Talk:Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Article structure

I made four sections, but I believe that with a little effort the last two ('1936-49' and 'transfer idea') might be combined. The break at 1917 is taken from the 'Zionism' article. The break at 1936 is somewhat before the one in the 'Zionism' article (19390. Maybe it should be changed to 1939. I haven't really thought it through well. In 1939 the Zionists changed their attitude towards the British (after the white Paper), but Teveth traces Ben-Gurion's change in attitude toward the Palestinian Arabs to 1936. --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topic and title

First, the article sounds quite good and interesting !

Per my understanding, Zionist attitude toward Palestinian Arabs has also been linked to the Arab attitude (ie perception of Zionism goals and reaction versus Zionism).

• eg, in his History of Zionism, Laqueur refers to this as the unseen question that became more and more important with the Arab Anti-zionism and the birth and growth of their national identityIn his History of Zionism, Laqueur refers to this as the unseen question that became more and more important with the Arab Anti-zionism and the birth and growth of their national identity
• Tom Segev, in One Palestine, Complete also pictures the mutual interaction (focusing also on the British role)
  

I think it is also important to note that if finally Zionism expelled Palestinians, initially, Zionism attitude vs Arabs was theoretical and passive while Palestinian Arabs were the active party. What about a : Zionists and Arabs in Mandate Palestine, refering to the sub-title of Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete : Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate or Simha Flapan Zionism and the Palestinians ... ?
That would give the step-by-step development of the events focusing of the way Palestinian Arabs and Jews/Zionists perceived them and reacted in connection with them. Ceedjee (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be a good idea. I think it would diffuse the content and would make the article quite big. The main reason to make the article was space.

I don't object to creating a page on Arab attitudes and linking v.v., although I think making an article on just 'Palestinian Arab attitudes toward Zionsim' would maybe not be the right way. As you point out the Palestinian Arabs were affected by the British too, and its's hard to see their attitudes towards Zionism and the British separate. Maybe it's better to start an article on the History of the Palestinian people. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I decided to create the History of the Palestinian people article anyway, because the Palestinian people article is already quite big. In History of the Palestinian people there is space for the Arab attitudes towards Zionism. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of creating Palestinian Arabs attitude toward Zionism shows there could be some pov-fork problem. Instead of gathering the whole problematic in one article, it is/would be cut into two parts.

Historically, there is an interaction between 2 nationalist movements and two nations and here it is described (or it would be described) in two different articles.

Note there are numerous other articles in wikipedia proceeding with that "bad" philosophy such as Palestinian political violence that should be merged in Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Good work. Ceedjee (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thx for your support Ceedjee!

Many editors in the 'Deletion case' seem to favor a renaming. I feel technically there is nothing NPOV about the current title and subject, but in view of consensus forming its better for me to give in. Zionists and Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine is my preferred title. I feel though that with this title we should add someting to the intro, like e.g. 'This article is mainly concerned with the attitudes and policies of Zionists and Palestinian Arabs towards each other, but also with relevant events and British attitudes.'

We could branch of some aspects like Zionist and Arab claims to Mandatory Palestine and Economic and social separation in Mandatory Palestine. That would create more space for Arab attitudes.

By the way: Happy new Year! --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok.

Happy New Year 2008. Ceedjee (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thx! Maybe a title like Zionist and Arab attitudes in Mandatory Palestine? Its not an elegant title, but I am more concerned with how well the title covers the subject. Since the word Palestine is already in the title I think we can reduce Palestinian Arabs to just Arabs. --JaapBoBo (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee proposed Relationships between Zionists and Palestinan Arabs before 1948 on my talk page. I think relationships also refers to events, and would like to keep this article limited to attitudes. The best way is to have the word 'attitude(s)' in the title. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently, your proposal is the best : Zionist and Arab attitudes in Mandatory Palestine.

What embarrass me is that is assumed it is "Zionist and Arab attitudes toward each other" that is expected to be discussed.

I agree this article must not be a pov-fork of other articles concering the events but the events must be recalled anyway if historians refer to them when relevant. Ceedjee (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There are maybe other ways : Mutual policy between Zionists and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine - Zionist and Arab Nationalisms in Mandatory Palestine - Zionist and Arab interaction in Mandatory Palestine - ... Ceedjee (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree events must be recalled, ..., but in relation to the attitudes.

How about Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes (1882-1948)? --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Palestinian Arab(s) to Arab(s) in Mandatory Palestine. I think indeed it is not neutral to put the "colonizer" and the "indegeous population" at the same level.

I think "before 1948" is better than "(1882-1948)"

So at this stage, I would say : Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes before 1948

But I am still concerned by the "interaction" or "mutual" or "toward each other" that lacks.

Isn't this too long : Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes toward each other before 1948 ?

Zionists and Palestinian Arabs mutual perception before 1948 ? Ceedjee (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this okay: Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes before 1948. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well. I don't want to debate and over-debate the title.

The content/NPoV/quality issues are more important.

So, that is ok for me. Ceedjee (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV-fork?????????

The definition of POV-fork according to WP:NPOV is A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.

Since this article was created due to lack of space in the Zionism article it is not a POV-fork, it merely gives more information on the particular subject of the Zionist attitudes toward Palestinian Arabs. It gives pov's from both sides, e.g. Gorny, Teveth, Ben-Gurion, Shapira, Morris, Karsh, Katz and Bar-Zohar have a pro-Israeli pov, and from neutral sources, e.g. Flapan and Sternhell are certainly not pro-Palestinian.

@JzG:

• you say its incomplete, please indicate what is missing
• you say its inaccurate, please indicate what is inaccurate
• you say its drawn fomr a very small number of individual sources, yet I count at least 20 sources
• you say it violates numeorus policies especially WP:NPOV, please indicate which particular policies are violated and in which way they are violated

--JaapBoBo (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)