Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Israel
 Israel Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To-do:

Previous discussions may be found here:

Contents

[edit] links to settlements

There is a wikipedia page on settlements. Is there some reason for not linking to that page? I cannot see how any reader could understand the current stage of the Israeli-palestinian conflict without reffering to the thorny problem of the settlements. Pmurnion 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links, redux

I had noticed a few recently added pro-Israeli links that were not identified as such; I started to try to classify and explain links (per WP:EL: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.")

What I found was that the links here are pretty unbalanced. I may have classified one or two wrong, maybe even three of four, but I'm pretty sure I've presented the general picture accurately. What I've found is:

Academic, news, and similar sites (excluding Israeli or Palestinian) 6 (and one of these - the Pro-Con thing -
just may be a covertly pro-Israel site)
Jewish and Israeli academic, news, and similar sites 4
Pro-Israel advocacy and watchdog sites 10
Pro-Palestinian advocacy and watchdog sites 1
Jewish and Israeli peace movement news and advocacy sites 5
A leftist analysis of the origin of the roots of the Second Intifada 1

In short:

  1. A pretty strong preponderance of pro-Israel sites
  2. Insofar as there is balance beyond the merely neutral, it is almost entirely from Jewish and Israeli peace movement sites.
  3. By my count, there is only one actual pro-Palestinian (actually, more anti-Israel) link. Arguably, there might be 1 or 2 others. But there are 10 blatantly pro-Israel links.

This is particularly remarkable, because there is no shortage of sites on the web presenting a pro Palestinian point of view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have to suspect that there is a systemic bias at work here: maybe not a deliberate bias, but an effective one. For example, at the risk of being slightly ad hominem, I would have to suspect that an pro-Palestinian equivalent of CAMERA or ConceptWizard.com would not be tolerated as a link by some people who are glad to have CAMERA and ConceptWizard.com linked. - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the balance is now a bit more even. - Jmabel | Talk 09:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha ? actually these are the pro palestinian sites :
   * UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL 1955-1992
   * International Solidarity Movement
   * International Women's Peace Service
   * The Tel Rumeida Project
   * Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK
   * US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
   * Palestine Solidarity Committee of South Africa
   * Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign
   * Palestinian Campaign for the Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel
   * Palestine Media Watch
   * Electronic Intifada

Jewish and Israeli peace movement news and advocacy sites

   * The Other Israel, newsletter of the Israeli peace movement since 1983
         o The Other Israel, online archive under construction
   * "Barak's Generous offer" from Gush Shalom. Requires Macromedia Flash
   * The Origin of the Palestine - Israel Conflict, Published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East
   * Background to the Israel-Palestine Crisis--Q & A format overview by Stephen Shalom, who teaches political science at William Paterson University in New Jersey.
   * Occupation Magazine

There are actually more Palestinian pro sites. The account above is highly inaccurate (or not updated). Amoruso 11:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

not to mention these : Human Rights Groups

   * Human Rights Watch: Israel/Palestine
   * Al-Haq: Palestinian Human Rights Group
   * Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
   * B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

All in all, it's biased towards the Palestinian side. No need at all to remove links from the Israeli section. Amoruso 11:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The majority of what you list was not in the article when I made my initial remarks. And the three additional sites I removed were not removed on a numbers basis. They were removed because they were inappropriate links, for hte specific reasons given.

If you feel that the inclusion of human rights groups is "pro-Palestinian" (and, by implication, "anti-Israeli"), that is a pretty hideous comment on Israel.

For that matter, if being pro-peace is "pro-Palestinian" (with similar implications), that is also a pretty hideous comment on Israel.

In fact, I think you are wrong on both counts. Neither concern for human rights nor advocacy of peace places one one one side or the other of this conflict. - Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Those alleged "human rights groups" are usually nothing more than anti semitic organizations. You can see the criticizim in their respected articles. Amoruso 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Amoruso, are you claiming that Human Rights Watch is an anti-Semitic organization? Founded by Robert L. Bernstein? Must've been quite a trick to get Sid Sheinberg and half a dozen other Jews to join him. Or B'Tselem? Quite a cover for anti-Semitism to take a Hebrew name and write that "B'Tselem demands that the Palestinian Authority do everything within its power to prevent future attacks and to prosecute the individuals involved in past attacks." [1]
Al-Haq and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights are more complex cases. They are, respectively, the West Bank and Gaza affiliates of the International Commission of Jurists. Perhaps we need to place them in a separate section as Palestinian human rights organizations, but it is hard to see how anyone could call them anti-Semitic, unless all Palestinian opposition to Israel and the Israeli government is inherently anti-Semitic. That seems to me to be a pretty untenable position: one could hardly expect any Palestinian in the Terrirories to feel affection for the Israeli government.
In the case of Al-Haq, the reclassification seems very much to be called for, because they claim a Palestinian right under international law to resist the occupation with force of arms, but they also write, "In no circumstances is it permissible to use the Israeli occupying forces actions or war crimes against Palestinian civilians as a pretext for Palestinians to likewise violate international law" and that belligerent parties must "Absolutely avoid targeting civilians; military operations must be limited to military targets" [2]
As for the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, at the moment, a good chunk of their home page [3] is dedicated to opposing the use of the death penalty in the Palestinian judicial system. Again, I would not mind moving them to a section that shows that they are a Palestinian group, but also, again, I defy you to find an anti-Semitic statement on their site. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, in case it is unclear to anyone, International Solidarity Movement etc. were added in response to my initial note about lack of pro-Palestinian sites, hence they did not tally in my original numbers. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have now moved Al-Haq and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights under a separate heading. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking stock a month later

Bringing the count up to date, we now have:

11 September 15 October
Academic, news, and similar sites (excluding Israeli or Palestinian) 6 (and one of these - the Pro-Con thing -
just may be a covertly pro-Israel site)		 6 (same comment applies)
Human rights groups, general 0 2
Human rights groups, Palestinian 0 2
Jewish and Israeli academic, news, and similar sites 4 4
Pro-Israel advocacy and watchdog sites 10 10
Pro-Palestinian advocacy and watchdog sites 1 10
Jewish and Israeli peace movement news and advocacy sites 5 6
A leftist analysis of the origin of the roots of the Second Intifada 1 1

At least on raw numbers, that is relatively close to balance. We could probably drop a few Pro-Palestinian advocacy and watchdog sites (especially because, offhand, some of these look a bit redundant to one another) and I'd love to add a Palestinian or other Arab academic site, if someone knows something appropriate.

With reference to dropping a few Pro-Palestinian advocacy and watchdog sites, I'd prefer that someone who considers themselves to be on that side of things would make the selection, but if no one does in the next week or so, then I'll step in. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now that we have a bit more balance

So, now that we have a bit more balance, I think it is time to take up two specific pro-Israel sites that I find objectionable, and one Israeli news site that just seems to me to be beside the point. Why do we include:

  • http://conceptwizard.com/info.html, captioned as "ConceptWizard.com Middle East conflict Flash presentations, various languages" This appears to be basically a personal site, if a well-built one. What is the justification to keep it?
  • The extremely contentious http://www.masada2000.org/, captioned as "Masada2000-History & Geography of Israel & Palestine Israel 101: A Survival Kit for Dummies", and which, among other things, contains praise of Kahane and Kach and openly advocates removal of the Palestinians. This goes well beyond anything I see from the other side (where I believe the most extreme inclusion is Electronic Intifada, which does not call even for an end to the Israeli state, let alone the removal of the Jews from the region). Unless we want to start adding Hamas sites (and beyond) for balance, this does not belong.
  • http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-4244,00.html captioned as "Special: Gaza kidnapping Israeli Palestinian Conflict News - Ynetnews English version of Yedioth Ahronoth"? This is mostly information on one news event in June 2006. I suspect it got here through currentism. It is no longer current. I don't see why it is attached to this much more general article.

- Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of those links, and I am glad to notice that a distinction is made between pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli links. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm removing them. - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So Tel Rumeda project isn't a personal web-site? It's also more inflammatory as well as Anti apartheid wall etc. No point in removing those. if masada2000 advocated removal of Palestinians then it is its right. The palestinian sites advocate removal of Jewish settlers. It's only natural. ynetnews I guess the kidnapping is important enough to note and the link can link you to other timelines of the conflict. Amoruso 02:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

dude

I'm unsure whether the Tel Rumeida site is a personal web site or not: it claims to be an organization, but I'd say it's a non-notable one. I believe it was added after my initial remarks. I'd say it's a poor choice to include. I'll remove it; if anyone re-adds it, let's resume the discussion then. - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, added a few more links to the Israel advocacy to balance , because the peace advocacy sites are essentially pro palestinian... gush shalom etc, occupation magazine etc... Amoruso 07:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


I've been asked to come take a look at this page, and comment. From what I can see, the most recent disagreement is about external links, which I've examined. http://www.masada2000.org is not a reliable source, but rather is an extremist personal website, and should not be used in any way on Wikipedia, even for external links. http://rotter.net/israel/ is more of the same; it should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia. http://www.peacewithrealism.org/ is not as extremist, but still appears to be a personal website, and should not be used or linked to on Wikipedia. http://www.naamz.org/ is also slightly better, but still appears to be essentially a personal website; it should not be used as a source for anything in a Wikipedia article, and I don't think it should be used as an external link either. http://factsofisrael.com/blog/index.php is a blog; we don't link to blogs, unless they're notable blogs, or blogs of notable people, and factsofisrael is neither. http://www.truepeace.org/index.asp is similar to naamz.org - hardly encyclopedic. A number of the rest of the external links are dodgy, but those are the worst. I recommend Amoruso remove all of the aforementioned links. Regarding the pro-Palestinian links, a number of them are pretty dodgy as well, and probably should be removed, but I suggest Jmabel makes those decisions. Finally, describing a set of links as belonging to the "Israeli peace movement" is POV; pretty much every Israeli political movement and party wants peace, but they have wildly different views on the best way of achieving that. I suggest Jmabel think of a more neutral terminology. Jayjg (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayjg.
If anyone is wondering: I'm the one who asked Jayjg to take a look at this, because he is both clearly pro-Israel, and clearly an experienced Wikipedian with a good sense of what are and are not appropriate links.
While I agree that the pro-Palestinian links should be trimmed, I don't think I'm the best one to do the trimming. As I remarked a few days ago (above) "With reference to dropping a few Pro-Palestinian advocacy and watchdog sites, I'd prefer that someone who considers themselves to be on that side of things would make the selection, but if no one does in the next week or so, then I'll step in." So, if the week expires and no one else has taken this on, I'll do this.
I don't know a different term to use than "Israeli peace movement". That is pretty uniformly what the U.S. press calls them, and I believe it is what they call themselves when writing in English. If someone can suggest a more neutral term, I'm open to it. Certainly in domestic politics in the U.S., with reference to the Iraq War, no one hesitates to use the term "peace movement" for comparable groups, even though I'm sure almost everyone along the U.S. political spectrum would say they also ultimately favor peace. - Jmabel | Talk 16:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Jmabel, I'm "pro-policy", not "pro-Israel". :-) Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I came back to this article just now with the intention of pruning the pro-Palestinian links (since no one has done so), but I see that the pro-Israeli links that Jayjg considers inappropriate are still there. Since these extremist pro-Israeli links, many of them basically personal sites, tilt the list heavily toward the pro-Israeli side, I do not think it would be appropriate at this time for me to trim the pro-Palestinian links.
I propose now to trim both: to remove the links that Jayjg singled out from the pro-Israeli list, and for me to go in and see what can be appropriately trimmed from the pro-Palestinian side. I'll allow at least 24 hours for comment before I proceed. - Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More issues

"…the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem (often refferred to as the occupied terriotries)": besides the bad spelling (easily fixed if this is worth keeping): is it common to refer to East Jerusalem as "occupied territory"? Is that term still commonly used for Gaza since the Israeli pullout? - Jmabel | Talk 09:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My previously expressed doubts about "ConceptWizard.com Middle East conflict Flash presentations, various languages" have been removed, so I am repeating them: this appears to be basically a personal site, if a well-built one. What is the justification to keep it? - Jmabel | Talk 09:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The new section Major issues between the two sides, while clearly well-intentioned, is opinionated and unsourced. - Jmabel | Talk 09:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Organizations

I removed "students for justice in Palestine" becuase they are a Palistinian solidarity organizations, not a peace organization.

[edit] Time for an IPConflict Template?

There are great templates out there for the Israel-Arab conflict (see Template:Arab-Israeli conflict) as well as anti-Semitism (see Template:Anti-Semitism). The Israel-Palestinian conflict is so complex and there are so many articles related that it may be time to start creating one or more templates to bring these articles together into a cohesive whole. So to start the discussion, which articles should make the first cut of an attempt at a template? --Deodar 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote that the top has the flags of Israel and the PA, and a link to their respective page. Underneath should be a link to the article for the conflict. Below maybe links to articles involving the Gaza Strip (and pullout) and the West Bank. Something about the governments should be mentioned aswell. --יהושועEric 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that maybe a template just on the various peace initiatives might be useful (and a good place to start) -- one could list the individual initiatives such as Oslo, Geneva, Arab league/Saudi initiatives, the unilateral pullout(s), etc. Also the major issues involved: the demographic threat, refugees/right of return, terrorism, the settlements, type of self-government, and the status of (east) Jerusalem (and probably others, I don't know them all.) There are also the various types of solutions classes: two-state solution, binational solution, transfer, etc... all but the first are minor ones though, thus this might not be useful. There are also the leaders involved: Rabin, Arafat, Clinton, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, Abbas, and some Hamas guys. One could also list the major brokers: United States, "The Quartet", Norway (Oslo), the Arab League/Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (somewhat.) --Deodar 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I started the template and put it on the page. It still needs a little work, but its a start. --יהושועEric 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its a great start. --Deodar 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I did more work on it, any ideas on what else it needs? --יהושועEric 23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I shrunk the fonts for aesthetics. I would like to not call the parties "Combatants" as it does now -- although on some days they can be described that way, but I'm not a complete cynic. I think including a list of the main issues of contention that are ongoing -- terrorism, settlements, demographic threat, refugees, status of (East) Jerusalem, Israel's right to exist, etc. It would also be cool to make it a little narrower, but just for aesthetics, it seems overly wide right now. --Deodar 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The template is a great idea. I agree with Bhouston that the "Combatants" heading should go. Maybe "Parties" or no heading at all. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing the word combatants would be very difficult (and out of my expertise), as I used the military conflict infobox as a backbone for the template. On another note, I am going to copy this to the template's talk page. Further discussion on it should take place there. --יהושועEric 00:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Template talk:Israel-Palestinian Conflict

(The cleanup has been done.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a simple two-sided conflict with all Israelis (or even all Israeli Jews) sharing one point of view and all Palestinians another. In both communities, some individuals and groups advocate total territorial removal of the other community, some advocate a two-state solution, and some advocate a binational solution of a single secular state encompassing present-day Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem."

I think that's a pretty bad introduction. Someone with more knowledge than I in this area should fix it. BhaiSaab talk 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone had previously deleted a critical sentence: [4]. BhaiSaab talk 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed

Addded disputed tag, noting this talk page and the bias it reveals. Of course this is a very very tough article to write from NPOV, but I felt that tag on the top helps people to understand that though we try hard to NPOV this article it's difficult and not perfect. I advocate leaving the tag on permanently TotallyTempo 05:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that if you want a tag permanently, it should be the {{controversial}} tag here on the talk page. I have no objection to {{ActiveDiscuss}} at the moment, but it is intended to point to issues under active discussion on the talk page. If you have specific issues about bias, please enumerate them. That's pretty much the only way they are likely to be worked through. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectionable change in the lead sentence

The lead sentence now reads "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a part of the greater Arab-Israeli conflict, is an ongoing conflict between the State of Israel and Palestinian people." If you follow the link Palestinian people, you get an article about the ethnicity. To describe this as a conflict between a state and an ethnicity seems to me to be very POV. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Two weeks later, this has not been changed. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other very biased statements

  • "Also, the Palestinians have yet to honor a single agreement made with Israel as exemplified in the PA's refusal to halt terrorism. Furthermore, it is difficult to achieve progress when every Israeli gesture or concern, no matter how authentic, is labeled as a mere ploy or a diversion." It stretches credulity to imagine that anyone could believe that this is a neutral statement of things, but, beyond the obvious:
    • The PA almost certainly does not have the means to halt terrorism, even if they had the intent.
    • It is absurd to say that "the Palestinians have yet to honor a single agreement". Many points of many agreements have held for some time, just not permanently. One could say pretty much the same about Israeli conduct, especially about the continued Israeli settlement of the West Bank and the so-called "targetted killings".
  • "Hamas… have expressed openness to a 'hudna,' an Islamic concept of a ceasefire suggested by the loosing (sic) side and used to rearm." Again, it is almost impossible to believe that someone can think that this is a neutral characterization of hudna rather than a polemic. It is also an insult to Islam to put it this way. Can anyone sincerely believe that Eyal Erlich, probably the first to introduce this term in talking about the current Intifada, is seeking to help Hamas rearm?

- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Very much in agreement with Jmabel; This really needs to be rephrased or eliminated altogether. Perhaps "Palestinians have not honored agreements made with Israel..." versus "a single agreement". As it is now, it's brazen POV-pushing -- what about the broken promises Israel has made? Do either deserve mention? Is it not obvious that both sides have failed to honor agreements? By the same token, the second sentence, while no doubt a view held by many Palestinians, does not deserve special emphasis in the concluding paragraph of the article as if it communicates some fundamental truth about the conflict -- again, don't many Israelis harbor the same distrustful suspicions of many Palestinians? Most of the rest of the article is fairly objective, but this paragraph's subtle pro-Israeli slant needs to be changed. Inoculatedcities 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of groups

What armed Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim groups claim the entirety of the land? I know Hamas, the PIJ, and Hezbollah, but that's it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.11.39 (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Slightly odd inclusions

Why are Religious attitudes to racism and Criticism of religion included in the template? They seem, at best, tangential. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disengagement

I think the Gaza disengagement is featured way too prominantly in the "History" section. Its certainly important, but suffers severely from WP:Recentism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 06:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/r/Talk%7EIsraeli-Palestinian_conflict_74c6.html"