Talk:Fatah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fatah article.

Contents

[edit] Military Wing?

Fatah is frequently referred to as the 'Military wing of the PLO'. Why is this not mentioned on this page? It is fine to describe how it is politically situated, but if we are in fact discussing a military organization, why step so carefully around that point? - Avriette

Actually I've never heard of that being a description of Al-Fatah,which is only one of the armed factions in the PLO.(And I'm speaking as someone who regards even the assertion that the Arabs of geographic Palestine are a bona fide nationality is an act of terrorism).What baffles me about this article is the reference to Mahmoud Abbas as the new chairman after Arafat's death.The linked article on Farouk Kaddoumi says that he is chairman of both the PLO and Fatah,but I believe the actual status is that Abbas is chairman of the PLO and Kaddoumi chairman of Fatah.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV problems of this page go beyond that, in the other direction. Fatah is a political party and organization, not simply a 'military wing' of anything. An accurate description of Fatah from an NPOV would not focus solely on where it gets weapons from or who it has trained. Nor would it include the sentance "Fatah operates under the official PLO charter which still calls not only for the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, but the complete eradication of Israeli existance," which has little to do with Fatah (as opposed to the PLO; I'm sure the accuracy of this assertion is being disputed on the PLO talk page as well). The purpose of this article as written is clearly to paint Fatah in as negative a light as possible and provide information helpful in condemning Fatah, not to elucidate Fatah's history, politics, internal organization, political and social activities, constituencies, ideologies, place in Palestinian politics and society, etc.

Yeah... while it may have been more true in the past that fatah was the main military offshoot of the PLO (which, until recently served exclusively as an umbrella for militant organizations), I think it's more accurate to describe them as being (currently) a political organization. That's not to say they have ceased to be involved in terrorist acts: they've just outsourced the execution of attacks to groups like the al aqas martyrs brigades, which are considered to be part of fatah, and whose members were paid direct salaries like any fatah policeman.-- Mpardo

Avriette's assertion (that Fatah is the "military wing" of the PLO) is wrong. Throughout the existence of the PLO, every faction has maintained its own military presence. Fatah has always been the largest faction in the PLO, and, as such, it has continually maintained the largest armed presence globally (each faction has a regional base; in some regions/cities/refugee camps other factions of the PLO are stronger than Fatah). At the best of times (from the PLO's perspective), the leaders of each faction have maintained a level of contact with each other to coordinate defense (e.g., for the protection of specific refugee camps). However, there have been periods where Palestinian politics have led to outright opposition to Fatah's dominant position (with the creation of the Rejectionist Front being the most notable internecine conflict). In the end, there is little evidence to suggest that the seperate factions of the PLO have frequently coordinated offensive actions. Consequently, Fatah's military role shound not be overstated. --(Mingus ah um 23:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] PLO Charter

  • The link provided to reference the following statement:

"Fatah operates under the official PLO charter which still calls not only for the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, but the complete eradication of Israeli existence" is invalid or outdated. There also exists many other websites that claim to represent Fatah, such as www.fateh.org and www.alkrama.com (which comes from the Fatah PR office). Therefore, it is not reliable to refer to any of those as the official website.

    • The charter is an official document, a website is not. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • An official website (or any official media outlet thereof) is obliged to provide up to date versions of official documents. Non-official websites are not obliged. Therefore, the website quoted is not a reliable source to know what PLO Charter is. Furthermore, it is a Fatah Website not a PLO website. Satiany 22:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Obliged to whom? Is there an oversight committee that watches their allgedly "official" website and then issues reports of non-compliance or takes other action? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Obliged to the entity that establishes the official media outlet. Samer 00:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
            • By law? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Both by Law and by virtue of the goals to which the entity has established its official media outlet. In the case of the PLO, all charters and legislations made by the National Congress are published, by law, in the PLO official legal journal called "Al-Waka'e' Al-Felasteeniyyah" (In Arabic: الوقائع الفلسطينية). I do not know of any English version of this journal, but you can contact the Law Institute in Birzeit University (http://lawcenter.birzeit.edu) for a translation of the journal print pertaining to the subject of PLO Charter. Unfortunately, people must pay for such a service. When I know of any official resource in English for the PLO Charter I will post it in the PLO article in Wikipedia. Samer 22:28, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
                • Fine, but remember what we are talking about? The logo: if they're so serious, perhaps someone could give them a hint to change it. Meanwhile, they shoot themselves in the foot. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The PLO Charter does NOT call for the eradication of Israeli existence. The Charter was changed in 1996 and 1998 during the visit of American president Bill Clinton by the Palestinian National Congress to remove all articles calling for the destruction of Israel. The statement I quoted above is therefore factually incorrect and should be removed.
    • AFAIK, the intention to change it was announced and hailed. However, a new revision has never been actually produced. If I am mistaken, please point out where it can be found. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You are making statements that are counter-factual. The revisions to the PLO charter have been made through a letter from Yasir Arafat (PLO Chairman) to Yitzhak Rabin (Israeli PM) in 1993 stating that "those articles which deny Israel's right to exist or are inconsistent with the PLO's new commitments to Israel following their mutual recognition, are no longer valid". Furthermore, in 1996 the Palestinian National Council (Congress) convened in Gaza City to annul those articles, and reconvened in 1998 in the presence of President Bill Clinton to reaffirm the annulment. You can go to the US State Department page on the PLO Charter at http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22573.htm to check all the information I said. Satiany 22:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Before accusing me of lying (as you did above), please provide a reputable reference where the latest revision can be found. All we've seen so far was an intention. I also intend to believe it, but sorry - cannot until I see the proof. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I do not see where did I accuse you of lying, I said your statement is counter-factual, and there is a difference; in the former case I would be claiming that you are saying something you know is not true, in the latter case I am saying that your statement is not correct.
          • How could you claim they are only intentions when I have provided you with a link to the Official US State Department's report on the PLO Charter, you can also check the historical facts I have given you by reading the transcripts of letters exchanged between Arafat, Rabin, Peres, and Netanyahu. If you are claiming that when the Palestinian National Congress convenes and annulls the articles that call for the destruction of Israel is only a show of intentions, then I don't know what isn't. Please read my replies thoroughly and carefully before you make conclusions. Samer 00:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't see anything more than an intention: The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993. - exactly which ones? 2. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first session of the Palestinian central council." (24/04/96) - is the "task of redrafting" still going on? Just curious. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Two things: if you had read carefully through the link I gave you, you would have noticed that the articles that are annulled are in Bold Font. The Second thing, I do not know whether the PLO Charter redraft has been finalized or not, but that is besides the point: the articles calling for the eradication of Israel has already been annulled. Therefore, the original statement that cause this discussion: "Fatah operates under the official PLO charter which still calls not only for the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, but the complete eradication of Israeli existence" is invalid. Whether the PLO Charter has been fully redrafted or not does not have anything to do with this discussion. Samer 22:28, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
                • Even though I disagree with you, I think your explanation belongs to a corresponding article. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The statement that Fatah has recieved weapons from North Korea is unsubstantiated, even a Google search

does not come up with a relationship between the two.

    • I don't know about it, but Google search can not serve as the reputable source. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I did not use Google to prove anything, I was just saying that a relatively powerful engine that searches one of the vastest resource of information on the Earth could not come up with such claims. Anyway, the author would have to provide a reputable source himself/herself before mentioning such a claim. Satiany 22:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Force 17 is not an armed faction of Fatah, it is the official Palestine National Authority presidential guards body, analogous to the US Secret Service.
  • The caption under the Fateh Logo, "showing their territorial ambitions" is a very opinionated statement and it is not endorsed by any official body in Fateh. As said before the Palestine National Congress, consisting in majority of Fateh representatives, has removed all articles referring to the eradication of Israel and have explicitly accepted Israel's "right to exist." Satiany 22:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it shows not only their territorial ambitions but also methods to achieve them. It is their own logo, hope you are not saying that Zionists designed it for them. Please sign with 4 tildas: ~~~~ Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Be careful when you use the word "Actually", we are in the process of authoring an encyclopedia article here, not a political article. There is certainly a significant element of opinion when you say that Fatah's Logo shows "FATAH'S TERRITORIAL AMBITIONS", be reminded that Fatah has agreed as a leading party in PLO to accept "Israel's right to exist" in 1993. Your claims are then disputable and not reliable enough for an encyclopedia. Satiany 22:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • You can not deny the fact that the logo contains the map of the entire State of Israel. I advise you to refrain from intimidation in the future. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Ummm, excuse me here, but how did I intimidate you? Anyway, the fact that they have the map of historical Palestine does not necessarily signify territorial ambitions, it might also signify the historical and cultural aspects of the Palestinian identity, it remains a fact that Palestinians were the majority population of that land before the beginning of the Zionist Immigration. Therefore, the map of historical Palestine holds historical, cultural, and political connotations for Palestinians, and not necessarily just the "FATAH'S TERRITORIAL AMBITIONS". Regards.Samer 00:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
            • The British Mandate's stated goal was to restore Jewish National Homeland. It failed miserably because a certain side refused to even negotiate. By the time of 1947 UN Partition Plan that the Arab leaders rejected, the Jews constituted a majority in the areas designated for the Jewish state. Had the Arabs accepted the partition of 1937, thousands - if not millions - of innocent lives possibly could be saved, and a Palestinian state would be 68 years now. As for an idea that a territory of Israel might "signify the historical and cultural aspects of the Palestinian identity", this is the ambition we are talking about. Try to imagine Pakistan showing map of India on their coat of arms as "historical and cultural aspect of their identity". Don't foget the weapons. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • It was to "create", not to "restore", a Jewish National Homeland; read Balfour's Declaration of 1917 carefully, and I don't know how could you mention "it failed" when it was climaxed by the establishment of Israel in 1948. What you mentioned about the rejection of the Arabs of the 1947 plan is not really related to our discussion and I could easily argue to the opposite point, think of it this way: before the British-endorsed Zionist immigration, Palestine was overwhelmingly Arab by ownership and population, afterwards, and due to facts forcefully created on ground, the 1947 plan came to endorse an illegal immigration campaign (it was outlawed even by the British mandate, when in 1936 the White Book issued regulations on the immigration to Palestine, which the Zionist Movement continued to violate). Thinking of it this way, you would realize that Arabs felt neglected and wronged by the International Community that blindly supported the Zionist movement, especially after Hitler's horrendous crimes against the Jews, and "gave" them 51% of the land, including most of the fertile and coastal areas. Samer 22:28, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
                • Anyway, you have deviated from the point of the discussion, if you wish to continue discussing Israeli-Arab Conflict history I prefer we do it somewhere else, just for the sake of effeciency. The comparisons you made here with Pakistan do not really add to the subject, they are more of a distraction. Furthermore, you can not reduce the Palestinian Identity and History to mere ambitions. Historical Palestine, which includes Israel and the Occupied Territories (minus Occupied Golan Heights), has a rich history that dates more than four thousand years back in time. Palestinians who were living there before the establishment of Israel, and who constituted the majority of population in that land, consider themselves part of this historical, cultural, and social heritage. Palestine, as a geographical unit, is a ubiquitous sign of this heritage. Your reduction of that into mere "TERRITORIAL AMBITIONS" is a heavily opinionated point, which portrays the Palestinian struggle as a mere race for land grabbing and gains. I am not suggesting that the "TERRITORIAL AMBITIONS" statement is invalid, just that it is heavily opinionated in an article that is designated as a NPOV. Samer 22:28, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
          • One Comment to Humus Sapiens, I really wish you would be more accurate and specific to the point in your arguments. I am spending too much time correcting you and keeping the discussion focused: you have failed to carefully read the resources I have provided to argue my points, inappropriately accused me of intimidation, then falsely accused me of calling you a liar, made counter-factual statements about the purpose of the British mandate and the PLO Charter, and engaged me in a political discussion about whose fault is it that the 1947 plan did not work. This is a public project for an encyclopedia, Mr./Ms. Humus Sapiens, and we strive to put forth the stone-cold facts about the subject matter even if we don't like them, and even if they don't agree with our political point of view. Please, if you think there are any factual errors in my arguments, point them out, otherwise, I beg your pardon not to engage me in a political discussion. Regards. Samer 22:28, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
            • I had no intention to get into politics and history here, and I am sorry I let myself sucked in. 1) I did not insist on the wording you keep repeating here in caps. 2) You started mulling about the "majority" in Palestine from the river to the sea (at time when Fatah was not even created. Why don't we talk about the "majority" when king Solomon ruled?). 3) The "Palestinian identity" (pertaining to the entire Israel) must be a bad joke because just a page above you yourself tried to prove that they don't want the territory of entire Israel anymore. I'm not going to waste my time refuting your inflammatory rhetoric (the Negev desert is fertile?!) Remember, we are discussing the logo, and there is not much to discuss about it. BTW, I agree with you, only "the stone-cold facts" belong in an encylopedia, so let's keep the editorializing fluff out. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Good thing we agree. Just one more thing, there is no reason to put Palestinian and Jewish Identities in mutually exclusive spheres, if there is one thing that is certain, it is that Semitic Jews and Palestinians are genetic cousins and people who share one history and one fate. Therefore, there is no need to consider the Palestinian Identity as something that should be wholly in spite of the Jewish one and, once we come to understand that, there won't be as much controversial stuff. Peace. 66.195.210.130 19:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am slightly altering the caption to include the occupied territories. Also, please stop accusing editors of intimidation at every turn, when all they are doing is conducting a civilized discussion with viewpoints that may be different form your own.--AladdinSE 13:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your edit is a more acceptable caption of the photo. Thanks. Samer 00:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Force 17

While Israel accuses Force 17 of carrying out attacks on the Israeli Army and Settlers in West Bank and Gaza, the Force itself never officially endorsed such actions. Furthermore, Force 17 is not a military wing of Fatah, it is an official Palestinian Authority Presidential Security body. Satiany 22:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes from Humus Sapiens

Humus Sapiens,

You are being too aggressive about promoting your agenda, the quotes you provided has been dilebrately changed from their source, and I guess it was by you, since the Memri TV itself did not include one of the quotes you made up. In a second quote by Farouq El-Qadoumi you took two snipets from the interview and joined them together to make up a quote to was intended to be in line with your goals. I kept only part of the quotes you provided because it was the only part that was meagerly an acceptable and honest quotation from Qadoumi.

Again, I tell you we are writing an encyclopedia article, not an article of incitement or of political opinion. Stop making things up. Samer 18:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The quote #1 was removed from PLO by User:Satiany on the following grounds: "Removed quote by Kadumi, it is not talking about PLO". Since you have admitted it is indeed his quote but in the wrong place, where should it go then? The #2 comes from [1]. I tried to reflect the controversies in the Participation in Peace Process section, because Fatah's acceptance of peace is controversial, as 1) their logo, 2) the words of their leaders and 3) their actions demonstrate. I agree with you on one point, this is an encyclopedia article, not a whitewash. Please review Ad hominem and other WP policies. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made the erroneous assumption that it was a quote before I checked its sources, but that does not change the fact that it is not a quote because it has been starkly changed from the original version, as to the question of where should it go? The answer is the trash can. Fatah's acceptance of Oslo Peace Process is not something that is ambigious or "controversial", it has been ratified by all the legislative bodies inside the movement as well as the president of the movement at the time, Yasser Arafat, and it was Fatah's representatives inside the Palestinian National Congress that passed the annulment of all articles in the PLO charter calling for the destruction of Israel. Their logo might bother you, but it is because of the implications you chose to give the logo. The qoutes from Farouq Qaddomi you provided has been either erroneous or taken out of context. I have seen the video clips on that website and I have seen how the video interrupts on several occasions to emphasize few sentences of the interview. This is, indeed, the clearest example of taking statements out of context. Samer 09:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fatah's acceptance of Oslo Peace Process is not something that is ambigious or "controversial", it has been ratified by all the legislative bodies inside the movement as well as the president of the movement at the time, Yasser Arafat -- Denial won't change well-documented facts. Unfortunately for *some*, neither Arafat nor Qaddoumi really bothered to hide their intentions. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, then I would hope for better quotes stating those intentions. I advise you not to use Memri TV since they are intent on promoting a pro-Israeli agenda, even at the price of journalistic honesty. Their translation into English is not accurate, and at many times they have blatantly taken statements out of their context, cut & paste statements togther (You can notice that yourself, even if you don't know Arabic by watching the video). Thanks. Samer 10:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fatah logo

FYI, I am posting an RFC regarding this edit war and a similar one in Hamas. The latest sensible NPOV text was: The Fatah official logo shows the map of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with two fists holding rifles and a hand grenade superimposed, but some prefer to hide facts [2]: "lets leave it up to the viewers to decide what they see" -- sorry but this is not an art exhibition. Encyclopedia's goal is to educate by exposing cold facts and the description of the logo works towards this goal. Also, it would be useful if Arabic language speakers could translate the Arabic text for the rest of us. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection; has anyone offered an explanation? (I could understand an objection to calling it a 'logo', because it isn't one — but that's another matter.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The logo, or emblem or whatever is the right word, is there for all readers to see for themselves. Inserting propagandist snipes insinuating at territorial ambitions is blatant POV pushing. The very state of Israel's flag is the star of David between two blue stripes representing Jewish rule between the Nile and the Euphrates, something which may be construed as a very damning picture of territorial ambition. Nevertheless, because of biblical and religious associations of Eretz Israel and the Promised Land, I wouldn't go in to the Israel article trying to insert innuendoes about the "true meaning" of the flag. Just because the Fatah and Hamas "logos" shows historic Palestine does not imply there's some sinister meaning to it all. Just leave the logs be and the readers can make what they will of them, without these little "hints." --AladdinSE 13:43, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

The "two stripes represent the Nile to the Euphrates" is an Arab canard, and it's rather dismaying to hear you repeat it. The stripes actually mirror the Jewish tallit. As for Fatah, when it was formed its goal was to "liberate" all of "Palestine", including Israel within the 1949 armistice lines. That is why the picture is there, and that's not propaganda. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am familiar with the prayer shawl, and "conspiracy theorists" and unconvinced ant-Zionists still believe that it is in itself derived from the "Nile to the Euphrates" promise of the Erets Yisrael, and by extension the flag is also. I'm sorry to see that you have been distressed by hearing it repeated, but however unfounded, it's out there. We can no more include it in the Flag of Israel caption then we can these map snipes in the Hamas/Fatah emblems. Although many Zionists undoubtedly regard this biblical promise as right and absolute, I don't think the flag is any kind of proof or cause for suspicion. That there are Zionists who think this way is clear enough, some of them even sit in the Knesset; we don't need a conspiracy theory to be ware of them. I don't approve in insinuating territorial ambitions into emblems. A land has historical and sentimental value for people and showing a map that included another state should not be used for propaganda. The entire PLO, not just FATAH, was founded to "liberate" all of historical Palestine. They have since changed their position. Editors may certainly discuss prevarication's of the PLO and its affiliates' commitment to the Two-state solution, but we can certainly leave readers to discern for themselves what they see in a graphic. --AladdinSE 05:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please take care not to snipe at me personally in your editorial summaries. Quote: restore simple facts suppressed by "Nile to Euphrates" canard spreader [3]. I am not a proponent of any conspiracy theories regarding the Israeli flag, although I support the right of others to hold their own beliefs on the matter. I mentioned it as an example of an incorrect way of using POVs and innuendoes to insert propaganda into captions. Just explain your editorial merits on their own intrinsic value and leave off pretending to do it because you are crusading against a "cunard spreader." --AladdinSE 06:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You conspicuously fail to include yourself among that group of "unconvinced ant-Zionists" who "still believe" that the flag "is in itself derived from the "Nile to the Euphrates" promise of the Erets Yisrael"; however, your earlier statement that "the very state of Israel's flag is the star of David between two blue stripes representing Jewish rule between the Nile and the Euphrates" was unequivocal. You were not representing someone else's conspiracy theory on the matter, you were promulgating that belief because you hold it yourself; please stop pretending any different. As for your edits, they are completely editorial, and have no other merit or purpose. People know what the West Bank and Gaza Strip are; they don't need you propagandizing them regarding your view of Israel's relationship to those territories. Similarly, they don't need you putting your own spin on what the purpose and intent of the Second Intifada is; rather, they can read the linked article and decide for themselves. Finally, they don't need your apologist spin on in exactly what context Kaddoumi made his statements, since this spin appears to be entirely the product of original research. Jayjg (talk) 15:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I realize it would much better serve your crusade if I were what you describe, but tough luck, find another horse to ride. I have stated my position on a number of occasions. The Nile to Euphrates conspiracy theory/"evidence of territorial ambition" is an example of what not to use to editorialize picture captions. I have said time and again that nonsense like that is the same kind of POV reasoning that some editors were trying to insinuate into the caption of Fatah/Hamas emblems regarding territorial ambition. What is unequivocal is that you are trying to move comment away from that dispute by trying desperately to attribute to me what would best suit your position. --AladdinSE 06:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
An encylopedia should analyze propaganda, false allegations and misinterpretations - and that is exactly what the flag article does, or should do. I am sure there would be a "good explanation" if the flag had 3 or n stripes. You have to agree, one thing is to have plain stripes, while an unambiguous map is another. We editors do know what this map means, and it is our duty to explain it to the readers who come here for encyclopedic knowledge. If you could translate the Arabic texts for all of us ignorants, I am sure it would be greatly appreciated. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could someone contribute to my own pursuit of knowledge and explain why "the entire State of Israel" is a "snipe"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You guys (Humus Sapiens and Jayjg) are contradicting yourselves, on the one hand you insist on emphasizing certain elements in Fatah's logo because you want to state what you "know the map means", but you insist on not including "Israeli-Occupied" before West Bank and Gaza, or using "Occupied Palestinian Territories" (which is, by the way, a very accurate description of West Bank and Gaza, not a POV). Furthermore, the Kaddoumi quote is not only taken out of context, but is also interpreted in your own propagandistic way (World Tribune: "Palestinian state will replace the Israeli one") while in the Fatah & PLO literature, "one state" means a bi-national democratic state. Jayjg, the example AladdinSE used (the Israeli Stripes) is a very good example to where emphasizing certain elements and interpretations in a flag or emblem can be used for propaganda agenda. You chose to make judgements against the person of AladdinSE (you said to him "you were promulgating that belief because you hold it yourself") instead of rationally and seriously discussing the subject matter. The weakness in your argument is evident, and if we do not agree on just leaving it for the reader to decide what is in the emblem, this editing war will go on forever. Samer 19:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. The "Israeli stripes" is not a simple description of the flag, but rather a myth about the meaning of the blue stripes on it. It is you who contradict yourself, insisting on interpretations when it suits you, and only the interpretations which suit you. Please stick to simple, NPOV descriptions, and stop putting your spin on things. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not a myth, it is an interpretation that is still held by many radical Zionists. If you do not agree with this interpretation, it does not mean it is a myth. It is you who have to stop putting your spin on things. I am offering you a chance at consensus by leaving the logo as is without addded emphasis on certain elements in the logo. Samer 20:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's a myth; find me one "radical Zionist" who believe the stripes on the flag stand for that. Show me a link with a "radical Zionist" who says that's what the stripes are. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Refer to Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion, Stern and Lehi terrorist organizations. Do a simple google search on them and look for the phrases "From the Nile to the Euphrates". Samer 20:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Provide a link which supports your claim. One to start. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is a bunch, enjoy! (some are Israeli sources, some are Palestinian, some are neutral)

http://www.meta-religion.com/Extremism/Jewish_extremism/lehi.htm http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/lehi.html http://www.bgu.ac.il/Ben-Gurion/infra/publications/bg_and_bible.html http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/07-history/C-zionism/2004/07C-08-03-04-quotes-from-leading-zionists.html http://illuminati-news.com/israel-bad-for-jews-part2.htm http://www.al-awda.org/famousquotes/

Samer 20:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, a number of those pages don't even mention "Nile to the Euphrates". Second, the ones mentioning Ben Gurion (there are two) are copies of each other, and contain a false quote. Finally, none of them mention that the stripes on the flag have anything to do with this belief. I'll try again; please find a link from a "radical Zionist" who says the stripes on the flag have anything to do with the "Nile to the Euphrates". Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not know how aren't you finding the references to "Nile to the Euphrates", I suggest you read thoroughly. If those did not convince, I don't know what will. Samer 20:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Satiany, please pay attention. The question here is about the meaning of the stripes on the Israeli flag. You promised me a link from a "radical Zionist" which claimed the stripes on the flag related to "Nile to Euphrates". Produce such a link. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While radical Zionists have certainly called for an Israeli state from Nile to Euphrates, I made a deductive mistake by attributing that to the Israeli flag. I will do more research on this matter before I decide whether the flag has been, in fact, interpreted by radical Zionists in such a way. For now, consider the argument closed. Samer 21:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have put an alternative caption for the Fatah emblem to show you an equally true interpretation of the logo that has a different emphasis. If you insist on promoting your own agenda, this editing war will go on forever. We can end it and reach some consensus by simply stating it is "Fatah's logo" and let the reader decide for himself/herself what is the emphasis in that logo. Your way of pushing your agenda is very impolite and it insults my intelligence. Samer 19:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please learn the difference between an "intepretation" and a "description". The description simply lists the items on the logo in a completely factual and neutral way; your interpretation gives your own view of it's meaning. Please avoid this kind of editorializing. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Description does have an element of interpretation in it, after all, it is your mind that is interpreting what your eyes see, and then you "describe" it. My caption included a description that had different names and different emphasis, to give a wholly different perspective from the logo. There was nothing factually incorrect in my description, such as there is nothing factually incorrect in your description, but the emphasis matters. We can agree to leave the emphasis as a matter of reader opinion, or we can go on this edit war forever. Samer 20:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation was a political position; descriptions are supposed to be just that, descriptions, not political poisitions. As well, you keep inserting all sorts of other editorials. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not a political position, Palestinians do consider themselves to descend from Historical Palestine. That is a fact! Samer 20:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Palestinians consider themselves descended from a piece of land? I think biologists would be astounded. In any event, it's a statement of a political belief, one which is not held by all Palestinians, and not a description of the logo. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and keep the Wikipedia:Three revert rule in mind, or you could find yourself blocked. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, please substitute "descend from" for "originate in" to remove all ambiguities. Its not a statement of political belief to say that "Palestinians are all those who lived in Historical Palestine before 1948" (review PLO Charter for more information).. It is a description of the logo with different emphasis. Anyway, what do you think of leaving the logo as is? Samer 20:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

It is not any sort of description of the logo, it is a description of the beliefs of some Palestinians. As for the logo, as I have made clear, I think it should contain a brief, factual description of the contents, which you keep removing. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not the factual description that I disagree with, it is the emphasis and the choice of words. The only way we can agree is to keep the caption as neutal as possible, or make another section in the article regarding the interpretations of the logo. Samer 20:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

The description emphasizes nothing, it merely describes every element on the flag in the fewest and clearest words possible. Which does it leave out? Which does it emphasize? Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It leaves out the concept of Historical Palestine, signifying the cultural and social identity roots of the Palestinian people. Historical Palestine is not identical with the Israel + Occupied Palestinian Territories or Western Side of the British Mandate of Palestine, it consists of cultural and historical implications that go beyond the political conflict going on between Israel and Arabs. In the caption, you chose to identify it as State of Israel + Occupied Palestinian Territories, while I chose to identify it as Historical Palestine. The emphasis is, therefore, different: yours is geographical, mine is cultural and national. We can agree to some consensual caption here at the Talk Page, or we can keep the caption to a bare minimum which does not hold any emphasis or bias. Samer

There's no picture of a "concept" in the logo; concepts are ideas, not pictures. Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that from tomorrow we all limit ourselves to one revert daily instead of the allowed maximum, as a cool-down measure while the dispute lasts. --AladdinSE 23:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I have a better suggestion; from tomorrow let's all limit ourselves to simply stating facts, without politicizing them, and following Wikipedia policies regarding original research, citing sources, etc. Then no-one will need to revert at all. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi AladdinSE, there's nothing wrong with describing the elements in the logo. There's nothing political added, just straight description. However, your addition to the sentence about the [Al-Aqsa Intifada]], adding that it's "the second Palestinian uprising against the Israeli Occupation" (capital "O" occupation no less) is unnecessary POV editorial. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 23:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Aladdin, do you feel the modified version of the caption similar to what Ashley_Y did at Hamas is an improvement? --MPerel( talk | contrib) 19:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going around apologizing for my late replies, as lately I've been unable to keep up with all the Wikipedia articles I edit. I'm trying to catch up whenever I can. OK, let's see. Jayjg: Your sarcasm isn't helping. I suggested a very mature way of mitigating the current dispute and preventing excess reverts and you respond with this holier than thou snipe. Just stick to your stated position and this will be a much more civilized discussion. MPerel: occupation can be uncapitalized, I have no objection. But what is POV about stating that the Al Aqsa Intifada was the second Palestinian uprising against occupation? What do you propose it was? Articles are replete with linked terms and articles that are given a short basic description. Now, as for the Hamas caption, I just replied to that Talk section before coming to this one. What I said there was: "I am inclined to endorse: "The Hamas emblem shows two crossed swords, the Dome of the Rock, and a map of the land they claim as Palestine (roughly, the present State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)." caption, with reservations about why Israel is accorded its designation as a state, but the West Bank and Gaza are not accorded their designation as occupied by Israel." The same reservations apply here, but yes, Ashley_Y's formulation is a very good step forward. --AladdinSE 05:49, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was being serious Aladdin. It is clearly a POV that the Al Aqsa intifada is an "uprising against occupation"; reading the article alone should tell you that. Regarding the caption, are you saying that it is a POV insertion that Israel is a State? Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AladdinSE makes a very valid point, why is "Israel is accorded its designation as a state, but the West Bank and Gaza are not accorded their designation as occupied by Israel".. West Bank and Gaza are considered, by international law, occupied territories. Almost all countries in the world recognize this fact, and even the Israeli PM Ariel Sharon decried "the Occupation" on many occasions. United Nations always refers to West Bank and Gaza as either "occupied Palestinian territories" Example or "occupied Palestinian territory" Example. There is no reason why should the caption not include occupied Palestinian territories. Samer 07:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

International law is more complicated than you imagine. In any event, are you also saying that it is a POV insertion that Israel is a State? Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, just as there is no POV in saying West Bank and Gaza are occupied Palestinian territories. Maybe you can enlighten me as to the complex aspects of International Law that make my argument invalid? Samer 18:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point, which is not whether or not they are "occupied", but the appopriateness of continually trying to insert that position in inappropriate and illogical places. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And how is it illogical to refer to them as occupied Palestinian territories? It makes as much sense as calling the Israeli contiguous territory bounded by 1949 armistice lines by the name: "State of Israel". Furthremore, what defines inappropriate? your feelings? Samer 19:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Goodness how comments do pile up in the course of 24 hours. Ok, Johnny-Come-Lately says: No, "State of Israel" is not a POV, that's why I phrased it "Israel is accorded its designation as a state" i.e. given it's internationally recognized status, while the West Bank and Gaza, which are not sovereign, and under Israeli military administration recognized throughout the world as an occupation, even by the United States (albeit grudgingly), are not allowed to have their status stated in the caption. It is not an illogical insertion, because this whole can of worms was opened when people began to describe the caption; mentioning "State of Israel" without mentioning that Israel occupies the territories is illogical in the context of the Fatah (and Hamas) militancy and the symbols portrayed in their captions (i.e. military occupation = inherent conflict). --AladdinSE 04:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

People, people, people! As Gaza has ceased to be a part of the Occupied Territories, I think recent history has actually solved this problem for us. No one ever says Gaza and the Occupied Territories, they say Gaza and the West Bank. We all know that the West Bank is being occupied by the Israeli Defense Force against the will of its civilian population, but further edits of the current caption (The Fatah official emblem shows two fists holding rifles and a hand grenade superimposed on a map of historic Palestine (i.e. the post-1922 British Mandate borders, including present-day Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)) is not going to help anybody (on either side of the conflict). --(Mingus ah um 23:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] "One state solution" = original research

Satiany, your statement that "the concept of "One State" in the Fatah & PLO literature refers to the binational secular democratic state solution to the Israeli Palestinian Conflict" is original research, meant to counter what you think is a bad impression being given by Kadoomi's statements. Original research is forbidden on Wikipeida. Also, please stop deleting valid links. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No it is not an original research, Fatah has been one of the earliest proponents of the one-state solution as a permanent and viable solution. Not only did the forefathers of the movement (Abu Ali Eyyad, Yasser Arafat, Farouk Kaddoumi, Hassan Salameh, etc.) have explicitly advocated it, but this also continues to be the case with many contemporary Fatah intellectuals. Look at the following website, which includes articles by Israelis and Palestinians (including Fatah intellectuals) advocating the one state solution, www.one-state.org. It also includes a rich collection of documents detailing the history of the idea itself. Regarding the World Tribune link, it is far from valid, it misquotes Kaddoumi(Kaddoumi never said "a Palestinian state will replace Israel"). Samer 06:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving "dovish intellectual" Arafat & Co. aside for a moment... The best way to counter propaganda is to expose it. I've asked someone to translate the interview with the "dovish intellectual" Qaddoumi and got a confirmation that MEMRI's translation is correct. This is the first time I'm uploading a sound file, here is a ogg sound. It takes only 4 secs: Kaddoumi is saying "[There are] 300 Million Arabs, while Israel has only the sea behind it." (Talat-mit million Arabi, am Israil warahalbahr). Anymore questions about one-state? Or did someone just recently argued here that now they want a two-state solution? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is original research to insert it as a counter-argument to the plain meaning of the quote. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Plain meaning"? I don't think its that plain, especially with the way MemriTV put snippets of the interview together in a very blatant act of propaganda. Anyway, I will add a section on the one-state literature to the Fatah code, this way its not considered neither as a counter argument or original research. Furthermore, I do not accept the World Tribune as a valid link, unless we are talking about propaganda against Fatah, I will remove that as well, I think MemriTV link (with all its suspicious selective quoting) is minimally acceptable and sufficient, World Tribune is outrageous in its erroneous interpretation and misquotation. Samer 18:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

"A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if itintroduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article". From the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please read and understand it. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As of 14 Nov 2005, the sentance on that page reads differently: "it introduces an argument without citing a reputable source, which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Without citing a reputable source. If you cite an existing source, what you are doing is not possibly "original" research. There are plenty of existing secondary sources about when Fatah endorsed a 'one state solution'. It's got nothing to do with original research.

You ask me to stop putting POV (which I don't see any instance of me doing it) but you insist on including the World Tribune link, using a very manipulated quotation. I don't see any original research in talking about Fatah's proposals for a solution, those are well-documented and official proposals. I will put them back, please refrain from deleting my additions for no good reasons. Samer 18:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

"A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if itintroduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article". From the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please read and understand it. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You ask me to stop putting POV (which I don't see any instance of me doing it) but you insist on including the World Tribune link, using a very manipulated quotation. I don't see any original research in talking about Fatah's proposals for a solution, those are well-documented and official proposals. I will put them back, please refrain from deleting my additions for no good reasons.Samer 19:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about Original Research, not POV. Please read carefully. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Again, quotes from Humus Sapiens

If you watch the video you will see that snippets has been added together and then translated, especially in part you insist on quoting. They were added together to promote exactly the same view espoused by World Tribune, which is very distorted and propagandistic. I have shown, sufficiently, that "one state" in PLO and Fatah refers to a binational state solution, but you keep deleting that because you are intent on providing the outlook that Fatah is about the "destruction" of Israel.

Furthermore, "disputed" is a very POV description of the Israeli-occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza, which is a word that has been espoused lately by people like former Israeli UN ambassador Dori Gold and pro-Israeli hawks like Donald Rumsfeld. The legal international interpretation, and even the Israeli legal interpretation, of West Bank and Gaza is that they are occupied! United Nations always refers to West Bank and Gaza as either "occupied Palestinian territories" Example or "occupied Palestinian territory" Example, which are titles derived from the language of the 4th Geneva Conventions of 1949. There is no mention of "disputed" in general political and legal literature about the West Bank and Gaza but by the most pro-Israeli ones. Only areas of lands that are claimed by two equally based national entities are claimed as disputed (like the Kashmir region (disputed between Pakistan and India), Persian Gulf Island of Zubrah (between Qatar and Bahrain), on the other hand, the Palestinian territories have been occupied in an act of war by the Israeli state in 1967, and they are lands that Israel had no legal claims on. If we are to be even stricter, we would say that all lands not assigned to Israel by the UN Security resolution 181, which is the main international legal document legitimizing the State of Israel, are Israeli-Occupied. Those lands make up 49% of the area of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories combined. So, be careful not to distort legal language here, unless you consider the Eretz Yisrael concept your norm, then it is a different story. :) Samer 15:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

West Bank and Gaza Strip are clear and neutral descriptions, which say exactly what they mean. Please stop trying to insert politicized descriptions instead. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you prefer to refer to State of Israel as: "the land between River of Jordan and the Mediterranean minus Gaza Strip and West Bank, bounded by Sinai desert"? I believe you wouldn't, you would be inclined to use the internationally recognized name: "State of Israel". By the same coin, it is more sensible to use the internationally recognized name for West Bank and Gaza of "occupied Palestinian territories", which is a neutral description: calling an stolen object "stolen" is not a bias against the thief, its a very neutral fact regulated by LAW! The name of West Bank and Gaza is regulated by international laws and treaties ranging from 4th Geneva Convention up till the most recent UN Security Council and General Council resolutions. If you have a problem with that, its your POINT OF VIEW, but I won't hide facts just because I want to please you. Samer 18:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The legal names for the territories are "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip". Those are also the common names, and the names Wikipedia uses. Please stop inserting your political POV into the text. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those are the geographic description of the occupied Palestinian territories. The legal, and more common, description of them is occupied Palestinian territories, just as "State of Israel" is the legal name of the geographical unit bounded by West Bank and Gaza inside the West Side of the British Mandate of Palestine. I do not understand why do you insist on not using that name other than my suspicions that you are trying to hide facts about the Israeli regime. Samer 18:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly where is the "legal" description of the territories defined? Can you point me to the specific law? As for common use, "Occupied Palestinian territories" gets 123,000 hits, "West Bank" gets 6,100,000, "Gaza Strip" gets 2,150,000. Even "West Bank and Gaza Strip" gets 328,000 hits, or almost three times the hits of your preferred term. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Google is not God. Number of hits is nota measure of truth. "Occupied Territories" gets 717,000 hits. That makes it better than "West Bank and Gaza Strip", right? "Judea and Samaria" only gets 103,000 hits. What does that prove? --Powergrid 19:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Google is a measure of common usage, and "Occupied territories" refers to other territories besides the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which is precisely why it is a poor choice of term. West Bank and Gaza Strip are the proper names and common terms, that's what Wikipedia policy demands. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"West Bank and Gaza" gets more hits than "West Bank and Gaza Strip". Does that make it better or is that just an artifact of the Google search engine algorithm? --Powergrid 20:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please review strawman argument. Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if we accept Google as a measure of common usage, this does not alter the validity of the term. Earth was commonly believed to be flat in the medieval times, does that make it a correct statement? Samer 19:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

We go by Wikipedia policy here. Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation

It seems that Jayjg and Humus Sapiens do not recognize that there is a Israeli Military and Colonial occupation in occupied Palestinian territories. You try hard to remove every reference to "occupation" with no logical reasons, if you are trying to promote some hawkish Zionist propaganda then go do it somewhere else. This is no place for hiding facts or mauling them to fit your agenda. Samer 18:34, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The logical reasons for using factual descriptions rather than inserting POVs have been well explained to you, and have consensus from everyone on the page except you. And watch the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, or you will likely be banned. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you and Humus Sapiens constitute everyone? I believe you and Humus Sapiens constitute the hawkish Israeli rightist positions, I met the last few days with many Israeli prominent intellectuals, including Avishai Margalit, Yehuda Gellman, and Edna Ullman and they have not uttered positions as biased and blatantly propagandistic as you guys have, they have been courageous to accept that Israel is in fact a state occupying other people's land with all the moral obligations following from such a position. I believe you and Humus Sapiens are living in some ideological fantasy land where only beautiful things is said about Israel, and the rest is demonized or neglected. Samer 18:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, me, Humus Sapiens, MPerel, and AladdinSE constitute "everyone" on this page; you're the only one who keeps insisting on the nonsense of "Historical Palestine". And the issue is not whether or not there is an occupation, but what is the appropriate description to place in the article. Please focus on that, and not on other editors. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historical Palestine is not nonsense, it is firstly a symbol of cultural, social, and political heritage for Palestinians, and is basically a cardinal component of the collective identity of Palestinians. Secondly, "Palestine" is the name historically given to the region since the time of Roman occupation to the lands, it is a well documented name that has been continuously used until the end of the British Mandate. The fact that Historical Palestine referred to continuously changing variations of geographical boundaries does not negate its symbolism or its validity, anymore than the changing borders of France (from Charlemagne through Napoloenic wars and Nazi invasion and until current state of affairs) negate the symbolism and status of France as the principal element of French Identity. Regarding "appropriate description", the same token by which you deem it appropriate to say "State of Israel" in the caption is the token that deems it appropriate to call them "occupied Palestinian territories". Both are legal and internationally recognized names of their respective territories, and both are loaded with political and national connotations. Instead, what is inappropriate is to refer to the Israeli territories by their legal and political name, while only referring to the Palestinian ones as West Bank and Gaza; emptying them from their political connotations. Samer 19:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Historical Palestine" is nonsense, because that specific term is was not used at all, and "Palestine" referred to an amorphous territory. On the other hand, Fatah's logo shows a very specific territory, which is not "historical Palestine" by any stretch of the imagination. It makes sense to refer to all territories by their legal and common names, which in this case is Israel, West Bank, and Golan Heights Gaza Strip. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, that picture does not include Golan Heights, I think you mistook it for Gaza Strip. Your statement that the specific term "Historical Palestine" is not used is erroneous, that term and variations of it are used extinsively in encyclopedias (such as Encarta, Brittanica), biblical studies, political studies. Furthermore, when you deem it nonesense, you are belittling an important component to the identity of a whole nation: Palestinians. It is like me saying that Eretz Yisrael is nonesense. Please refrain from making such statements. Samer 19:37, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about national identities, it's about encyclopedic usage; your emotional arguments are precisely what's wrong with your text. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Fatah is about the national identity of Palestinians, and the map of Historical Palestine is there in their logo to signify that. Samer 19:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Since the goal here is to reach consensus, I say we try to construct some commonly acceptable caption here in the talk page. Samer 19:37, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

We have; you're the only one who disagrees. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No we didn't reach consensus, I still disagree. And the only people I see making arguments here today is me, you, and Humus Sapiens. Anyhow, arguments are not won by the number of supporters, they are won by reason and logic. Samer 19:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the caption issue is still unresolved. --AladdinSE 04:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Consensus in Wikipedialand in the end generally comes down to majorities. Ashley Y and MPerel came up with the basic text, so they would have to be counted as "making arguments" as well. Jayjg (talk) 05:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but you did assert that "you're the only one who disagrees" and what's more, the caption discussion continues below. --AladdinSE 22:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] page protected

To allow tempers to cool, I have protected this page. I take no sides in this particular dispute and the version protected is not one I necessarily endorse. Also, edit summaries like rv alberuni POV garbage [4] are not conductive to civilized discourse.

Satiany, Jayjg, AlladinSE, Humus, and others: please try to resolve your differences on the Talk page now. -- Viajero 20:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of listing what appears to me to the outstanding issues. Please discuss them below. -- Viajero 21:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding issues

[edit] Caption

Which caption is preferable?

  • The Fatah official emblem shows two fists holding rifles and a hand grenade superimposed on a map of Historical Palestine (roughly, the present State of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories).

vs.

  • The Fatah official emblem shows two fists holding rifles and a hand grenade superimposed on a map of the land the claimed as Palestine (roughly, the present State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

comments

  • "Historical Palestine" is meaningless; throughout history the borders of Palestine have varied widely, in even in the period leading up to Israeli independence, it's still not clear if it meant Israel+West Bank+Gaza Strip, or that +Jordan. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I incline towards The Fatah official emblem shows two fists holding rifles and a hand grenade superimposed on a map of the land claimed as Palestine (roughly, the present State of Israel, the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Briefly: Israel is described and given its status as a state but the territories are not given their (internationally recognized) status as occupied territories, this is an illogical omission in the context of the symbology Fatah has chosen for it's emblem. Please see Talk section Fatah Logo above for full reasoning. --AladdinSE 05:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
The status of the State of Israel as a sovereign state is undisputed, while the status of the territories and their borders is still a subject of dispute. When Fatah was established and "in the context of the symbology Fatah has chosen for it's emblem", the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, respectfully. Please prove me wrong, but AFAIK, not Jordan's, nor Egypt's, nor Fatah's intentions included the lifting of that occupation and the establishment of independent Palestinian state. As a matter of fact, there has never been a Palestinian state and the region was always under occupation. Remember we are editing the emblem caption not the status of the territores. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is "occupied" some sort of disambiguation? So people will be able to distinguish these territories from the "unoccupied West Bank and Gaza Strip"? Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to Humus sapiens: Legally the status of Israel as a sovereign state is secure, but as far as I know, most of the Arab League and a host of Islamic nations do not afford Israel diplomatic recognition, whereas every nation on earth recognizes the territories as "occupied", except of course for the occupier, so there's some perspective about levels of recognition. Editing the emblem caption includes symbology relevant to the present not the past. Before Oslo, Fatah along with the other members of the PLO, wanted wholesale "liberation" of "historic Palestine" and the abolition of a Jewish state. Post Oslo, they want a 2-state solution using the 1949 Armistice line borders and an end to occupation of land outside those boundaries. However much you try to reason away Palestinians' right to view themselves as a nation-state, they and the world recognize their claim to it. Response to Jayjg: It can be viewed as a disambiguation I suppose, but the main point I am arguing in this caption dispute is the symbology relative to the context of Fatah's insurgency against Israel, where omission of the occupied status of the territories is illogical. --AladdinSE 22:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

P. S. Guys, what is the AFAIK acronym? Thanks --AladdinSE 22:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

So you're distinguishing them from the "unoccupied West Bank and Gaza Strip"? Do you mean the cities like Jericho from which the Israeli army has withdrawn, or perhaps the Gaza Strip after Israel withdraws in a few months? P.S. AFAIK=As Far As I Know. Jayjg (talk) 03:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not distinguishing them. Granting limited civil autonomy while controlling all other aspects of sovereignty does not negate a military occupation. Moreover cities and areas that are granted PA civil rule are almost routinely remilitarized at the discretion of the IDF in the ongoing conflict, and PA rule is suspended and returned at the whim of the Israeli government. Until a final peace treaty is signed, demarcating borders and granting mutual recognition, all territories Israel controls outside the 1967 frontiers are under Israeli military occupation. That is the UN and international position, and I subscribe to it. --AladdinSE 05:19, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

So what are you distinguishing them from, then? Jayjg (talk) 07:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since the Fatah's emblem hasn't changed from the days when the WB and GS were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, shouldn't we reflect that fact? Why invent "pre-67" vs. "pre-Oslo" vs. "post-Oslo" changes that weren't? According to User:Ashley_Y's comments about the artist's authority: "I can't see any reasonable way of describing a symbolic drawing such as this except in terms of what the artist intended." The caption should simply describe the image without going into controversies. When they decide to change it, we will change the caption - or will show both old and new emblems noting the diffs. I don't understand the need to add this POV word here, in the caption of the Fatah emblem circa 1964, of all places. The fact that many of the Arab League countries and Iran do not recognize the Jewish state, in addition to expulsion/persecution of their own Jewish citizens, should be definitely reflected in the WP, but not in this article, don't you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, am I to believe that if all these isues were cleared up the nutrality tag could be removed?--Dr.Worm 23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Aqsa

Should this parenthetical phrase be included?

  • as a part of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which began in September 2000 as a Palestinian popular uprising against Israeli occupation

vs.

  • as a part of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

comments

The former is the Palestinian claim of what the Intifada was; just listing it is fine. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian claim? The intifada is consistently referred to as such by world media, is it not? Short descriptive "addendums" to wiki-linked terms is common in Wikipedia. It is logical to provide a short description here. What is your appraisal of what the Al Aqsa intifada is? --AladdinSE 22:51, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Is it consistently referred to that way in the media? From what I can tell, the Al-Aqsa intifada was Arafat's way of trying to prolong the conflict. He succeeded. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. In on line, print and TV news, do you not recognize a consistency calling it an uprising, even spontaneous uprising, rather than "terrorist campaign?" The riots broke out spontaneously soon after the Sharon visit, Arafat did not plan it, he wishes he had that sort of power. See BBC: Al-Aqsa Intifada timeline and CNN: Violence surrounds Intifada anniversary demonstrations. I think it's clear internationally it is viewed as popular uprising and not centrally orchestrated, though certainly some groups have tried to inject as much planning into it as they could once it took off. --AladdinSE 05:38, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

See Yossef Bodansky's quote in Al-Aqsa Intifada regarding the Sharon's Temple Mount visit of Sep 28, 2000: both Rajoub and Arafat gave their assurances. AFAIK, this has fact never been refuted, while BBC and CNN often get in trouble for misreporting on the IPC. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Many sources insist the opposite, that Arafat and his people planned the intifada in advance: [5] [6] [7] [8]. They state that Palestinian security chief Jabril Rajoub provided assurances that if Sharon did not enter the mosques, no problems would arise. They also often quote statements by Palestinian Authority officials, particularly Imad Falouji, the P.A. Communications Minister, who admitted months after Sharon's visit that the violence had been planned in July, far in advance of Sharon's visit, stating the intifada "was carefully planned since the return of (Palestinian President) Yasser Arafat from Camp David negotiations rejecting the U.S. conditions."[9][10] Jayjg (talk) 16:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Come now. Sources? You reply to BCC and CNN with blogs and partisan websites? Mafhoum.com.Jewish? Virtual Library? eretzyisroel.org? Please. Also, camera.org is a highly partisan advocacy group masquerading as a watchdog organization, and it attacks virtually anyone expressing criticism of Israeli policy or stating facts which appear to disadvantage Israel. The Aqsa intifada was the second uprising against Israeli occupation. That's international consensus right there if ever I saw any. I am returning that description. --AladdinSE 11:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Senior P.A. officials said it was planned long in advance, as the linked press articles show. It's hard to see what your objection is, other than promoting your own political POV. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder how these senior PA officials would comment on your characterization of their positions. I would hazard a guess that they would not consider you to be a an accurate or official spokesperson. These so-called press article links are as far removed from respected press as you can get, as I pointed out earlier. Removing a factual, internationally (and here I actually provided real press links like the BBC and CNN) credited classification is what is promoting a POV. --AladdinSE 00:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The information was printed in Arab press, including P.A. press, and the links include Arab sites that reproduce it (though no blogs, I have no idea what you were talking about there). If you pull this stuff, you'll have to pull everything from al Jazeerah as well. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The very same Arab press you blasted on more than one occasion for inaccuracy and lack of freedom. --AladdinSE 04:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Do you think the Arab press is inaccurate in this case? Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly I do, since these officials deny vehemently that the entire uprising is in fact a planned campaign. The international media reception of that idea is also very telling. Also, you are extrapolating an overall position from limited sources, to which PA officials have expounded and clarified on several times since. I find it most amusing to see you bast the press on one hand and then suggest that they are accurate when they embarrass the PA in any way. --AladdinSE 04:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, that is often how independence and accuracy are measured. When a biased source toes the party line, it is not surprising; when, on the other hand, it says something negative about the party, it is viewed with much more interest and less skepticism. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. A source is either reliable overall or not. What's more, international journalism overwhelmingly supports the classification of "uprising" and "occupation". --AladdinSE 22:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, rather than "nonsensing" back and forth, I'll just point out that it is disputed, and there's no need to insert your POV characterizaion of the conflict, since the link to the article handles it. Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Considering consistent world-wide journalistic characterization of the intifada as an uprising against an occupation, I hardly see it as a POV characterization. Nevertheless, agreed: at least so far as it is disputed, and linked. I concede. --AladdinSE 10:04, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to commend you for being cooperative. Edit wars are such a waste of time. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It behooves me to say, however, that I have been less revertive on many occasions than some of my fellow editors, and when matters (in several articles) get especially divisive, I often limit my reverts to once daily as voluntary cooling down measure. You will not be able to find one instance where I persisted in reverts without fully participating in Talk discussions, in a civilized and collaborative manner. I'm glad that we are in agreement that edit wars are very undesirable, and I look forward to the time when you are less embroiled in them yourself. Also, one need not concede to prove one's cooperation. A good faith participation in discussion and consensus-building is proof enough, I think. --AladdinSE 10:43, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome, colleague. To answer your note, let's remember that it's easy to see who kept insisting on the POV wording. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Solutions" text proposed by Satiany

Should this text be included?

Solutions proposed by Fatah to the Israeli-Arab conflict
Fatah promoted a binational democratic one-state solution throughout its early history as a solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Many of its intellectuals and political thinkers have advocated this as a permanent and viable solution to the conflict, and many still do (See One-State website by many Fatah Palestinian and Israeli advocates of the one state solution One-State ). However, the Government of Israel consistently rejected this solution throughout the consequetive Labor and Likud regimes.
In 1988, Fatah signaled its acceptance of a two state solution by declaring its recognition of UN Security Resolutions 242 and 194 as bases for conflict resolution and, in 1993, after many years of secret negotiations between PLO and Israel, letters of mutual recognition were exchanged between Yasir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin.

comments

  • I have to confess, I am guilty of adding an overly generous section about Fatah's participation in the Peace Process - not even mentioning about the events after 1993, but this proposed text paints them as peace-loving "intellectuals", while Israeli "Labor and Likud regimes" (together at last!) as rejectionist warmongers. If you insist on adding it, it needs a major clean up. Note the English-only site. Their "intellectualizing" in Arabic is slightly different: [11], [12], [13], [14], etc. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Intresting view on things here: Before the Oslo accords, Fatah officially sought to destroy the state of Israel and drive the Sionists out. This is, indeed, an act of seeking a democratic one state solution. A final solution, one might add.
To say it straight, this representation of history is misleading and should not be included.

[edit] Quotes

Should this quote be included? And which external URLs should be cited?

- Kaddoumi: [There are] 300 Million Arabs, while Israel has only the sea behind it.
- Interviewer: Minister, how do you see the future of Palestine?

comments

  • I don't see why not, after all it is cross-referenced and it is hard to deny video evidence. The "out of context" allegation is unacceptable, since we are not presenting any context here, only his words. But if someone knows something about a particular mysterious context, let's hear it. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The quotes section should be removed. Its only purpose seem to be to lend evidence to a disputed hypothesis, namely that Fatah still has the goal of destroying Israel. That sort of evidence belong to a discussion site, not on a description of the organization. In Wikipedia, it is appropriate to write that Fatah has the goal of destroying Israel (if that is the consensus), or that some people believe Fatah has the goal of destroying Israel (if no such consensus exists), but not to provide arguments to support the hypothesis that Fatah has the goal of destroying Israel. Or if we do, at least be explicit about the bias "The people who hold that Fatah still want to destroy Israel, find evidence in quotes such as ...". Per Abrahamsen 15:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the quote into the text, please see if it works for you. Unfortunately, it is frequently near impossible to get consensus on such contentious issues as the IPC. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Less bad, as the POV is now explicit. However, neither the obvious counter-arguments are presented, nor similar evidence supporting any other point of view. And the real question is whether WikiPedia is the right place for such arguments. The article currently read more as an elaborated argument for the official Israel position, namely that there are nobody on the Palestinian side to negotiate with. Which may very well be correct, but a WikiPedia page on Fatah is the wrong place to argue for that. Per Abrahamsen 12:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of sources

I noticed the validity of certain sources came up here in the talk page and is a problem that pervades the entire Arab/Israel debate. What sources can be trusted? I think a fair guideline for the Arab/Israel issues is that no one is neutral, so the best way to build up a neutral view of the issue is to trust Arab sources when they report something supporting the pro-Israel side of an argument and trust the Israeli sources when they report something supporting the pro-Arab view. Anything they agree on is is probably true. I'm more suspicious of European and American sources because their biases are more subtle and harder to identify. --Cypherx 22:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 2006 Election

I have added a statement at the beginning describing the preliminary results of the January 24th, 2006 parliamentary election. This information can be expanded once the official results are released on Friday. - slaman 16:55, 24 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-NPOV

I have thrown up a non-NPOV warning at the end of the last section of this article. Kaddoumi's statement could be a tacit endorsement of the belief that Israel should be destroyed. Then again, he could be suggesting something else entirely. Unfortunately, he did not elaborate. Consequently, I feel that the interpretation of this quote and the articles which support it are purely speculative. I know that there is a discussion about this subject above, but, as the last post is over a year old, I thought I would create a new discussion here. --(Mingus ah um 00:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

There have been made statements by PLO members, including the late Arafat, that the ultimate goal is a State of Palestine covering the west bank, gaza and present Israel. I don't have the sources now, but I'm sure someone does. Also, the emblem of the party is more than enough hinting at its intentions. Joffeloff 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041109-094914-1518r.htm - Eh. Joffeloff 21:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

Before I'm trying add a list of terror acts in wich the fatach participated I'll ask why it isn't there already? I guess you have some reason why not writting it as it's widely known that the Fatach is a terror organization.--Tharbad 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, Fatah is no longer considered a terrorist organization in the US. Israel may still classify them as such, but I'm fairly certain that, when the PLO accepted the existance of Israel, Israel ceased to identify both the PLO and Fatah in such simple terms. Either way, there should be a section for Fatah's militant/terrorist actions, but Black September activities should be left to the Black September page, PFLP activities should be left to the PFLP page, etc, etc. Feel free to begin work, but try to stick to the facts. It may help to post an early draft here (that is, we could save ourselves an edit war if we discuss the material first). --(Mingus ah um 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC))
Tharbad, I think a good model to follow would be the Allegations of terrorism section in the Palestine Liberation Organization article. We just need to make sure that each instance was either commonly attributed or openly sponsored by Fatah --(Mingus ah um 00:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC))
Ok, maybe the Fatach itself isn't a terror organization but his leaders are those who give the orders to it's armed forces. Therefore I see this organization as a terror organization. They're like El Kaida (we don't write it this way, do we?), they nothing but giving orders to there followers. once a few years they do a big action.

So I didn't meant to write the list I just wanted clairify that they're giving the orders to each action. I know not all of this organization are officialy recognaized by them but someone inside the Fatach is giving them orders... "We just need to make sure that each instance was either commonly attributed or openly sponsored by Fatah" - there is no facts for this unless you look in Shin Bet ducoments... --Tharbad 12:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tharbad, because this is an encyclopedia, we are only supposed to report proven and previously reported facts. Because of this, it should not be hard for us to document Fatah's militant/terrorist attacks prior to the first intifada, for most of these attacks were openly advertized by the offending organizations themselves. However, reporting the two intifadas is far more difficult. English media coverage has consistently described the Palestinian forces as divided and relatively unorganized (and this has been the case throughout both intifadas). While it is true that certain Fatah leaders within the West Bank have directed activities during both rebellions, it is also well known that many of these West Bank rebels are relatively young and have repeatedly protested against the official Fatah leadership (indeed, in 2004 there was even a brief rebellion against Arafat himself)... As for the Al-Qaeda comparison, I just do not think that is legitimate; Islamic Jihad and Hamas are far more similiar when it comes to organizational structure, ideology and specific methods of attack than Fatah. In the end, I am sure that this article could do a better job at identifing the fact that, within the West Bank, members of Fatah are active in the leadership of the second intifada, but, at the same time, they should not be held responsible for all of the rebellion. They are only one of a handful of organizations currently involved in the movement, and that is how they should be treated here. --(Mingus ah um 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC))
Regarding your response to my comment that "We just need to make sure that each instance was either commonly attributed or openly sponsored by Fatah": ...Nearly every attack on Israeli soil, is either openly accepted by an organization or publicly attributed to a specific organization (and, these days, the organization is nearly always Islamic Jihad or Hamas). Operations in the West Bank are very different, but we should only report here information which has been gathered by reporters or historians who can be cited. This can be frustrating, but that is the nature and role of the encyclopedia. --(Mingus ah um 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] About the name FATAH

I have often found, here & elsewhere, the claim that FATAH stands for the Arabic "conquest", but the Arabic term is actually "fath". Now, does everyone know -- for sure -- which one is the real spelling? And also, which one is correct, among Al-Fath, al-Fatah or Fatah, as the group's official name? Maybe it is more correct to say that FATAH suggests the Arabic word for "conquest", while avoiding at the same time any hint to the other bad meaning ("hatf", =death). Erratacorrige 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Modern Standard Arabic, you would properly say "fath", but in colloquial pronounciation (and, out of habit, among MSA speakers too) it'll most often be something like "fatah". There are a zillion ways to transliterate Arabic, but I would go with "al-Fatah". The meaning is, either way, "conquest" or "liberation". That it will spell "death" backwards is irrelevant (or, hey, the U.S.A. becomes the Arab Socialist Union backwards!). Fatah is of course a reverse acronym, but deliberately constructed to become Fatah, nothing else. The full acronym would rather be FWTH (haraka al-tahrir al-watani al-filastini) -- they've dropped the initial from "watani"/"national" to make the acronym look cooler. Arre 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/t/Talk%7EFatah_eee1.html"