Talk:Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Article flagged as disputed

A disputed flag ("The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.") was added by Mr Anonymous below on March 16th 2008.

Article has been heavily buffed from it's previous incarnation. It relies on documents found ONLY at the pro-Israeli UN Watch site, it has removed contextual background on Anne Bayfleski - there are many many more paragraphs on "allegations of anit-israeli bias" than corresponding sections on anti palestiaiaon atricles and - to cap it all the Article is flagged as being "politics of Israel". Couldn't be a more biased re-write. 83.231.209.165 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-write? Go ahead, we're waiting. If you comply with all WP guidelines, especially WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, your edits will stay, if not, they will be deleted. Oh and be careful wiht yrou splelinng. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
But you've already imposed ablanket revert on my edits - see your talk page: "Dear 83.245.19.149, I see you knew exactly how to recover your work and re-introduce it in the article. I suspect you are not new to Wikipedia, only sneaky. And, on the subject of rudeness, there is nothing more rude than anonymous edits. See you at the article. Emmanuelm 19:36, 5 November 2007" - So I'll just flag as
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

and leave it for the more polite to edit it. 83.231.210.166 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! I cannot wait to read comments & edits on the content of the article. So far, all they want to talk about is the *&^%# title. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The rest of this discussion was moved at bottom of page

[edit] Israel, Palestinians... One a state. One a nation.

Is there a good reason that an article that claims to be concerned with the United Nations, as it pertains to the Israel-Palestine conflict, refuses to use the official UN designation: 'Palestine'.. ? A little too suggestive of statehood? Biases aside, that is the obvious designation that should be used to address both parties to the dispute, in an article concerning the UN. ElPax (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to reopen the six months old debate in these pages about the name of the article. For the record, my original title was Israel, Palestine and the United Nations but I lost to a higher number. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked again to refresh my memory. El Pax and Emmanuelm - that's not true It was only Justin (koavf) who wanted the present title and moved it against Emmanuelm's, Malik Shabazz's and my wishes. It's just that nobody bothered to move it back. So it's now 4-1 in favor of the original title; someone should rename it from the present clunky title.John Z (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I would support the move back, but I'd prefer using the official UN terminology and calling it "The Question of Palestine and the United Nations." <eleland/talkedits> 01:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That is, indeed, the approved UN terminology and I think there should be no objection to moving this page to Eleland's proposal. Relata refero (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(In this case, of course, the term "Palestine" is being used in its historical-geographical sense, rather than to refer to any national entity; the term is held over from the very first, pre-Israel UN discussions on the subject.) <eleland/talkedits> 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait! the title should follow the (unwritten, but widely accepted) template in the Category:United Nations relations, which is Country X and the United Nations. In this context, the debate should be between the titles Israel, Palestine and the United Nations vs. Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations.

For the sake of transparency, I will bring this debate to the attention of the pundits of the same debate six months ago. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I still strongly prefer "Israel, Palestine and the United Nations" to other choices, including the Question of Palestine and agree with Emmanuelm's argument above. There was an older "Israel and the UN" article. Emmanuelm did a lot of work creating this one and merged the Israel and UN article into it, which I think was a very good idea. The relations of the two to the UN are so intertwined that I think it is impossible to write an "Israel and UN" article and a "Palestine and UN" article without them becoming POV forks. If it were retitled Question of Palestine, that would be considered by many as a Palestine and UN article. I am sure what would happen would be that there would be a new Israel and UN article created and then 2 POV fork articles, just what Emmanuelm avoided.John Z (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My two cents I would prefer that there be two separate articles, if for no other reason than the fact that this one is massive. I am not personally invested enough in this dispute to defend an argument about how it (they) should be named. That having been said, if this article is to be moved, it should be posted at WP:RM and a proper discussion initiated (which did not occur last time, as I recall.) If anyone else desires my input, please post on my talk; I do not suspect that I will follow this further. My utmost and sincere appreciation to Emmanuelm for alerting me to this discussion. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that all of the information here relates to the conflict between the two, and could not be neatly separated. If the UN has made statements, say, the status of Sri Lankan guest workers in Israel, or Christian-Muslim relations in the OPT, it hardly seems relevant to this article. I want to emphasize that the "Question of Palestine" is A) official UN terminology, as used in all UN documents such as this one, B) referring to the geographic region of Palestine, not any national or state party, and predates the emergence of distinct entities called "Israel" and "Palestine." <eleland/talkedits> 03:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Falk quote

Per this diff and the following sources: [1][2] [3]:

Eleland, please explain why the straightforward, objective, well-sourced statement that Richard Falk compared Israel's actions to that of the Nazis must be replaced with an obtuse and equivocating statement to the same effect.
Michael Safyan (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The only source for "has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Holocaust" is the AP/Ha'aretz report. The BBC said that he compared "Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis [...] he drew the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians with the Nazi record of collective atrocity, because of what he described as the massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza." As it happens, we have the actual source where Dugard made these claims, and he clearly did not compare Israeli actions to the Nazi Holocaust. What he actually said - after taking two entire paragraphs to explain how "painful for me, as an American Jew," the analogy was - was this:

Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently.

In other words, the reason for the "obtuse and equivocating statement" is that Falk actually made it, rather than the "straightforward, objective" version which the Associated Press / Ha'aretz came up with. He called it an "inflammatory metaphor," adding "I am not suggesting that the comparison should be viewed as literal," (his italics.) It may shock you to hear this, but newspapers aren't always the best source for nuances of this kind.
If you're dead-set against using Dugard's piece to explain what Dugard wrote, then can we at least compromise by using the BBC version? "...expected to be replaced by Richard Falk, who has drawn a comparison between the "massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza" and the Nazi record of collective atrocity." <eleland/talkedits> 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the BBC, "Professor Falk said he drew the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians [by Israel] with the Nazi record of collective atrocity...." According to Haaretz/AP, "Falk defended statements he made last summer equating Israel's treatment of Palestinians with Nazi treatment of Jews during the Holocaust." Both of these sources are considered to be reliable for use in Wikipedia. I won't waste time arguing with you whether saying "it is not irresponsible" to make a comparison is the same as actually making that comparison. The fact of the matter is that you are attempting to dispute material from Haaretz/AP and BBC, sources generally accepted as neutral and reliable. Such a position is untenable, and could lead to a very slipper slope where nothing can be sourced, because generally accepted news sources cease to be considered "reliable enough" for inclusion in Wikipedia. Given these sources, your contention that Richard Falk did not actually make these statements is based solely on your assumption that Falk has expressed his opinions on this matter in only one forum, the ZMag article, or that the BBC and Haaretz/AP articles refer specifically to that ZMag article. On what basis do you assume this? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: You seem to be confused about the subject matter; we are talking about Richard Falk, not John Dugard. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Crossed wires, of course. The quotes are all from Falk's piece, just read "Falk" for "Dugard" and it all makes sense... <eleland/talkedits> 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The controversy is over the "Slouching Toward a Palestinian Holocaust" article, according to [The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/08/wisrael108.xml] Jewish Telegraph Agency, Canadian Jewish News, and the editorial board of the [4] National Post]. Most of those sources quote the same line that I was quoting.
I'm not saying that we need to discount the Ha'aretz / AP source. I'm saying that there are many sources available, and there's no justification for picking the one which uses the most inflammatory possible summation of his remarks. The text you're using makes it sound like Dugard believes that Olmert is warming up the gas chambers as we speak, which is patently ridiculous, and designed to make him look like a fool.
And I noticed that you accuse me of trying to discount the BBC, but you ignore my suggested compromise of using the BBC's language. <eleland/talkedits> 03:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how these sources support your position. According to The Telegraph, "he [Richard Falk] said it [Israel] was responsible for a 'Holocaust in the making' in Gaza" and "he [Richard Falk] compared it [Israel] last year to Nazi Germany". According to the JTA, "Falk ... likened Israel's closure of Hamas-ruled Gaza to Nazi tactics" and "The Foreign Ministry said it wants Falk to retract his Holocaust comparison". According to CJN, "Richard Falk, an American Jewish academic who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany". According to the National Post article, "In his [Richard Falk's] writings [note plurality], he has repeatedly criticized the Jewish state for waging what he calls a 'holocaust' against Palestinians" (emphasis added). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. The followup move request is clearly going nowhere either. No discussion in days. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

This page was originally called "Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations" but was moved to "Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations," presumably on the rationale that Palestine isn't really a country, so it can't be used in the title. Well, OK, but this is an article about the United Nations, and it should use official United Nations terminology. Whenever this issue is discussed at the UN it is under the name of, "The Question of Palestine." I want to note that this naming dates back to before 1948, when the entire region was called "Palestine" and there was no Israel - "Palestinians" referred to both Arabs and Jews in the region. Note that this terminology is used by parties on all sides of the conflict; it is entirely NPOV. In short, this is a much better title than something devised by Wikipedians for Wikipedians, which we can all argue endlessly over, because "Palestine" makes the Israel-aligned editors mad since they think it implies falsely that Palestine is a sovereign independent nation-state, and "Palestinians" makes the Palestine-aligned editors mad since they think it implies falsely that Israel is negotiating with some nationless rabble. <eleland/talkedits> 08:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still prefer the original title for reasons I explained above. Your presumption about the "arguments" is utterly reasonable, but entirely wrong. :-) The "arguments" weren't anything like one might think, and scarcely existed. I think the present title sounds awful. It was supported and moved by only one editor who is no longer involved, who if anything is pro-Palestinian, against everyone else's preference for the original title. "Palestine" didn't make any Israel-aligned editors mad - the original title was created by an Israel-aligned editor Emmanuelm. "Palestinians" together with Israel and the UN just sounds weird to my ears.John Z (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Oppose: The article deals not only with the relationship between the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations, but also the relationship between Israel and the United Nations. Renaming the article to Question of Palestine at the United Nations would imply a more limited scope. Might you instead consider The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, with regard to Eleland's point that the term "Palestinian" used to refer to both Arabs and Jews in the region... while that is so, the fact of the matter is that the term "Palestinian" now has an entirely different meaning, and using the historical meaning of a word when it has a different contemporary meaning is likely to cause unnecessary confusion, both to readers and editors. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I cannot understand why this sterile argument about the article title is being revived. It was discussed at length in October 2007 (archived) and again two months ago. No tittle will ever satisfy everyone, so stop trying. Instead, be constructive, improve the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Point 2 against: as it stands now, the article is about both Israel/Jews and Palestine/Palestinians. The proposed new name implies the splitting of the article into two. I cannot understand how one could write an article about one without the other.
  • Point 3 against: the current title follows the unwritten but well accepted template of articles about the UN, which is Country X and the United Nations. See Category:United Nations relations for numerous examples. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Definitely the proposed title is better, the current one could be good for a newspaper and is not even acceptable by Wikipedia standards, I guess. --Checco (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I endorse also Micheal Safyan's proposed title. --Checco (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Michael's proposed title "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations" certainly sounds better than the current one. I still prefer Emmanuelm's original "Israel, Palestine and the UN" which had only one objection to it, because Michael's title would tend to exclude the Arab-Israeli conflict - the role of the UN in the war between Israel and the Arab states, certainly something important. I don't like Arab-Israeli and UN because Palestine is then missing. John Z (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I think the current title does invite controversy in what is already one of the world's most controversial subjects. I'm not sure that "Question of Palestine at UN" is the best alternative, though. It is perhaps the most appropriate for those in the UN for UN purposes, but that doesn't make it the best for Wikipedia purposes. I think "Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations" is the most neutral, most non-controversial, and most succinct way to sum up what this article is. Wilhelm meis (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. proposed title "Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations" : for the record, I do not mind about this title, nor do I care. This title is inaccurate, like all the other titles. For example, two big issues in the article are i) the membership of Israel to a Regional Group and ii) the UN tolerating anti-semitic discourse. These issues are internal to the UN, not directly linked to the war. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to disagree. These are very much linked. Ever hear of the New antisemitism? The UN's toleration of anti-Semitic discourse is a prime example of anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. The UN's exclusion of Israel from regional groups is connected to non-recognition of Israel by the vast majority of Arab states and to anti-Semitic undercurrents. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Since it seems like there are a number of editors who would support, or at least not object to, a page move to The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations, I propose we drop consideration of Question of Palestine at the United Nations and, instead, discuss moving the article to The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page move request: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations

Moved from below at time of closure. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that this article be moved to The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations. To support or oppose this move, please leave your comments below.

  • Support: There seems to be general opposition to the current title Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations. I personally dislike the current title for two reasons: the asymmetry between "Israel" and "Palestinians" (it should be "Israel, the Palestinian Authority..." or "Israelis, Palestinians...") and for the grammatical abomination of failing to include a final comma before the "and" in a list with three or more items. I support moving the page to The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations, since I believe it is the most neutral, accurate, and grammatically correct alternative to the current title. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: as it stands now, the article contains two sections not directly related to the conflict: i) Regional Groups and ii) Antisemitism. The article also refers to Lebanon/UNIFIL and Egypt. Renaming the article would imply deletion of these important topics. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] 2001 Durban's World Conference against Racism

I have removed this paragraph:

"the Arab Lawyer’s Union freely distributed books containing cartoons of swastika-festooned Israelis and fanged, hooked-nosed Jews, blood dripping from their hands. Another best-selling title was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hundreds of flyers were distributed with a picture of Hitler and the words, "What if I had won? The good thing—there would be no Israel." Appeals to the conference’s secretary-general, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, to demand the removal of this anti-Semitic literature went unheeded.[89]"

The source needs checking. I tried searching for it " The UN and the Jews" and it makes no mention of the above. In addition, I do not believe the source is even credible to make it on the wikipedia page.

I also feel the source for the above quote needs verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeeLeeDan (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This article by Anne Bayefsky, of the EyeontheUN.org fame, is not found in palestinefacts.org, as you pointed out, but is still easily found using Google. I found the original article from Commentary Magazine, which requires a subscription, and the full text at ChristianactionforIsrael.org. I restored the deleted paragraph with a better source. I trust you will be fully satisfied and thank you profusely for your meticulous proofreading. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't know of any primary source detailing this from any media outlets who were present at the conference? Or any scans of these flyers? It find the paragraph quite shocking to be honest with you. Whilst I know the Elders of Zion is freely available around the world, I don't think they would have dared to dispute these along with anti-semitic cartoons, during a UN conference.

I personally feel that the article by Anne Bayefsky, does not comply with WP:NOR. A primary source should make "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source". The article is trying to claim the UN is anti-semitic. PeeLeeDan (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary sources. Bayefsky's article is a clear example of a secondary source. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I understand, but I feel we should have a primary source to go along side this claim. It seems quite strange that this hasn't been picked up by any media outlet. If this is a secondary source, then we need to state that within the article....eg the paragraph should start of as According to Professor A.F. Bayefsky, a human rights scholar and activist, the Arab Lawyer’s Union freely distributed books .... PeeLeeDan (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Something else was written by an anon IP, I deleted it. This article is not the place for a CV of all quoted authors. Anne Bayefsky has her own article where all this information belongs. Note that there is no background in this article about quoted authors Phyllis Bennis, Jacqueline Sfeir, Omar Barghouti, John Dugard and many others. Why pick on Bayefsky?
As for the quality of the source, be bold, find and quote others to balance this one. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is one area in which I have an interest in, the UN and anti-semitism. If we can't verify the events which are part of this paragraph, then it shouldn't be part of the article, OR should be phrased as above. I'd rather have one or two paragraph of actual and verified events, rather than many events which are only quoted by authors and can't be verified by primary sources. I therefore propose this paragraph is scrapped.PeeLeeDan (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PeeLee, you'll like this: Bayefsky posts photos of the event from ICARE & the Magenta Foundation, available at eyeontheun.org. Is this primary enough for you? Should this page be added as a source? I think not but will let you decide. I changed my mind and added the link to the text the next day.
Other secondary sources about Durban 2001: ngomonitor.org with a summary of events that describes the same scene; I just added a quote of this source in the article. There is also palestinefacts.org quoting Collin Powell throwing a wide range of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish accusations at the organizers. Google "Durban 2001" for more. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Peelee, one more just for you. I added a quote of Mary Robinson saying there was horrible anti-Semitism present. She was the High Commissioner at the time. She was there.
Finally, I'll address a few of your arguments:
  • The article is trying to claim the UN is anti-semitic. Wikipedia articles should not claim anything, only cite sources that claim something. If you find contrarian sources, please quote them. But, by removing a sourced opinion, you would introduce bias in the article.
  • I'd rather have one or two paragraph of actual and verified events, rather than many events which are only quoted by authors. Wikipedia, as stated in the WP:NOR and WP:VER guidelines, is merely a guide to published authors & their opinions, not some kind of fact checker. The opinions remain the responsibility of the authors themselves, not Wikipedia. You really must read the WP:Verifiability guideline, which starts with: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
  • It seems quite strange that this hasn't been picked up by any media outlet. Did you check the date of the conference? from August 31, 2001 until September 8, 2001. Three days later, the world stopped giving a damn about these clowns. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article flagged as disputed - revisited

This discussion was cut & pasted from above.

This is a dreadful article - and removing the affiliation of Anne Bayefsky as she makes partisan generalisations about UN-Israel relations is just another blatant example.
Amongst the very first things needed is a list of UN resolutions pertaining to the area. It is absurd to categorise them by "target" and not list what each one was about and how they have been implemented (or not, in most cases).
Something else urgently needed is a listing of attacks and killings by Israel of UN personnel. There are alleged to have been 13 of these killed in 2002 alone, including Iain Hook, the British head of reconstruction after Operation Defensive Shield, shot dead inside the UN compound. UN bases have been shelled and bombed in very worrying circumstances.
Even from amongst the factual elements quoted there are ridiculous distortions (eg the death toll for the conflict is perhaps 20 times more than implied/stated) and outright falsehoods eg support for an Israeli state in 1922. Statehood was specifically rejected by the Churchill Memorandum of that year. PRtalk 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
removing the affiliation of Anne Bayefsky...
Actually, including the "affiliation" of Anne Bayefsky constitutes the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem and is POV, since it implies that her position did not derive from expertise in international law and is, instead, based on her "affiliation". If you can find an article which criticizes her decision based on this "affiliation", then quote that criticism with attribution. Otherwise, mentioning this supposed "affiliation" violates WP:OR -- since it attempts to relate an "affiliation" based on one source and imply that it was responsible for a decision in another source --, and it also violates WP:NPOV, by attempting to discredit her view.
a list of UN resolutions pertaining to the area
What kind of UN resolutions? UN Security Council resolutions? UN General Assembly resolutions? UN Human Rights Council resolutions? Should we include all resolutions, or only those resolutions which are considered to be "binding" (i.e. UN General Assembly resolutions for which all affected parties have agreed to the resolution, and all UN Security Council resolutions)?
listing of attacks and killings by Israel of UN personnel
According to whom? Electronic Intifada and Zmag? Should we also list the attacks and killings by Palestinians of UN personnel? Should we also list the UN personnel and UN agencies which, according to Israel, have aided and abetted Palestinian terror attacks? At the very least, could you attempt some semblance of neutrality. I realize that with a name like PalestineRemembered (which you abbreviate "PR"), it is obvious to all that you are a pro-Palestinian partisan warrior; nevertheless, it would be very refreshing to see you write "attacks and killings by both sides of UN personnel", "attacks and killings by all parties of UN personnel", or "attacks and killings by both Israelis and Palestinians of UN personnel" as if you actually cared about neutrality and objectivity. I hope that you consider doing so in the future.
outright falsehoods eg support for an Israeli state in 1922
In case you weren't aware (you really ought to be though, if you want to edit Israel-related and Palestine-related articles), the British Mandate for Palestine ([5]) -- which charged Britain with "putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" -- was issued in 1922. If the League of Nations Palestine Mandate of 1922 does not count as "support for an Israeli state", I don't know what does.
Michael Safyan (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
For everyone's info, there is already a List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel. It is useful but cannot be considered equivalent to an encyclopedic entry. Other than that, I agree with Michael's answer to PR.
My two cents: You will notice that, for the sake of NPOV, I already quoted a few sources claiming that the UN is pro-Israel (yes, I). If you still think the article lacks balance, be bold, find more contrarian opinions and add them to the text. Note, however, the WP:UNDUE guideline: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. The final article should therefore reflect the current ratio of published opinions. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)