Talk:Israel and the United Nations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can somebody move this page to Talk:Israel, Palestine and the United Nations? For some reason it wasn't moved along with the article itself. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Malik, as you can read immmediately below this, I requested this move, which apparently can be done only by an editor (why?). It will apparently take a few days. Emmanuelm 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel and the United Nations article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Israel Portal
Israel and the United Nations is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, 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 (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Israel and the United Nations is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Bias

Yes, this article is indeed biased.


[edit] Where is the section on the current situation?

What happened to that section? I don't see any talks on its disappearance. Restoring... Also, I think this is a good time to archive old discussions. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the Israeli bombing of a U.N. observation post in Lebanon deserve some mention? 66.41.59.162 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who knows about the war in Lebanon would realize that that Israel made sure that as many civilians as possible were safe. In fact, in no other war, whether American or British or another country, were citizens of another country so well protected. Israel sent down letters telling citizens where they were attacking. Churchhill did not do this before carpet bombing Dresden in WW11, nor did Bush in the War in Iraq. Please avoid being Anti-Semetic in the future and try not to slander Israel (the only democratic country in the Middle East)

[edit] Removal of External links section

Unbehagen repeatedly removes the extlinks section but is unwilling or unable to discuss it. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just as in all other articles, the links are necessary to illustrate the subject. We did not even comment them. Here is how the pattern works: first the links are removed because certain someone doesn't like them, and then the text is changed because, you see, there is no evidence. It is not the addition of relevant ext links that needs to be defended but their removal. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merge

merge this in with main israel article, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mossadian (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Dead link

http://www.unwatch.org/pbworks/UNA-UK_Report.pdf is now bad. I was pottering around on http://www.una-uk.org/ , and couldn't find an obvious new location. AnonMoos 02:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel's Breaking of UN Resolutions

The article is bias, it talks of bias in the UN but not of Israels intransigent 'iron wall' position and it's persistent disregard the the opinion of the Security Council members. Israel has broken countless UN resolutions.

       I agree completely.

The fact is that the Article provides an effective point of the UN's relation with Israel if and only if the UN were bias towards Israel. It makes no mention of why the UN had to draw up so many resalutions concerning Israel; the fact that Israel has yet to obey resolutions from twenty-nine years ago, namely resolution 242 and 446. Also, though the information does not belong in the article of Israel's relationship with the UN the question can be asked why should the UN not draw continuous resolutions against a country in constant violation of the Geneva conventions, namely the fourth Geneva convention; Article 49. The void of a decenting voice from the perspective of the UN is largly effective in making this an obvious (pro) Israeli article. Heck, if the article was going to criticize the UN for drawing various resolutions against Israel, it should at least link to an article showing how many resolutions were veto-ed by its largest weight pulling ally the United States of America. Lets not forget the real reason Israel recieves so much attantion. It is the only real western ally in the worlds richest oil region. It is still maintaing the longest military dictatorship in history and can somehow still be "praised*" by the UN for withdrawing from a country it illigaly invaded even after leaving a "million bomlets**" of un-exploded cluster bombs in the country it withdrew from. it has always been a PR strategy of Israel to point the finger at the negative attention its gotten. This article only reaffirms such a beiefe.

  • Sunday, 1 October 2006 (BBC News Article: UN hails Israel's Lebanon pullout)
    • Tuesday, 26 September 2006(BBC News Article: 'Million bomblets' in S Lebanon)

Please explain how the invasion was illegal. The way I understand international laws is that if a country make a cross boarder attack, a country is allowed to defend itself. --יהושועEric 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Counter: Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventionprohibits "individual or mass forcible transfers" of people, which is not the case in Israel. Also, the occupier of a land is not allowed to "deport or transfer parts of its civilian population," the wording of which indicates the prohibition of forced relocation. The article does not prohibit voluntary settlement by Israelis. In addition, the territories now being used for Israeli settlements were captured in a defensive war wih Egypt and Jordan. Those countries had illegally occupied them since 1948.

It is also interesting to find in the Fourth Geneva Convention, in Art. 3 and elsewhere, prohibitions of murder, violence to life and person, and other acts that are commonly employed by Palestinian Arabs against innocent Israeli civilians. To date no one in the international community has made a formal protest against these Palestinian Arab tactics.

Clearly, anybody who has read Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions can see that the charge against Israel is baseless and a desperate attempt by murderers do discredit a democracy. Visit http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_4thgeneva.php for more detail

[edit] Bias

This is Biased and should not used as reference material for academic purposes. Although it is an excellent example of how facts can be used as propaganda.

[edit] Bias

This article is extremely biased. The UN resolutions critical of the state Israel are explained as if they are only caused by some crazy arab states ignoring the fact that they are only a small portion of the total UN member body--62.251.90.73 11:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

are you sure that they a small portion? -- tasc talkdeeds 11:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes there are only about 20 Arab states while there 191 UN members. Arab states: Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lybia, Morocco, Oman, Palestina, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunesia, UAE and Yemen.--62.251.90.73 11:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
UN biased. You can check last news to find examples. -- tasc talkdeeds 11:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard a lot of good things about this US "Fox News" channel.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.94.50.136 (talk • contribs) 03:54, July 17, 2006 (UTC)

Even if the UN was biased then the 'crazy arab states' still are not a sufficient explanation for the UN resolutions against Israël since there are way more states needed to pass these resolutions. --62.251.90.73 11:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

crazy arab states - it's your label. don't make me prove your words. If it's biased, it's biased. and all those resolution worth nothing. -- tasc talkdeeds 11:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why the UN are biased in the article. --62.251.90.73 11:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why you decided to separate Arabs: e.g. Iran, Pakistan or Indonesia routinely vote against Israel. We do not engage in original research. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, that's my point, the user tasc with who i was discussing above disputed my argument that the arab states are such a small portion of the UN member body that that alone can never acount for all the UN resolutions against Israël.
My problem with this article is that The UN resolutions critical of the state Israel are explained as if they are only caused by some crazy arab states ignoring the fact that they are only a small portion of the total UN member body exactly like you say, there must also be a lot of other states that have voted for these resolutions, but about their reasons for doing so is hardly anything mentioned in this article. The arab states are mentioned constantly.
And I really have no idea where your OR comment is coming from?! --62.251.90.73 20:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to Arab countries, the Communist bloc was openly anti-Semitic and voted against Israel at every turn, even declaring Zionism as a form of racism in 1975. European countries voted against Israel also and continue to do so today; much of the world harbors misguided sympath for the Arab refugees and terrorists. The fact is, it is truly Israel and the U.S. against the world in many cases.

You ever get the sense that it might be the US and Israel that are biased since the entire world is apparently critical of you?Pokeraddict 14:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Iran isn't Arab, they are Persian, Arabs generally refer to an ethnic group from the Arabian Penisula, who speak arabic. (However just because one speaks Arabic, doesn't make them Arab, anymore then speaking English makes you English. (Iran speaks Persian btw!, although similiar to Arabic and arabic does have a presence - as do arabs) ANYWAYS - its states with high muslim populations, espcially Islamic states (States with Islam as the official state religion) that generally "anti Israel" - Which includes Most of North Africa, Middle east, and some of South, and South East asia, of course its more complicated than that but at least get terminologies correct! (Madrone 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Requires wholesale changes

Hugely biased agitprop, unsuitable for a reference work. This article should be revised asap.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niallmulligan (talk • contribs) 09:40, July 14, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staggering Bias

Was this written by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Wikipedia normally offers a generally accurate, impartial background to issues such as these, but this article is a clear exception.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.91.49 (talk • contribs) 02:47, July 30, 2006 (UTC)

Would those editors dropping by and proffering concerns about bias please kindly offer suggestions for improvement? Ronabop 04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annan's statement

While I have rewritten the statement to be more NPOV, it is a sourced example of apparent anti-Israel bias of the UN and its leader, and as such needs to remian in that section of the article. -- Avi 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No - it a reference to a single editorial. As such it is OPINION not fact and so unencyclopedic. Pl;ease stop pushing POV. Thansk. 86.27.55.184 21:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, there are four citations, including from General Lewis Mackenzie, who was Chief of Staff for the United Nations Protection Force or UNPROFOR in Yugoslavia in 1992. this is not a POV, this is a well-documented phenomenon, much more so than Annan's off-the-cuff statement without benefit of any military experience or data. Read Mackenzie's article, you may find it interesting. -- Avi 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but editorialising by appologists for the Israeli position is not sufficient justification for this to be included. We could easily drag up opinion about any of the Israeli statesmen involved in the dispute calling them "murderers" and "child killers" - would you back us putting "Many claim XXX to be a child killer" on any article mentioning them? I suspect not. Your addition is clearly POV editorialising and so NPOV. 86.27.55.184 10:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but they are no les opinions than Annan's own statement, they show how Annan demonstrates anti-Israel bias, and at least they include the statements of military personnel. You are trying to push a POV by keeping them out of the article, and, you have violated 3RR to boot. -- Avi 13:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I note with interest that you choose not to point out your own violation of the 3RR rule. One rule for you and another for me?? 86.27.55.184 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Very simple, I did not violate 3RR. I have three reverts in 24 hours, which is allowed. You have four which is not, which is explained in the links in the warning I posted on your page. -- Avi 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the rule exspecially the section about "gaming the system" and abiding by the spirit. Waiting untill JUST after 24 hours then reverting (as you did) to avoid the letter of the rule is clearly prohibited. Why are you POV edit warring on this article?86.27.55.184 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you study the edit history, I have not reverted your deletion, so there is no gaming of the system. That was an issue with Israel vs. Palestine, to which I now concur with User:FayssalF that using Palestine is more historically accurate in the context of that sentence. Your accusations are not only unfounded and false, they are indicative of WP:NPA and a lack of WP:AGF. The only POV warring here is your own. I suggest you look below at User:FayssalF's comments, which you solicited I might add, and see that he believes (at first glance) that the addition is fair in the context. -- Avi 16:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No - you took a simple assertion of fact and tried to spin it into an POV comment showing up some percieved bais against Israel. Not on I'm afraid. Please dont accuse me of acting in bad faith - you're in danger of breaching WP:NPA yourself - you say of me "The only POV warring here is your own." - again one rule for me and one rule for you? 86.27.55.184 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative. I took well-documented and reliable sources demonstrating another example of anti-Israel bias, and you are doing your best to keep it out of the article. Annan made a statement, a statement that many (documented) feel unambiguously demonstrate his true feelings. There is no reason that does not belong in the article. Moving the section back out from under anti-Israel bias is yet another example of gaming the system, since I cannot re-add the (improperly) deleted sources, there no longer shows a direct link to the bias. It's rather simple actually. -- Avi 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have demonstrated a number of times why it is inappropriate to include this - you have yet to address thaqt arguement in any way other than saying "there was bias" (your POV) and asserting "it is appropriate". If you would like to do so we can debate. 86.27.55.184 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You have two major complaints. One that it was a single entry; I brought three more. Two, thatit was an opinion; no more than Annan's own STATEMENT was his opinion. Why is Annan's statement of opinion any more special than Mackenzie's? You are logically inconsistent, as I have shown above. -- Avi 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the current phrasing, Annan had no evidence that the attacks against the UN camp was deliberate. However, his opinon was certainly not pulled out of a hat. According to Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict: "The site of the observation post was well known, and both sides in the conflict had the coordinates of the compound. Ireland's Foreign Ministry said a senior Irish soldier working for the UN forces was in contact with the Israelis six times to warn them that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff." Further, according to numerous news sources (see e.g. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/26/147212) the UN has been attacked by Israel for years. PJ 11:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and accurate edits

I've just did a few changes to the following:

  • ...the 1947 UN Partition Plan supported an aim of Zionism: the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in Land of Israel. - Changed Land of Israel to Palestine as the UN Partition Plan states Palestine instead.[1]
OK, that is a fair point, thank you. -- Avi 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Szvest 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Anti-Israel bias section title changed to Allegations of Anti-Israel bias. For POV issues' reasons.
What is your opinion about the multiple allegations that the anon user is determined to remove? -- Avi 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've checked this ...Without any futher evidence for this, many describe Annan's statement as another example of the UN's anti-Israel bias seems fair as it is a commentary and a POV of some media organizations which deserves to be mentioned. No problem w/ that. However, i still have to read the entire article to see what is considered POV.-- Szvest 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That is the epitome of WP:WEASEL. Editorial pages are hardly a credible source of NPOV. Tarc 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You have completely misunderstood WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. As WP:NPOV states The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed New Anti-Semitism see also as it suggests that Israel is a victim of that which is POV. -- Szvest 14:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
I have not analyzed that as of yet. -- Avi 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I restored it, since there is a section in that article that deals directly with this topic. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNA-UK Report

I think it would be appropriate to cite the relevant pages for each principle finding. PJ 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annan's bias take 2

The fact that Annan's statements indicate his bias is just as relevant as the statement itself. Annan stated an opinion, and exposed his beliefs. Removing properly sourced material from wikipedia is vandalism. -- Avi 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inappropriate agitprop

The whole section on "allegations of anti-israeli bias" is completely unsuitable as a piece of reference work. The fundamental problem cannot be resolved by the tit-for-tat arguments that can be read on this page about minutiae such as what Annan said or didn't say on a particular day. The key thing is to get away from the narrow minds of the pro-Israeli lobby (and the other side for that matter) which insist on treating Israel as some weird entity not like the rest of the world. Is there any reason that relations between the state of Israel and the UN should be analysed any differently than any other state? I suggest not. Guess what you would find in a page written about Myanmar by supporters of the junta? Their section on anti-Myanmar(Burmese?) bias would probably look pretty much the one here on israel. Remove Myanmar and insert apartheid South Africa, pre-1960s southern states of the US, Soviet russia, or Northern Ireland pre-civil rights ... it's all boringly predictable. People don't like being unpopular and the natural reaction is to shoot the messenger. The impartial reviewer should not take these normal petty reactions as gospel and repeat them without some sceptical analysis. Adding numerous citations repeating the same agitprop adds nothing. Adding 'balance' by including the odd counter-argument is just as phoney.

The article would be enormously improved if this section was eliminated entirely. Alternatively (to keep on board those who measure a thesis by weight) leave in a one-liner stating the tediously obvious fact that supporters of Israel constantly complain that the UN is biased against Israel. Think of all the reader time saved to be spent on the really good stuff in wikipedia.

I must say that I agree with most of the above. I think it would be much better to either shorten this section drastically, as it just seems to condemn the UN more than anything. Or, alternatively, include an extra section explaining why Israel is so often the subject of UN resolutions - for example numerous (alleged) transgressions against international humanitarian law. At the moment there is no indication of why Israel receives this treatment, other than a (perceived) unjustified bias among member states. It ought to be up to the reader to form their own opinion; at the moment it reads as though the UN is only concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people as a means to bash Israel. There are enough reports by international NGOs (e.g. Amnesty International) that condemn Israeli action - surely a testimony to the fact that there is no smoke without fire. There is no section that details any "sensible" resolutions passed condemning Israel, just a list of rather farcical examples of political bickering. Whilst they may well have their place, they currently do this article no service by ignoring those resolutions that are/were "reasonable". Where is the info on the situation of the settlements on occupied land (illegal according to international law), for example? If you read this article with no further background knowledge on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, you would be led to believe that Israel is a shining example that, for some unknown reason, is picked on by a certain proportion of the countries in the world. To me the article undermines its own credibility by going out of its way to portray Israel in the role of a victim - and thus, at least to me, is quite POV.
You could probably write exactly the same article from a Palestinian point of view, listing the number of resolutions that were vetoed by the US, and, given the right selective quotations make it appear that the UN has no concern for the Palestinians and is nothing more than a puppet of the US. Both articles would be equally out of place on wiki. It's one of the infuriating things about the conflict - it's practically impossible to hold a decent discussion with either a Palestinian or an Israeli on the subject of the middle east conflict, as they immediately resort to saying "but they did this to us!", as if that is any kind of justification for anything. Hopefully most of us here grew out of that phase shortly after kindergarten...
For that reason, I find that the tit for tat (Re: Palestinians) nature of some of the statements are missing the point - that Israel, as a state, and member of the United Nations is subject to certain international laws. That suicide bombers are criminals ought to be self-evident to all but the most extreme amongst us. However, the article neglects the important fact that "Palestine" is not a country, and as such not a member of the United Nations. It is thus neither bound by the UN charter, nor does it have any real clout in the UN. As such, Palestinian aggression is (unfortunately) in something of a legal limbo.
Furthermore, the entire "Lack of criticism of Arab mistreatment of Palestinians and vice-versa" section has nothing to do with Israel's relation with the UN at all - it's an obvious attempt at POV. Again, this belongs in an article dealing with the Palestinian relationship with the UN. It has nothing to do with Israel at all. Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy! I'd advocate removing this section immediately or moving it to a more appropriate article.
n.b. I think they're all mad, and wish they'd just get on with living together. It's not like they have a choice... ;) Steevm 06:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "Lack of criticism of Arab mistreatment of Palestinians and vice-versa" sub-section as it is WP:OR. When you talk about UN anti-Israel bias and you say the US ambassador John Bolton criticized the UN for promoting anti-Israel agenda, i agree that it is not OR because it is sourced and referenced, maybe we can add more specific referenced quotes. But, but when you say The United Nations has not made resolutions against or has virtually ignored Palestinian violence on fellow Arab states such as.. and bring no single ref except POV editorializing than the section must be removed. I also read Furthermore, the number of Palestinians killed in Arab states exceeds the number of Palestinians killed in Israel during the First Intifada and Second Intifada combined by far. This is obvious WP:POINT. -- Szvest 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. It is a list of violence that the UN has failed to criticize or recognize. You say: "I also read Furthermore, the number of Palestinians killed in Arab states exceeds the number of Palestinians killed in Israel during the First Intifada and Second Intifada combined by far. This is obvious WP:POINT." Actually, no it isn't. Many people are surprised to read that fact. Besides that, it shows how Arab countries have been cut slack for their mistreatment while Israel is stuck with a mess to clean up. Simple is that. --Shamir1 17:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
But what does poor treatment of Palestinians (as is the case in most countries; no one really wants several million unemployed refugees in their country) acutally have to do with Israel's relation with the UN? And what does a lack of criticism of Arab mistreatment have to do with Israel's relationship with the UN? Wrong article as far as I can tell. The entire section doesn't mention Israel at all! You're confusing two separate issues here. Steevm 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Shamir, your last phrase on your comment above may be a fact (personally i believe it is somehow true) but it remains a POV. We are not allowed to editorialize or to introduce self-made analysis which are not backed by statements; i mean references to quotes in which X accuses Y of a specific bias. In our case, it should be a notable body (i.e. Govt of Israel, an Israeli politician, a notable critic of the field, etc...) who would accuse the UN; especially not not you, not me, not Wikipedia. I hope it is clear. While waiting for your comment, i'll not remove the content for now. -- Szvest 22:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
I think the article would make much more sense if it was called Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I created this page and redirected it here, but I think it should be the other way around. This change would address some of the criticisms in this thread. Emmanuelm 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel or Israeli?

This might seem a daft question to ask, but shouldn't it be "Anti-Israeli", not "Anti-Israel"?

As a comparison, wouldn't you say "Anti-American", for example, as opposed to "Anti-America"?

At least that's what the BBC and Washington Times use here: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060718-083425-5733r.htm and here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1915507.stm

It just reads wrong to me as it currently is, but I'm not 100% certain I'm right :) Steevm 02:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe either is incorrect. In this situation, most of the bias is against the country and government, not the individual people. Hence anti-Israel. --יהושועEric 03:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
So would you say "A has an Anti-America bias" or "B has an anti-American bias"? The first one sounds completely wrong to my ears, you see. Steevm 03:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Either one is correct. --יהושועEric 15:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it must be one of those language things where you just get used to whatever you hear most. Thanks :)

[edit] Ben Gurion's Opposition to the 1947 Partition Plan

I saw they cite the BBC website. But this is just wrong. Ben Gurion was an avid supporter of this plan and did his best to try to convince other Zionist leaders (especially right-wing leaders) to support it. 83.130.188.226 13:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tag

I removed the tag. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Why isn't this a featured article yet? Or candidte for that matter? Colonel Marksman 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This article is real junk. --Zerotalk 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag on "Allegations of Anti-Israel bias" section

This section is entirely devoted to an attack on the UN without any effort at balance. Many of the sources are standard pro-Israeli outlets. Where are the citations of independent analysts, or the arguments in the other direction? --Zerotalk 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources that bring an alternative opinion, then please do so. -- Avi 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is Jewish Law, Gentile Law, and International Law. The three will never agree ! The Middle East conflick will last forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.100.170 (talk) 01:32, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Announcing new page with complete re-write of article

Please go see the new page called Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I wrote it with the intention to replace this page. Please vote on this replacement here. Emmanuelm 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC) N.B. fixed link for the working draft. HG | Talk 14:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I should have mentioned this before. WP Policy asks that you not put drafts into the main article space. Instead, I suggest you create a subpage, e.g. of your user page, while working on the draft. The draft page can then be deleted (you can ask for a speedy delete). Better to do this yourself than let the mere existence of the draft become an issue. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
HG, thanks for the suggestion, I did not know about subpages. But I still do not understand your comment: I did not put a draft into the main article space, I created a new article, then expressed the hope that the two will eventually become one. The way things are going so far, my new article is unacceptable and needs to be rewritten completely. So I do not intend to touch the original article for a long while, while I digest NPOV and NOR policies. Emmanuelm 13:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi again. Your new page is a "complete re-write" of an existing article, so it covers basically the same subject matter. If you're unfamiliar w/WP policies, then it's charitable to call your page a draft, otherwise it would probably be classified as a POV fork (pls read), which should be deleted from the mainspace. Also, if the new article needs to be rewritten completely, it also doesn't sound like it belongs yet as an article. Finally, if you don't mind my saying so, it appears that you feel some sense of ownership over the new page. However, in Wikipedia, we are encouraged to avoid acting as if we own the article (pls read, too). For instance, you wrote an edit summary today: "Undid JohnZ edit; this page is not ready for external edits yet" which sounds as if you're deciding who gets to edit the page. I'm not trying here to judge either your work on the existing article, only trying to impress upon you the importance of certain key policies about article creation and redrafting. I strongly recommend that you read subpage, which explains how you can move your page to your user area. Take care. HG | Talk 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
My new article is now at User:Emmanuelm/Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. Thanks for the comments.Emmanuelm 14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The Israel, Palestine and the United Nations is currently deleted, will be recreated later. Emmanuelm 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting of lead section

I rewrote the lead section of the article. I tried to stick as much as possible to the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. I hope you like it. Emmanuelm 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of History section

I rewrote the history section of the article, emphasizing events directly involving the United Nations. When editing, please do the same; for a general history of this conflict, see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope you like it. Emmanuelm 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article moved

I moved this article to Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I feel this title reflect better the content of the article, which contains as many references to Palestinian as to Israeli issues. I think the two subjects are inseparable. I think that the creation of a separate Palestine and the United Nations would be counterproductive (I created it and redirected it). As for the use of the word Palestine to designate a people and an as yet non-existent country, I used it for the sake of brevity. Any other phrasing would have rendered the title painfully long. Emmanuelm 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)