Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 7

Archives of talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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)

External links, redux

I had noticed a few recentlyttr 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)

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)

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)

I realize you have spent some time working on these links, but I was surprised at the choices made when I looked over them today. In particular, I'm surprised at the absence of many links. First and foremost, I'd suggest the following sources of journalistic news and analysis are missing:

Ha'aretz http://www.haaretz.com/ Probably the most internationally respected news source in Israel and easily the most reliable news source for the territories as well. If some complain that their editorial slant is too anti-Israel, the Jerusalem Post could always go in as a credible, counter-balancing source of daily news (http://www.jpost.com/) with a more pro-Israel editorial slant.

Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/index.htm It puts out weekly analysis, almost always posting multiple pieces on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is obviously coming from an Arab point of view, but Khaled Amayreh and others provide excellent analysis of Palestinian politics and society inside the territories (including often obscured and poorly reported topics like the Hamas/Fatah fighting). Al-Ahram is at least as relevant as some of the non-profit news agencies currently listed.

I was suprised to see that the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Middle East Policy Council (have a look at the Board of Directors) were the only "academic" (Think Tank) sources (except PASSIA, which is included as a Jewish and Israeli academic source). The following really ought to be included:

Middle East Institute http://www.mideasti.org/

Saban Center for Middle East Policy (I'm no fan of Martin Indyk, but Saban is a big name in the I-P think tank crowd) http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/sabancenter_hp.htm

Council on Foreign Relations (sections on Israel and Palestinian Authority) http://www.cfr.org/region/406/israel.html http://www.cfr.org/region/411/palestinian_authority.html

Institute for Palestine Studies http://www.palestine-studies.org/final/en/index.html

Foundation for Middle East Peace http://www.fmep.org/index.html

Also, I think a section should be there for some kind of official sites, particularly these helpful U.N. websites:

U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - oPt http://www.ochaopt.org/ They're particularly good at providing maps.

U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East http://www.un.org/unrwa/

And lastly, I can't comment on the pro-Israeli advocacy groups list, but as for the pro-Palestinian list, it seems quite narrow ideologically and to be missing some fairly important groups. I realize this may cause problems of balance:

U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation http://www.endtheoccupation.org/ They act as a kind of umbrella group for many small, locally-oriented groups in the U.S.

Sabeel - Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem http://www.sabeel.org/ While they may seem marginal, they actually constitute a fairly effective movement within Christian churches, particularly in the U.S. This is a constituency often ignored by most of the pro-Palestinian community, despite the headlines made by the move to divest by several churches (with which Sabeel was heavily involved).

Jewish Voice for Peace http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/ I'm suprised they have not gotten a mention. They're one of the most active pro-Palestinian Jewish organizations in the U.S.

Peace Now and ICAHD are both listed in the See Also section, so maybe they shouldn't be listed in the External Links, but it seems odd not to mention them there. Peace Now in particular is regularly cited in mainstream media.

Considering this is a pretty dramatic change to the links, I thought I'd post it here for discussion before going and adding them.

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)

The Israeli –Palestinian issue and US policy

America not only ignores Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, it also financially helps Israel in aid every year. On the other hand, America puts economic sanction on Palestinian democratically elected government. Muslims believe that America is undemocratic and biased towards Palestinian-Israel conflict (Crockat, 2003, 68). People in the Islamic world judge American justice and democracy from the experiment they have seen in the example of the Palestinian- Israel conflict. From one side of region to the other, the common shared idea is that Israel can do any anti-democratic action against Muslim humiliate them only because of America support. America is standing behind Israel against Palestinian and Muslim, and turning a blind eye to their every wrong step against international law. Since the end of World War II, U.S. policy goals for the Middle East have revolved around maintaining secure American access to the region’s petroleum supplies, and assuring the security of the State of Israel. For over forty years, Israel was supported in order to limit the involvement of the Soviet Union in the region as well as to control region for American interests (Crockatt, 2003, 94). After Soviet Union collapsed, US supported Israel blindly against Muslim world. At the same time, U.S. backed Israel and justified by claims that Israel is only western democratic ally in the region. Israeli nuclear weapons capability, for example, is not acknowledged officially by the United States. At the end of day, Palestinians have lost their 70 percent of national territory in the space of two generation and they are not able to get 30 percent their territory. In the present time, they are still seen as a potential terrorist movement against Israel-America and being offered half of that 30 percent territory only (Halliday, 2002, 2009). Israel and U.S. consistently depict as ‘Islamic terrorism’ all the resistance to Israel’s illegal military occupation (Igor, 2004, 26). Moreover, United States frequently uses its veto power to block any resolution at the UN Security Council that would condemn Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

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

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)

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)

"Israelis, as represented by the State of Israel, have sovereignty over most of the land, which they established by defeating surrounding Arab armies in two major wars initiated by the neighbouring Arab nations: the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the 1967 Six Day War."

This is misleading, as it implies the Arabs initiated fighting in both conflicts. Fighting in the 1967 Six-Day War was initiated by Israel. Even the official IDF history of the conflict admits so:

"The Six-Day War started with a far-reaching air attack, code named ?Moked?, to shatter the Arab air forces while their aircraft were still on the ground. The attack was planned even before General Mordechai (Moti) Hod, had been appointed Air Force Commander. The main element of the plan was to carry out a massive, simultaneous attack of Israeli first-line aircraft against all Egyptian air force bases - the main Arab air force. This required exact and detailed planning of departure times and approaches of each of the attacking forces, in order to ensure the element of surprise on every target. On the morning of June 5, the aircraft of the IAF took off from their bases and attacked Egyptian air force bases in Sinai and Egypt. During the first wave, eleven fields were hit (among them some that had also been attacked in the first wave)."

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=5&from=history&docid=18924&Pos=18&bScope=false

I have therefore removed the phrase "initiated by the neighbouring Arab nations" from that sentence. The precise history of each conflict is of course available by clicking on the link associated with it. n5jrn

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)

The paragraph in question is as biased as biased can be. Just because whoever wrote it stuck a "they believe" at the front of his sentences doesn't mean it's neutral to call Israel's position a "ploy." There isn't even a source to back this up. I advocate taking the paragraph out. Screen stalker 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph states how, to the best of my knowledge, many Palestinians view the peace process. I guess it should be deleted if nobody can find a reliable 3rd party source to back it up, but I don't think finding such a source should be that difficult. --GHcool 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

This has, if anything, gotten worse:

Also, the Palestinian people have yet to embrace or accept a single agreement made with Israel, as demonstrated by the numerous popular Palestinian groups who openly support terrorism, and the PNA's refusal to halt or disband these groups. Furthermore, it is difficult to achieve progress when every Israeli gesture or concern, no matter how deeply-felt or authentic, is labelled by the Palestinians' side as being a mere ploy or a diversion.

So let's see if I've got this: Palestinians use violence and are pure rejectionists. Israelis, despite their own (unmentioned) violence, make "deeply-felt", "authentic" gestures. I happen to be a Jew, but this sort of biased writing simply disgusts me. All it conveys is that one side has more people editing the article than the other: it conveys nothing about the actual situation. - Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the ridiculous, polemical definition of hudna. This article is still an utter mess. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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).

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)

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).

Proposal

I'd like to propose to create a new section titled "Artificially created problems." Where we can discuss the "problems" that most likely were created artificially by certain Arab countries to oppose Jewish state. Or is that biased ? Igoruha 22:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My first reaction is that it sounds biased to me, or at least they way you phrase it in your proposal sounds biased. Perhaps if you explain it in more detail, I could understand it better. --GHcool 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First I want to say that I do not know enough on the topic, so I might be influenced by the few papers that I read in a biased way, as such I am trying to clarify my beliefs. That said, here is how I see the problem. Israel was created out of Ottoman Empire lands, not out if Palestinian lands. As well as states of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were also created - and also created artificially out of the Turkish Empire. Furthermore, there were no "Palestinian" lands at the time because there were no people claiming to be Palestinians. There were Arabs who lived in the region of Palestine who considered themselves Syrians. In 1947, the UN partition plan mandated the creation of two states on the remaining percent of the Palestine Mandate: the State of Israel for the Jews, and another state for the Arabs. The Arabs rejected their state, and launched a war against Israel. This is the primal cause of the Arab refugee problem. The Arab refugees were roughly 725,000 people who fled because of the war that the Arab states - not the Palestinian Arabs - started. Had there been no Arab aggression, no war, and no invasion by Arab armies whose intent was overtly genocidal, not only would there have been no Arab refugees, but there would have been a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza since 1948. Moreover, during the Rhodes Armistice talks and Lausanne conference in 1949 Israel offered to return land it had acquired while defending itself against the Arab aggression in exchange for a formal peace. The Arab rulers refused the land because they wanted to maintain a state of war in order to destroy the Jewish state. t was not Israel that caused the Arab refugee problem, nor Israel that obstructed its solution. On the contrary, the Arab refugee problem was the direct result of the aggression by the Arab states, and their refusal after failing to obliterate Israel to sign a formal peace, or to take care of the Arab refugees who remained outside Israel's borders. Also, the Palestinian refugees in Gaza were forced there in 1948 not by Israel but by the Egyptians, kept there under guard, shot if they tried to leave, and never given Egyptian citizenship or Egyptian passports.

My discussion was based on "Big Lies: Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel" by David Meir-Levi (www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/BigLies.pdf ) Igoruha 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

While much of what you are saying is true, it also ignores key information necessary for a complete understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The above paragraph makes no mention of the aliyot, the British Mandate, or the economic, land ownership, and employment statistics in Palestine pre- or post-Ottoman period. Most of these topics are addressed in the History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, but for an even better understanding of the conflict and its history, I recommend Avraham Sela's The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. --GHcool 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comment and recommendations, I'll try to learn more and then come back!!Igoruha 21:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Introduction

The introduction reads:

"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a part of the greater Arab-Israeli conflict, is an ongoing dispute between the State of Israel and Palestinian people.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a simple two-sided discord 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, or transfer, 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."

How about changing the introduction to this:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict, is an ongoing dispute between two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, over the land of Israel-Palestine. The conflict started approximately a century ago as Zionists from Europe began to settle in the land, then controlled by the Ottoman Empire, expressing their desire to create a state for the Jewish people. This settlement went against the wishes of the majority of the population, who were mostly Muslim and Christian Arabs.

Though there has been much violence, controversy, discussion, and negotiation between both sides over the century, the central contentious issue of who controls the land remains the same. Both Israelis and Palestinians make nationalistic claims to this piece of land based on history, ethnicity, religion, and culture. Israelis, as represented by the State of Israel, have sovereignty over most of the land, which they established by defeating surrounding Arab armies in five major wars. Palestinians, as represented by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, seek control over part or all of the land. Palestinians want to establish an independent, viable, and sovereign state of their own on this land.

Most Palestinians, as reflected in various polls, accept the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the territory of their future state. Most Israelis also accept this solution. An attempt to achieve this solution was seen in the Oslo peace process, where Israel and the PLO negotiated, unsuccessfully, to come to a mutual agreement. Vocal minorities on both sides advocate other solutions, most of which contradict the goal of "two states for two peoples." In both communities, some individuals and groups advocate total removal or transfer of the other community. A very small minority advocates a one state solution, where all of Israel-Palestine would become a bi-national state, providing equal citizenship to all of its current residents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.139.230.65 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry. My username is Bawad1 16:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I just posted the above

I like it, but consider this instead (my changes in bold):

"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict, is an ongoing dispute between two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, over the land of Israel/Palestine. The conflict started in the late 19th century as Zionists from Europe began to settle in the land, then controlled by the Ottoman Empire, and expressed their desire to create a state for the Jewish people. This settlement went against the wishes of the majority of the population, who were mostly Muslim and Christian Arabs.

"Though there has been much violence, controversy, discussion, and negotiation between both sides throughout the 20th century and continuing today, the central contentious issue of who controls the land remains the same. Both Israelis and Palestinians make nationalistic claims to this piece of land based on history, ethnicity, religion, and culture. Israelis, as represented by the State of Israel, have sovereignty over most of the land, which they established by defeating surrounding Arab armies in two major wars: the 1948 War of Independence and the Six Day War. Palestinians, as represented by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, seek control over part or all of the land. Palestinians want to establish an independent, viable, and sovereign state of their own on this land.

"Most Palestinians, as reflected in various polls, accept the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the territory of their future state. Most Israelis also accept this solution. An attempt to achieve this solution was seen in the Oslo peace process, where Israel and the PLO negotiated, unsuccessfully, to come to a mutual agreement. Vocal minorities on both sides advocate other solutions, most of which contradict the goal of 'two states for two peoples.' In both communities, some individuals and groups advocate total removal or transfer of the other community. A very small minority advocates a one state solution, where all of Israel-Palestine would become a bi-national state, providing equal citizenship to all of its current residents." --GHcool 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks! I went ahead and made the changes and edited the page. The only change I made to your recommendations was changing War of Independence to 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Bawad1 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Area Map

This map does not show the Golan Heights as part of Israel, though it has been fully annexed. The map should be changed to one that recognizes that annexation, which is widely undisputed (except by anti-Israel neighbors). --יהושועEric 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Conflict

to regard this as just some recent 20th century dispute is to miss the point entirely and limits the ability to grasp it and/or solve it...Benjiwolf 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

as to israelis and palestinians "sharing much in common" i insist that this is true and accurate, and as well a vital conclusion that must be reached if they are to solve their issues...they are mainly made up of semitic peoples, from the same area of the world, they both live in a desert habitat (and right there this would lead to enormous similarities in many areas, such as lifestyle, thought, and behavior even if it wasnt the exact same desert-like habitat), their languages derive from similar lines, they can easily infiltrate oneanother without make-up or plastic surgery (a little tougher for the ashkenazis, yet even here not as if they were pygmies or something)...as to religion...Jews/Muslims...they even use the same story to a large extent, they are both monotheistic patriarchal religious systems, they are very very similar, even the actual genetic lines in their stories/histories/religious texts come from the same people...there are some interesting differences, yet on the whole they are about the same, they are both semitic religions stemming from the deserts in the middle east, in fact there arent really many other major religions/spiritual systems as close to oneanother as these two are...they should be in the same category as "sub species" of oneanother...they are both excellent examples of a very fine, extensive, monotheistic patriarchal religious/spiritual tradition from the middle east...once they both come to this realization...they will have fewer problems...and i am quite proud of saying israelis and palestinians... "share much in common"...i think that it is in fact in the interest of peace and harmony in that area, and in the interest of international security for everyone to say so...yet indeed i figured id be edited as soon as i said the jews had tried to "re-create" a state or nation for themselves there instead of "create" one from something that never existed there...all moderate or hardline anti-israel people would immediately edit that...yet its a fact...they indeed had kingdoms and a state there for many many years...thats why they went back!!!...and indeed israelis and palestinians "share much in common"...more so than most nations and peoples even...i regard this as an "inter-tribal" conflict as i would say the current shia-sunni difficulties are...some would say shia and sunni are more similar than jewish and sunni or jewish and shia...yet im not really so sure thats accurate...in some ways perhaps...yet in others not really much difference, as soon as u get beyond the names and some of the dogma...its all very similar...judiasm and islam are very similar once u take a step back from them...there are people from both that have made a bad name for their respective religions and that have tried to stress the differences instead of the similarities...and i regard that as a innate trait & tendency of these various sub-species of the middle eastern monotheistic patriarchal line of desert traditionsBenjiwolf 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians and Israelis are also both of the species homo sapiens, they both are warm blooded, they both breathe air, etc. etc. I appreciate what you are trying to do, Benjiwolf, and I agree with you on a philosophical level about the brotherhood of man, etc., but you seem to be missing the point that despite the common biological/historical/linguistic roots, the Palestinian Arabs and the Israeli Jews have two very, very different cultures that have evolved from thousands of years of diverging geographical/historical factors and then more recently, through the Arab-Israeli conflict of the 20th century.

Secondly, the history and politics of the modern State of Israel and early Zionism has very little to do with re-establishing the society and political hierarchy of the ancient Land of Israel (certainly not in the same sense that radical Muslims wish to re-establish the Caliphate and mix state law with sharia law) than it does in establishing a modern state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people. --GHcool 03:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with u that the israelis arent trying to re-create some archaic system...i just added the "re"...to create...to give some sense they they once had lived as a nation in this area, and it wasnt as if they just up and went somewhere and tried to "create" something new in a land they had no connection to or history in, as a people, or as a state or nation even...i will look to rewording the entire introductory sentences, as when i first read it i came away with that they had gone somewhere they had no real connection to or previous experience in (a christian/muslim land even) so i added (M/Cs "there at the time" and "re-create"), and u reading my attempt to remedy it came away that they were trying to establish some archaic relgious state or something.......as to missing the point...i am fully and acutely aware that there are great differences between israelis and palestinians as they define themselves, and some objective differences...yet i can find you very nice, eloquent, modern day jewish or palestian people that are very very similar...i am just making the point that they indeed "share much in common" as well...and they indeed share more in common than most peoples do...so i could realistically even add that israelis and palestinians "share more in common than most peoples"...they have far far more in common than just some "brotherhood of all man" or some "ancient link between all homo sapiens" or some "fundamental biological similarity"...what they share in common goes far beyond that...and anyways as to "ancient" conflict...i wanted to stress that this is a dispute over land going back thousands of years with a very complicated political history, and even involving peoples, nations, and empires, that no longer exist...sincerely...Benjiwolf 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Benjiwolf, you seem like a very well meaning Wikipedia editor and I respect that. Perhaps the best way to word it would be to say that the early Jewish Zionists wished to "create a modern state in their ancient homeland." I think this takes care of both the "re-create" debate and the "ancient roots" debate rather swiftly and accurately. As for the assertion that the Israelis and Palestinians "share much in common," I'm afraid this is simply a case of original research that may be true, but needs to be backed up with hard facts that pertain to the relevance of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not to some anthropological study or history of the two peoples before it is included in the article. --GHcool 17:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the revert?

User:Ian Pitchford reverted what looks, at least on the surface, like a reasonable edit. What is their justification? Dfeuer 09:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources are biased. You have Finkelstein and Chomsky. Fiercely biased.(pitchford i presume??)

i dont know mr pitchford...when it comes down to it everyone is biased...i havent looked really at what u deleted...yet just as they were put there with reference to two people you think are biased doesnt mean its biased...sure finkelstein and chomsky are biased...yet so is everyone...and chomsky...the one i am supposing u are referring to is the most quoted person of almost all time in many fields and a full professor at one of the best regarded unis in the world...MIT...as to finkelstein....which are u referring to???...the homosexual finkelstein that is the republican finance master???[5]...there are a ton of finkelsteins out there...i even once met two identical twin finkelstein brothers...which finkelstein???...anyways...everyone is fiercely biased...if that was ones reason for taking out the link...then im afraid we have to cancel and shut down wikipedia...as all information is biased...Benjiwolf 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately bias is a word that is given to us when we're 11 years old and only defined for us years later as advanced level history students - which not all of us are. It's true, everyone is biased. The question with a source is not bias but motive. If a source is written for unscrupulous reasons, such as convincing people to join the army or destroy the state, then we may raise questions about its reliability. However, Chomsky is usually cited for his work in linguistics, and his work in political analysis afaik is still highly contentious and could easily be called a conspiracy theory. Rupa zero 18:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)rupa_zero

NPOVifying the Intro

I made an attempt to NPOVify the intro. Please let's try to keep it factual and encyclopedic. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The map

Why is the map at the top of the article? Is it to show where the conflict taking place? Then we have better maps. Does it imply that the conflict is merely territorial? Then that is a POV, see Hamas charter specifically denying that. Also, should we say that the Golan Heights is not a part of this conflict? All in all, doesn't seem to be a very suitable map. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the map violates WP:NPOV or any other Wikipedia rules. However, I agree that there are probably better maps we can use. --GHcool 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1967 war initiated

The israeli government initiated the 1967 war. Thats why I took it out! -- The preceding unsigned was written by Mrbojanglescj

First, please use signature. Second, you are wrong: closing the Straits of Tiran by Egypt was a legitimate casus belli. Read the corresponding article or a good book on the subject. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest Six Days of War by Michael B. Oren. It is a highly regarded comprehensive history on the war and its context. --GHcool 05:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the wiki page on the Six Day War, Israel started it. --MrBojanglesCJ

First the Arab countries were in the declared "state of war" with Israel for two decades prior the Six-Day war. Second and more important, is the fact that Israel leaders took preemptive action, as the Arab countries massed their armies near Israel's border. The pre-war situation really developed in may when tensions escalated with a series of bellicose actions and shrill rhetoric initiated by Egypt. -Igoruha 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Israel struck the first blow, but a more careful reading of both the Wikipedia article and every reliable source ever written (which, again, I highly suggest you read at least one reliable source on the subject), it is crystal clear that Israel was virtually forced into pre-emptive action or else face elimination of the State of Israel and the genocide of its Jewish citizens. If you insist on limiting your knowledge to what is discussed in Wikipedia articles (and, again, I discourage this choice), I direct you to the "Background" section of the Six-Day War article, with special emphasis on the sub-sections titled "The Straights of Tiran" and "Egypt and Jordan." --GHcool 05:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, I would love to start by saying, I don't limit myself to Wikipedia. To be quite frank, I don't really use Wikipedia to learn about contentious issues. I was simply pointing out a continuity issue. That being said, I would like to open your mind to the possibility that I, too, read real books on the subject. YAY for me!!!

"it is crystal clear that Israel was virtually forced into pre-emptive action or else face elimination of the State of Israel and the genocide of its Jewish citizens." That preceding quote, by you, is highly opinionated, and lacks substantial credibility on which you can base your claim that the Arab neighbors initiated the war. Yes, if Israel did nothing its Arab neighbors COULD'VE attacked the next day. More Suppositious is your assumption that if they didn't attack first the Arab neighbors would've been able to eliminate the State of Israel and kill all the Jews. It is a possibility, but it's still a hypothetical. I wouldn't defend using the word "initiated" based on a hypothetical. I personally suggest that people look into what you've written in the past to see if there are other "corrections" you're made based on a hypothetical. -Mrbojanglescj 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Mrbojanglescj. I am glad you read other sources besides Wikipedia. Let's use those sources together and create an enlightening, informative, and accurate article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, shall we? --GHcool 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We Shall. Sorry about the typos. I'm glad my point was still received. - Mrbojanglescj 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact: Shortly before the Six-Day War, Arab leaders came out with quotations such as "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." Fact: That same year, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the port of Eilat. Fact: Egypt kicked out UN observers and amassed a giant army in the Sinai, which was previously a DMZ. Fact: The ceasefire between Israel and Egypt following the Suez Crisis had as a critical stipulation that the Straits of Tiran remain open, and UNEF observers maintain the DMZ in the Sinai. Fact: The Arab alliance had many times the population, money, manpower and military equipment as Israel.

Mrbojanglescj is correct in saying that it is an opinion--and not a fact--that the Tripartite Alliance intended to invade Israel. However, it is a fact that Egypt was the first to engage in acts of war against Israel (violating the terms of a previous ceasefire, and militarizing a DMZ), and I think the above facts (not opinions) prove that an Arab invasion was more than likely, and very well could have led to the destruction of Israel if it had not taken preemptive action. I don't think there is anything wrong with referring to historians who agree with this point. I also think there is nothing wrong with stating that Israel was the first to actually attack in the Six-Day War. But to leave it at that is only telling half the story. Israel didn't attack to gain more land; it attacked to defend its existence. Screen stalker 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Screen stalker, I didn't say Israel attacked to gain more land. Where are you getting that from? My problem is with the use of the word initiated. Initiated suggests that the preemption was on the Arab's part. I'm not disagreeing that there wasn't a good chance that the Arab neighbors were about to attack. I'm just saying ISRAEL ATTACKED FIRST. - Mrbojanglescj 01:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider too that blockading an international straits is a violation of international law and is internationally recognized as an aggressive act of war. It would be like Spain blockading the Strait of Gibralter so that Italy couldn't have access to a sea port. The Italians would have a strong case for war against and Spain would have been the country that started that war. Israel may have had the first kill, but Egypt started the war. --GHcool 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Or that would be like Israel blockading Lebanon so humanitarian aid or oil clean up crews can get through - Mrbojanglescj 01:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but you and I both know that's a non-sequeter. Hezbollah guerrillas invaded Israel before Israel blockaded Lebanon, not after the blockade (as Israel did in the Six-Day War). Thus, Hezbollah was the first to break international law prompting the Second Lebanon War just as Egypt was the first to break international law prompting the Six-Day War. --GHcool 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

ummm... not going down this road, at least here, but I'll be happy to do so in the discussion page for that war. - Mrbojanglescj 04:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)