Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 8

Archives for March-July 2007

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

The Israeli -Palestinian issue and US policy.

I have aquestion for all americans out there. Do you believe that all middle eastern people are terrorists and do you know anything about them?

As an American, I feel like I am fully qualified to answer this question by this unregistered user. No, Americans don't believe that all Middle Eastern people are terrorists. Israelis, for example, are Middle Eastern people that are not terrorists.  ;)

As for whether we know anything about Middle Eastern people, that's a tough call. I would bet that many Americans don't know anything about Middle Eastern people, but I would also bet that many Middle Eastern people don't know anything about Americans. --GHcool 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

America does not ignore 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.

--Alibektas 10:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone put some history in the history section?

The history section appears to include virtually no history more recent than the past five years. After opening with a brief mention that the '48 and '67 wars were part of this history, the section moves on to three completely unsourced paragraphs describing arguments purportedly made by people advocating various positions regarding the conflict. I don't know if those paragraphs belong in the article at all (certainly not as unsourced as they are!) but they certainly don't belong in the history section. The remainder of the history section describes events starting in 2002, which is practically current events rather than history. So it seems to me that two things need to be done:

• Delete, or source and move, the two inappropriate paragraphs.

• Add some actual history to the history section. Can someone who actually knows something about the conflict (not me!) try this? You could try to summarize the main points of History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which seems to be a much better article. Elliotreed 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a little of both options are in order. The history section is heavily focused on recent events, much of which can be summarized. I would also like to see some information on the two Intifadas, the Oslo peace process, and the Camp David/Taba summit. I'll see what I can do about this later this week. --GHcool 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a history section which does not try to describe every development, but tries to document the broad historical trends which brought us to where we are now, in an existential sense, might be helpful. Just suggesting one possible way to look at it. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Major Issue - Limmited Water Supply

I have recently read a book, "The Palestinians" (2004) from the series called "Modern Middle East Nations and Their Stategic Place in the World", written by Anna Carew-Miller with editorial cosultant: The Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Among the other issues beteen Israeli and Palestinians, this book addresses the issue of limited water supply. Since I did not find anything about this issue in the article, here is a quote from this book:

"Limited water has been a reality in this dry region for thousands or year, but in modern times, with increased population, the situation has become more acute. And water, like so much else in Palestinian-Israeli relations, has been a source of bitterness and conflict. The West Bank has two major aquifers. Not only do these aquifers supply water for Palestinians, but they also provide about 40% of Israeli's total water needs. The Palestinians charge Israel, which since 1967 has controlled the West Bank aquifers, takes more than its fair share and that, by design or by accident, its water policies have had a devastating impact on Palestinian farmers. After 1967 Israel drilled deep wells, which had the effect of siphoning off water from old Palestinian wells. At the same time, Israel made it illegal for Palestinians to drill their own newer, deeper wells. Israeli restrictions on water use forces many Palestinians farmers to stop cultivating formerly irrigated land - which some Palestinians believed was a way for Israel ultimately to get control of their land"

My question is that - how well does this accusation of Israel answers to reality ? -Igoruha 21:48, April 7, 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is an important issue and ought to be made part of the article. It can probably fall under "Major Issues between the Two Sides." I would like to see an explanation from an Israeli historian, politician etc. explaining why Israel believes it is entitled to this water. Also, if I am not mistaken, the statement that "Israel made it illegal for Palestinians to drill their own newer, deeper wells" is true, but doesn't represent the whole truth. I do believe that it is illegal for anyone residing within the borders of Israel to drill, mine or otherwise prospect for any natural resource. All natural resources are considered property of the state.

Come to think of it, it may be best to lump the water issue together with the issue of natural gas as "distribution of resources". Although the natural gas quagmire was resolved when Israel agreed to give all rights to this resource to the PA, it is still certainly worth mentioning, since it played such a crucial role in the conflict. Screen stalker 01:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that this accusation is entirely true, but mostly misconstrued. I have included the arguments of both sides in a new section of the "Major Issues between the Two Sides." Thank you for calling attention to this. Screen stalker 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Screen stalker for clearing up on this issue. I just read what was written in the article, and it is a bit confusing. Use said that Israel provides water to Palestinian farmers as well as to other Palestinians, but how come the author of "The Palestinians" (cited above) says that "Israeli restrictions on water use forces many Palestinians farmers to stop cultivating formerly irrigated land" ? Igoruha 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot tell you exactly what the author was thinking. What I can tell you is that when Israel consumes water that Palestinians formerly consumed, and then pipes water into Palestine which wasn't there before, the water probably won't arrive at exactly the same places whence other water came (otherwise, what's the point). If I understand it correctly, Israel is consuming water from rural Palestinian areas, and sending water to urban centers. So even though Palestinians living in the cities have more water than they used to, those in the countryside may not. I am not 100% sure about that, though.

Another important point: what the author considers to be "many Palestinians" is of critical importance here. If "many" means <100,000, then the statement could easily be made that Israeli restrictions on water use force many Israeli farmers to stop cultivating formerly irrigated land. If "many" is >250,000, then I would be curious to see exactly what Israel is doing, and I would think that it is probably worth mentioning. Screen stalker 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Narratives

Any discussion regarding this issue must acknowledge the multiple narratives which can be used to tell the story. While i believe this has been done to an extent in the article, it could be done better, and indeed is crucial to keeping the article NPOV. With regards to this sentence in the opening para: "This particular conflict can be traced to the late 19th century, when Zionist Jews expressed their desire to create a modern state in their ancient homeland." I believe it should be changed to "This particular conflict can be traced to the late 19th century, when Zionist Jews expressed their desire to create a modern state in what they considered to be their ancient homeland." This emphasizes that it is the 'Israeli' narrative, which is vitally important if the reader is to be able to untangle the different motives inherent in the article. Suicup 09:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion which places the focus on "the zionists" rather than on both the Arabs moving in to pillage the new Jewish economy and the Zionists; is NPOV also... there's nothing about Israel not being the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, so i don't think that part is open for "what they consider" POV interpertations. Jaakobou 10:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jaakobou on this one. Saying that Zionists "consider" the Land of Israel to be their ancinet homeland is like saying "Two plus two is what mathematicians consider to equal four." Wouldn't it be more appropriate and NPOV to write that "Two plus two equals four?" --GHcool 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, we are not talking about something as universal as maths, we are talking about things which some (i would argue most) readers may not know as common knowledge. Furthermore, the article (for good reason) is not being written from the perspective of either camp, and thus it is important that nuances such as this are explicitly stated, and the relevant historical perspective highlighted. For a subject as controversial as this, anything less cannot be described as NPOV. Suicup 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

talk is cheap, yes the PLO charter says that: "even if it's not the historical homeland and even it it was the historical homeland then the jews have no sovriency rights" (loosly quoted). but, no one serious is giving any valid proof against this not being the ancient jewish homeland, and there's quite a lot of historical records on this subject.. and not only jewish records. i'd be happy though to see what sources you may find that say it's not the ancient homeland... should be interesting. Jaakobou 01:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my point Jaakobou. Please read it again - i'm not advocating what you say at all. Suicup 02:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

i'd be happy though to see what sources you may find that say it's not the ancient homeland... should be interesting. Jaakobou 12:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, history may not be as clear as mathematics, but in this case, the fact is undeniable. Read the article on Jewish history and see for yourself. If you'd like a better analogy, compare the statement, "Jews consider the Land of Israel to be their ancient homeland" to the statement, "Egyptians consider Egypt to be their ancient homeland." --GHcool 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if Egyptians did say that, I would dispute that statement too. Some modern-day Arabs do believe they have kinship with ancient Egyptians; some experts are not sure of the accuracy of that statement either. However, I appreciate your helpful willingness to lay out the specific points of this issue so openly. thanks. --Sm8900 16:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, the original version is obviously clear to you because going by your talk page you are a) jewish, and b) well versed in the issue. However, you are not the average reader. I would suggest that you need to assume the readership is not as versed in the issue as you (or me), indeed, that is the reason they are probably visiting the page in the first place! The addition doesn't deny that Palestine is the ancient homeland of the Jews, rather it just clarifies it even MORE. Suicup

I agree with Suicup. Sometime we need to encompass a few different people's concerns, not wrangle back and forth over one point of contention. His phrasing manages to address both his and our concerns. thanks. --Sm8900 13:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow Suicup's argument. It appears upon first glance that he is calling my knowledge of the Middle Eastern history a handicap that must be overcame by ... what? Wordiness? Point of view? Why can't we just say that a fact is a fact. Neil Armstrong is not only "CONSIDERED by astronauts" to be the first man on the moon; he actually WAS the first man on the moon! Until I hear an argument that applies equally to the Jewish homeland as it does to the first man on the moon, the sum of two plus two, and the homeland of the Egyptians, I will demand that these hard facts be dealt with without wishy-washy language. --GHcool 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. i understand your point. however, here's a better analogy, I think. Henry Ford is considered by Americans to be the inventor of the automobile. Thomas Edison is considered to be the inventor of the phonograph. The Wright Brothers are considered to be the inventors of the airplane. All of these facts are viewed differently by other countries' histories; eg, the British believe they invented the light bulb. So histroy is a relative thing. In Wikipedia, I generally favor including an extra phrase or two if that's a way to satisfy both parties to an issue. So in this case, this seems like an easy compromise to do. So that's why i agree with Suicup. --Sm8900 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By that token, no established fact ever exists on the shifting sands of revisionism and moral relativism. Alternative inventors of the lightbulb or the automobile (a few individuals, at most) may have labored in private and been largely unsung. The history of Israel is the history of the many, not the few, and is recorded -- i.e., known -- in countless ways. There must be something more than scientific skepticism driving those who seek to blur the Jewish past. What is next, to say that the Holocaust is "considered" to have taken place? For shame. Hertz1888 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

historical/national claims, (even ones I agree with, like this one) are different than historical facts. the essence of Wikipedia is senstiivty to many viewpoints. also, simply reflecting various concerns does not mean we negate the underlying facts. --Sm8900 20:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

exactly what is so objective about saying that Israel is the ancient homeland? In 2,000 years, every ethnic group undergoes massive changes. it's fine to say that the Zionist claim is valid, legitimate, truthful, and correct, and entirely justified by every standard of law, decency, history and justice, (as it really is), but it is still a claim. --Sm8900 21:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hertz1888 is correct. Whether or not there is such thing as objective truth or is something philosophers will have to deal with. Wikipedia is not the Ministry of Truth. This is a completely uncontroversial issue. The fact that the Land of Israel was the ancient homeland of the Jews does not in any way displace any other group because no other group makes serious claims on the land as their ancient homeland (Palestinian politicians try every so often, but mainstream historians shrug it off as opportunism). I challenge anyone to come up with a reason for presenting the Jewish homeland as a subjective claim rather than an objective fact and then apply those same standards to the Egyptian culture. --GHcool 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

there are some who question whether the Jews of today are descendants of the Israelites of ancient times. I am not saying the doubters are correct--they're not--but I am saying that there are two sides to this, especially at Wikipedia. I feel it is a real mistake to be trying to make issues or drawing lines with people who merely want a small additional phrase to be included. one of the ways you attain cooperation at Wikipedia is by accepting compromises which are objective, which do not harm the underlying facts, and which are mainly semantic. this appears to me to be a compromise like that. Thanks. --Sm8900 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry SM8900, but what you're proposing opens Pandora's box to such phrases as "Jews consider the Holocaust to have occured" or "Astrologists consider the Earth to revolve around the sun." Again, give us an argument that applies the same standards to the Jewish homeland as it does to heliocentrism, the historiocity of the Holocaust, the historiocity of the Apollo 11 moon landing, the sum of 2+2, or the Egyptian homeland and you might change some people's minds. --GHcool 02:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the sentence does not refer to "Jews" per se, but rather Zionists of the time (Ashkenazi Jews who were living in Europe). Anyway, how does 'consider' imply that the statement could be false? What it does is merely clarify the perspective and make the whole thing read better. Suicup 08:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarify? No, it obfuscates. "Consider" is a way of saying "but maybe it wasn't" and "others may legitimately see it differently". It is unnecessary to introduce this element of subjectivity in regard to a profoundly settled historical fact. It sows doubt about the principle "considered", and belittles those who "considered" it (or continue to consider it) to be so. In that light, I suppose that insisting on the word "consider" in this sentence can be considered as pushing a personal POV, one far at odds with common knowledge. I couldn't agree more with GHcool: this "small" modification of the text opens the door to big doubts about common reality in general. Hertz1888 12:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. It is a fact to say that Jews or Israelites lived in the area now identified as "Israel". It is also a fact to say that it was their ancestral homeland. Saying Jews are their descendants is a fact. However, saying that any area is an ancestral homeland to any modern people or group is a claim, in my opinion (even if it is a claim which I agree with 100%). Modern Egyptians claim kinship with the Pharoahs; Greeks claim kinship with Socrates; some Iraqis claim kinship with Babylonians but these claims are all subject to dispute. All historical claims are subject to interpretation. Also, it does not necessarily "open the door" to anything; each case can be discussed individually.

However, the one thing I guess I can admit is that, even if there is a real issue here, perhaps this is not the place where that issue needs to indicated. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, in the context of 'ancient homeland'; a reason the Zionists of the time chose Palestine over other places (like say Madagascar) were the Biblical connotations of 'promised land' etc. This is why I changed the piped link to 'Eretz Israel.' This is further evidence why the sentence should be premised with 'considered'. It clarifies that perspective and narrative. Suicup 04:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Begging your pardon, but it's hardly surprising they made that choice. The bond, the roots were in that one land only. There was never any question that the Jews were exiled from Eretz Israel, not from Madagascar. Not just the Zionists, but everyone has "considered" that a fact for over 1900 years. There's no need to single out the Zionists for sharing in the common knowledge. I see no point to mentioning it at all. Why are we still kicking this around? Hertz1888 05:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But the Zionists considered that God promised them that land. That is why they wanted to go there. Thus, this biblical (probably not the correct word) premise is a major factor. "their ancient homeland" has connotations of "their promised homeland" (especially so if the link is piped to Eretz Israel - which it should be) and hence the original sentence must be premised with "considered". Suicup 12:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No question the Divine Promise influenced the yearning for a return to Zion - except perhaps among the secular Zionists. A powerful pull, no doubt, but irrelevant to the original question. Eretz Israel WAS the ancient homeland; Jews come from Judea. Whatever anyone considers to be the case, and regardless of their motives, that is a fact, something commonplace. I consider water to be wet, but that's hardly newsworthy. Hertz1888 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Suicip, you seem very determined to make this change, regardless of whether or not there is a consensus for it - and as far as I can see from the multitude of comments above, one hasn't been reached. Now that you have gone ahead unilaterally and added "consider to be" anyway, I am inclined to add "along with virtually every credible historian since Josephus". That would make the overall statement a bit absurd, but hard to challenge for objectivity. Any objection? (Actually, I'd rather see you revert the change until there is general agreement on making it; otherwise it should be dropped once and for all. Let's hear from others on this, may we?) Hertz1888 05:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900, I think you deserve the "noble prize" for reconciliation. Your "possible mid-ground solution", it seeems to me, cuts through the sticky points nicely. Since not all early Zionists were religiously motivated, your wording doesn't rely on divine promises, either. Thank you. I hope all the passionate editors here will embrace this solution. Hertz1888 14:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Herzl. Thanks very much for your supportive comments. I do value the ability to edit this article, and to be able to work positively. So I really appreciate your positive feedback. It's always good to know we can be part of a dialogue, and also to know efforts are appreciated. So thanks very much. see you. --Sm8900 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'compromise' sentence works well. I made one final edit to just tighten up the language a bit - meaning was not changed at all. I'm glad people had an open mind on things like this, i was afraid if i edited this article it would just be too hard. Indeed, this little saga epitomises the controversy of the whole issue in a way - look at the the size of the Narrative section i created for just one little sentence! cheers Suicup 15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

sounds good! your change looks fine. appreciate your input. I agree with you about the overall nature of this article...nice to know we can eventually find a path through these issues. thanks very much for your help and input. See you. cheers,--Sm8900 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence is a good and true one now. Thank you. --GHcool 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags

I think the citation tags added throughout the intro are a misuse of this feature, as one of the ways we establish facts here is through a consensus process of everyone improving the content. That is one check on accuracy. Citation tags are for someone to question a particular detail they may find questionable, not for someone to simply question every single fact presented, without recourse to group discussion. If we can get a group sense of which are specific facts here that a few people here have problems with, I will try to improve them. However, I'm not going to get overly involved in an issue over every detail known to those knowledgable about this topic. A "citation" tag is not a call button; you can't just press it and use that to make your entire point. If anyone else has further feedback, feel free to write, of course. thanks. --Sm8900 18:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The quantity of such tags is way overboard and looks ridiculous. Surely the factual nature of all those statements (if any) is not what is in question. If what's desired is more citations, a single, blanket "more citations needed" line at the top of the page ought to suffice as an invitation to add references and attributions. In the absence of a good response to your "group sense" request after a reasonable time has passed, I'd suggest removing all or nearly all the recently added tags.

Changing the subject to this page, could someone who knows how please add an index, to facilitate finding sections and skipping down to them? Hertz1888 19:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I added one. How's that? By the way, i think another rule with citations is that you don;t need to cite every fact in an overview, if the facts can be readily found in more specific articles. that's why you don't always need to cite the fact that water is H2O, the capital of the USA is Washington, DC, etc, etc. --Sm8900 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, this article is in definite need of real editing ...

I hope some fair and objective mind can help edit this article. A look at the section on Palestinian refugees for example shows some heavy pro-Israel bias. The claim that Palestinians have left voluntarily in 1947-8 has been demolished by serious academic work (Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, Walid Khalidi, Avi Shlaim, etc.) _{the unsigned comment was made by IP 85.90.69.35}

user "IP 85.90.69.35", i suggest you first create an account if you wish people to give more validation/respect/similar to both your words and your edits. i also suggest you refrain from making wikipedia into a soapbox via talk page attacks against invisible "enemies".^{Back off !!!} and vandalism^{poor Israel victimized}. as for the recent edits you've made in the article, some seem good and some are written argumentativly and without proper sourcing.. i suggest you go over them and try to fix where possible/yousee fit. Jaakobou 16:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Revert

I have been advised to explain my recent revert of 85.90.69.35's recent edits. I have reverted these because, as a whole and individually, they seemed to be a perfect example of Vandalism. While much of what this anonymous editor had to say may be true, the sources he cited (when he cared to cite sources) did not substantiate his claims. He added material that was sloppily writted, unsubstantiated, and obviously in the wrong section. For example, he argued that Palestinian security was not a major issues in the "Major Issues" section. I hope that no one is objected to my revert. Screen stalker 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agreed wholeheartedly with your revert for the obvious reasons you cited above. This was an obvious case of POV pushing vandalism. --GHcool 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments were reverted because they are not politically acceptable to the www.giyus.org crew. Why has my adding that 700,000 Palestinians were made homeless in 1948 been reverted for example ? That is an essential fact for understanding the current conflict, even if you believe in the fairy tale that they left voluntarily. Is mentioning "Palestinian security" POV ? Come on you guys, it's a fact that more Palestinians than Israelis have died since the conflict started ! It's quite cynical and perverted to focus only on Israeli security. And why the hell was a link to a UN map of the West Bank removed ?!! Maybe because Israel is evidently the expansionist, colonial party in the conflict, as is obvious from the map ? I guess I'm too weak to struggle on my own against the whole Zionist cybercommunity and I guess it's also a waste of time ... do as you please. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! 85.90.69.35 09:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that claims this as a major issue? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

85.90.69.35, wikipedia has many opinions and differnt editors, please read what i wrote to you earlier and try to follow that suggestion rather than ignore it. I also reccomend you read Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#The_Question_of_Palestinian_refugees and see how assersions and thoughts are given validation by proper refrencing. Jaakobou 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Israel's supporters are putting a lot of effort in influencing public opinion. The simple reason for this: Israel is in obvious need of whitewashing for its criminal policies. Repeating that Hamas does not recognize Israel, that Palestinian terrorism is terrible and that Gaza's schoolbooks are malignant serves one purpose: distracting the attention from an ongoing occupation with expanding settlements, collective punishments of a subjugated population and the impossibility for Palestinians to form an autonomous state. This I wanted to visualize with a map from the Financial Times ... the Zionist cybercommunity has removed that of course as it is some damning evidence against Israel. In any conflict an interested observer would want to see the actual geography, no ? The tone of the article now is clearly pro-Israel: just count in the introduction how many times Palestinian non-recognition of Israel is mentioned and how many times the plight of Palestinian refugees and occupied populations is.85.90.69.35 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Because you are not yet a registered user of Wikipedia, you might not be familiar with all or any of Wikipedia's guidelines. For example, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, there is no cabal on Wikipedia. Wikipedia users also insist upon using reliable sources in articles and that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. I think I speak for everyone here when I say that currently the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very useful summary of the major issues in and the history of the conflict that satisfies. One thing we could work on with this article is to get rid of some or all of the "citation needed" superscripts, but that is pretty minor especially for such a broad topic like this one. There has been no attempt to "whitewash" anything here; the only thing we editors (from both sides of the conflict) "wash away" is stuff is personal editorials within the article that violate the neutral point of view guideline or information that is cited to an unreliable source or sources. --GHcool 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

wikilink standford

i've noticed that a refrence to standford was made in the "The_Question_of_Palestinian_refugees" subcat, but when i tried to fix this^[1] it did not resolve the issue. could someone more familiar with the article structure scan it for the stanford ref and fix this issue? Jaakobou 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

i may have solved the problem or made a big error. (the edit) - could someone go over this article?, i may look into it again later. Jaakobou 12:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Major Issues

I think this section needs to be rebalanced in a couple of areas. Firstly, the Palestinian Refugee section is 5 times larger than that of the Israel settlement section. Both are crucially important, and hence such a large disparity in content cannot be justified on a NPOV basis. Secondly, the Palestinian Refugee section is hardly balanced itself. A weak 'pro' argument takes up barely 70 words, with the other 400 taken up by a pro-Israeli 'con' position. I would proffer that the issue is far more complicated than this article would make out, and hence the paragraph needs to be rectified. Thanks Suicup 13:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as balance is concerned, I would argue that the Palestinian refugee problem is an infinately more important issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the Israeli settlements from a historical and human rights point of view, and that I am 99% sure that both sides of the conflict would agree with me on this point. On the other hand, I agree that the second paragraph in the refugee section with the bullet points can be trimmed. --GHcool 18:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because this article presumably is referring to the conflict in its present state. Both are deadlock issues. The issue of Israeli settlements is obviously hugely controversial. Both issues have separate articles, which are linked to via the 'main' template. This page is necessarily a collation of summaries. My point is that these summaries of the issues could be more balanced both in the size of the content, and the content itself. Suicup 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I tried adding a bit more. thanks. Steve, --Sm8900 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinian notion of a literal right of return is a deadlock issue, but the Israeli settlements are not. Israel is clearly willing to compromise on its settlement policy. See Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. --GHcool 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

While I accept that the Palestinian right of return issue is a larger issue than that of the Settlements, as long as Israel continues to build/expand settlements, that issue remains a deadlock. I don't really want to get into a discussion here re the virtues of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, suffice to say that there is no doubt that this is a controversial issue. Furthermore, you only have to look at Israeli settlement (the article the summary links to) to see that the current 'paragraph' is woefully inadequate at offering a summary of this issue. Two sentences (not including the sentence about the Gaza withdrawal) is both NPOV and intellectually dishonest. Finally, this logic should apply to the Refugee section anyway. Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a summary article. Thus all sections, especially those with a {{main}} template, should be summaries of the articles they link to, and should be a accurate and fair representation of those articles. In both sections this is not the case. Read the linked articles if you don't believe me. Suicup 05:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Tewfik reverted all my new material. Just wanted to note that. I feel this was unwarranted. --Sm8900 22:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900 I read your edits, and applaud your efforts. I think it is unfortunate that compromise cannot be achieved easily. Suicup 05:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Tewfik didn't revert all of Sm8900's new material. I think the way it is now is a pretty good, but I also thought Sm8900's unaltered version was also pretty good. Honestly, I don't think either version is better or less POV than the other. --GHcool 05:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes to Israeli Settlements. I will do so for Palestinian Refugees when I get some more time. Suicup 13:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) The issue of Israeli settlements is an obstacle to achieving peace, just as the issue of Palestinian refugees is, just as Israel's security from terror is. Let me put it this way: if the settlements didn't exist/Palestinians didn't care about them (ie they weren't an obstacle to be overcome) then peace would be a step closer. Enlighten me as to how my wording could possibly construed as NPOV, especially since this position is repeated in other relevant articles. Suicup 09:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I didn't revert all you material, but parts of it were extremely problematic and used language like "colonial" and "usurper", were unsourced, and dealt with issues already present. As for "obstacle" vs "factor", the first is the position of both sides and is not agreed upon universally, while everyone acknowledges the latter - hence that is the neutral phrasing. Tewfik^Talk 09:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That settlements' existence is the reason there isn't peace might be our analysis of the situation, but it is not an objective and undisputed fact. Tewfik^Talk 09:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know what edits your referring to but I certainly didn't make any with 'colonial' or 'usurper' in them. Secondly, lets not beat around the bush here. In the context of the wider issue, as well as this article, the issue of Israeli settlements is an obstacle to peace. How can they be a factor and not an obstacle? You are merely obfuscating. Suicup 10:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suicup, you are promoting a POV. Another POV is that the real obstacle to peace is Arab (in particular, Palestinian) leadership's intransigence and propaganda of hatred. There is plenty of evidence. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Israeli settlement issue is the obstacle to peace, i'm saying it is an obstacle to peace. It exists as a subsection in 'Major Issues'. An issue is not Major unless it presents an obstacle to peace. Can you explain to me why that is POV, without telling me simply that it is? Also, i'm reverting the sentence, so that it remains that way until this dispute is resolved here, as it should be. Suicup 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, the question here is not whether settlements are an obstacle to peace (since they are not). The question is whether they are an issue in this diplomatic process. (and whether Palestinians believe that settlements are an obstacle). They certainly are an issue, and that is how they should be included here. --Sm8900 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't read Suicup's edits until just now. Suicup, I totally disagree with you. Just wanted to note that. thanks. --Sm8900 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit protect

{{editprotected}} Why is a POV phrase still used in the version which was protected? Please change the words " key obstacle to a peaceful resolution," in the section on Israeli settlements, to "a major issue of contention." Thanks. --Sm8900 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Accusation: "The issue of Israeli settlements is an obstacle to achieving peace, just as the issue of Palestinian refugees is, just as Israel's security from terror is. Let me put it this way: if the settlements didn't exist/Palestinians didn't care about them (ie they weren't an obstacle to be overcome) then peace would be a step closer." - Suicup 09:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Reality:In the opinion of many, many intelligent and informed people, the Israeli settlements are not on "obstacle" to peace meaning. These people cite the proposed dismantling of 63 settlements as part of the Palestinian sovereignty over 97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip in exchange for peace in the Camp David 2000 Summit. Yasir Arafat rejected this deal.[2] Therefore, according to the logic of the argument, Israeli settlements must not be a significant obstacle to peace because Israel was willing to dismantle them in exchange for peace and the Palestinians rejected this offer. If Israel had offered to nullify all Palestinian parking tickets in exchange for peace, Arafat would have had the same response: rejection of the deal because Palestinian parking tickets are not an obstacle to peace. Of course, this metaphor is tongue-in-cheek because Israeli settlements is a significant factor in Israeli-Palestinian relations while Palestinian parking tickets are not (and not even administered by Israel since the early 1990s).

The second argument against the term "obstacle to peace" in reference to Israeli settlements is the 2005 unilateral Gaza disengagement. The logic was that if the settlements are an "obstacle to peace," and because the maintainance of the settlements are costly and problematic for Israel, it would be best for all sides if Israel would remove this obstacle with the hope that doing so will foster trust on the Palestinian side and with the world that Israel is a reasonable partner for peace. The disengagement was carried out like chemotherapy in a cancer patient: bravely going forward with a process that hurts as much as it is intended to heal without any guarantees that this process will cure the problem. Unfortunately, the disengagement did not cure the problem. Palestinians in general (and Hamas in particular) interpreted the disengagement as a victory made possible through terrorism and vowed to continue terrorism to bring about more and even greater victories in the future. As of this writing, more than 1,000 Qassam rockets have been fired from the Gaza Strip into civilian areas of Israel proper. These shellings began before the disengagement and became more frequent after the disengagement. Therefore, it is plain to see that the presence or non-presence of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip (and one can infer the West Bank as well) is nothing more than a contentious factor in Israeli-Palestinian relations unrelated to a final, lasting peace. --GHcool 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with my friend GHcool, and as usual I appreciate his insight. However, I think the main point is that calling anything an "obstacle to peace" means you are already condemning one of the parties, and creating POV. it's better to acknowledge that an issue is strongly disputed, and thus to not agree with either party, either the one which DOES consider it to be an obstacle to peace, or the one which does NOT consider it to be an obstacle. thanks. --Sm8900 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. Sm8900 might have a point here. However, I disagree with what his suggestion in principle. I can think of several true "obstacles to peace," for example, I am pretty sure that even Hamas would agree that Palestinian terrorism is a major obstacle to peace. However, a statement like that would be considered original research on Wikipedia and so Sm8900 might be correct in saying that "factor" is the better word in all cases. --GHcool 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the non-Palestinian obstacles to peace? Suicup 08:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, GHcool, I find it insulting and bad form that you insinuate that I am neither intelligent nor informed. As for both of your points, you are oversimplifying the issues, especially by claiming 'the reality'.

• Firstly, the camp david deal was in the past and thus doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. There has been much water under the bridge since then (al-Aqsa intifada anyone??). Also, given the issue of the barrier etc it is absurd to claim that Israel is as keen now to bargain away all the Settlements as you seem to suggest. Thus, given the present status of the issue, it is an obstacle.
• Secondly, it was not 97%, and the land which was excluded was not just an arbitrary area. This is especially poignant when you consider the issue of East Jerusalem. Furthermore, the fact Israel (rightly or wrongly) refused to give up 100% of the territory, and hence all the settlements, is further evidence that the issue presents an obstacle to peace. If it wasn't an obstacle, why not offer the lot?
• Thirdly, I disagree with your analysis of the Gaza pullout, especially with language like 'bravely' etc. One could argue that Sharon, being a highly intelligent strategist, realised that Gaza was simply the price to pay in order to be able to keep the true prize of the West Bank. Thus, the disengagement plan was not generous at all, but rather a calculated realpolitik. Hence, this event cannot be used to justify your position.
• Fourthly, as for you 'parking ticket' analogy, you incorrectly assume that only one obstacle (the parking tickets) stands in the way of peace. Perhaps following your example, Arafat denied the deal because even though the parking ticket obstacle had been overcome, other obstacles remained, hence the deal could not be accepted.
• Finally, the reason any issue here is 'major' is because it highlights significant disagreements between the two sides. By definition, these disagreements imply an obstacle to be overcome in order to facilitate the end goal of peace. Even with the points you have made, I fail to see how any major issue cannot be considered an obstacle, requiring compromise and negotiation in order to be overcome. Suicup 09:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Suicup,

the biggest obstacle to peace is the fact that the majority of Palestinians hate Israel, and never object to the violence which they call "legitimate resistance." Palestinians who visit Tel Aviv or Jerusalem can expect to find work, food, health care, and fair treatment. Jews who visit Ramallah or Nablus can expect to be immediately and viciously attacked (G-d forbid). Additionally, Palestinians consider Israel a bully which stole every inch of land it currently possesses, and which has few if any legitimate rights to statehood or security. Do you disagree with that opinion of theirs? Fine, then you understand why I say the Palestinians don't want peace. The settlements are a point of dispute because that land is disputed. Palestinians will have to get used to the idea that this needs to be resoved through open discussion, not by always painting Israel as the aggressor. That is why the phrase needs to be changed, in addition to other parts of the wording. --Sm8900 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians' opinion of the existence of Israel is irrelevant to the discussion, because both 'obstacles' can coexist. I don't deny that mutual recognition (especially on the palestinian side) is a major and probably the biggest obstacle to peace. You don't need to enlighten/convince me of other obstacles, nor the ones which you think are the most important - i would probably agree with you. I'm simply saying that the issue of Israeli settlements is an obstacle to peace, not a POV statement. Suicup 14:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree, and I appreciate your helpful and positive attitude. However, sorry to harp on this, but the only obstacle to peace is war, and hatred. those are obstacles. Any legitimate goal, desire or concern of either side is simply an issue. Palestinians want a state, and do not consider the negotiations to be useful unless they get one eventually. Is their desire for a state an obstacle to peace? No of course not, even if some Israelis think it is, because the desire for a state is a legitimate issue, and a legitimate topic for discussion. I would not permit anyone to label the Palestinian desire for a state, or any legitimate desire or valid claim on their part an obstacle to peace. That is why we should not label the settlements that way. They are not an offense against Palestinians, they are a legitimate issue for discussion and negotiation. --Sm8900 14:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says that opinions cannot be stated as fact, and must be attributed to those who hold them. WP:V says that opinions must be sourced. That should solve the problem; follow policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I don't understand you. The entire point of this section is saying that the statement (ie use of the word obstacle) is not an opinion, and that it is NPOV. Are you here to tell me simply that this is unacceptable, or are you able to say why? Simply touting rules does not resolve the issue. Suicup 03:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg , I now understand what you are saying, and would like to 'source' this point. However given the article is now protected, how do you propose I proceed? Thankyou. Suicup 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Suicup, I did not insinuate that you were either uninformed or unintelligent. I simply restated an accusation you made and then refuted it. Such is the nature of a debate/disagreement. I'm sorry you took it so personally, but that was not my intention nor my fault and I take no responsibility for your feeling "insulted."

Now that that's out of the way, I am sorry to say that I am extremely disappointed in Suicup's rebuttals to my claims. I did not insinuate that Suicup was uninformed before because I didn't have any reason to believe that he/she was, but now I have plenty of reason to believe so. Suicup's rebuttals fall into three categories:

• Those that actually serve to prove my points more than it proves whatever point Suicup is trying to make. These are Suicup's Rebutals #1 and #4.
• Red herrings. These are elements of Suicup's Rebuttals #1, #2, and #3.
• Uninformed statements. These are elements of Suicup's Rebuttals #2 and the entire Rebuttal #3.

There also seems to be confusion as to what an "obstacle" is as opposed to a "factor." The following are the relevent definitions of the terms quoted from the Random House Webster's Collage Dictionary:

• "factor ... one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation" (477).
• "obstacle ... something that interferes with or prevents action or progress and must be removed, overcome, or bypassed" (935).

I think we can all agree that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and (previously) the Gaza Strip are "elements contributing to" the current "situation" that must be considered in obtaining a "result" (peace), and thus they are factors. I don't think as many of us would agree that the Israeli settlements "must be removed" because they "interfere with or prevent" peace. History does not support that statement, for if it did, one would expect a decrease in hostilities toward Israel coming from Gaza starting directly after the Gaza withdrawl and Arafat might have appreciated the 2000 deal a bit more than he did. Instead, on both occasions, compromising the settlements was met with increased hostilities. Therefore, it is not objective to say that the Israeli settlements are an "obstacle" to achieving peace. --GHcool 05:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mate, don't obfuscate your intention. In the opinion of many, many intelligent and informed people, the Israeli settlements are not on "obstacle" to peace meaning. It is perfectly clear you were insinuating that I wasn't intelligent or informed, because that statement implies that anyone who believes it is an obstacle is neither intelligent nor informed.

As for your definition, you pick and chose parts of it yourself. An obstacle is something which must be "removed, overcome, or bypassed" (your words). You selectively only chose removed as the basis of the definition, when it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the settlement issue is something that could be 'overcome' or 'bypassed', and hence is an obstacle. The Settlements issue must be overcome in order for peace to occur, and hence they must be classified as an obstacle. Furthermore, your Gaza rebuttal is a red herring, for the reasons I used above. Furthermore, you're the only one using the straw man argument that the only way to overcome the Settlement obstacle is to remove them. If you think my reasons are uninformed, you clearly haven't read enough about the issue, or else your judgment is not critical enough. Suicup 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As others have commented above, this is clear-cut -- it is not a fact that the settlements are an obstacle but rather an opinion -- whatever effect the settlements have on the peace process is a matter of opinion, and should be stated as such. Sm8900's phrasing is perfectly factual.--Doron 10:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate and respected news outlets (such as the BBC), as well as governments (including the US), refer to the settlement issue as an 'obstacle to peace'. GHcool looks like he has simply copied this page verbatim. If you want me to source it, I will concede on that, however that doesn't change the fact that the Settlement issue is an obstacle to peace, and hence must be referred to as such in this article. Suicup 10:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine -- you can write "the settlements are viewed as an obstacle to peace by ...[ref][ref]...", I'm sure nobody would object if it is well-sourced.--Doron 12:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I had never seen that Mitchel G. Bard page before in my life, but now that I saw it, I am proud that Bard and I came up with our conclusions independently (Bard doesn't even cite the Gaza disengagement, which is the clincher of my argument). It further proves that I was correct, that "In the opinion of many, many intelligent and informed people, the Israeli settlements are not on 'obstacle' to peace." By the way, the fact that "many, many intelligent and informed people" agree on something, does not make someone who disagrees "unintelligent and uninformed." "Many, many intelligent and informed people" agree that Jesus was the son of God and was resurrected, but just as many intelligent and informed people agree that Jesus was not the son of God nor was he resurrected.

Secondly, Doron, Sm8900, Jayjg, and myself all agree that "obstacle" confuses the issue and has a very good chance of being interpreted in a way that would be unacceptable to WP:NPOV standards. I am sure even Suicup would agree on this point. "Factor," on the other hand, is a neutral term that does not have a bad connotation, while essentially saying the same thing: that in making a peace deal, both the Israelis and the Palestinians must consider what should be done with regard to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank (and previously Gaza). --GHcool 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why dodge the issue? You agree they both mean the same thing, however clearly obstacle is a more accurate term. What is this crap about obstacle having a 'bad' connotation? It is simply reflecting an issue which must be 'overcome' in order to advance an outcome. The vocabulary we use for this scenario is 'obstacle'. This is not a matter of politics or NPOV, but the English language! Suicup 23:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

I also above supported factor, which all sides agree on, over obstacle, which takes a position. I just don't see either the benefit or utility of such phrasing; will we have an "x says they are an obstacle, y says they are a factor, and z says they are neither"? Tewfik^Talk 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Suicup, I hope you understand what we are saying. it's totally fine for you to say "Palestinians consider setlements an obstacle to peace." That preserves the meaning of your text. To say they "are" an obstacle to peace is POV. thanks. --Sm8900 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But its not just Palestinians! As I said before, legitimate and respected news outlets (such as the BBC), as well as governments (including the US), refer to the settlement issue as an 'obstacle to peace'. Are they biased? Do they have some secret Palestinian agenda? I doubt it. What does concern me is that it seems this article is edited and controlled by a clique of pro-Israeli contributors, which makes editing it extremely difficult, as I have discovered in my last 2 attempts. Sm8900 I think you are a reasonable person, but given some of your comments here, you too sound like you are part of this clique. If every reasonable edit I make (and they are reasonable and NPOV) is going to have to be justified by pages of arguments spanning days and days, what is really the point? As a disclaimer, I am neither Jewish nor Palestinian, and so presumably have no 'inbuilt' bias. I am simply a keen scholar of history, committed to improving the articles on Wikipedia which pique my areas of interest. Suicup 23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As a disclaimer, I do believe that settlements are an obstacle for peace, an opinion which incidentally may be shared by other ultraintelligent people like myself, but only an opinion nonetheless. Even if every living creature in the galaxy held this opinion, it would still be only an opinion, and not a fact, unless you can predict the future and prove it scientifically that peace will not be achieved as long as there are settlements. You would find it easier to edit Wikipedia if you hadn't insisted on using unnecessarily biased phrasing and accusing those who disagree with you of being a pro-Israeli clique.--Doron 05:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. As I said above, I will concede to cite 'obstacle' with said sources (ie BBC etc). Again, as I said before, given that these mainstream, legitimate and respected information sources categorize the Settlements issue in this fashion, it is only reasonable that Wiki does also. In other words, I am willing to respect Wiki policy, but the principle remains the same. That the settlements are an obstacle is a verifiable fact. Suicup 06:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, where are the admins? At one point do they show up to acknowledge our request for an edit? thanks. --Sm8900 22:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they will -- unless I'm mistaken the reason why the page was blocked was probably an edit war about this particular issue. It may be unfortunate that the locked version is m:The Wrong Version, but it's probably going to stay that way until we resolve this dispute.--Doron 05:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Point by point again:

• I concede that the BBC called the Israeli settlements an "obstacle to peace,"[3] but, as I stated earlier, many intelligent and informed people would disagree with that description. I even concede that before the Gaza disengagement, the U.S. government's official policy was that the settlements were an "obstacle to peace" (before the disengagement, I myself even agreed on this point).[4] Whether these sources are biased or not is beside the point. The point is that Mitchell G. Bard,[5] Alan Dershowitz (in The Case for Israel), several Israeli journalist/columnists,[6] and several more intelligent and informed people agree that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace, and certainly not after the Gaza disengagement (I can look for even more reliable sources if you want me to, but I think I've made my point). Therefore, calling it an obstacle would be taking a stance (or POV) on an issue that is hotly debated.
• To state that "this article is edited and controlled by a clique" is frowned upon on Wikipedia and to imply that this alleged clique is a Jewish conspiracy says more about Suicup's biases than it does about anybody else's.
• I don't know if they are "inbuilt" or shaped through environment, but we all have biases. Certainly Suicup has his/her own as evidenced by his/her reference to an alleged Wikipedia version of The Elders of Zion (the famous Russian literary forgery that began the Jewish world domination paranoia that continues to this day in some circles). Suicup's previous postings do not lend credibility to his/her claim that he is "a keen scholar of history." --GHcool 06:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, I respectfully ask you to not put words in my mouth. I didn't say the article was controlled by a clique, rather that it seemed that way. I certainly made no mention, nor implied, anything about The Elders of Zion nonsense. My perception was shaped by the fact that many of the contributors (not just the ones present in this discussion) were (going by Userboxes) Jewish and/or Israeli. I acknowledge the spectrum of opinion within these groups, however their edits reveal their opinions. Naturally, if more people from a particular side are editing the article, it will tend to lean towards that side. Furthermore, if more people from a particular side are editing an article, then if a disagreeable statement is made, a 'majority' may be against the statement, when in fact this majority merely existed due to the unrepresentative sample of editors.

I challenge you to judge my edit history of this article (before this dispute), and show me where my so-called bias lies. I doubt you will find anything other than reasoned contributions.

That you concede that the BBC and the US govt's official stance is obstacle, and yet you refuse to put it in the article, implies that you believe these sources are POV and biased. If you really believe this then I think it is you who needs to have another look at what is regarded as NPOV. Suicup 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, point by point:

• I did not put words into Suicup's mouth. He/she stated twice now that he/she believes that there is a Jewish clique that controls this article and regularly and maliciously censors well cited, NPOV information that is against the hard line Israeli POV. In other words, there is a Jewish conspiracy here on Wikipedia. This is demonstrably false, especially in relation to this article and the Israel-related articles in general. If Suicup has any well cited, NPOV things he/she would like to add to the article, nobody would stop him/her.
• I do not accept Suicup's challenge because to detect a bias from his/her edit history because it is neither relevant to this topic nor would an absense of a detectable bias in past edits convince me or anyone else that Suicup is unbiased on the Israeli settlement issue.
• I am not the only person who believes that the BBC is biased in their coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am also not the only person who believes that the U.S. government is biased in its views on the Arab-Israeli conflict (although its bias is generally toward Israel rather than against Israel). I was once in complete agreement with the U.S. government's official stance: that the settlements represent an obstacle to peace. After the Gaza disengagement, I changed my mind; the settlements do not represent an obstacle to peace. They are nothing more than a factor in the conflict. Reasonable people have interpreted recent history similarly to how I have. I have not seen an official U.S. government document or spokesperson refer to the settlements as an "obstacle to peace" in anything after the August 2005 Gaza disengagement, which doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. government has changed its mind as well, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has. --GHcool 08:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, again you did. I said: What does concern me is that it seems this article is edited and controlled by a clique of pro-Israeli contributors. Note the words 'it seems' and 'this article'. However if you feel you need to invent things I have said in order to advance your argument, then be my guest. The reason I challenged you is that you think I am biased without looking at my other contributions to this issue. That is, you are judging a book by its cover. This would seem a foolish and premature way to go about things. Whether or not you think the BBC is biased is irrelevant. If it has been established that the BBC is a fair and reliable source (which going by its use on articles to do with these issues, as well as articles on Wiki generally), it is perfectly reasonable to use it in this case. Furthermore, this is all moot because at the end of the day, we are talking about an issue of the English language. That is, this is an issue which must be overcome or resolved in order for peace to be advanced. Thus by definition it is an obstacle. Your Gaza rebuttals (which I consider invalid if you conduct a more thorough analysis) do not change this point. Suicup 08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that this article is edited and controlled by a clique of pro-Israeli contributors. See my comments above.85.90.69.35 11:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me elaborate: Israel is not a country like any other. It has been created at the expense of people already inhabiting the lands around the year 1900. It has acquired international legitimacy at the UN much later, in 1948, but an essential fact is that the above mentioned people, whom we now call Palestinians, have never been consulted in a referendum or elections. A Jewish state in Palestine would never have existed without superpower (British, later American) involvement. Even now, Israel would not survive long without U.S. help. It is a fact that Israel has been imposed by force on the original inhabitants. Pro-Israeli commentators try to whitewash this by myths like "there was no such thing like Palestine before 1900" (by the same logic, more than half of UN members are not nations either, e.g. most sub-Saharan states, Pakistan, Jordan, East Timor, etc.) or "there were no people in Palestine in 1900" (too ridiculous to even contemplate, there are plenty of Ottoman archives who contradict this fairy tale). Considering Palestine as the natural homeland of the Jews is ideology and a matter of belief. I am mentioning this to emphasize that Zionism as such is controversial. The tone of the article is that Palestinians are completely wrong in refusing to recognize the state of Israel. Looking at the historical circumstances any population would have reacted in the same way. Even Ben-Gurion acknowledges in his diaries that no people have ever in history given up their land voluntarily, as he understood very well the militaristic nature of Zionism. Putting the recognition of Israel at the centre of the issue is wrong. You are then saying that the Palestinians are wrong for not accepting a régime that wants to get rid of them. That's Orwellian.85.90.69.35 12:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone is sure, I am not 85.90.69.35 Suicup 13:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not that the Palestinians are wrong if they refuse recognize Israel; everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, they sure are wrong in expecting Israel to make peace with them, if they refuse to recognize Israel. That's what making peace means; you each agree to accept each other's basic rights. This is one pitfall in the peace process; parties have to understand the basics befoie expecting the benefits.

Suicup, you're correct, I am part of that "clique" as you call it, if clique means those who remember Israel's basic rights and needs. (I understand you are simply trying to discuss this in an open way, and not saying it to be malicious or anything.) There is another clique, which believes Israel is totally illegitimate, and has no right to exist. No one here is seeking to allow only their own point of view, but merely to find phrasing which does not favors either point of view. --Sm8900 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point in your triumphalistic discourse. Non-recognition of Israel is repeated ad nauseam. The reverse, Israel recognizing the Palestinians' basic rights is not. (They never did, actually. At present it is impossible to create a viable Palestinian state). Clearly one point of view is favoured over the other. First step indeed is recognizing that both parties are equal. That's what's lacking. Israel dominating the whole of historic Palestine is now taken for granted.85.90.69.35 13:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir, you're correct that Palestinians deserve to have their basic rights recognized. you're correct that they deserve to have a decent lifestyle. You're even correct that there is more Israel can do in this area. The only thing we disagree on is whether all Israeli settlements can be broadly characterized as obstacles to peace. By the Palestinian definition, Jews living in the Old City of Jerusalem are "settlers". both sides need to learn to recognize each other's claims a bit more.

By the way, when you put it that way, you make some good points. I understand and accept your phrasing, even if I don't entirely agree with it. I do agree though that both sides deserve to have their legitimate needs and concerns presented here. That is basic to simple objectivity --Sm8900 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Israel in the position to make any demands right now ? With its immense military superiority and totally controlling the lives of the weaker party ? I guess might makes right.85.90.69.35 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I typed a request for unprotection at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection. This is getting ridiculous. why have no admins come by? thanks. --Sm8900 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, I've taken note of your request for unprotection and/or add significant edits to this article. I'm reluctant to unprotect it yet, as I don't see evidence of an agreement between the involved editors at this Talk page; however, I'm willing to hear which edits you wish to be made to this article. Please let me know at this talk page the exact contents of the proposed additions, and whether they are agreed upon by those taking part in this discussion. Best regards, Phaedriel - 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for your reply. I accept what you say about the current discussion and/or dispute. My real concern was that no admins had come by before at all, so i felt there was no clear process for requesting or discussing how to make changes. This helps us to have a much clearer process. thanks again for your note. --Sm8900 14:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. At this point, my suggestion is that we all stop editing or commenting on this article at all (except maybe the words "I disagree," if it looks like something really one-sided is about to be added). At some point, they will unprotect it, if no one does anything at all. thanks. --Sm8900 14:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GHCool, I think your approach is very constructive. the main reason for my suggestion was I felt this article was being held to a slightly incosistent standard. Plenty of articles are the focus of dispute and contention. However, generally admin step in only when there is ongoing 3RR or edit warring. In this case, it seems to me we had an extremely civil and open discussion, thanks to civil heads on both sides, yet admin still decline to unprotect the article, and also decline to help move things along. So I thought maybe we should simply take a break in editing the article, and after that proceed cautiously, with the awareness that both sides should not seek to attract too much attention. However, I am happy to support any constructive effort, such as GHcool's. thanks. --Sm8900 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900, I like your suggestion in theory, but I think you or I or Tewfik or Jayjg or anyone else following this debate except Suicup will immediately change the POV language to NPOV language the minute this article is unblocked. Then Suicup will change it back and and edit war will begin (unless Suicup drops the issue sooner rather than later). --GHcool 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of stopping to edit and comment, I'm going to lay out the proposed changes as Phaedriel asked:

Proposal: "obstacle" → "factor" (see new proposal below also)

The uncited statement, "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are a key obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict," (emphasis added) should be changed to "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem represent a key factor in discussions for a peaceful resolution of the conflict" (emphasis added).

• Support Many, many intelligent and informed people do not agree that the settlements represent an "obstacle" to peace. These people make an argument from history showing that on two occassion (the Camp David 2000 Summit and the 2005 Gaza disengagement), Isreali concessions on the settlement issue were met with increased hostility and violence on the Palestinian side. There are plenty who agree with this analysis, therefore calling the settlements an "obstacle" would be favoring one POV over another. --GHcool 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support NPOV phrasing.--Doron 06:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Support. I propose the following: "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are a key obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict." 1. The BBC is a fair, detached and respected information source; it is also used as a fair source in other articles to do with this subject matter on Wikipedia. 2. The rebuttals put forward by GHcool (ie Gaza withdrawal etc) do not stand up to thorough analysis. 3. I can provide other mainstream reliable sources if necessary to show that 'obstacle' is what is in widespread use, as opposed to being a POV statement. 4. It is simply common sense to use 'obstacle' as that is the more grammatically correct term. Suicup 08:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I completely disagree with the use of a 'poll' to determine the outcome of this dispute. It is highly unsatisfactory. Polls are only useful if you have an appropriate sample of people participating - this clearly isn't the case here. Suicup 08:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support per GHcool. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose all the evidence suggests that Israel has aggressed it's neighbors in every case (other than 1973). Building settlements on occupied territory is universally considered (including by US and Israeli sources) as being illegal[7]. PalestineRemembered 20:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I would say they are an obstacle, and in fact you can even reference that sentence to this Haaretz editorial, which states: "All the public opinion polls have shown for years that there is broad public support for reducing the settlement enterprise, which is considered the main obstacle to peace agreements." or this Jeruslem Post article which says "The US and other foreign governments do not recognize the settlements, and consider settlement construction an obstacle to Mideast peace." Number 57 10:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose They are certainly an obstacle, among others of course (including Palestinian factors) to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Because of these settlements thousands of dunams of land are confiscated from Palestinian localities, they are the primary reason for heavy Israeli security and military bases in the West Bank, roadblocks and military checkpoints are instated because of them and in some rare cases such as the incident at the Ibrahimieh Mosque they pose a physical threat to the Palestinians. Above all the United Nations consider them illegal. Al Ameer son 16:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support "factor" if "obstacle" is regarded as POV. "Obstacle" is suggestive of inflexibility and lack of progress. "Stumbling block" may be a compromise between the two. But "factor" is very neutral. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, by which I mean that 'obstacle' contains information that 'factor' does not. 'Obstacle' indicates that some form of resolution to disputes over settlements is likely to be needed before an overall solution is found. 'Factor' implies nothing of the sort. If a Ha'aretz editorial uses the word, I imagine it should be acceptable. Certainly the implication (that the settlement issue being -er- settled is a prerequisite) does not strike me as in any way a violation of NPOV.) Hornplease 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support per NPOV. And replace POV term "settlements" with "communities". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, since constructing a sentence where X believe they are an obstacle, while Y merely acknowledge they are one of several factors seems ridiculous to me. Tewfik^Talk 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support per NPOV. WP usually can rise up above POV and the BBC anti-Israel bias. I agree that the word 'obstacle' does not entirely construe POV but it nonetheless conveys that they are some sort of negative roadblock. I ask all 'oppose' people to tell me why then it will not be justified for Palestinian right of return to become an obstacle as well. Presently, that word does not appear once on that article. --Shuki 07:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Shuki. In fact, i think we should rephrase that to "arabs and palestinians claim...." since others who use these wordings are simply echoing the palestinian narrative. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• oppose both wordings there is no one prove for this highly assumptionary statements, like there is any connection between the settlements (like many europeans and radical left wing israelis claim) and the terrorist actions that Palestinians Arabs take against Israelis. Actually, the Hama’s bedrock state that all the Jewish people within Israel should be killed and that a Muslim world regime is the final goal.--Gilisa 13:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Partial support. I support, per NPOV. However, I would rather see this entry use the phrase "a key issue of contention," to convey some of the overall dynamics, rather than "key factor". --Sm8900 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support per GHcool. 6SJ7 16:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support far less POV to say factor.--Sefringle^Talk 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Doron. Isarig 03:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: A simple search shows clearly that the majority of the relevant actors on the issue (international community, international court, US, EU, international and israeli HROrg, etc.) consider the settlements an obstacle. Should we avoid using obstacle because 2 references consider that no such an obstacle exist? Sorry, but that is not NPOV. I propose the "New Proposal" below, which gathers who considers the settlements an obstacle and who does not.--Jorditxei 10:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Obfuscating factual description -DePiep 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, It's not up to an encyclopedia to undisputedly decide what has been an obstacle in any case. --Shamir1 20:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - obstecle is not NPOV. Zeq 05:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for text

Hi all. I would like to offer my response to this poll as the following idea for some possible text, which might address concerns of both sides. How does this sound?

The presence of Israeli communities in the West Bank, termed "settlements" by Palestinians, is one of the main sources of contention and hostility in this conflict. Palestinians consider the West Bank to be entirely the rightful possession of the Palestinian Authority.

Israeli communities in the West Bank range from large towns to small outposts in remote sites. Palestinians view all Israeli communities in the West Bank as settlements, and consider them intrusions and unjustified use of Palestinian land. Palestinians state that Israeli settlements use up vital resources, and give the Israeli Army a pretext to blockade vital roads and block Palestinian travel and access.

Israelis state that some settlements are the result of natural population growth, as there was no accepted diplomatic settlement which defined which land was open or closed to Israelis. There is debate in Israeli society as to how many settlements should be retained in any final diplomatic resolution.

Let me know. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this a lot, but I would modify the first paragraph by one word. Consider: "The presence of Israeli communities in the West Bank ... is one of the sources of contention and hostility in this conflict" as opposed to "one of the main sources." --GHcool 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

HI GHcool. Your suggested edit sounds fine, and of course I would be willing to go along with it. Obviously, I also hope to see what others think, and hopefully we can get some sort of consensus for a new draft. Of course, if my suggestion is just a starting point, and we end up with something much different, I'm totally fine with that. I'm going to be out of touch for a few days, but please feel free to leave any comments here. thanks. --Sm8900 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi I think your proposal could still be improved with a more NPOV by including the opinion of the international community on the issue. As far as I know, the majority of the international community have expressed "discontent" and some have even called illegal the israeli settlements [8], [9]. For example the ICJ in The Hague, UN Resolution 242 (which Israel interprets as calling for a withdrawal from territory as part of a negotiated peace and full diplomatic recognition) would point on this direction [10]. In my opinion this information should be included, otherwise, I understand the wording of your proposal as assuming that the discussion on israeli settlements is a one opinion (palestinian) against the other (israeli), with both having an equal weight. I think that this would not be respectful of the NPOV because I think most of the international community have condemned (to a different extent) israeli settlements, against the opinion of (mainly) Israel. From my point of view this information should be included in your proposal for it to be completely neutral. On this particular issue I think the palestinian point of view has got more international support than the israeli one and this should be reflected.--Jorditxei 02:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jorditxei may have a point, but there is nothing in the content or interpretation of the Resolution 242 that applies to the issue of the Israeli settlements. --GHcool 05:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong but the Resolution's most important feature is the "land for peace" formula, which calls for israeli withdrawal from "territories" it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors, which was more or less the debate here: had israeli settlements in pre-1967 Palestina been an obstacle for peace or a key factor in peace negotiations? Many have interpreted Resolution 242 in this way. Many countries, the International Court of Justice, many lawyers, etc. have considered israeli settlements in Palestina a violation of international law. Don't you think the text should say something about it (maybe without Resolution 242 if I am wrong)? --Jorditxei 11:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that text totally whitewashes the issue: "Israeli communities in the West Bank, termed "settlements" by Palestinians"? That suggests that only the Palestinians call them settlements! Everyone with the exclusion of right-wing Israelis call them settlements! " Palestinians consider the West Bank to be entirely the rightful possession of the Palestinian Authority.", again this is a situation only opposed by the Israeli right. Number 57 11:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now even the word "settlements" seems to have become contentious. I have never heard anyone in Israel - including the most extreme rightwingers - refer to them as anything else.

I think the problem with this paragraph - and, in fact, the problems throughout the article - could be greatly mitigated by quoting someone, instead of making a general statement. "Many analysts—including Israelis—consider Israeli settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be "a major obstacle to peace."<ref>(find the quote in Haaretz)</ref> --Ravpapa 18:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I've heard "settlements" called "neighborhoods" before, but I agree that its dishonest and a deliberate blurring of the issue by the Israeli right-wing. I would never go so far as challenging the NPOV of the word "settlement."

Secondly, If we say "many analysts ... consider Israeli settlements to be a key obstacle," we must also say that "many analystst do not consider Israeli settlements to be a key obstacle!"[[11][[12] Why don't we just avoid the POV all together and write in neutral terms? --GHcool 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What, like "The US and other foreign governments do not recognize the settlements, and consider settlement construction an obstacle to Mideast peace."? If every country shares this belief it's not really POV, is it. Number 57 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So far I think we agree on the fact that it is not only palestinians who call them settlements. On the second issue I don't think we can give the same weight to the analysts that view the settlements as an obstacle than to those that do not view them as an obstacle. The NPOV says: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". Analysts that consider settlements as not being an obstacle to peace are just a minority and mainly Israeli. I do not know one of the references GHcool gives but I do know the jewish virtual library and personally I think the point of view of it is far from being neutral. Just take a look at what the jewish virtual library thinks about the palestinian refugee problem here. All their arguments have been denied by contemporary research made by the so-called New Historians (which is the majoritarian point of view of international and jewish historians on the issue nowadays, we like it or not) and is based on jewish intelligence documents and recently desclassified documents. In spite of that, the jewish virtual library continues to deny this research and promotes the traditional official israeli version. Therefore the opinion of the jewish virtual library should be taken with caution. This said, I dont see the problem in calling the settlements an obstacle to peace: palestinians think that land is theirs and israelis think is theirs so given that both are unable to give up those demands they do are an obstacle to peace. What is the problem with saying they are an obstacle? I would propose: "Palestinians and the international community...consider Israeli settlements to be a key obstacle. Israeli analysts do not" But I don't think we can give those two versions the same weight because they do not have it in reality.--Jorditxei 19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been many arguments on Talk:Hezbollah in which one party wants to call the group a "terrorist organization" and the other party insists on call them a "militia" or "resistance movement" or some other neutral term. The first party always loses these arguments because NPOV (and WTA) guidelines forbid it even though a majority of analysts, press, historians, and simple common sense show that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah's status as a "terrorist" or "resistance" organization is much less controversial in international politics as whether or not Israeli settlements are "obstacles to peace." Therefore, it seems unfair at best and malicious at worst to interpret Wikipedia guidelines strictly for one article and laxly for another article. --GHcool 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat the quote again: "The US and other foreign governments do not recognize the settlements, and consider settlement construction an obstacle to Mideast peace." And this was written in a right-wing Israeli newspaper. Pretty hard to argue against really. Number 57 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against that. I concede that the "US and other foreign governements do not recognize the settlements, and consider settlement construction an obstacle to Mideast peace" (or at least, they did before the Gaza disengagement). But does that mean that nobody else doesn't consider the settlements an obstacle to peace? Certainly not and I have websites, quotes, and books to prove it. Thus, it is a POV statement. --GHcool 20:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Who doesn't think so apart from a minority of right-wing Israelis? You can find a minority of people against any statement or fact (like there are millions of Arabs who deny Israel is a country but we don't start the Israel article with "Israel is an entity"), but that doesn't make it POV. Number 57 20:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you two Americans, Mitchell G. Bard and Alan Dershowitz (a left-wing writer), who don't consider the settlements to be a "key obstacle to peace." I am not a notable person nor a reliable source, but I am also an American that doesn't consider the settlements to be a "key obstacle to peace" (and I am as left-wing as Dershowitz). I am sure that I can find several more who would agree. This is speculation, but I think that even the US government would agree that the settlements are not a "key obstacle to peace," but, as far as I know, they haven't made any public statements about the settlements' relationship to peace since before the Gaza disengagement and so their stance on the issue has not been "updated." --GHcool 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As someone pointed out earlier, Bard is compromised by the Jewish Vritual Library thing. Derschowitz I can accept, but we are talking about one analyst versus official government policy; I don't think the two should be given equal weight. Number 57 20:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to interject here, but I don't think I can let this pass: Neither Bard nor Dershowitz should be considered representative of mainstream thinking on the Middle East policy in US academia. Dershowitz in particular is completely outside the foreign policy establishment as well as the international relations circuit. A clause that uses his name to say "..some scholars have started thinking differently..." would be guilty of mainstreaming marginal work. Hornplease 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. How about along these lines: "For years, the issue of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has generally been described as an obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.[provide citations here] However, recent history has shifted this opinion among many scholars and commentators.[provide citations here]." Would this be acceptable? --GHcool 22:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Change the "many" to "some" and that would be acceptable. Number 57 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How about changing "many" to "several?" According to Webster's, "several" means "more than two but fewer than many." --GHcool 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Number 57 10:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"The issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and originally the Gaza Strip, has generally been described as an obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.[provide citations here] While recent history has shifted this opinion among several scholars and commentators[provide citations here], the general consensus has not changed." Thoughts?

Looks good to me. Number 57 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is starting to get a little frustrating. We in the pro-Israel group have given you a huge opening for compromise. we have made it clear we are open to text on ways that Israeli settlements are found burdensome to Palestinians. We have made clear we would be open to material on the ordinary plight of Palestinians. And yet--surprise, surprise--you would rather refer to UN resolutions which you think depict Israel as the bad guy, than provide material which would call attention to the situation of ordianry Palestinians. Why don't you write some paragraphs on how ordinary Palestinians consider it an unfair burden to have Israeli settlements nearby? Why don't you, even better, describe the conditions in the West Bank? But instead you would rather dwell on diplomatic details which allow you to paint the picture you want. I look forward to the moment when we can write a real entry which gives the attention to the real day-today plight on both sides. --Sm8900 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am frustrated too, but we are so close to a compromise that I don't think now is the time to vent. And I don't consider myself a member of the "pro-Israel group" any more than I consider myself "pro-Palestinian." I just want the facts to be written from a neutral point of view. --GHcool 03:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I am willing to accept the compromise which you are working towards, above. Thanks for your efforts. --Sm8900 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but who is the pro-Palestinian group here? I am a neutral, and I don't see anyone else making totally anti-Israeli comments (in this section). If we have some people who are admittedly pro-Israel and some people are neutral making a compromise, then the result is something which is still halfway to being pro-Israel! Number 57 10:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am adding this comment against my better judgment, since a compromise which I agree with is in the making. Nonetheless, I am not sure that ignoring the view that the settlements are not an obstacle is the right course. One of the reasons that compromise on this issue is so difficult is that there is a faction in Israel — a faction that wields considerable political power — that contends that a compromise on settlements would not make any meaningful contribution to peace. This faction's intransigence (pardon my POV) makes negotiation almost impossible. So presenting this view, I believe, gives the reader a better understanding of the intractability of progress toward a solution.

In general, it is the nature of this conflict that moderates on both sides believe they could reach a conciliation, but more vociferous (extremist?) parties on both sides prevent it. This is a point that I believe the article should make clear. --Ravpapa 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To Number 57, there has been several attempts by "pro-Palestinian" (or at least, "anti-NPOV") users on one side versus pro-NPOV (and one admited "pro-Israeli" that agreed with the majority of pro-NPOV users) on the other. Number 57, you were the first user that I believe is acting in good faith that thought the phrase "obstacle to peace" was appropriate in describing the settlements, and while I don't agree with you on this point, I am open to compromise.

To Ravpapa, I agree with you as well, but unlike some of the more outspoken settlers, we should be willing to compromise here on Wikipedia.

One thing I don't agree upon in the current text proposal is its lumping together the issue of the Israeli settlements the issue of sovereignty of East Jerusalem, which even the Palestinians said in the Oslo Accords would be dealt with as a seperate issue. I propose the following:

"The issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and, until 2005, the Gaza Strip has generally been described as an obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.[provide citations here] While recent history has shifted this opinion among several scholars and commentators,[provide citations here] the general consensus has not changed.[provide citations here]"

--GHcool 18:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Number 57 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'd like to extend my gratitude to Number 57 for his/her spirit of compromise. Now, who do we have to talk to to unblock this article? --GHcool 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

On my objections to specific citations being used to back up that sentence, please see my note above. I'd like to emphasise that any objection does not extend to the sentence itself, which is obviously acceptable if reprentative scholarship is found. Hornplease 00:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would BBC correspondents count as academic foreign policy and international relations scholarship? If the BBC is considered an acceptable source, so are other editorials and historical analysis from non-academic or non-specialists in the field. Mitchell G. Bard is a foreign policy analyst and U.S. academic if there ever was one. That's not debatable. Dershowitz doesn't have a PhD in international relations, but his POV on the issue is generally well-respected, informed, and representative of a large number of people. I'll try to find other sources besides Dershowitz, but I think we can agree that he's just as knowledgeable about the conflict as any BBC or Ha'Aretz editorialist. Also, let's not bicker about who is and who is not a "scholar" and just agree on citing reliable sources. --GHcool 00:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A false comparison. A Haaretz editorial represents a synthesis of the collective wisdom on the subject; the scholarly equivalent would be a survey article in Foreign Affairs. Bard's academic credentials are beyond reproach, but other people have objected to his professional associations as meaning he cannot be considered representative. (I am agnostic on that.) Dershowitz, while certainly well-known as a polemicist on the issue, cannot be considered by WP to be representative of scholarship on the issue, as he does not participate in it. Please tell me if that is sufficient clarification. Hornplease 01:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A newspaper editorial is not a WP:RS. Dershowitz is a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School who wrote a number of books on the subject, and like it or not, his views are notable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Humus sapiens that a "newspaper editorial is not a WP:RS" on the cold hard facts, but I disagree that a newspaper editorial from a reliable source (such as BBC and Ha'Aretz) cannot be used as a source for what how commentators have interpreted those facts. Dershowitz is considered a respected commentator on the facts. He is not a polemicist on the issue and indeed has been critical of settlements and other controversial Israeli policies. His views are at least as notable as any opinion piece in the BBC or Ha'Aretz. --GHcool 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a main article. This subject has been extensively covered. If we are reduced to reporting the views of someone who is not a scholar of international relations, then we are in trouble. I do not disagree that Dershowitz is a commentator, and respected by many. However, I do not believe that his status as a prominent civil libertarian with best-selling political books makes him more notable or quotable, particularly in a main article, than, say, a prominent linguist with best-selling political books. And certainly not as "some scholars have recently....". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 07:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to use the judgement "obstacle", then chronology of when it was used is crucial. Settlements weren't considered "obstacles" for the first 50+ years of this conflict, since they did not exist. At what points in the last 40 years were they so considered. Are the Gaza Strip settlements still considered to have been obstacles, even though they no longer exist? Only by preventing broad strokes can we begin to approach neutrality here. Tewfik^Talk 06:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting to be a little excessive in edit-protection. No one here has violated the 3rr rule, and there has been no warring, and a very civil discussion is already well under way. By any normal standard, this article should already be unprotected. It is not required to reach full complete agreement before an article can be unprotected. --Sm8900 04:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, one user did violate 3RR, while three established users all confirmed the consensus version. Unfortunately the Administrator chose to protect the page, an action reserved for mutual edit-warring, rather than even warning the user, who had previously violated 3RR. Tewfik^Talk 06:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"...and they're off" Tewfik^Talk 07:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

furthe text discussion

I've added the text we agreed upon using references from the Jerusalem Post, Yediot and Haaretz. However, it would be nice to have a reference for Alan Dershowitz's comments to follow the "While recent history has shifted this opinion among several scholars and commentators,^[44]" bit to give it some more weight. Number 57 08:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree that the opinion column in Yediot provides sufficient weight. We need a reference that backs up (a) the implication that its now a significant minority position, and (b) that some people have changed their minds. Did Ettinger always think that settlements weren't a major problem? We don't know, so the cite is misleading. Hornplease 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Personally I think these issues should have been resolved before the page was unprotected. Suicup 08:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, this is a fair point. I changed the statement to better reflect what the sources actually say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 Jul 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't. The haaretz article specifies "...broad public support for reducing the settlement enterprise, which is considered the main obstacle to peace agreements." That's a useful cite. And you have nowhere dealt with the fact that you need to establish that the settlements being irrelevant to peace is a significant minority position. Once again, quoting one or two scholars on their opinion will not do it - particularly not from a polemical website. I;m leaving the statement in for 24 hours pending your response and a possible reference. Hornplease 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't see where is said that settlements is not an obstacle to peace. The text in the article doesn't says so, am I wrong? Besides, I completely agree with you. --Jorditxei 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding our position. the reason we object to this statement is not based on any desire to dilute the whole settlements issue. I also believe it is a major source of contention between the two sides. However, saying it is a key obstacle to peace implies that there is nothing standing in the way of peace, other than Israeli actions. I know most Israelis disagree with this, for the simple reason that most of them want to see Hamas renounce its desire to formally eliminate Israel, before proceeding with negotiations. They also want to see Abbas achieve firm action against terrorists, before anyfurther negotiations.

I am not asking you to accept an ounce of the above, but I am asking you to understand that this is the problem we get into when we make broad sweeping stetaments like "a keyobstacle to peace" instead of "a major source of dispute." We also see many issues which are a major obstacle to peace, but we prefer not to entangle this entry in emotional stuff. What about the fact that Israelis cannot set foot in a single Palestinian town? What about the fact that Palestinian leaders consistenyl call for the downfall of Israel?

I understand that you feel all of the above is justified because you feel Israel has made no meaningful concessions, has trampled Palestinians rights, has made major efforts to trample human rights and the rule of law. I don't want to get into all that here. What I am saying is, please let's stay away from broad sweeping generalizations, and let's not be disingenuous about it. We can fully and completely convey the full force of your viewpoint, without resorting to phrases which undercut our ability to make this an entry which can allow the average reader to gain a full and fair understanding of issues and concerns on both sides. So let's try to adopt a phrase which is fair and accurate to both sides, yet still gives the concerns you raise the attention which, I will readily admit, they deserve. thanks. --Sm8900 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont read the sentence in the same way as you do. For me it does not mean that it is Israel's fault nor Palestine's. Instead, as I say above for me it says that Israel does not want to give up the settlements, Palestine does not want to give up the territory where the settlements are located so it is in this way that settlements are an obstacle to peace, but this does not say anything about wether the Israeli settlements are legitimate nor whether they are not. If I say that the refugee problem is an obstacle to peace, would you understand it is Israel or Palestine's fault? None of them, so why do you understand settlements as being Israel's fault? If the reader thinks Israeli settlements are legitimate then he will think it is Palestine's fault not to give up that territory, if instead he thinks it should be Israel who should give them up, then he will think it is Israel's fault. --Jorditxei 21:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the Palestinian demands that are an obstacle to peace, rather than the settlements? Your argument cuts both ways. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is correct that POV concerns are beside the point here. Noting something is an 'obstacle' is very far from assigning blame to some party. Kashmir is an obstacle to Indo-Pakistani peace, but that statement in itself assigns blame to neither party.

On an unrelated issue, I made a minor edit, which reproved GHCool for editing a particular point while discussion was ongoing, but without changing the the thrust of his added text, which I continue to dispute here. Jayjg, for some reason, seemed to see that as an attack on all editing, and has made some sort of massive revert. I'd just like to say that I clearly didn't call for that, nor was it in any way a justifiable response to my edit. Still, whatever. I have other things to do, such as digging to China with one hand, that are likely to prove more fruitful than to argue that point. Hornplease 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The current wording isn't perfect, but at least it's less horrible than before I edited it, and now stated in an NPOV way. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg , I think your edits were very bad form. Firstly, they bastardised the consensus version - yours reads like the minority view has equal weighting with the consensus view. Secondly (and worse) was the fact you didn't present the edits here before you did it. I have changed it back to mostly what was agreed upon. Furthermore, I agree with the points made by Hornplease. Suicup 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tewfik, the 'consensus' text was added in this edit ( 18:11, 9 July 2007 Number 57). Subsequent unilateral edits by User:GHcool and User:Jayjg, stealthily removed the the last bit. It was rightly reverted by User:Hornplease, who was also decent enough to use the talk page regarding this matter. As for why 'consensus has not changed' should stay (without citations): it has already been established that it is the consensus view (with recent ie 2007 citations). If that view hasn't changed, there is no onus to 'reprove' the same point. Suicup 09:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. So NPOV is your only goal. but you are unwilling to compromise even slightly with the many users who have a problem with your phrase. That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you are not trying to promote any specific point of view, then you shouldn't be this unable to work with the people who feel that this phrase does have POV issues. Your argument seems to have aself-contradiction. --Sm8900 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Suicup, the "last bit" was not "stealthily" removed, but, rather, deliberately removed. I've explained this to you before; you can't make these kinds of unsourced claims, and especially not claim them as fact. The material you have inserted is unsourced, and, indeed, unsourceable. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, if something is removed in combination with another edit, but the edit summary only refers to the other edit, then the removal has been conducted by stealth. If you remove something (as GHcool and you did) you should refer to it in the edit summary. Suicup 10:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the term "obstacle" is being debated above, and may be substituted by "factor" but don't get why you erase "the general consensus has not changed". This was accepted in the discussions above, given that the international community has condemned the settlements as illegal, the ICJ has also condemned the settlements, etc. etc. why won't you accept that there is majoritarian POV against those settlements? Could you provide any source indicating that there are even more authors and people considering the settlements as legal in order to support the text as it is now? Otherwise I think we should introduce once again that there is a clear majority arguing against those settlements. Whether you call them obstacle or whatever is being discussed above but not whether it is a majoritarian or minoritarian POV, which was already discussed and nobody seems to argue against it. So please provide any source in this sense or introduce the text: "the general consensus has not changed"--Jorditxei 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

According to whom is it the case that "the general consensus has not changed"? Please quote the source that says that. It's fine if you want to have a majority view leads, minority view follows, but you can't follow that up with a "but the majority is right" statement. Everyone gets their own say, but your favored views don't get two kicks at the can. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Favoured views? I, at least, have no horse in this race. You, presumably, do. That being said, is it the former arbitrator's considered opinion that views sourced as consensus don't get more mentions than minority views, even for the sake of clarity?

I will pass over the fact that your claim to have made something 'less horrible' is absolutely untrue, and is stated as fact without substantiation, and in an uncivil manner. Please attempt not to turn everything into a snapping match. See under Battlefield, Not, and all that. (There I go, digging to China, again.)

And finally, the Haaretz editorial states the consensus as of now. Most individuals should be able to realise that that is a source for the statement "the consensus has not changed", if, that is, they chose to be reasonable. Note that I am still looking for a citation that the view that settlements are not a major obstacle has become a minority opinion of sufficient significance! The absurdity of Israel-Palestine pages never fails to amuse. So many more references than, say, Nagorno-Karabakh, so much less actual information. Hornplease 20:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

the international community has done lots of things. The international community has condemned Israel up and down and left and right, while ignoring many worse dictatorships. the international community has also kept Palestinianbs locked in refugee camps for fifty years. Meanwhile, the Quartet, meaning the USA, EU, UN, and Russia, understand this is an issue to be discussed, not just some reason to castigate Israel. So how about reflecting the consensus of the foreign policy officials of all the major Western powers? --Sm8900 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that if the international community has condemned israeli settlements and so have done the majority of lawyers and historians that would be sufficient to say "there is a general consensus on the fact that Israeli settlements have been an obstacle to peace", but I see that ideology is stronger than arguments. Could you instead show me any evidence that would point to the fact that there is an equally important group of people arguing to the contrary to the whole international community please?--Jorditxei 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I guess that you think that if the international community has condemned Israel in spite of the US support to it, it is because there is some kind of anti-israeli and anti-semitic conspiracy in the UN and that Israel bears no responsability, am I wrong? --Jorditxei 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we simply believe that what the international community does can sometimes be motivated by pure politics, rather than reflect actual events on realities. There are many times that Israel conduct towards Palestinians has been flawed, both individually and as a group. Israel needs to show respect and sensitivity to Palestinians. However, that is flaw which is true of many nations in their relations with various groups. that does not make it right to condemn Israel as being some sinister source of all things bad, when other nations do much more to undermine Israel's basic right to exist and its safety and survival.

Also the international community's findings are not a true reflection of facts. Israel may sometimes mishandle Palestinian interests, but Irsael also provides jobs to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. i am notr saying one thing cancels out the other, but I am saying the international community does not have a lot of credibility. --Sm8900 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is the classical israeli propaganda: you criticise some aspect that has been criticised by the entire international community and Israel claims that you are trying to endanger its "safety and survival and its basic right to exist". Are you serious? When, why, how are israeli settlements, condemned as illegal by the international community, a necessity for its safety, survival and its right to exist? Please lets be rigorous.--Jorditxei 19:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they were; I simply said the international community does not have a lot of credibility when it cxomes to the rulings which it chooses to make, and which issues it chooses to discus and which to ignore. Frankly, I'm not the best person to ask on this. i hope others will also comment on why it is important to reflect both sides of this issue in similar levels, and why both sides have credibility. --Sm8900 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok I dont want to keep on talking on this issue. I may propose changes in future. Thnak you.--Jorditxei 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New proposal on wording "obstacle"

Sources calling the settlements an "obstacle to peace":

1. [13] [14]= US.
2. Security Council of the UN declares settlements a major obstacle to peace [15][16][17]
3. US Rabbis call for settlement freeze [18].
4. Human rights organisations calling the settlements illegal under international law and a major obstacle to peace [19], [20].
5. Israeli NGOs against house demolitions [21]
6. EU Presidency calls the settlements illegal and a major obstacle to peace [22][23]
7. International Court of Justice calls settlements illegal under international law [24] [25].
8. UK government regards settlements as an obstacle to peace and illegal [26]

Given that it appears that some editors have difficulties in acknowledging that there is a majority of relevant actors on the issue which view the settlements as an obstacle to peace, then my proposal is:

"The issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and, until 2005, the Gaza Strip has been described as an obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, by international media[27] [28], the international community, which in some occasions has called the settlements illegal under international law [29][30][31], [32], [33], the EU, which has opposed the settlements and considered them illegal [34][35], the ICJ which has considered them illegal under international law [36] [37], international and israeli human rights organizations[38][39], [40], the US[41] [42] and the UK[43]. Nevertheless, several scholars and commentators disagree, and cite recent historical trends to back up their argument, although this has not changed the view of the international community and the human rights organizations.

Comments are welcomed.--Jorditxei 10:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have reverted back to Number 57's original edit (the 'consensus version') in the hope that the page is protected until the dispute is resolved. Secondly, Jorditxei, I think we need to separate legality from obstacle, they are two different issues, and only the text of the latter is controversial in the article (as far as I know). Suicup 10:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with the introduction of sources that consider the settlements both illegal and an obstacle. Morevoer, take a look at the sources and you will see that most of the times they say things like: "the EU has described the settlements as illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace". Should we make a different paragraph on the issue of the illegality citing once again the same sources? I dont think that is the best way because both concepts are very linked: many consider that they are an obstacle to peace bcs they are illegal otherwise they wouldn't consider it an obstacle. On the wording of the proposal please feel free to change it because I am not a native english speaker. On your reversions, I think it would be better to wait until a new consensus is reached bcs the discussion on calling it "obstacle" or "factor" is still ongoing as you can see above. Thank you.--Jorditxei 11:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem so much with the phrase "obstacle to peace", as long as you say "Group X considers settlements an obstacle to peace," instead of "settlements are the main obstacle to peace, according to everyone in the world who is credible, smart and informed." By the way, this whole discussion of legality seems like baloney to me also, but I am letting the group of editors here as a whole address the issue, instead of responding to everything myself. --Sm8900 13:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we are not saying that "according to everyone in the world who is credible". What I am personally saying is that the "majority" think they are an obstacle. If you want my reasons, these are that the international community, the US, the EU, HRigths organizations from israel and abroad, the ICJ, the majority of commentators, etc. can be considered majority compared to 2 sources who (not surprisingly?) are:

1. Yoram ettinger[44] a former ambassador to Israel in Washington DC [45] and current member of the Ariel Policy Research, a center which (not surprisingly again?) says it is non-partisan but latter adds: "However, a true peace can only be obtained in the Middle East if Israeli security and national interests are safeguarded. A peace which will force Israel to its pre-1967 borders, i.e. losing those territorial assets critically needed for the very existence of the Jewish State(!!) will not be but a recipe for war."[46]. Wow, that is precisely what I call non-partisanism and neutrality!!
2. Mitchell G. Bard who writes in the jewishvirtuallibrary [47] a source which (not surprisingly?) is completely biased in favour of the pro-israeli arguments, if you don't believe me just take a look at (the title of the library and) what this pseudo library thinks about the palestinian refugee problem [48] their arguments don't even hold a review of a 16-year-old boy. Where are the arguments of the New Historians? Where the declassified documents of the IDF that deny what mister Bard says about expulsions?
   

Maybe now you understand why I consider that it is against WP:NPOV to give these two sources the same weight than the others? Could you please give me any other sources that could convince me of the fact that there are an equal number of actors involved that support the idea that settlements are not an obstacle than the number who do think they are an obstacle? Until you show me this, please forgive me and the other users for thinking that there is a majority of authors who do consider the settlements an obstacle. Thank you.--Jorditxei 14:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

gosh are settlements illegal according to the UN? Wowo, that seems like a really big deal. Wow. Gee, what else is illegal? Is throwing people in jail for speaking freely illegal? How about oppressing people of different ideologies? I guess that's not illegal, since the UN doesn't condemn countries which do any of those things.

This is why I don't see any benefit to throwing around the word "illegal" when discussing a conflict which has consumed the region for 50 years and affected lives on both sides. But go ahead, keep finding actions by israel which the UN calls illegal. --Sm8900 13:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No it is not only the UN, also the EU, the US, the HRO, the ICJ, and many more who do so. Would you rather prefer not to include the opinion of the UN on the issue? Would you argue in the same way if somebody wanted to erase that the UN accepted the partition plan of Palestine? Why are you and Israel against the opinion of the UN when it is defavourable and not when it is favourable, like when the voting of the partition plan? Should we also erase the information on the acceptance of the partition plan by the UN given that you seem to argue that the UN has no credibility nor importance on this field? Please respond to this question.--Jorditxei 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your point is valid. my only point was that the ruling of the UN is not critical to understanding this issue. the critical point is understanding the meaning of arguments and concerns on both sides. I do accept your point that UN rulings do have some relevance. I just feel UN condementation does not bestow a firm unamibguous ruling of "illegality." If it did, many nations could be consider to be doing illegal things. What about oppression, suppresstion of rights, etc, etc? i rarely see any such issue handled or described at Wikipedia with a simple label of "illegality." Howerver, you are right that such rulings are relevant. thanks. --Sm8900 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In which part of the text is the UN's opinion described as an unambiguous ruling of illegality? Nowhere. Would you accept the ICJ ruling as an unambiguous ruling of illegality maybe? No? Well then the problem is that there is no such thing as an international court (the ICJ is the more similar thing to that) accepted by all the international community. Moreover nowhere in the text is said that there is an unambiguous ruling of illegality. What I would like the text to say is that the majority of the relevant sources on the issue (UN, ICJ and other) do consider the settlements illegal and do consider them an obstacle. So eventhough there will never be an unambiguous ruling of illegality there does exist a more important number of people, actors, authors, that do consider them illegal and do consider the settlements an obstacle to peace. If you want to convince me of the contrary I suggest you do the same thing I did: look for sources that would amount to the same support than those that do consider the settlements illegal and an obstacle to peace. Once again, until you do such thing I will not be able to realise that I am wrong as you seem to argue. I hope this is understandable, or should I grant more credibility to your opinion than to the evidence I have gathered here? Thank you.--Jorditxei 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. that all sounds good. right now I have a little less time to respond properly, so I'll defer to others here to continue the discussion. thanks. --Sm8900 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry to raise another issue, but I would really prefer to change the phrase "the international community" to "several major international organizations." I feel the first phrase is a bit too monlithic, and makes it sound like the entire world without almost any exception. the second phrase I think prefers the strength of your phrase, yet makes clear the slightly more varied nature of the reality. thanks. --14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I cant uphold that change. If you look at the sources, the security council has pronounced against construction of settlements, the General Assembly document I cite gets the opinion of 17 officials from different countries (one of them, belgium, speaking in behalf of 25 countries, that makes 41 countries), all of them except Israel consider it violates human rights with its occupation and settlement policy. Still you argue that only "several major international organizations" would be preferable to the international community. Sorry but that does not reflect the reality, the reality is that the whole international community except Israel is against that policy. So the phrase is correct. If you want to change it then I will accept something like "the international community except Israel" but not several. Thank you. --Jorditxei 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally disagree. I cannot accept a change that makes it sound like Israel is the only one doing something which is universally condemned. Now you're getting into the heart of a more contentious approach to this topic. What about the fact that Israelis who set foot in a Palestinian town are instantly attacked and beaten? I am not trying to make this entire topic into an emotional one, but if you start putting the facts in these extreme terms, you are now taking the text into an area of voices which reflect simple aversion to israel (I'm nots saying that describes you personally, though).

there is no basis for stating that the entire international community condems this practice. the entire international community does not condemn any entire action of Israel. you have been reading too many UN resolutions. While the more extremeist Palestinians wait for the whole world to censure Israel, their economy has fallen apart, which other countries have started doing business with Israel.

I am not saying we should let emotion play any part in this entry, but if you suggest these extreme statements, and then decline any compromise, you are the one making it necessary to bring up our most emotional attachments and beliefs, and to put them on the table. --Sm8900 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a suggestion. please do not use any term which is expressed in the singular. That implies the whole world. use any term you want which reflects a group of nations. If you want to say representatives of most members of the UN, or most Western countries, or representatives of the entire UN membership, that's fine, and it reflects some of the facts. But "international community" is just too broad, and it doesn't say anything about what youre actually referring to. If you want, you can even say "delegates from every country on Earth," since that is at least more specific. A phrase in Wikipedia should convey some meaning and specific detail to the reader, not simply refer to a generality whichy give absolutely no picture of the underlying facts.

Just to reiterate, I am not blocking or asking you to drop any strong phrase you wish to use. I am only asking for a phrase which is not purely abstract, and instead reflects at least some of the specific reality. I am willing to leave most of this phrasing the way it is. --Sm8900 16:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the following. First you were against calling it "obstacle" and you argued that Suicup should look for references. At the beginning I thought that obstacle and factor was the same for me so I didnt vote. But then I looked for references and surprisingly I found that nearly all the actors on the issue called the settlements an obstacle to peace: the int community, the EU, the US, the UK, HRorganisations, etc etc. But then you didnt accept to say the majority, you wanted exactly who said what (although as the sources show it is the majority). Now you argue that one cannot say the "international community" but "several major bla bla bla". So what should I do? Should I list all the countries that say so which are in particular all but Israel? Should I put a list of 40 countries that say so and one (Israel) that doesnt? Come on, that would make the text unreadable: just accept it or give me a source pointing that country X says the settlements are not an obstacle to peace, otherwise accept the reality and dont try to impose on other editors euphemisms like "several" when it is the vast majority of countries that consider the settlements an obstacle. I have already told you, I propose "the vast majority of the international community", 40 countries against one fits well with that, don't you think so? Otherwise, I propose "the international community except Israel" which once again describes perfectly the case. And please let your proselitism at home, I am here to discuss the text and the sources not how unfair is the UN nor how sorry I feel about Israel because of this unjustice. Thank you.--Jorditxei 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, right now I'm fine with things the way they are. thanks. --Sm8900 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900 proposal

Hi. thanks for your reply. You make some good points. In return i would like to suggest the following text. Basically, my main thought in all of this is that there are major established entities in this process who have granted some legitimacy to some of Israel's territorial claims. Below is some text, with references.

Various mediators and various proposed agreements have shown some degree of openness to Israel retaining some fraction of the settlements which currently exist in the West Bank; this openness is based on a variety of considerations, such as: the desire to find real compromise between Israeli and Palestinian territorial claims, Israel's position that it needs to retain some West Bank land and settlements as a buffer in case of future aggression, and Israel's position that some settlements are legitimate, as they took shape when there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, and thus they did not violate any agreement.

President George Bush has stated that he does not expect Israel to return entirely to the 1949 armistice lines, due to "new realities on the ground. One of the main compromise plans put forth by the Clinton Administration would have allowed Israel to keep some settlements in the West Bank, especially those which were in large blocs near the pre-1967 borders of Israel. In return, Palestinians would have received some concessions of land in other parts of the country.

that's my suggestion. this reflects most of the countervailing points which i wanted to mention. thanks. --Sm8900 16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would accept Jorditxei's proposed text. He/she cites the sources and attribute them instead of flatly saying "Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace" without any citation or attribution to the statement. He/she also gives a line and citation for those that disagree with that view. It might not get into all the politics of the issue, but I think its the best we can expect from a 2-3 sentence summary. --GHcool 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me GHCool, I totally disagree with you. You are upholding a wording which is one-sided and does not present Israel's facts at all whatsoever. I'm surprised at you. Hi. i understand why you would accept Jord' wording. I'm hope you are not ruling out using my wording also, to add another set of details. --Sm8900 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Sm8900, what is the objective of your last message? Here you seem to agree with my proposal and now you attack GHcool because he supports my proposal on the ground that it is well referenced, may I ask why? I would agree with your proposal if you look for more sources, specially for the first paragraph which has no sources at all and therefore would be original research, if you do that I would propose for the text to come after my proposal so we have the Israeli point of view, then the Palestinian and then your text (an intermediate position) duly referenced. Has any country other than the US supported what you cite? I think citing only the US may be relevant but it would be better to find out if any other countries have agreed with what you say, otherwise in my opinion the first paragraph should read "the US has proposed" and not "various commentators". Thanks.--Jorditxei 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry. I may have been unclear, or perhaps I;ve misunderstood some previous posts. i wans't arguing with him for supporting your proposal. I thought he was trying to say he was against my proposal. Truthfully, i realize now he may simply not have read my post. So I apologize to GHcool and others if I was a bit hasty. thanks for your reply.

To answer your question,. I think most Western countries working as mediators have supported a position similar to the US. however, it will take me a litle longer to find all the cites for that. I appreciate your open approach. re sources for the first paragraph, i can also try to find those. obviously, those may simply be Israeli-sourced documents, since it is documenting their basic undeerlying position. --Sm8900 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Sm8900 don't edit the article without asking for review in the talk page. As you have seen that is how I have proceed and how we are proceding with the "obstacle" debate, lets apply the rules to everybody and in the same way please. I think the references are needed in the way I have explained above, otherwise the text should not be written in the article (that is my opinion). If they are Israeli it is not a problem for me, unless I would appreciate a misleading text. But in any case, provide your references and then lets allow all the users to confirm if what they say is correct or disputed, etc. etc. Thank you.--Jorditxei 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are saying you have some specific issues whith this text which make you wish to hesitate on it, no problem. however, please note that not every edit needs to be discussed on the talk page beforehand, no matter how much discussion has been occurring previously. In fact, generally editors are allowed to simply edit an article, no matter how contested it might be, and then move things to the talk page only if someone else requests it. however, i am willing to move this to the talk page, given our discussion. --Sm8900 20:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that it is true that editors can edit freely, but WP:BB says: Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to featured articles such as cheese or Spoo, should be done with extra care(...) If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it's a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. Given that we are discussing here the content of the section in which you want to add a significant edit, I think that it would be better and more fair that all users discuss what they want to add in that section here. You are also right that what I mean is that personally I wouldn't accept your proposal as it is. I told you that in my opinion: I would agree with your proposal if you look for more sources, specially for the first paragraph which has no sources at all and therefore would be original research, if you do that I would propose for the text to come after my proposal so we have the Israeli point of view, then the Palestinian and then your text (an intermediate position) duly referenced. Has any country other than the US supported what you cite? I think citing only the US may be relevant but it would be better to find out if any other countries have agreed with what you say, otherwise in my opinion the first paragraph should read "the US has proposed" and not "various commentators". So that is my opinion, if you dont have the time to look for the sources than leave your proposal and maybe some other user will complete it. Until that is done I personally oppose that your text be included, not because I think it is irrelevant (which I don't) but rather because it has not sufficient references. Thanks. --Jorditxei 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't find anything wrong with Sm8900's proposal or Jorditxei's proposal and would support the text from both proposals be merged into one paragraph. --GHcool 07:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks GHcool. Apologies again for my earlier misunderstanding. by the way, i have now added some refs, and revised the suggestion. thanks. --Sm8900 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your work Sm8900. It seems fair to me to include your proposal in the text. --Jorditxei 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome, and appreciate your support for that. By the way, I just checked WP:BB, and you're right, it mentions this article as the first example! Hey guys, we made the news! this seems like the best recognition an editor could get. Hey, what do you mean, I have a weird idea of recognition? :-) Anyway, see you. --Sm8900 14:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, i appreciate your support. i assume it's ok to add this now? Now that I have your consensus, i will do so. thanks. --Sm8900 21:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I made one obvious change; there are no "pre-1967 borders", but rather 1949 armistice lines. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

looks good. thanks. --Sm8900 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this, Jorditxei. I must admit, this section seems fairly good now, thanks to your text as well. --Sm8900 14:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New Text in section "The question of Palestinian refugees"

I would like to introduce a new text in this section. As can be seen the text gives the israeli arguments against the return of the palestininan refugees but says nothing about the arguments of the palestinians in favour of their return. Therefore my proposal is to introduce the following text after the arguments already in the text:
"Palestinian, hebrew and international authors have justified the rigth of return of the palestinian refugees on several grounds:

• Several authors included in the broader New Historians agree that most of the palestinian refugees fleed Palestine due to the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun. A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948", dated 30 June 1948 affirms that:

At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases...

Many historians describe the sources used by the New Historians as being of superior reliability than those supporting the traditional israeli version on the issue, given the fact that they use declassified documents from the israeli government and military.

• The traditional israeli point of view arguing that arab leaders encouraged palestinian arabs to flee has also been disputed by the New Historians. Khalidi and Childers reviewed radio sources from Palestine during 1948 and found no single evidence that arab onleaders encouraged palestinians to flee their homes (as previously claimed by israeli sources) and instead found several examples of these leaders encouraging arabs to stay in Palestine. This contradicts the version pointing out that arab leaders "accepted" the refugees.
• The "Israeli" definition of Jewish nationals, granting exclusive rights to citizenship and land to any Jew from anywhere in the world, is viewed as a discrimination towards palestinians that, on the contrary, cannot apply to such citizenship nor return to the territory from which they were displaced or left.
• The strongest legal basis on the issue is UN Resolution 194, adopted in 1948. It states that, "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem"."
  

Opinions are welcomed.--Jorditxei 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: The section should include the arguments in favour of the return of the refugees as it includes the israeli arguments against it. I think the text respects the NPOV. --Jorditxei 09:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Support, with some reservations. I feel the text is still open to some discussion, but it basically seems fine and properly-sourced. --Sm8900 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No opinion yet, I like the general gist of the proposal, but its currently worded in such a way that the research of the New Historians' is undeniably true and NPOV. It does not take into account the debate occuring among "new" and "old" historians of the subject nor does it take into account the fact that the Israeli archives have been opened while the Arab archives remain shut. Just because the New Historians' interpretation of the facts are "newer" doesn't mean that they are more or less accurate. This can be fixed by rephrasing/editing some sentences in the proposal. --GHcool 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GHCool, those are all excellent points, and it seems to me they can easily be added to the proposed text. I suggest you write some material stating that. Your expression here is very concise and yet informative, and it sems to me a good starting-pont for including these exact points in the text. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel it would be better if you would please say "disputed by New Historians," not "dismissed." Clearly, there are still two sides on this issue, each with their own sources. so it's good to reflect that. thanks. --Sm8900 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the authors have dismissed that arab leaders called for departure of palestinians on the radio (this has clearly been dismissed) whereas the whole issue is only disputed. Thank you.--Jorditxei 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome. thank you for your helpful approach. there are some easy ways that we can write a good entry which will be ok for both sides. one way is to reflect that both sides have their own views, and that both views are valid in some way. thanks. --Sm8900 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Both views are valid but we should always make it clear which point of view is minoritary and which is majoritary. Thank you again.--Jorditxei 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

errr...that's not quite what i meant. i don't believe in depicting either view as majority or minorty, but rather each is the sincere belief of some group. So I believe both can be given some valid coverage. thanks. --Sm8900 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. If we talk about the fact that Palestine should recognise Israel, I will be the first to say that that is the view of the majority of the international community and even the palestinians, if you want to argue that Hamas should recognise it, I will argue in the same way. Now if you want to talk about the palestinian refugee problem it should be clear that the majority of historians accept that the flee of palestinians was due to the actions of the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi, this is recognised by the IDF themselves, maybe not publicly but in secret they are recognized. Any attempt to show the opinion that refugees flew bcs of the arab leader's call etc, does not have (at least not now) the same support than that of the New Historians. So if you want to show the view of other historians, for sure it can be done, but it must be clear which is the dominant POV, otherwise the text will not respect NPOV. If you want to talk about the settlements you should accept that the majority of historians, international community, palestinians, (I would even say the majority of Israelis) etc. consider that they should be dismantled: land for peace. You can show the opinions of others but it should be clear that this is a minority POV, otherwise once again the NPOV would not be respected. Two arguments with different support cannot have the same weight in the text, anybody can find anything with Google, but the point is, what recognition has that POV among scholars, historians, lawyers, etc. That is the really important thing in these type of articles where ideology and propaganda are very important, in both sides. Hope to have convinced you. --Jorditxei 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"..this is recognised by the IDF themselves, maybe not publicly but in secret they are recognized.." Is there any reliable source at all that says this? I think the 1948 exodus is quite clearly something on which opinion is divided in most sources. Can anyone direct me to a scholarly article later than 1980 that makes a claim that a new consensus has developed? Hornplease 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Four articles from the pro-Palestinian Journal of Palestine Studies do not make a "consensus of historians", and your choice of sources shows a decidedly one-sided POV. UN Resolution 194 is a General Assembly Resolution, and thus has no effect in International law, and in any event requires that the Palestinians wish to "live at peace with their neighbours", something which is doubtful. Resolution 242 is a more important resolution, but it only calls for a "just solution". Finally, most of what you have written is original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As regards international law, a UN Resolution is part of international law. The problem is that international law is not legally binding but this is inherent to international law, so what is your point?--Jorditxei 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, General Assembly resolutions have no binding effect in international law; they are little more than political polls. Security council resolutions can have a binding effect in international law. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Jorditxei's text. I disagree with Jayjg that the Journal of Palestine Studies is an unreliable source. I would even go so far to argue that it is at least as reliable as HonestReporting. I've browsed through it myself a couple of times and found some extremely well written, well cited articles from several intelligent and serious historians in the field. Yes, its articles are generally written by Palestinian scholars, and so the Palestinian narrative is generally more pronounced in its articles, but the information found in the journal is generally sound, valuable, and not propagandistic. However, I agree with Jayjg that more than one journal ought to be sourced. --GHcool 06:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Journal of Palestine Studies is a pro-Palestinian journal; that doesn't make it completely unreliable, but it does mean we have to recognize its bias for what it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To Jayjg: your critics are not at all correct. The Journal of Palestine Studies is not written by Palestinian scholars: Nur Mashala is professor at Hebrew University, Benny Morris is a hebrew, Ilan Pappe is hebrew, Tom Segev is hebrew, Norman Filkenstein is a northern american jew, Childers is an irish national, the only palestinian is Walid Khalidi although he was born in Jerusalem and has lived abroad for most of the time. The true is, as far as I know, that most scholars that support the New Historians and that have written in this Journal are not palestinian but rather israeli nationals or even international scholars. The Journal of Palestine Studies is one (maybe I should say just is the one) of the most authoritative sources on these issues. Go to Google Scholar and search for "Palestinian Exodus" and you will get this. Not surprisingly to me what you get is precisely citations to these authors, would you still argue that my choice of sources is biased or rather that I have chosen the sources that appear to be the more authoritative on the field? You like it or not, these authors have published extensively on the issue and are by now supported by the majority of international historians and I cite a source that says so (although a simple search in Google scholar will confirm it): Glazer, S. (1980): The Palestinian Exodus in 1948. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Summer, 1980), pp. 96-118. So please, show me evidence that there exist other authors with different POV and with the same recognition than the ones I present here. I suggest you use Google scholar as a measure of the impact of what your sources have written, but obviously I am open to any other criteria or methodology, as long as it is truly representative of the importance of those authors' articles. I hope you understand that as long as I do not see any such evidence, I have good reasons to defend this POV as being the majoritarian one. Why do you say it is original research if I have referenced everything?

As regards the international law part, I just said that the "strongest legal basis" is the two resolutions cited and I cite what they say (242: just resolution) so I dont see where the POV is not neutral. I think this is completely correct, check on the internet and you will see that these are the legal basis more frequently referenced on the issue. If you want to include that these resolutions are not "legally binding" its ok with me, but this is so in most international law, you often encounter that many countries (for instance the US) does not recognize the ICJ in the Hague, etc.

To Hornplease: as you may see in the text, Kapeliouk (I think also Morris refers to this document) refers to a SHAI (israeli military intelligence) document that recognizes that military actions were the cause of the exodus of at least 70% of the population that fleed in the first wave. Other sources used by the New Historians are the diary of Yosef Weitz and Yosef Nahmani, the latter being a member of the IDF in 1948. Both diaries describe how the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun made use of atrocities to expel the palestinians and then tried to avoid them returning to their homes. This is what I referred to when saying that the IDF themselves recognize in "private" (by private I mean intellgence documents, diaries of its members, etc.) that the majority of the exodus was provoqued by their actions although in public they may not say so. But obviously this is not written in the text, the text just says that there is this document of the SHAI. I would not like to cite al sources and references because the reader can go to the principal article Nakba.--Jorditxei 09:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To Jayjg and Hornplease: I have introduced a new reference from Zachary Lockman in which once again the author argues and reviews how the historical facts have shifted in favour of the New Historians' POV on the issue of the Palestinian Exodus. I hope that the credentials of the author mitigate any possible accusation of pro-palestinian "unconsciousness". All the articles I cite were taken from JSTOR, if any of you does not have acces to JSTOR and would like to read them, I can send you all of them via email. I will continue looking for more references that support my proposal above.--Jorditxei 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I introduce another reference (The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People from Their Homeland. Review author: Naseer H. Aruri. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 1991. Cambridge University Press.) which states: "It was not until the latter part of the 1980s. when some archival materials were declassified, that a determined effort was made to challenge the Israeli version. Three comprehensive studies by Israeli scholars demonstrated conclusively and thoroughly the Israeli responsibility for the expulsion of the Palestinian. Despite the overwhelming evidence cited and analyzed in these books and in Palumbo's book, most Israelis are still unwilling to recognize their government's responsibility." For the credentials of the author.--Jorditxei 11:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I also introduce the reference of Childers, the first author that dismissed that arab leaders had called for exodus via radio broadcasts. This is not Journal of Palestine Studies, nor is Lockman's, nor Naseer H. Aruri's reference. --Jorditxei 11:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jorditxei. Oh, so you can actually find professors wyho feel negatively about Israel's actions. Gee, I'm curious, how does Edward Said feel about this issue? How about Noam Chomsky? I guess if you find professor, that eliminates any need to hear both sides.

Sigh...the way you're approaching this is exactly the wrong way. This entire set of issues is a focus of massive conflict, but you think that by bringing out your references you can make all the contentiousness go away. I would strongly suggest you try to pursue a course which shows respect for both sides of the issue. That is a simple principle. I hope you will decide to try to pursue it. You seem intent in creating conflict with people who only want to show some balance. However, i do appreciate your ability to discus this openly beforehand. thanks. --Sm8900 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand your anger. I haven't said that the traditional israeli version should not be in the text. In fact, the reason why I want to introduce the text I propose above is precisely because only the israeli POV is reflected in the section and I hope you agree with me that this cannot be NPOV: both POV should be reflected in the text. The only point in which I have said that there is a majoritarian POV is on the issue of the palestinian exodus and the fact that the exodus was provoqued by the actions of the IDF (something the IDF's intelligence documents say themselves). I have shown you evidence of references that explicitely say that what the New Historians say about the exodus has more support among scholars and is based on more reliable sources than the traditional israeli version, which is frequently described as propaganda and frequently criticised because is the work of politicians, diplomats and not scholars.

If still you find it hard to believe me, then I have proposed a very simple mechanism. Give me your references and lets compare them to the ones in my text and lets use Google scholar to see which of them has had a stronger impact among scholars. If you have any other proposal on the mechanism we could use to see which scholar work has more support among academia I am totally open and for sure would accept that if your mechanism found your sources more supportive, then it should be your references the ones cited as being the majoritarian POV on the issue. So far, these are the citations and publicationos of my references on the palestinian exodus: Benny Morris, Walid Khalidi, Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev, Erskin Childers, Amnon Kapeliouk, M Palumbo in the section there is already the reference of Mark Tessler. So far, as regards the question of those who opose the New Historians the section cites: Efraim Karsh and Schechtman. Do you think that the opinion of these two authors, the amount of publications on the issue and their citations (therefore their support among scholars) can be compared to that of the previous ones? Then, correct me if I am wrong, and I may be because I am a relatively new user here, should I interpret this NPOV policy statement: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. as meaning that a majoritarian POV should be shown in the text as being majoritarian? If that is the case, dont you think I have a point, given the proofs above, to say that the majoritarian POV on the palestinian refugee problem is that it was mainly caused by the IDF actions against the population? --Jorditxei 14:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. No, I don't plan to try to present any of my own sources. you can pursue that with someone else if you wish. Are you saying that this issue is totally non-controversial? If you do realize that it is controversial, then why are you opposed to simply presenting both sides? The weight of various sources is unimportant here. The ability to present two sides of an issue is what is important at Wikipedia. thanks for your reply.

By the way, if your main goal is to reflect both POV, that sounds fairly ok, as far as i can tell. that should be fine. thanks. --Sm8900 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand your response. Why did you say this? I think it is clear that my only aim was to introduce the text I propose here and the reason being (as I said): "the text gives the israeli arguments against the return of the palestininan refugees but says nothing about the arguments of the palestinians in favour of their return. Therefore my proposal is to introduce the following text after the arguments already in the text". I think it is quite clear that I did meant to reflect both POV. I am not saying that this issue is not controversial, I am just saying that the POV stating that the palestinian exodus was mainly due to the IDF actions is majoritary and this refers to one of the phrases in my proposal: "The majority of historians agree that most of the palestinian refugees fleed Palestine due to the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun. A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948", dated 30 June 1948 affirms that (bla bla)". That's all, I did not say that the POV of Efraim Karsh and others should not be in the text. Hope this clarifies things. If you have any problem with this, please tell me.--Jorditxei 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

According to whom do a "majority of historians agree that most of the palestinian refugees fleed Palestine due to the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun." Please name the source which makes that claim. And, by the way, a SHAI report from 1948 is not the last word on anything in particular. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand. however, sorry, but i can't accept the phrase "majority of historians." However, I'm not sure if i have anything else more specific to say than that. Can anyone else add their comments here please? thanks. --Sm8900 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a whole entry titled 1948 Palestinian exodus - any information here should be a summary of what is represented there. Tewfik^Talk 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that a case for 'a majority of historians' has not been made here, I strongly disagree that this debate, which seems to be proceeding nicely, should be cut off in order that a section on X more closely resemble the main article on X. If you wish to repeat any arguments made there (perhaps you were involved?) then feel free to do so. However, this discussion should continue. Hornplease 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary sections must summarize main articles, not create entirely new takes on subjects. WP:SUMMARY#Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You must think I'm an idiot, Jay. I was shocked to discover that guidelines had been changed without my knowledge- I tend to remember stable versions - and to my surprise I notice that you made that change [49] to a stable guideline, and were called on it here. I notice that discussion ended without consensus.

In any case, do not attempt to break of discussion of sources merely because of that guideline. If the debate is resolved here, it can be summarised on the main article's talkpage and appropriate changes made there. In the interim, I will add the 'sync' template myself, if you so desire. Hornplease 08:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think guidelines and policies are created in heaven, and handed down written on stone tablets? In actuality, Wikipedia editors write them, and update them all the time for increased clarity and utility. The guideline is eminently sensible; there is no good reason why summaries of sections should contain unique material, and many good reasons why they should not. A summary is, in case you have forgotten, supposed to be a summary of material, not a new synthesis. The very best possible outcome when someone adds new material to a summary section, rather than the main article, is that the two don't disagree very much. That's the best possible outcome, and it's an unacceptable one in an encyclopedia. Now, try to see beyond this specific issue, and think of the overall good of Wikipedia, not just winning this little battle. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say that I was worring about this particular "little battle", but I really am not. I'm worrying about the possibility that there have been many "little battles" where this non-consensus rendition has been recently used. But, as I said, a discussion for another day. I will restrict myself on this occasion to the statement that I do not believe that policy is a worthwhile guideline at the moment, especially in light of the suggestion I made above. It certainly should not be used to cut off civilised debate. New sources introduced here can be introduced elsewhere later. There is no compulsion to edit articles simultaneously. On the contrary, if this is updated, then interested editors should update the main article with new sources and insights. Hornplease 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made any rational objections to the consensus guideline as it stands. Unsurprising, as there aren't any to be made. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

First, it is not consensus. Second, this is not the appropriate talkpage for that guideline. Third, were I raising objections on that talkpage, among them would be that that guideline could be misused to shut down a debate or to try and make people argue on too many fronts at a time. Fourth, I will not continue this discussion at this time or on this page, because that would be arguing on too many fronts at a time, which is something I'm sure you wouldn't want to have to make me do. Hornplease 08:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To Tewfik: I don't think we should make a summary of Nakba, in my opinion that would be too long but in any case, what my proposal says about the exodus is in that article as well as the israeli claims on radio broadcasts, etc. (which is already in the text of the section). To Jayjg: the references that say that the New Historians have found evidence that contradicts the traditional israeli version and that therefore clearly points to the fact that most palestinian refugees fleed because of the actions of the IDF are:

1. Glazer, S. (1980): The Palestinian Exodus in 1948. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Summer, 1980), pp. 96-118.
2. Lockman, Zachary (1988): Original Sin. Middle East Report. May 1988
3. The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People from Their Homeland. Review author: Naseer H. Aruri. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 1991. Cambridge University Press.

Moreover, I have been suggesting the Google scholar mechanism to see which references have more support among scholars, do you think this is not a good mechanism? Could you propose another one to deal with the issue or would you rather prefer to see the opinion of some sources having the same weight as those that have more support? From my POV what is not neutral is to present two views which do not have the same support as having it.--Jorditxei 19:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the text of the proposal, I hope that now it will be acceptable. Opinions are welcomed.--Jorditxei 19:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, that seems to sound good. I would like to get a general sense of consensus though, which i realize you clearly have asked for as well, through your ongoing discussion. i used the history tab to view your changes. By the way, thanks for your input. you sound like a fairly diligent, articulate editor. We do have areas of diasgreement though, and I'm glad we could discuss them openly. thanks. --Sm8900 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also glad with the discussion and for sure I am completely open to any interesting discussion.--Jorditxei 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

further source discussion

We should not be forking the information in such a manner. If something is wrong with the presentation at Palestinian exodus, then it should be addressed there, and only after a consensus arises can a new summary be created for this entry. I'd also like to point out the policy on Wikipedia:Canvassing - the solicitation of several editors on only one side of a discussion is inappropriate ([50][51][52][53]). Tewfik^Talk 03:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that a paragraph of the Palestinian narrative of the Palestinian exodus and the Palestinian how the refugee problem should be resolved deserve a paragraph of equal length to the Israeli narrative and proposed solutions. I can think of no better source for this proposed paragraph than the Journal of Palestine Studies and other reliable sources written through the eyes of Palestinians. These sources are biased, but that's exactly the point; we need to know what the Palestinians are actually saying about their own predicament. --GHcool 05:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To Tewfik: don't understand your point. My proposal only has two points on the palestinian exodus and whereas it was not taken from the article Nakba I can confirm that the info given is included there. I have already changed the phrase so it does not read "the majority of historians" but what it reads if you have a look at it. I think the whole point is what GHCool says and what motivated my proposal as stated above by myself: "the text gives the israeli arguments against the return of the palestininan refugees but says nothing about the arguments of the palestinians in favour of their return.". Can we at least agree that a text explaining the reasons why the palestinians argue in favour of the right of return should be included? If we agree on that, then lets discuss what the text should read. On the "bias" of the Journal of Palestine Studies, first, I have given 12 references of which only 3 are from that Journal. Second, this journal is not "biased" and is one of the most important journals on the issue, I would like to point that it is a scholarly journal and not a simple webpage or article on the internet nor a jewishvirtuallibrary which is clearly biased as I have shown above, and will never be so authoritative as a research/scholar journal. If you still think it is biased, please give an example showing it, as I have done with the jewish virtual library above, otherwise one cannot just believe it is biased because someone else says so without proof. Third, the majority of authors writting on the issue are not palestinian but hebrew. That said, can we discuss the text please, what should it include? Do you agree with the text presented? What changes would you propose? Thank you.--Jorditxei 08:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is original research; you keep making various claims about "the traditional Israeli point of view" etc. In addition, it seriously violates WP:NPOV, as it keeps stating opinions and arguments as if they were fact. Third, it cherry-picks extremely particular sources to make certain claims - these simply do not belong in a summary. Finally, regarding the Journal of Palestine studies, please carefully read my comments. I have nowhere claimed it is an unreliable source, nor have I claimed it is a Palestinian source. Instead I have quite accurately stated that it is a pro-Palestinian source, and therefore only gives one POV. Its editorial policies ensure that it contains only articles critical of Israel and supportive of Palestinians. That doesn't make it completely unreliable, but bias needs to be recognized for what it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok so you want proof of sources that use "traditional Israeli POV". Well very easy, here you have some: "traditional Israeli-Zionist history", "traditional Israeli historiography", "Morris undermined the traditional Israeli account", "(Morris) undermined traditional interpretations", ""new historian" for writing books that challenged the traditional Israeli version of history.", "Traditional Israeli histories always claimed that urban Palestinians left their homes voluntarily ", the traditional Israeli view, "Traditional Israeli historiography has argued", "Traditional Israeli historians explain", "traditional Israeli historiography", "traditional Israeli historians", "traditional Israeli narrative", [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121674/posts "traditional Israeli version of history."], "the traditional Zionist historiography and the "new history"., "traditional Zionist narrative of Israel’s history", [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3594174/From-New-Left-history-to.html "Need More Information?

More articles about traditional israeli version palestinian refugees"], "Sharon was basically repeating the traditional Israeli position towards the Palestinian refugee problem". Is this enough or are you going to claim that the New York Times, the unviersity of cambridge, the Georgetown University and all the others are just pro-palestinian propagandists? Now that I have shown that this is a commonly used word (moreover what does it have to do with NPOV?!) and therefore have dismissed your claim that this is against NPOV, could you please tell me what other problem do you have with the proposal? You say it is original research, have you taken a quick look to the sources I give? They all talk about the 4 points in my proposal, why you keep saying it is original research? Thank you.--Jorditxei 11:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable academic source backing up your claim that the Journal of Palestinian Studies is "pro-Palestinian"? Hornplease 08:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Middle East Quarterly describes the Journal of Palestine Studies as a "PLO propaganda organ disguised as an academic journal" and points out, as an example, that "it routinely refers to the creation of Israel as an-Nakba ("catastrophe" in Arabic)". It also points to an issue of Orbis, the international affairs journal published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute, which "describes the Institute of Palestine Studies, publisher of the Journal of Palestine Studies, as "an arm of the Palestine Liberation Organization.""[54] The Journal's funding source is interesting; the University of Kuwait. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, the Middle East Quarterly. And the FPRI. Fascinating. I asked for a reliable academic source, and you give me this. I can't believe it.

Oh, and Kuwait, the famously pro-Palestinian Arab state, that expelled all its Palestinians. Sheesh. Hornplease 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Middle East Quarterly is the equivalent if the Journal of Palestine studies, except from the opposite POV. I don't see what's wrong with Orbis. You asked, I delivered. Now, if we're using "I can't believe it" style arguments, then we'll all just say "I can't believe you're still pretending about the JPS", admit that the Journal of Palestine Studies is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian (as it so obviously is), and move on. Regarding Kuwait, all Arab countries dislike Palestinians; they just dislike Israel even more. Sheesh. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Jay, I asked for a reliable academic source, and you gave me Daniel Pipes's magazine. Which scholarly society or reputable academic press publishes that, pray? Which university, well-known research institute or professional association? That it is the "equivalent" is hard to establish, given all that. The UCPress website on the JPalStud says that it is the "only" North American scholarly journal devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is a bit of a facer for the MEQ.

Orbis is fine these days, I have to admit. Elsevier agreed to publish it about a devade ago. Of course, during the Reagan years the FPRI was a bit different from what it is now. I notice the reference is a bit dated.

That being said, you seem to think that accusations of bias from a journal well-known for bias - as you evidently agree - should be taken seriously. In which universe is that true? Hornplease 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only that Hornplease. Jayjg your points are completely wrong. The text is not original research and your claims make me think that you have not read my sources. First, the claims in the text are the ones made by the first sources: one, two, three and four. These sources argue in favour (or talk about) of the right of return because:

1. They consider the palestinians were mostly expelled.
2. They consider it is not fair for any jewish to be able have a right to live in Israel and for Palestinians not to have the right to return to the houses where they lived 60 years ago.
3. They think international law supports their claim.

So were is the original research?
Secondly, if you knew something about Israel's history you would know that "the traditional israeli version" is a frequently used expression among scholars. The reason is that until the late 80s those views were commonly agreed but the work of the New Historians started to dispute them. So scholars refer to "the traditional israeli version" and the "revisionist theory" of the New Historians. You can confirm this in any historical work I cite. Moreover, could you explain me where the no neutrality of this expression is? People that are against the New Historians support the traditional israeli version of the 50s, 60s and 70s. What is wrong with that?
Third, could you give any proof of your claim that the Journal of Palestine Studies is a "pro-Palestine" source? I have read many of the articles published in that Journal and they also publish non pro-palestinian articles, I have read them myself. If you want to make such a claim give us a proof as I did with the jewish virtual library (this source is truly pro-Israeli and the proof is that in a field such as the Refugee problem they do not cite important sources of the New Historians, how come?), otherwise your claim is just your opinion which given that you constantly defend the pro-Israeli version of the facts is far from being neutral and relevant to me. So please, stop demonising a source without proofs. Here you have a description of what the Journal does and it says: "The Journal of Palestine Studies, one of the most important publications of the Institute, was established in 1971. Published and distributed for the Institute by the University of California Press, Berkeley, the Journal is the only English language quarterly devoted exclusively to the study of Palestinian affairs and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Through its articles and interviews, it gives readers a full range of outlooks of scholars, decision makers, foreign policy analysts, journalists, and political activists of various nationalities-Arab, American, European, and Israeli.". Lets compare that to the two sources cited in the text we are debating above on the word "obstacle":

1. Yoram ettinger[55] a former ambassador to Israel in Washington DC [56] and current member of the Ariel Policy Research, a center which (not surprisingly again?) says it is non-partisan but latter adds: "However, a true peace can only be obtained in the Middle East if Israeli security and national interests are safeguarded. A peace which will force Israel to its pre-1967 borders, i.e. losing those territorial assets critically needed for the very existence of the Jewish State(!!) will not be but a recipe for war."[57]. Wow, that is precisely what I call non-partisanism and neutrality!!
2. Mitchell G. Bard who writes in the jewishvirtuallibrary [58] a source which (not surprisingly?) is completely biased in favour of the pro-israeli arguments, if you don't believe me just take a look at (the title of the library and) what this pseudo library thinks about the palestinian refugee problem [59] their arguments don't even hold a review of a 16-year-old boy. Where are the arguments of the New Historians? Where the declassified documents of the IDF that deny what mister Bard says about expulsions?
   

Surprisingly you have expressed no concerns with these two sources which are clearly pro-Israeli (one is from a former official of the Israeli ambassade in Washington, come on!) but instead insist in calling the Journal of Palestine Studies pro-Palestine even that it is a Journal "Published and distributed for the Institute by the University of California Press, Berkeley". I guess you think that the Ariel center and the Jewish virtual library are a more reliable source than a scholarly journal published and distributed by the University of California at Berkeley (!!??). So stop making unfounded claims.
Last, could you please explain where have I "stated opinions and arguments as if they were fact" nowhere have I done that. Please read carefully the text and you will see that I always say "many historians", "some historians", etc. etc. All your claims are simply not founded. Give examples and proofs of what you say. Thank you. --Jorditxei 10:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding original research, any claim you make must be backed up by reliable sources. It's that simple. If you want to make claims about things like "the traditional Israeli version", you can't just insist that many people use the term, you must provide sources. Regarding the pro-Palestinian Journal of Palestine Studies, it's absurdly obvious, but see my response above. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your response above is at best inadequate, and at worst not a response to the question. Hornplease 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite adequate, actually, and a devastating response. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. See my crushing retort, above. (In both cases 'above' is used as you used it, with reference to the conversation about the JPalStud.) Hornplease 08:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the JPS is, according to JSTOR, "the leading quarterly devoted exclusively to the Arab-Israeli conflict." (Which is what this page is about.) Unless you can get a comparable recent citation saying they're not? And I suppose publishing the latest Tom Segev means they're "pro-Palestinian" too. Whatever. Hornplease 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a popular, anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian journal. Its "Israel is bad" editorial guidelines and board ensure that any articles that deal with Israel must be highly critical of Israel at best, demonize it at worst. Segev, a New Historian, would be a good example of just the kind of author they prefer, though people like Finkelstein are even better. In any event, I'm not going to mess around on this topic any more. The JPS is anti-Israel - you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. The rest is just feeble rhetoric. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If we all do indeed know this, please give me a mainstream link asserting it. Or let's say, the head of a professional association making the claim. Or a few articles in major newpapers. Anything!Hornplease 08:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Source reliability

I remember when a certain article was heavily dependent on a single scholarly article with about a dozen quotes. And the argument made then was that there was only one scholarly article, so regardless of bias, we were heavily dependent on it. I do not entirely agree with the argument, but do you think, Jay, that your argument from that page has any applicability here? Hornplease 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was hardly "heavily dependent" on the book by Adam and Moodely; if only it were, it would be vastly improved. And, of course, the difference there was that Adam and Moodley wrote a thorough and thoughtful book covering the arguments and issues on all sides, and pretty fairly. You don't have anything like that here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So, it was just that A-M was fairer then? But then that's just an opinion, right? Many others seemed to think that book wasn't up to much, and that there was a bit of bias. It was at that point that you made the argument I paraphrase above. I notice that you haven't responded to the specific point, that your argument there "only one scholarly source" would seem to apply to "only one scholarly journal". Hornplease 08:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg your claims do not uphold review. I don't know if you have access to JSTOR but the articles I reference were searched with that scholarly journal research web. Well I have looked for your "Middle East Quarterly" and not a single entry was given. I have looked for Orbis and surprisingly No entry was found. Not satisfied, I looked in another research motor (ASE): No entry for Middle East Quarterly and No entry for Orbis. Now lets look for the Journal of Palestine Studies in both researchers: [Wow! How many entries in JSTOR http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.ulb.ac.be/search/BasicSearch?si=1&hp=25&Search=Search&gw=&Query=Journal+of+Palestine+Studies&wc=on] and Wow how many entries in ASE!!. Aint that contradictory to your arguments? So you argue that JPS is an unreliable source but apparently the JPS is a common scholar journal. Instead you prefer to rely on the opinion on the JPS of two journals that dont have a single entry in the more common research motors of scholarly journals, is this a joke or maybe you would like to argue that JSTOR and ASE are runned by pro-Palestinian people? As we are arguing your claims just dont hold. The JPS is a much more reliable source than any other you have given us, as said is edited by Berkeley (a pro-palestinian university maybe?! didnt know...) and is a commonly used source on the subject. You know what the problem is, the problem is that scholars dont admit propaganda and I am sorry but most publications in the pro-Israeli side are made by diplomats, politicians, israeli officials, etc. and as you may guess scholars are not stupid and prefer good historical research to that. I have myself tried to find articles from Efraim Karsh, Rabinovitch and Schechman on JSTOR and you know what, didnt find a single entry for their publications. So what conclusions should anybody drive from that? Does this enable me to doubt that the traditional pro-israeli research has less support among scholars than the work of the new historians? I think we have clearly shown that your claims just dont hold Jayjg, hope you understand this and please, stop demonizing the JPS and specially stop saying that text taken from that source should not be included in the article bcs that source is the more authoritative one among scholars for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I think the article has something to do with that isnt it? Thank you.--Jorditxei 10:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I see part of your problem. Is Israel the legitimate democratic creation of a people's legitimate aspirations? Or is the product of a group of scheming, under-handed political agitators? Most of the Wester world takes the fiurst idea as a starting point. many scholarly journals elsewhere may sometimes take the latter view. Most of the views which Jayjg cites may come from journals which might seem biased by some standards, but are actually objective froma certain Western viewpoint. So perhaps that explains part of the issue which you are both seeking to discuss here. I'm not trying to get into this particular debate, but just express one possible idea. Hope that is somewhat helpful. --Sm8900 13:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I am not discussing whose POV is. What I am saying is that claims like those of Jayjg are just unfounded. You can attack a journal like the JPS if you cite somebody that does so. But if then another user goes on and looks at who is attacking in that way the JPS and founds that those attacks come from two Journals that have no impact, no support among scholars (at least this is how I interpret the fact that no entry is found for those journals in the more frequently used search tools for scholar journals like JSTOR or ASE) then Jayjg should accept that his attacks are unfounded or at least that they are not recognized by the majority of scholars given that those attacks are thrown by two minority journals, with little recognition among scholars. Until he gives us more evidence of his claims I am sorry but I will consider them unfounded. Opposing a text that comes from a recognized source, just take a look at how many entries both search tools give for the JPS, is something I do not understand and would rather think is due to ideology and not true facts. Thanks.--Jorditxei 14:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Jayjg never said that he was not accepting JPS. he simply said it has a certain bias, but it is respectable. But you're the one turning to the Daniel Pipes journal, or the Adams-Moodley book, and saying those are unacceptable, because those have bias. Do you see the problem? Each community has its own schools of thought and scholars, which posts the community's intellectual response to questions and problems posed by others. Unless we give each other at least some leeway in accepting each other's community thinking, we will never get anywhere with this. The answer may be to include equal answers from journals from both sides of the issue, not to seek text from some mythical "objective" source. --Sm8900 14:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed what we would do, if there was some truth to what Jay said about the Middle East Quarterly being the equivalent of the JPalStud but from the 'opposite POV'. Unfortunately, it may not be. (OK, it isn't.) We have to try and avoid falling into the trap of assuming that because two sources seem to have different approaches, the truth is somewhere in between and can be approximated by stating both. That isn't what NPOV says. Clearly, some sources are more reliable, better reviewed, less subject to conflicts of interest, more mainstream than others; and that is what we have to come to a judgment about. Jay's claim of equivalence would lead us away from making that judgment. Hornplease 14:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

by the way, re your argument that MEQ is not accepted by scholars; there is no standard procedure on Wikipedia for evaluating legitimate, published sources. Your seach on scholarly web search engines is one approach, but it is just one of many. Another approach is to accept journals and periodicals which are published openly, and have a legitimate following. I want to say that i concur with Jayjg's choice of journals.

So let's focus on trying to insure that all facts and all views of the issue are adequately and fairly expressed here for the use of the average reader. What about the Adams-Moodley book? Are we going to argue over which published well-researched books we like or don't like? Or are we going to accept that the job of an ecnyclopedia is to provide awareness and access to several different views contained in published works? --Sm8900 14:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that google search is really useful for subtle distinctions either. However, this is not a subtle distinction, fortunately. The most telling fact concerns the Social Sciences Citation Index, or the ISI Web of Knowledge, as it is generally known. This is the database using which articles are mapped and evaluated, basically: a high citation index indicates that a scholarly article is important. Huntington's famous clash of civilisations article, for example, has an index of 503, which is very high indeed. Here's the clincher: the middle east quarterly's not even on it. This is a really, really strong fact. Even Foreign Policy, which is more a magazine and less a journal, really, is on it. So is Middle Eastern Studies, Middle East Review, Middle East Policy, Middle East Journal, and the International Journal of Middle East Studies. No Middle East Quarterly. As far as the academic universe is concerned it does not exist. For the scientists among us, that gives it the Impact Factor of zero. That is how far out of the mainstream it is. Can you see how disruptive it is to genuine discourse to insist on equivalence? Hornplease 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So then hw about using mythandfact, jewishvirtuallibrary, or aish.com? What's that you say? these are all biased resources from the pro-Israel community. Fine. Then the way this entry provides a balanced view will be quoting the journals you mention, and then the response of the pro-Israel, aka Jewish community, based on several well-established resources which are respected by the Jewish community. Oh, I'm sorry dpes the fact that they are resources for a particular community mean they are non-scholarly? even if it does, this is the way to provide the other side of the issue. you can't take an entire community's resources and label them all biased.

Well really those sources shouldn't be used because scholarly articles/books illustrating the 'Jewish' viewpoint do exist. There IS a hierarchy of reliability for information, and websites like those fall well down the list. Trying to claim that "this is the way to provide the other side of the issue." is not only a copout, it is sloppy and intellectually dishonest. Suicup 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

i know you feel this is an objective standard you are suggesting, but if all the community resources do not meet that standard, that puts us back to simply choosing the best one. Or are you someone who believes the entire Jewish community seeks to create one giant deception. Even if you were one of those people, (which by the way i don't think for a moment that you are), that would give us more reason to simply accept the most well-known source as the best voice for the views, since that would be the best we could get. --Sm8900 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am not sure how I should respond to that. I am not someone who believes in balancing things by community, and I didn't think that should matter here. Not only does it not seem right to me for that reason then if nothing else a large number of articles,many of which I am sure are relevant and quotable, in other prominent, acceptable scholarly sources are written by members of the Jewish community. More to the point, some are written by Israelis. I'll hang back for a while and let others weigh in for a bit.Hornplease 15:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your last post is right and actually quite constructive. I also am not sure why it's so hard to find respected scholarly journals written by Jews Israelis, etc. I was not aware of the lack of citation which you mentioned in your previous posts. I don't deny that it is a valid issue, i simply feel that it is only one of several valid criteria. i appreciate your overall attitude. I actually feel similarly to you in some ways, and would like some others to weigh in too. Our problem is simply finding some good sources which we can all feel really add to this article. i don;t really feel you are being obstructive to this; i am simply trying to suggest a few different ways to approach this. So if anyone could suggest a few useful jornals, sources etc, to go with, that would be good.

by the way, just to reiterate one other idea, if nothing else, we can still go with various openly-published books like Adams-Moodley, regardless of whatever bias they might seem to have to one side or the other. A researched well-cited book has its own validity, even though any book on this woiuld probably always seem to have some bias.

By the way, not to go on and on, but balancing things by community is exactly how I approach this. On certain crucial issues, Palesitnians believe Israel has wrongly taken their land and deprived them of certain political rights. I accept that is the sincere view held by members of the Palestinain communities, regardless of whether I agree with it factually. i believe in respecting some of the Palestinians concerns as a community, and whatever legitimate concerns they may feel in trying to do something for their community well-being. --Sm8900 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what Hornplease said above, I completely agree. I am not arguing, and I think neither does Hornplease, that "pro-israeli" content should not be included but rather that it should be given its due weight as the "pro-palestinian" content should have its due weight. Therefore, if some sources are more reliable, come from more respected journals, and have a bigger support among scholars they should be given a more important weight in the article. Please, don't understand this as a personal suggestion, but rather as my interpretation of the wikipedia policy WP:NPOV when it says: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. In a subject like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where there has been extensive propaganda from both sides, in my opinion that rule should be respected with extreme rigour. Cheers. --Jorditxei 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously some sources are more reliable than others, but can't we agree that both Jewish Virtual Library and the Journal of Palestine Studies are both reliable sources worthy of citations in a Wikipedia article? Just because the word "Jewish" is in one or the word "Palestine" is in the other does not make them grossly biased to the point of propogandizing. Both sources include articles written by reliable experts with impressive resumès and both have articles that emphasize "their" narrative of the conflict. So, yes, it might not be as NPOV as an The Continuum Encyclopedia of the Middle East, but I haven't heard any complaints that either of these sources are "unreliable" (i.e. that the information presented in the articles are bogus). --GHcool 05:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ghcool. i predict our fellow editors will respond that the Journal of Palestine Studeies is a notable journal, while Jewish Virtual Library is not. however, hopefull we can all agree that at some point, it is helpful just to have some source for a coherent summary of the pro-Israel viewpoint. --Sm8900 01:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900 brings up a good point that I hadn't considered. Nevetheless, I still consider the words of the writers on Jewish Virtual Library to be reliable based on their expertise and experience despite the fact that (as far as I know) their content isn't peer reviewed (I assume JPS is peer reviewed ... if not, please correct me). --GHcool 04:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you. I'm at a loss to understand what would be accomplished by denying the label of "partisan" from one side's publications. Are we to believe that there is a singular objective position, and then there is the "Israeli position", balanced perhaps just by the likes of the "Hamas position"? Tewfik^Talk 06:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would rather prefer that we stick to scholar journals. There has been much propaganda on both sides and we should be careful with our sources. I prefer to use scholar sources than sources from officials, diplomats etc of any government. There is plenty of scholar research on the issue, for example: Middle Eastern Studies, Middle East Review, Middle East Policy, Middle East Journal, International Journal of Middle East Studies and the Journal of Palestine Studies. For me including the jewish virtual library would be acceptable but again I would prefer more reliable and scholarly sources. I have repeated ad nauseam what the JvirtualLib says about the palestinian refugee problem, it is clearly biased with nearly no reference to the research done by New Historians. The Ariel center is clearly biased as I argued above and non-scholar, Yoram Ettinger is an ex-official of Israel's embassade in Washington DC, how can we expect these sources to be reliable? A scholar journal as GHcool says has peer review and there are many scholar journals. Still, if you want to stick to what those sources say, in general, I would accept it. I think we can just stop this discussion and rather discuss the text proposals, if any problem exists with the sources we can discuss that in particular but so far I think it was Jayjg who started this whole discussion by unfoundedly arguing that the JPS was not a reliable source which prompted the opposite accusation from Hornplease and myself. But it appears to me that the proofs we have provided just dismiss that phalse accusation. Moreover, he is no longer discussing the issue so if you agree lets just work on something more useful like discussing the wording of the text and the new proposals. Thank you.--Jorditxei 11:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though I would include The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East as being among one of the top peer-reviewed, scholarly sources when it comes to historical studies of the Arab-Israeli conflict and other Middle Eastern political/historical phenomena. --GHcool 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jorditxei. i agree completely, and I accept your proposals. Furthermore, re your viewpoints about the relative reliability of various sources; I am at least open to that. I don't care what stipulations or reservations we accept about the relative stregnth of each source, as long as both sides of the issue are heard. I would feel the same way about a less-reliable website of the Palestinians, even one I totally disagreed with, since my main consideration is that both sides should have their concerns heard. So please feel free to lay out your ideas for the text. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, upon rereading your proposal in the section above, the one with expresions of support, that one seems ok to me right now. So if you want to include that, it seems fine to me. If I have anything which I want to discuss later, I'll let you know. --Steve, Sm8900 16:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GHcool's new proposal based on Jorditxei's proposal above

The following is my proposal based on Jorditxei's proposal above:

Palestinian and international authors have justified the right of return of the Palestinian refugees on several grounds:

• Several authors included in the broader New Historians agree that the Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun. A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948", dated 30 June 1948 affirms that:

"At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases...

• The traditional israeli point of view arguing that arab leaders encouraged palestinian arabs to flee has also been disputed by the New Historians, which instead have shown evidence indicating Arab leaders' will for the palestinian arab population to stay put .
• The Israeli Law of Return that grants citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world is viewed as discrimination towards non-Jews and especially to Palestinians that cannot apply for such citizenship nor return to the territory from which they were displaced or left.
• The strongest legal basis on the issue is UN Resolution 194, adopted in 1948. It states that, "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." UN Resolution 3236 "reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return". Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem," however, Resolution 242 does not specify that the "just settlement" must or should be in the form of a literal Palestinian right of return.

Opinions? --GHcool 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal GHcool. I have introduced the different sources to each claim so it cannot be dismissed as being original research, hope we agree is better to include them. Although I prefer my proposal, I will accept GHcool's proposal so we can agree and work on other issue. Nevertheless there is one change that should be made: the phrase "New Historians agree that many of the Palestinian refugees fleed Palestine" should be changed to "New Historians agree that most of the Palestinian refugees fleed Palestine". The New Historians do not argue that one of the causes for the exodus was israeli military actions but rather that it was the major/principal cause for their flight. Therefore they do not argue that many fleed because of that cause (I guess that this claim is even made by the "pro-israeli" historians) but rather that most of them fleed because of that cause (it is on this point that there is disagreement between both versions). There is a full agreement on this point by the New Historians: Morris, Masalha, Khalidi, Childers, Pappe, Segev, all of them agree on this point and that is what the SHAI document cited in the text says. I hope that this is ok with you. In my opinion, this change is necessary for the text to be acceptable. Cheers.--Jorditxei 10:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to reply briefly to say that i do not mind including the views of any specific group or faction, as long as they are indicated to be the views specifically of that group. therefore, your material on new Historians sounds fine to me. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Provide a source saying that the New Historians say that most and not many of the Arab population of Manatory Palestine were compelled by the Jews to leave and I'll be glad to accept it. Also, please add another source in addition to or instead of the Al-Awda website for the Law of Return racism discrimination accusation. Once those two points are cleared up, I think we can add this proposal to the article. --GHcool 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't have time to look for such a reference of something I thing is clear, that is, that the New Historians say that the major cause of the exodus was the actions by Haganah and the others (do you really don't know this?). Nevertheless I will do something easier that I hope satisfies you. Here it says that the New Historians are scholars like: Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, Avi Shlaim and Tom Segev. Benny Morris says that most fleed for that cause (see the wikipedia article on the issue), if you dont believe this, then read: Morris (1986): "What happened in History". Journal of Palestine Studies Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Summer, 1986), pp. 181-182. where he again defends this thesis. Ilan Pappe says here: "For a short while at the end of the 1980s, several academics, including myself, caught public attention by publishing scholarly books that challenged the accepted Israeli version of the 1948 War. In these books, we accused Israel of expelling the indigenous population and of destroying the Palestinian villages and neighbourhoods." he later adds: "When Israel took over almost 80 per cent of Palestine in 1948, it did so through settlement and ethnic cleansing of the original Palestinian population.". Avi Shlaim also argues in favour of considering that most left bcs of Israeli actions in "The Debate about 1948". Int. Journal of Middle East Stud. (1995), p. 287-304. Haven't seen what Segev says about it but the following links make me think that more of the same: Here when talking about the New Historians says: "These documents did not reach the people except after 30 years, in the beginning of the 1980s. Opening of these documents for researchers led to the appearance of what is called no "Revisionist History" or "New History". Among the revisionist historians are Tom Segev, Simha Flapan, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pape, Yossi Amitai, SeptaTevt, Ory Milstein and the greatest historian in the recent age "Arnold Twinby" whom without his courage and objectiveness the world was never to know why did the Palestinians escape form their homeland. Also some of those who were honest are Miller Booz, William Ernest Hocking, Alfred Lelental, Moshe Matohen, and the famous journalist "Dorothy Thompson". One of the most famous historians is "Benny Morris" who motivated researcher and studiers to research through issuing three important articles in 1986 before issuing his book in 1987: "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1948-1949"." Here it says: "The second version, told by the Palestinian refugees themselves, is that they were ethnically cleansed before, during, and after the war. In their lexicon, the expulsion was Al-Nakba (The Catastrophe), the most traumatic event in Palestinian history. More recently, "new Israeli historians" (really the same historians but they now had declassified Israeli sources to draw on) such as Ilan Pappe, Benny Morris, Zeev Sternhall, Avi Shlaim, Simha Flapan, and Tom Segev debunked the established Israeli myths. Using Israeli archives and declassified material, they were able to discover much of the hidden history of Zionism and the establishment of Israel.". So I have presented evidence that many scholars, included in the New Historians, converge in this idea. If you want more sources just read the article Nakba, personally, I don't want to lose more time on this because I think is something obvious and with no interesting feedback for me. If you still disagree, then I would suggest that you show me one source that says that most of the New Historians disagree with that most of the refugees fleed because of that cause. Thank you.--Jorditxei 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the entry New Historians says: "The main arguments of the new historians were summarized by Avi Shlaim as follows: (...) The official version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the New Historians said that the refugees were chased out or expelled." Hope it is clear now. As regards your second question, that I look for another source that says the same thing as Al-Awra, could I ask why? Thank you for your response.--Jorditxei 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

None of the information you presented above conclusively say that most (meaning more than 50%) of the Palestinian Arab population were forced to leave by Jews. At best, the information presented conclusively says that many (meaning a significant percentage) of the Palestinian Arab population were forced to leave by Jews. Al-Awra is not acceptable because it is an unreliable, partison source. --GHcool 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this kind of forking is inappropriate. Why would we selectively discuss only the controversial New Historians and one primary document that seems to support the conclusion? There is a whole entry at 1948 Palestinian exodus that discusses every relevant point in great detail, and is the result of dozens of discussions and hundreds of edits. If you feel that there is some novel information missing from it, engage in discussion there to add it. Bypassing that page and its discussions are otherwise a violation of WP:SUMMARY#Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised. Tewfik^Talk 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would ordinarily agree with you, Tewfik, but the way the section is currently written favors the Israeli position. In order to keep the section NPOV, we should probably either delete the HonestReporting bullet points or add some of the New Historian bullet points above. --GHcool 06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As GHcool says, that is the motivation for introducing this paragraph. Moreover Tewfik, the 1948 Palestinian exodus has not a single word on the palestinian refugee right of return and that is the subject of this section, so why should I do a summary of the Nakba? Moreover, the two phrases on the palestinian refugees (please, remark these are two phrases) are a good summary of what Nakba says on the issue: New Historians think the majority of refugees fled bcs of israeli military actions, New Historians have disputed the claim that Arab leaders instigated the flight and there are other historians like Efraim Karsh that instead support the traditional official israeli version and this argument is also in our section here in the Honest Reporting part. So all your claims are just not justified, we have here a summary of what is said in Nakba about the refugees but we should not do a complete summary-paragraph because as I say, we are dealing with the "right of return" here not with the history of the palestinian exodus, I hope this is clear now. Thank you.--Jorditxei 08:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As regards your claim GHcool, I find it hard to think that this phrase: "The official version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the "new historians" said that the refugees were chased out or expelled" just means that a significant number of refugees were chased out or expelled. No, it doesn't mean that it says that the major/principal/most important factor explaining the flight of the palestinian refugees is precisely israeli military action expelling and chasing them, that is what it says. I don't think that such phrase means only that "a significant number of palestinians fleed for that cause" no. It clearly says that the more significant number of palestinians fleed for that cause. Saying "many" is a common euphemism I am starting to get used to here. But in any case, I don't want to keep losing my time with this. So given that I have given you this source stating: "the New Historians said that the refugees were chased out or expelled" I rewrite the text accordingly, that is: "Several authors included in the broader New Historians agree that the Palestinian refugees fleed Palestine due to the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun." which is the same as saying the refugees were chased out or expelled, in your opinion this means that many were in mine it means that most but in any case it is what the source says. If you want we can change it to:"Several authors included in the broader New Historians agree that the Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun." I think we have an agreement here :) Thank you. --Jorditxei 09:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way I have changed the phrase accordingly: "Several authors (...) agree that the Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun"[60]. Cheers. --Jorditxei 09:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The new sources you asked for have also been introduced. I hope some of them will satisfy you. Thank you.--Jorditxei 10:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new reference and a new UN Resolution cited by that reference. Cheers.--Jorditxei 10:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Your arguments are good ones. I'll accept your proposal. The only complaint I have left is that there are a lot of direct quotes (mostly from the Shlaim source) that are not attributed to Shlaim. Feel free to add the exact text above to the article and I'll format it later when I get a chance. --GHcool 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys still proposing this horrendous original research? According to whom is resolution 194 "the strongest legal basis" for anything? Again, it's a G.A. resolution, it cannot create international law. Also a 1988 article by Masalha, Nur-eldeen in the Journal of Palestine Studies is not proof of anything. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How about if we say "diplomatic basis" instead of "legal basis"? --Steve, Sm8900 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. i would just like to post briefly to indicate mys suggestion and feeling. i would suggest that we should go ahead with Jordixtei's text. I do not see anything excessive in this text. i feel the best way to address issues of this type is to allow editors to make their edits, and then to add, if desired, some compensating information and views. I don't mean to sound overly conciliatory. However, I prefer not to see contention over individuals' edits. I prefer to see a gradual process of allowing text and entries to evolve. in this case, the proposed text does not seem overly problematic; it seems well enough to include, and then add alternate or compensating views, if needed. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of Sm8900's suggestions. --GHcool 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep not understanding the issues raised by Jayjg. So you think that an opinion of Masahla should not be in the section, nevertheless you have not criticised, at least not so far, the text already in the section here which as you can see cites only one source, the HonestReporting in which it bases the israeli opinion on the issue of the palestinian right of return. On one only source is that section developed and takes no account of the palestinian opinion on the issue. I have presented here a text of very few lines with 14 references (even more I think), the text already in the article has 7 and is only based in the HonestReporting, still you argue that this is original research, that one source does not prove anything (what should it prove I wonder), etc. Don't you think that something should be said about the palestinian opinion on the issue? Then lets work together like GHcool has done to agree on the text. You have been of no help here, you give no concrete explanations of the reasons why you refuse to accept the text, for example GHcool made a proposal, and we have agreed on the wording of a sentence, what are your concrete proposals please? Thank you to GHcool and Sm9800, I appreciate that we reached an agreement on the "most"-"many" issue. ;)Cheers.--Jorditxei 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jorditxei, I suggest that you go ahead and add the text. We can still continue the discussion here, in any area. --Steve, Sm8900 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I have introduced the text in the section. Thank you. Cheers.--Jorditxei 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask other editors not to remove Jordixtei's material. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion re WP guidelines

Moreover I am quite surprise an admin like you made a change to a guideline [61] and found no consensus on it [62] and now you are trying to tell us that my proposal does not follow those guidelines, your guidelines by the way, do you think this is serious? Moreover, I am willing to contribute on the article on the Palestinian exodus and surely will include sources that are lacking there. Thank you.--Jorditxei 10:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, do you think guidelines and policies are created in heaven, and handed down written on stone tablets? In actuality, Wikipedia editors write them, and update them all the time for increased clarity and utility. The guideline is eminently sensible; there is no good reason why summaries of sections should contain unique material, and many good reasons why they should not. A summary is, in case you have forgotten, supposed to be a summary of material, not a new synthesis. The very best possible outcome when someone adds new material to a summary section, rather than the main article, is that the two don't disagree very much. That's the best possible outcome, and it's an unacceptable one in an encyclopedia. The guideline is Wikipedia's consensus, not "my guideline". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not consensus, Jay. Not consensus. It was objected to at the time, and it still being objected to. That is not consensus. I apologise for repeating myself, but perhaps that will help. If not, perhaps this? or this? Hornplease 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was and is consensus. Even more importantly, it's both common sense and better for the encyclopedia as a whole. The fact that you didn't respond to the substance of my previous comment was telling; there is no rational response to it, so you argue on procedural grounds instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to respond to it here. I merely note that it is not consensus since it was objected to at the time, that discussion was not resolved according to the talkpage, and I - and others - are objecting to it's application again. And you are the one arguing on procedural grounds - you brought up the dashed guideline in the first place!

If I were you, I would quietly stop quoting that guideline for just now, and focus on the specific sources being discussed here. It doesn't do you any good. I notice you have not responded to my suggestion that would make application of the guideline moot.Hornplease 08:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was that The edit seems so sensible and uncontentious I just do not understand any objections. - ie, summaries should be synchronised, and not content forks. Unless this summary is the former and not the latter (synthesising new conclusions as well), it is inappropriate. Without commenting on the content of the comparison, throwing one source out due to its name while not giving at treating the other in parallel seems unbalanced, to say the least. Tewfik^Talk 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt get what you said.--Jorditxei 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)