tauris, 2003 p.145

(b)‘we now know that, Israeli and Lebanese propaganda notwithstanding, Lebanon’s army never actually crossed the Israeli border in May 1948; Lebanon may have supplied the Arab Liberation Army, a volunteer force of irregulars, with some logistical and artillery support, but it refrained from taking part in the ‘pan-Arab’ invasion, whatever its radio stations proclaimed at the time,’ Morris, ibid. p.241

(c) 'On May 15, Yiftah brigade reported a fierce battle with invading Lebanese troops at Malkiya. These were, however, local combatants and remains of Shishakli’s Yarmuk battalion.’ Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Sussex Academic Press, 2006 p.139

Your only function appears to be to make life difficult for committed I/P editors from the 'wrong side' and make life easier for the other, while intruding smart comments. You won't go away, because you know the rules better than Ashley, who knows the subject better than you. The only thing one can do is sigh, and advise Ashley to give up on this page as well. I see that, without notifying him, you've tried for the nth time to catch him up in one of your little edit-war games. This page has been sequestered by a POV warrior, who discredits the goals of this encyclopedia, and cocks a snook at people who work hard to make it neutral,or more balanced and historically informed. Unless someone with the decency to see this, on your side, reins you in, any article you touch is doomed to POV imbalance.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's odd. Nishidani, can you explain the contradiction between Morris's and Gelber's claims that Lebanon had not taken part in the war and the claims by the majority of sources that claim the opposite? --GHcool (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, GHC, I know that a lot of earlier books claimed that, from desultory reading in the past. But both of these books are recent (2003,2006) from two of our best close historians of the area and period. And both appear to concur that what earlier reports made out to be Lebanese involvement refers to boasts on Lebanese radio, newspaper propaganda, rather than actual actions in the field. They both concur on this: that this was propaganda for which there is no field evidence. Of course, if soureces as recent as these two, the only ones I am familiar with, contradict by detailed evidenceMorris and Gelber, whose work I take as pretty authoritative factually, then I'll eat my words. Which reminds me, it's dinner time here.Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. This seems rather odd. I understand that Lebanon had comparably small force deployed in the war (perhaps the smallest of the five), but to say that the Lebanese military did not participate in the war seems dubious to the extreme. So many reliable sources on the web (BBC News is hardly a "hasbara" source) and in books have claimed the opposite. --GHcool (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I distrust most sources other than books. We'll have to scrounge round books dealing with revisionism on 48. If you come up with stuff from the last decade or so which contradicts them, by all means plunk it in. I don't think Morris and Gelber write frivolously when they say things like this.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look through my library, but do you distrust the U.S. Department of State? --GHcool (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On historical details, I think only academic sources, all through wikipedia, should be cited. I distrust government sources, except as historical documents. It's not that they lie through their teeth (well, in my adopted homeland, Italy, they do actually), but they simply aren't written by competent knowledgeable people, at least these days (this was less true before WW2). What that doc says, briefly is, Lebanon 'participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and signed an armistice with Israel on March 23, 1949'. Participate doesn't mean much (sources speak of logistic help, etc.)Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Al-Malkiyya considered to be part of Lebanon in 1948...it is on such details that very questionable blanket statements are made. ALA was made up of Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqis militiamen...It is on such details that very questionable blanket statements are made....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

GHcool's "evidence" U.S. Department of State quote Lebanon participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and signed an armistice with Israel on March 23, 1949. unquote where does it say that Lebanon fought in Palestine????? As I said Lebanon only fought after being invaded by Israel...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the BBC says, "The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel" (emphasis added) and Britannica includes the following: "The surrounding Arab countries—Egypt , Jordan (then called Transjordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon—immediately invaded Palestine to help the Palestinian Arabs and to try to crush the Jewish state." (emphasis added). --GHcool (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One can find anything one's wants to find, googling. If there is controversy on facts, it is an elementary procedure in the real world to resolve the doubt by going to the best specialist sources. Bad sources or old sources feed into one another. Many sources are still saying at Deir Yassin 240 people were massacred. The best sources say 110-120. A conscientious editor will not cite the old or the erroneous source. He will exercise his critical judgement and follow the best modern sources. It is a matter of ethics, as well as writing towards the goal of the encyclopedia. Could I prevail on your considered judgement to only contest Gelber and Morris if their recent analysis is contradicted by contrary information from their colleagues, in recent work? Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the US state department and BBC snippet have been entered to contradict what two of Israel's finest specialist historians have written. So, with great reluctance, I have removed those nugatory tidbits. We are supposed to privilege the best available sources, not to hunt for stuff we like and plug it in independently of any other consideration. Of course this is an indictable offence, but my scruples force me to remove crap. If anyone wants to take this to arbitration, they'll probably win, since no one looks at the content of a dispute. There is no dispute here, just good secondary sources against poor unspecialized tertiary sources.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Nishidani saying that Britannica got it wrong as well? Do I really have to make a trip to the library like that one time when Nishidani tried to insist that the capital of Israel wasn't Jerusalem. This is the easiest argument I've gotten into since that time. --GHcool (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what he's saying but I do know that GHcool has misrepresented the U.S. Department of State quote Lebanon participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and signed an armistice with Israel on March 23, 1949. unquote...and considering Israeli historian Morris, Yoav Gelber have access to the Israeli archives and Britannica does not I personally would go with Historians with archive access....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

PS Israel may have declared Jerusalem as a capital just that the rest of the world does not recognise that Jerusalem as the capital of Israel...Note on Jerusalem..note: Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but the US, like nearly all other countries, maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv CIA world fact book a diplomatic way of saying no it isn't.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So, I see we've turned to playing the recency card. I'll play along: "On the same day Israel received de facto recognition from the United States, and the Arab states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq invaded Israel with their regular armies." This is from 'International History of the Twentieth Century and Beyond', by noted historians Antony Best, Jussi M Hanhimäki, Joseph A Maiolo & Kirsten E Schulze, and published by the academic imprint Routledge. It is from 2008. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, Canadian Monkey. One more nail in the coffin. Can you footnote it in the article please? --GHcool (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is so 'brilliant' that in the statement, '"On the same day Israel received de facto recognition from the United States, and the Arab states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq invaded Israel with their regular armies." it contains 2 errors. As proven (a)Lebanon did not invade that day (b) the other armies involved did not 'invade Israel', they entered on that day, largely, those parts of Palestine assigned in the UN partition plan for a future Arab state entity. Jordan's record of intent is explicit. It occupied, according to the best sources, those parts of Palestine designated by the UN as Arab, apart from Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Hughes wrote that the Lebanese army "fought one insignificant, symbolic half-day battle at the border village of Malikiyya in June 1948, advancing a short distance into Israel/Palestine, before settling down to await the outcome of the war" (in Rogan, Eugene L. (2007-11-19). The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 204. ISBN 0521699347. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) He later describes it in more detail. -- Nudve (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll cite it. I found another one too from The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. --GHcool (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note, however, that Hughes does agree with Gelber and Morris that the Lebanese army did not actually invade Israel on May 15. -- Nudve (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasted three hours writing out a five page analysis of this putative fact, according to Gelber, Morris (2 sources), Matthew Hughes, Guy Nathaniel Ma'ayan (’Burning the candle at Both Ends:Lebanon and the Palestine War, 1947-1949,’ in Elie Podeh, Asher Kaufman, Moshe Maʻoz,Arab-Jewish relations: from conflict to resolution? : essays in honour of Moshe Maʻoz,Sussex Academic Press, chapter 9 pp.154-168), Oren Barak (chapter 3 of his new book pp.45ff. included, which demolishes this crap as well), David Tal and one or two others. Then I thought, why be dragged into another idiotic argument with people who, if they don't like something, just frig about googling, and even if you do rake in solid evidence, wikilawyer it. So it goes into my notes, since I'm fucked if I am going to spend my time doing highschool level research for POV pushers who won't listen anyhow, and keep thrusting in googled junk from outdated BBC news and US State Department hits.

Since bad faith (I except Nudve, who provided a very good background source, but which does not bear on the edit) and team-editing are likely to prevail, I'll withdraw, and suggest Ashley does as well. Gentleman if you want to edit in crap, and violate, as the several cites now in for Lebanon do, WP:SYNTH, go ahead, privilege the BBC news and US state department handouts over what the best modern Israeli historians say, edit on your own responsibility, and snub the aim of this encyclopedia, i.e. to be reliable. Please note that you are pushing an outdated Zionist historiographica line ranking modern historians in Israel, working today, have demolished. So cui bono?

The text is talking about May 15, and events that 'precipitated the war'. All modern specialist sources, Hughes included who says there was no invasion by Lebanon and is referring to the battle that took place in Malikiyya in June, a month into the war. say the Lebanese army stuck by its orders to maintain only defensive positions. (b)the area is in the Galilee panhandle, a sliver of contested soil, dwelt by Lebanese Shiites at the time, once Lebanese then Palestine by British fiat, then recontested by Lebanon (c) occupied by the Palmach Yiftach brigade before the declaration of Israel (meaning that any Lebanese response cannot be put over as an unprovoked 'invasion' of Israel).

(d)'‘In Galilee to the north – the zone of operations for the Lebanese – the partition plan of 1947 had given most of the area to the Arabs, including Nazareth, and it was this central Galilee “finger” that Israel was keen to occupy so that it could extend its borders and clear a route through to the Israeli settlements in the upper Jordan region around Lake Tiberias and Metulla.' (Matthew Hughes).

(e) The word 'invasion' in English cannot support the description of one border skirmish, a month into the war, on contested territory, esp.when Israel itself was actively engaged in fighting to get as much territory assigned to the Arabs by the Partition Plan, before and after May 14. Use that word of invasion, and you warrant the many incursions into Jordananian territory by Sharon and co, over the 50s as 'invasions of Jordan'. But enough of this farce. Nailed in its coffin, my arse!Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite his/her indignant tone, Nishidani does make a fair point about the confusion that might arise if the reader assumes that Lebanon invaded Israel the same day that the other Arab nations did. I just added a footnote to clarify it. Thanks.

As an aside, the "nail in the coffin" comment was about the denial that Lebanon ever invaded, a demonstrably false claim that Ashley was originally advocating and I got the feeling that Nishidani was flirting with. I fully accept that Lebanon invaded Israel later than the other Arab armies. --GHcool (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel? Ashley was dead-right, and was punished for being so. His position is that of Benny Morris, Yoav Gelber, Guy Nathaniel Ma’ayan, Oren Barak /(2009 pp.45ff.), all front ranking specialists on the period, underline, and their analysis is shared by Matthew Hughes. Lebanon army orders were not to fight the IDF unless attacked, and they kept to this principle. Israeli forces invaded Lebanon quite frequently, whereas in the late incident referred to, what Oren calls a skirmish, Lebanon fought for a few hours, several hundred yards into not 'Israel' but 'Palestine/Israel' (the preferred term by the above). You are abusing the language to make out this was an 'invasion'. You prefer the BBC, the US state department snapshot reflecting old books, or one encyclopedia recycling sleepy outdated data? Fine. You're more comfortable with the myths of yesteryear, than the cutting edge of Israeli historiography. But I know the team won't be convinced. We do have to create this image of David being ganged up by several Goliaths Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Three encyclopedias, actually; two of which were published in the 2000s with the third one being online and presumably updated as new research becomes available. The Continuum Political Encyclopedia represents the most up-to-date research there is by scholars as familiar with the Israeli archives as Morris. The oldest book the information is cited to is from 2002. I'd appreciate it if Nishidani would keep false premises out of the talk page. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias count nothing against 6 specialist sources publishing the latest up-to-date research by Israeli scholars. This is amazing. You are going against what Israel's finest area specialists now hold to be the facts. As for false premises, I would be obliged if you removed the following from the page. I'll keep it going, to see if you are sincere in your commitment to editing to the facts, and not to just outdated sources you like. I will systematically show you the total bungled mess created in annotating Lebanon in the note sequence after it, 44,27,45,46,47,48,38.40,49,41. Please answer point by point.

(a) News The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel but were repulsed,

This is false, even from your own intransigent viewpoint, the Lebanese army cannot be said to have entered 'Israel' on the 15th of May.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 44 reads Lebanon joined the war some weeks after May 15. See The Continuum Political Encyclopedia and Rogan and Shlaim.

(a"The Arab-Israel Conflict." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 58-121 here is a 43 page article. Give the page number please.

(b) The second point is incorrect, Rogan and Shlaim in their timeline on p.ix say Lebanon’s army entered Palestine on May 15, 1948, and you cite them for saying 'some weeks after May 15'. They are wrong, and you are wrong in saying that they have Lebanon joining the war some weeks after May 15. In fact most essays in that books repeat the same wrong line. Of course, if the reference should be to Matthew Hughes’s essay from pp.204,then things change. But Hughes does not say ‘Lebanon’s army entered Palestine’. He says Lebanon was a ‘belligerent in name only’ and only fought a skirmish in the border village for several hours.'Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just took the liberty of contacting the BBC website to ask them to correct the error:

To whom it may concern: A minor error can be found in your article on the establishment of Israel. The article currently reads, 'The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel but were repulsed.' While four of the five Arab armies listed invaded Israel on the day after Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, Lebanon invaded some weeks later in June. Thanks.

--GHcool (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A civil and sensible thing to do. But you have only got them to correct one error, while advising them to insert another, since you are deliberately telling them to insert the idea that 'Lebanon invaded someweeks later' when this is, to say the least, controversial, as 5 Israeli scholars deny this.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 46 Britannica Online Encyclopedia note 46

in our footnote reads as follows:

Note 46 "Arab-Israeli wars." Britannica Online Encyclopedia. 18 March 2009. "The surrounding Arab countries—Egypt , Jordan (then called Transjordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon—immediately invaded Palestine to help the Palestinian Arabs and to try to crush the Jewish state."

However, if you click on the link to the Britannica, we get a totally different text which reads:-

'The first war immediately followed Israel’s proclamation of statehood on May 14, 1948. Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon occupied the areas in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews by the United Nations (UN) partition of Palestine and then captured east Jerusalem,'

How this fuck-up occurred is beyond me. I'll restrict my comments to what the Britannica site now says.

'Arab forces from Lebanon' here contextually, cannot refer to the Lebanese army but only to those Lebanese irregulars recruited (See Gelber pp.139ff. from memory) by the ALA's varying factions. The countries listed are for the origin of the cadres. Were the reference to official Lebanese forces (which is what our text is saying) then the subsequent 'occupied the area os southern and eastern Palestine' would be meaningless. No historian of note above maintains that the Lebanese Army occupied southern and eastern Palestine. In contradiction, the armies of Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria, did, as all sources note, enter into those regions. Note again that the text speaks of this not as an invasion of Israel as you insist, but 'the areas of southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews' by the UN 1947 Partition Plan. So this source again cannot be used to support the text, since it makes a very clear distinction the wiki article refuses to make, between Israel and the part of Palestine accorded to the Arabs by the UN partition plan

You have cited this text for including Lebanon as one of the parties in the war immediately after May 15, confusing a nation-state as historical actor with people recruited, independently of that state's decisions, to serve in armies. The ref mentions Arab forces from Lebanon, but these are the irregulars recruited from Lebanon to serve in non-Lebanese forces, not the Lebanese army You also ignore ‘occupied the area in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews by the United Nations partition plan’, and insist here that Israel was invaded. They did not invade Israel, according to this source..Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 27 "Arab-Israel Conflict." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 58-121.

As above the precise page number is lacking, and in addition,note that this is a source dating to 2002 (written therefore a year or two beforehand) whereas several books and articles, Morris, Gelber, etc., after that date, deconstructed this myth. It therefore, as an earlier source, must yield, where there is conflict of evidence, to the more recent research. This is and elementary, fundamental principle of all historical writing.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article reads, "Units from five Arab League countries (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq) then reluctantly invaded precipitating the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." The article clearly says "Units from ... Lebanon," which completely nullifies Nishidani's first argument. The article also says "invaded," not "invaded Israel." There is no conflict with what is written in Britannica.

I have The Continuum Political Encyclopedia at home. Give me 48 hours and I'll find the page number. --GHcool (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It nullifies nothing. I have just quoted from your own range of sources the Enc Brit article used in the text you cite, which says:

'The first war immediately followed Israel’s proclamation of statehood on May 14, 1948. Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon occupied the areas in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews by the United Nations (UN) partition of Palestine

In English 'Arab forces . . from Lebanon' is ambiguous, and cannot be adduced, as you are trying to do, for evidence that Lebanon invaded wherever.

To cite one more of a dozen points, in this constructed story, units (that is a term used in armed forces: the Lebanese army did not supply any 'units'. Only four countries, according to Gelber and Morris, not the old 'five' entered Palestine. The Britannica article denies that they 'invaded', occupied the areas, creating dissonance with the other sources preferring invaded. This whole sorry sentence is as massive a violation of WP:SYNTH as I have ever witnessed, since you are stitching up from 24, mainly mediocre, sources bits and pieces to make an independent, wiki narrative. This stands out like dog's balls, and I am surprised no one objects. Even Blind Freddy and his mutt can see that when you insert 'reluctantly' with 1 source, it applies to all parties. Where is the source that says, as distinct from both Jordan and Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Syrias were 'reluctant' to invade? You'll find none, at least that I have checked through.

I'm still awaiting an explanation for the rest, the fact that the words in footnote 46 do not correspond with the source when you click on it. etc.etc. etc.

None of this tohu-bohu occurs when competent editors just stick to the best academic historians, instead of fishing round for scraps from the dog's dinner of second-rate teriary sources to make a POV hodge-podge. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 47 "Arab-Israeli Wars." Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia. 2003. p. 59.

As useless as tits on a bull, again, since it is a generic encyclopedia not up to date with the research illustrated by sources from 2003-2009 (save one)

Note 48 "Lebanon." U.S. Department of State. January 2009. 19 March 2009. The oneliner runs as follows:

'Lebanon participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and signed an armistice with Israel on March 23, 1949.

Note ‘participated’. Greece ‘participated’ in WW2. This does not mean it invaded Germany. It cannot be used in any statement suggesting Lebanon 'invaded'. In any case, again, why use the US Department of State doc when tons of specialized books exist?

Note 38 "Establishment of Israel." BBC News. 17 March 2009. 'The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel but were repulsed, and the Israeli army crushed pockets of resistance. Armistices established Israel's borders on the frontier of most of the earlier British Mandate Palestine.

As dealt with, this should be immediately eliminated because you and I know it to be false (on several counts, since those armies did not enter Israel). In any case with dozens of academic books on the period available, it’s a crummy source.

Note 40 "5 Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine - 15 May 1948."

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Again like the BBC snippet, this is a useless source since it gets an elementary fact wrong, as you and I agree. The Ministry of Hasbara says 'The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine.'

Note that for the Israeloi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the invasion of 5 countries, Lebanon included, occurred on the night of the 14-15th. For our text, using other dinky sources, prefers 15-16 May. Whoever wrote this rubbish has been picking and choosing tidbits from 24 sources, each contradicting the other on some point, and then synthesizing them all as though they were not in conflict.

Here Lebanon’s regular forces invaded Palestine (note, not the ‘Israel’ you earlier supported) on the night of 14-15. Untrue.

Note 49 Mitch Frank,Understanding the Holy Land: Answering Questions about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. New York: Viking, 2005. p. 50.

Oh fa Chrissake. Classified as ‘juvenile non-fiction'. Jeezus! And written, the blurb tells us, for sixth-graders. Hey, you won’t accept the modern consensus of Israel’s finest period historians, but a juvenile piece written for US toddlers constitutes better quality evidence. I retract my remarks about a farce. This is a hoax.

Note 41. Bard, Mitchell G. "Myths & Facts - The War of 1948." Jewish Virtual Library. 17 March 2009.

Mitchell Bard is an economist, with qualifications in political science. He is not an historian. <BLP Violation redacted> of no particular distinction except in the eyes of POV-pushers. He is not a reliable source (Jayjg’s own principles!) for the 1948 war.

In Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific revolutions, and his accompanying book on the Copernican Revolution you might take a tip on what happens when a flawed premise in a model is not fixed. It leads to touching up, adjustments, epicycles are added to the Ptolemaic system, subepicycles then patched in, until you get a huge cranking dinosaur of a system, when a few equations would collapse the lot, and cohere with observed realities more elegantly. This is what has happened throughout this article. Trash or trivial sources have been trawled in from everywhere except the best works on the period. This is not economical, and I suspect the only function of keeping up this charade is to make dopes like myself lose another day saying the obvious, and having it ignored, when I could have read another J.B.Priestley novel.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And after all that, Lebanon still joined the war some weeks after May 15 as the footnote I wrote indicated and as I informed the BBC to correct. --GHcool (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, at this point, I can only say that you too, GHcool, are willingly, knowingly and stubbornly editing false information, to your personal ideological taste, against the best sources in Israeli historiography, into wikipedia. Keep the page, violate WP:synth, use sources written for juveniles in the US in preference to Israel's best scholarship. Whatever. You can write all the footnotes you like, you are not an historian. Gelber, and Morris and their kith in the discipline are. But such appeals to authoritative scholarship invariably fail on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding the page number from The Continuum Political Encyclopedia to the article. I may not be a historian, but the editors of the encyclopedia are. I'll ask that Nishidani keep the ad hominems out of the talk page. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought The Continuum Political Encyclopedia said June. In actuality, it only mentions Malikiyya. I don't own a source at home for the June claim, but I'll leave the footnote in without a source. --GHcool (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can't source it, why leave the footnote in? The footnote came from a source, the source doesn't back it, you've admitted, and it goes to your credit, the source is defective, but the words drafted from it remain?Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I deleted the footnote. --GHcool (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If I've been discourteous, I apologize. I've never forgotten your remark about my walking the extra mile, and withdrawing your objection. We disagree profoundly. But in several key points, I have found you ready to see the objection raised. Thanks and again, please excuse my frustrated intemperance. Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Acceptance of partition plan

AK - you are attempting to push the POV that the Yishuv didn't "really" accept the plan. I have removed a source you added, which does not talk about opposition to the partition plan at all, but rather about the Biltmore program, and there are multiple direct quotes, one from an academic source, that say explicitly say the Yishuv accepted the plan. Please don't replace this with original research about Brit Shalom, which had been disbanded more than a decade earlier, or about Magnes, who was on his deathbed in NY and not part of the Yishuv at the time, all of this based on a source which does not mention the partition plan at all. You are also violating WP:UNDUE by inserting a lengthy quote from Silver. This article is an overview, and the section itself a summary of the historical a timeline - these details belong in the article about the partition plan, not here. NoCal100 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Yishuv is all the Jewish people of Palestine....it has been inferred that 100% of the Yishuv accepted...if this is true then would be best to supply a complete role call with signatures of the referendum...otherwise WP:OR and WP:POV has taken the place of accuracy and a nuanced article.

As there were identifiable sections of the Yishuv (the section known as the "organised Yishuv", LHI and ETZL and those pacifists at the other end of the spectrum represented by Judah Magnes) who dissented from the opinions of the "leadership" of the Yishuv it would appear that POV is being used to try to portray the Yishuv as a homogenous group with one mind....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Silver is to show that the israelophile blanket quote of the Yishuv accepted is at complete odds with the reality of the time and facts...The leadership of the Yishuv dissented on the fundamental principles of the Partition plan....Area, Economic union, and immigration...talking OR wise the Yishuv did not accept but diplomatically none rejected.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Map again

That map is distinctively odd. It gives the PA a majority control of the WB area, appears to confuse civilian and military control, and muddle the Oslo accord zonal agreement's complex details. Territory under the complete control of the PA is some 17% as far as I recall. Worth checking.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, it is the general tone lack of nuance, sloppy reasoning and incorrect "facts" that give the article the POV tag...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing topics

There are several areas that are noticeable by their complete absence.

1. Altalena Affair: seminal point where Ben Gurion goes from being leader of the Jewish Agency in Palestine to Leader of the Yishuv of a nascent Jewish state.
2. Border wars. big gap in 1948 to 1964....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest major revamping to the "Historical outline" section

I have tried to improve the Historical outline section as much as I could. It took me a few days to write the new version of the "Historical outline" which is based upon the original text with many important additions of the conflict – most of which I took from the articles History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Arab citizens of Israel, Palestine Liberation Organization, History of Israel and Palestinian refugee.

In my opinion, even though the "Historical outline" section is much bigger now, because I also merged the "current status" section in to this section – the whole article is only around 10,000 bytes bigger than before my major revamping (which isn't that bad).

I know my latest additions are far from being perfect and need many more improvements including adding the many missing references which I haven't copied here yet from the articles I mentioned above. I plan to continue improving the article and add much more information during the next weeks. In the meantime, I would appreciate any assistance with proofreading or any other important additions to the content in this section.

Sincerely, TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

apart from 16 years missing in the area of what morris calls border wars and missing fundamental areas not even mentioned I would slap a POV tag on it...your version is completely Israelocentric and one sided...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As hard as it is to do, my definite aim was to create a balanced article which would refrain from making any judgment or concealing the truth and bring the facts - I really do not want the text to be biased towards one party. Please be more specific in your description of what makes it "Israelocentric and one sided". TheCuriousGnome (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and what exactly do you mean by "Border wars" - please refer me to the article which elaborate on that part on Misplaced Pages . TheCuriousGnome (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is it : Israel's Border Wars 1949–1956

There were around 15,000 reported incidents at the borders from 49 to 56 with several thousands deaths... Unit 101 was founded to stop these infiltrations with several reprisal actions, such as the Qibya massacre Ceedjee (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but your aim has missed by a rather large amount....again (rather than a biased external link) please point to any use of biased links you seem to have confused me with those that use JVL and the Israeli MFA...."Border Wars" is the book by Benny Morris the covered the years missing from the article... I see that you've removed all the provided references to books note I use books not web articles....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What's this means?

'(17.5% of the 1921-1946 territory of the Mandate which included Transjordan)'

It looks like weaseling down the 78%, to say that Israel only got 17% of the territory Zionist originally aspired to. The fact is that from 1922-3 Transjordan was formally detached from Palestine, administered as a separate corpus, and was nominally independent by treaty from 1928. Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why there is a POV tag...the article is similar to History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict...Israelocentric hasbara (do we need 2 Hasbara articles covering the same events?)....the two articles should be combined and rewritten....with less hasbara with then dubious JVL POV removed and an NPOV article in its place.... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashley. Don't flog the hasbara word. That is an official operation to promote Israel's image. Many people who might otherwise genuinely entertain opinions diffused by hasbara, follow them up by scouring sources, usually on the net, may not even know much, if anything, about it as an organized thing. The scholarship on the area is written by independent minds, and available in books, and those scholars, even if their views coincide with an official line at times, write from personal conviction as it reads the historical evidence from archives.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

There is no consensus. and believe it or no I didn't do the major make over...check on the records...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

here is the culprit...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My recent updates

First of all, I want to apologize for making too many updates to this article in the major revamping I made yesterday. From now on I’ll I am going to add smaller segments of information in order to make it easier for all the editors of the article to discuss new additions. In my latest update I divided the “Historical outline” section into the six periods which are listed in "The periods of the conflict” section so that there would be a place to add the important missing information which previously didn’t fit underneath the former headings. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I approve of these edits. Thanks! :) --GHcool (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Are there any other people here whom think that merging the "current status" section into the "Historical outline" section would be a wise idea? I myself do not see the point of having these two similar sections separated. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What's happening ?

What is the reason for such a number of references in this sentence (which seems to me no grammatically correct - I would expect a name after "invaded") ?

On 14 May, the State of Israel was declared and the British left-and, on 15-16 May, the armies of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Iraq Palestine. Units from five Arab League countries (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq) then reluctantly invaded precipitating the 1948 Arab-Israeli War

May I suggest :

On 15 May, several Arab states sent expeditionary corpses to Palestine to fight the Israelis.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

NoCal100 disagrees with the Israeli MFA

Funny how me and the Israeli MFA agree on October 2 as the acceptance speech to the UN, maybe the article is incorrect factually? On 2 October 1947 Dr Abba Hillel Silver, Chairman of the American Section of the Jewish Agency partially accepted the Partition plan in a speech to the Ad Hoc committee on Palestine announces acceptance of 10 of the eleven unanimous recommendations rejection of the non-unanimous recommendation of the UN partition plan, rejects the 12 non-unanimous recommendation and rejection of the minority report. Of the Majority report (the Partition Plan areas) Dr Able Hillel Silver vacillates saying that he was prepared to “recommend to the Jewish people acceptance subject to further discussion of the constitutional and territorial provisions”.

"On the majority proposals ...These proposals", said Dr. Silver, "did not represent satisfaction of the rights of the Jewish people. They were a serious attenuation of these rights."

"The first partition of Palestine," Dr Silver Declared; "took place in 1922 when Transjordan, representing three-fourths of the original area of Palestine, was cut off and was afterwards set up by the British as an Arab Kingdom."

"It is now proposed to carve a second Arab state out of the remainder of the country, said Dr Silver. In other words," he said, "the Jewish National home is now to be confined to less than one-eighth of the territory originally set aside for it. This, he declared, was a sacrifice which the Jewish people should not be asked to make."

If anyone has a problem with the date of 2 October being the acceptance date please, by all means, take it up with the Israeli MFA...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove it because of the date. I removed it because of your original research that this was "partial" acceptance, which contradicts what is written (and sourced) earlier in this section, which is that the Yishuv accepted the plan. Your use of primary documents to perform original research that contradicts what secondary sources say is really getting old - we discussed this exact issue last week. NoCal100 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

4. ^ UN Doc Fourth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee Abba Hillel Silver address to the Ad Hoc Committee of 2 October 1947
5. Israeli MFA Highlights of Main Events- 1947-1974
6. Stereotypes and Prejudice in Conflict, Daniel Bar-Tal & Yona Teichman, p. 106, Cambridge University Press, 2004

• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Former good article nominees
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Top-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles