Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2017

Out of Scope

This article is about violent incidents.So I removed a recent entree about person that was allegedly denied a health treatment in Israel and died.This doesn't belong to the article as WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.If someone one want to include it please gain a consensus--Shrike (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A heart attack is not a violent incident

One quarter of Gazan requests for cancer treatment in Israel or the West Bank denied or ignored (World Health Organization figures) B'tselem 11 December 2016.

“It is illegal to give any medical attention to the Jews, just as it is illegal to admit Jews to hospitals. Jews can be treated only by Jewish physicians.” Jews denied medical services in Poland 29th March 1940

Of course, from your nationalist perspective denying, as is an obligation under the Geneva Conventions, medical treatment to a boy who died after refusing to collaborate with Israeli security officers in exchange for life-saving treatment is not violent. It's just that shit happens, as a result of Israeli inaction. According to the Palestinian accounts, his death followed directly on the refusal to allow a man with a dangerous medical condition to get the treatment Israel is formally obliged to give, or allow (in West Bank or Jordanese hospitals) to be given. Thanks for clarifying your POV.Ahmed was denied treatment, and the usual Israeli POV pushers deny mention of the fact.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yet another DS violation from Nishidani, he reverted my removal of a generic neighbor dispute and using SYNTH, he is calling it part of the IP conflict. Not every dispute involving a Jew and an Arab is a IP conflict issue. It is OR and SYNTH to include. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's not synth if Reshet refers to there being nationalist/ethnic motives behind the attack. Though in fairness, that's the subtitle/content, the main title is Suspicion. I'm not sure what came of it further. Never mind, I misread the date—this is recent. El_C 21:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Reshet translation

"Threats and throwing a grenade to intimidate an Arab family: yesterday (Sunday), the police arrested four suspects from Petach Tikva—two men and two women—that according to the allegation had threatened an Arab mother and her daughter during the past few days. The reason behind the intimidation was to force them to leave their apartment in the city.

The arrest of the suspects—men aged 58 and 21 and two young women aged 21 and 24—was undertaken yesterday, after the resident found the remains of a stun grenade at the laundry room of the apartment where the women lives with her daughter.

One of the arrested suspects also made similar threats toward the family, this according to police: he drove his motorcycle nearby the women while she was walking in the street thereby risking her life.

This morning, the suspects will be brought to the Peace Court in Petach Tikva to discuss extending their incarceration: at this stage they are alleged of making threats, throwing a grenade, and other offenses." (Reshet) El_C 21:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

El_C, "בית משפט השלום" would be better translated as "Magistrates' Court". RolandR (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

but does that translate confidently into being part of the ip conflict? I'm not fully confident.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

They did not want Arabs as neighbors, so I think national/ethnic ("rekah leumani") motives are at play. I'm not sure how ideological it was beyond that, however. Tentatively, though, I think it does fall under ARBPIA. El_C 21:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

right, I'm not denying race as a motive, but I don't know if we can ascribe it to the greater conflict. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The question is: do we consider anti-Arab racism as encompassed ideologically by the larger conflict? If we go by broadly construed, I would have to say that yes. El_C 22:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

broadly construed is how to enforce sanctions. I don't know if this is an incident of ip related violence that warrants inclusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions—It is my opinion that anti-Arab racial animosity in Israel is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict as a whole. Those operating under such racism usually have a strong ideological position on the conflict. El_C 22:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, how do we know they didn't want Arabs as neighbors? They didn't want these people as neighbors, and they were complaining about noise issues. I don't feel 100% that we can say this incident is about the IP Conflict area. Not every interaction with Arabs and Jews is about the IP conflict, some are regular day-to-day incidents that every place has. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

We know because that's what reliable published sources are saying: googel.co.il El_C 23:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying is not liking Arabs to be your neighbor doesn't mean it's IP conflict related, it could just be they don't want an Arab as a neighbor. Racism didn't start in 1948. We should restrict this article to incidents which are clearly about the IP conflict. In this case all we have is the news reporting that an Arab was targeted, but nothing else. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

An Arab was targeted for being Arab. The conflict between Arabs and Jews in Israel/British Mandate of Palestine didn't start in 1948; I'm not at all sure that ARBPIA limits itself to the founding of the State of Israel. Racism in this case is ideological and rooted in the conflict. El_C 23:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The incident about throwing a stun grenade into a house is obviously violent. While some news reports say that the trigger of the dispute was over playing music on Shabbat, others say that the motive is suspected to be racist. From Haaretz Petah Tikva mayor Yitzhak Braverman told Haaretz he strongly condemns any violence. "Israeli society needs to show zero tolerance for expressions of racist violence. I have no doubt the Israel Police will enforce the law severely against the attackers," he added. I don't see it as fundamentally different from a Palestinian knife attack against some civilian, or settler intimidation against Palestinians. I have re-added the incident together with the comment by the mayor.

More broadly, perhaps the scope of this article could be clarified. But that should be done independently of the dispute over this portion.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have self-reverted for now, because the edit is perhaps still "disputed". I would like to hear objections, if any. Bolter21 also reverted the old text, perhaps they can indicate if they are happy with the new text or not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, there is a crap ton of racist attacks by Arabs against Jews. There are stone throwings on a weekly basis in the Gilliee, Wadi Ara and the Negev. There are acts of vandalism and there are brawling, which I myself got into once. If a Palestinian man in the West Bank attacks an Israeli, it has a connection to the conflict, becuase he is a resident of the West Bank, an occupied area. If someone in the Green Line has some dispute with his neighbors, it has nothing to do with the conflict. After all, Palestinians in the West Bank don't simply stab their noisy neighbors, they stab Jews in general. If these group of thugs searched for a random Arab and attacked him, I would be more positive about including it in the list, but this is more of a racist neighbors' dispute rather than a violent incident in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this page could be renamed: "List of violent incidents in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, 2017"? I think all of the incidents listed so far fall into that category. Or something shorter to make it clear that it is talking about the situation outside the Green Line? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's needed. We just need to nail down what is included. For example, should Bolter21 add all the instances where Arabs throws stones at Jews when it's not IP related? I think this list should be those where it's 100% explicit that it was related to the IP conflict. Most of the events therefore would indeed be in the disputed territories, but that doesn't preclude adding things when it's clear that it's IP related even though it took place in Israel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If we consider the fact the Gazans fire on the green line, and the special character of the terror wave in late 2015 was that the attacks were spread around the green line, the I/P conflict is not limited to the Palestinian Territories. Just for reference, the incident I was involved it, included Arab thugs fighting a Jewish medic, because they deemed his service to their mother is disrespectful, saying ambigues Arab sentences including "Yahud"(=Jew). I have no reason to believe Arab-Israeli stone throwings are more than that, a group of thugs doing racist things. By throwing stones on the car of someone from Be'er Sheva, we can't really know they are doing that in order to make the Zionist enemy leave their fatherland. In the West Bank the situation is different, and given the fact there are a few tens of thousnads of rock throwing incidents in the West Bank, as opposed to a few hundred in the Green Line, it is safe to assume the notion backed by sources, that stone throwing are part of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and it is in the frame of Palestinian nationalism and opposition to Israeli presence in the West Bank and/or Israel. We can easily define what is part of the conflict, but it seems hard to define what is not part of the conflict, so I say, that in the absence of proper context, we shouldn't assume that every violent incident between Jews and Arabs, simmilar to violent incidents between Muslims and Druze, are part of the fight between Zionism and the Palestinian National Movement and Fundementalist Islam. When you wake up in the morning, pick a salad knife, and search for a Jew to slaughter, it is not just a thug being racist. Just like we mentioned the teenager in Dimona who stabbed four Arabs in late 2015, or the idiot who accidently stabbed a Jew, because he thought he is an Arab, in Kiryat Ata, we mention when Arabs do it. Had there been no conflict, there would still be racists doing anything as far as killing people different than them, so connecting it to the conflict is not serious.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

But those sort of racists would have had different ideological motivations; in this case the spectre of the conflict weighs heavily on the racist attack. El_C 13:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

On the so-called 'neighbour' dispute, aside from myself, El_Ca and User:Kingsindian, 3, appear to favour its reinclusion, while SJ and Bolter demur. Roland has not decided either way. Is this correct? Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am indifferent either way on this. Shrike also opposes it, as far as I can see. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If that is a reference to Shrike (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC) at the head of this thread, he expressed his opposition to a different case, not the stun grenade incident?Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, my mistake. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Property Entries

• I removed an entry about a new settlement being created since it's not a violent incident. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You have failed to read the governing principles of these pages, and therefore your removal contradicts the stated purpose of this list.

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including civilians killed or injured during protests, Israeli search-and-arrest operations, traffic incidents involving both parties whether deliberate or from as yet unknown causes,[1][2] property damage and expropriation List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015

That definition of the aims of these articles has been in place for over 2 years.

The outpost (itself illegal under Israeli law) was, according to Ma’an, on Palestinian property. The reference e you removed goes on to cite [1] B'tselem December 2016, to include this incident in a scheme of general practices which the NGO sums up as follows:

Yet it is an oft-repeated story. This report illustrates a sweeping, long-standing policy that Israel has been implementing in the West Bank for nigh on fifty years. Under the guise of “temporary military occupation”, Israel treats the occupied territories as its own: grabbing land, exploiting natural resources, and establishing permanent settlements. Palestinian residents are being increasingly dispossessed of their lands, roots and livelihood, to be replaced by Israeli control either by direct official action or by the settlers acting as its envoys.

Please note that this is exactly what the protocols for this page set forth as an example of 'violence'.

I.e. (a) the protocols set forth for these pages is that they include incidents of dispossession and expropriation (b) the specific instance was one reportedly of Israeli settlers setting up an illegal outpost (illegal under Israeli law) on Palestinian property. (c) the B'tselem link indicates that this practice is land-grabbing aimed at dispossession of Palestinian property. Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That is how you wrote this page but that doesn't mean that is how it should be. Expropriation of land is not a violent incident and should not be included in these lists. Rather than go back and forth, I suggest an RFC on this matter and I will abide by that decision. If you agree, I will set up the RFC.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have written 99& of these several articles, everyone else, save Bolter, just edits here to revert. That definition has stood for 2 years, regardless of who wrote it. We include, by common consent, all mentions of damage done to Israeli vehicles by stone throwing. That, SJ, is a property offense, and a form of violence, just as fencing off Palestinian land and denying access thereby, to expropriate it, is a form of violence. It is called in the literature, 'political violence' of which there are thousands of noted cases applied precisely to land expropriation:

From the use of the U.S. Army to combat and confine Indian peoples, to the state-sanctioned theft of Indian lands and resources, violence both predated and became intrinsic to American expansion. Violence enabled the rapid accumulation of new resources, territories, and subject peoples.

The kind of violence most rural people associate with shrimp farming has involved either endemic theft or individual acts of resistance, threats or assassination.' Nancy Lee Peluso, Michael Watts (eds.) Violent Environments, Cornell University Press, 2001 p.284

While this is about Indian peoples is utterly self-serving on the part of the christian conqueror, it is so tightly imnbricated with the psychological and theological need to justify and validate their own violent history of murder and land theft that the lie has become the well‐rehearsed, common‐sense truth on this continent, a deeply embedded part of the american narrative.’ Irfan A. Omar, ‎Michael K. Duffey (eds.)Peacemaking and the Challenge of Violence in World Religions, John Wiley & Sons, 2015 p.211.

In all 3 cases, violence grammatically refers to acts of land theft. This is established academic usage, not my spin.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Your first sentence already casts aspersions and claims ownership. It is also irrelevant to the discussion. The question is should we include property building as a form of "violent" incidence. (The_Wordsmith, can you please remind Nishidani to not cast aspersions?) Your claim that this is how it's always been is irrelevant. I remember mentioning this in a prior list article, that the list should only include "actual" violence and not to do with property. We use common usage and language and building a house is not a violent incident. As I said, I don't know why you have something against an RFC to get broader input. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nish I have warned you about a year ago about this list becoming an "Israel is shit" list. Building a settlement is maybe a violation of international law, and probably, Israeli law, but just becuase both the word violation and violent sound simmilar, it doesn't mean this has any place in a list of violent incident. There is no violent nature in building a settlement, the violence is usually what follows.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't warned you about anything. I have constantly advised the patriotic editors in this area to use RS to define their terms, and not intrude their private views, or allow their passionate feelings about their country, be it Palestine or Israel, to effect their contributions to wikipedia. I don't add 90% of what I personally regard as examples of state thuggery, and organized criminal theft of property, because they fail a number of criteria. This has nothing to do with 'Israel is shit'. This has everything to do with the destruction of rights and property which, under international law, it is not in Israel's rights to do. Israel is a lot of things you will never see on these pages, which deal exclusively with the reciprocal use of violence by citizens of Israel and Palestine. So get your act together, and examine the literature on land theft as a form of violence: it is endemic in the literature, and attempts to talk past the specialized literature by asserting personal opinions picked up from the popular press have no traction here. So either come up with textual evidence that denies land theft (under armed military guard or retroactive defence, is not a form of political violence or stop opinionizing. I will supply a dozen or so book citations which say it is.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Building the outpost is a violent incident just like Orit Strook is a civil rights activist. You have already lost the ability to include Palestinian violence that is not recorded in English sources, and there is no one here who will provide them. Say whatever you want, this list doesn't serve a purpose, especially when it doesn't represents its name and Ma'an is the main source. I don't care if some pro-Palestinians say that building an outpost is a violent incident, a violent incident is a violent incident. When you need to bring a source to prove something is a violent incident, it means it is probably not a violent incident. There is an obsession with the usage of terms when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Words like "apartheid" and "genocide" are corrupted, and now it seems some people have the urge to corrupt the term "violence". I can't visually imagine someone smart and intelligent, standing on a hill where a few crocheted kippas place caravans and say "this is violence".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the global literature defines land theft as a form of political violence. You are playing the Israel's an exception card, where the standard definitions don't apply i.e. blowing hot air. I gave three sources, and I'll provide more. Please answer that evidence the distinction I have provided is warranted in terms of customary usage as validated in verifiable RS. You have just kept repeating yourself. Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Political violence" is not a violent incident. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the only relevent place to find "evidence" is law. Will you be given the punishment of punching someone in the face, if you put a caravan on a hill?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't be silly. 'Law'-in the common acceptance of principles governing all subjects irrespective of their ethnicity, wealth, political pull or religion applied neutrally- does not exist east of the Green Line. Everyone knows that, including most rational people.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Defining violence

• @Sir Joseph, Nishidani, and Bolter21: This discussion is rapidly devolving into politics and away from article content. You three going at each other will lead to nothing but sanctions. Unless you wish to have DS enforced strictly here, my suggestion would be to hold an RFC as to how to define "violence" for the purposes of IP conflict, to attract outside opinions and establish a real consensus. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• That is what I suggested right away. But Nishidani claims ownership of this article and casts aspersions on my editing here, which I don't appreciate. As I pointed out to him at the beginning of this conversation, I would welcome the opinion of outside editors and we should work on a neutral question for the RFC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wordsmith. If you examine the drift of this thread, SJ registered his revert. I gave a lengthy analysis of the question raised. This was not answered, point by point, which is the courtesy professional approach to disagreement. The reply was a repetition of a POV, i.e.'Expropriation of land is not a violent incident,' repeated a third time ('Political violence" is not a violent incident..')Bolter stepped in and made an insinuation in my regard:'I have warned you about a year ago about this list becoming an "Israel is shit" list.' I.e. he personalized this, saying I was engaged is promoting an 'Israel is shit' page on Wikipedia. I replied to that, as it is a serious charge (we have, by that criterion, some 2 dozen 'Palestine is shit' lists (Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, and I started this page because numerous editors were singling out Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis while repressing any mention of the converse: a time line of both sides' violence was required per WP:NPOV. I am the only editor covering both sides, though Bolter does at times help.

Apart from Bolter's distraction of the technical issue by insisting I was getting at Israel, SJ used your intervention to make 2 accusations against me personally:

Nishidani claims ownership of this article and casts aspersions on my editing here, which I don't appreciate.

I have never claimed ownership of this page. It is not my fault if the only external editing, other than Bolrter's, is to remove items regarding Israel. Secondly, I cast no 'aspersions' on his editing in writing that he did not read the protocols for this page. He clearly didn't, because, as I noted, the page deals also with expropriations of land and dispossession of the Palestinians.

This issue here is whether the given consensus building process is to be respected or gamed by numbers and opinionizing. We are told that:'(On talk page discussions) editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The opposing editors have been given reasons and sources, and are ignoring them. There has been no attempt to address the material or reasons I have given.

So far I have adduced material evidence from reliable sources on the definition of why land theft, which is what the Palestinian POV holds it is, is viewed in the academic disciplines bearing on this topic, as a form of violence. You have it in numerous studies

• in Algeria. It is standard in works on Palestine
• 'Settler violence in the form of property and land damage').
• 'The violence of expropriation, which took numerous forms, was intended to separate people from the land.'
• 'Herzl, for example, proposed sending secret agents to offer landowners high prices for their land, create unemployment, and persuade the people of Palestine to leave their country. When he proposed this 'voluntary expropriation' of land, Herzl had no moral qualms whatsoever about employing these violent means for "redeeming the land"..'
• 'We suggest four basic types of violence . .The original form was the violence of expropriation, meant to separate people from the land, often ancestral holdings, and thereby to create proletarians- people who had no productive property and hence nothing to sell but their labour'
• 'expert knowledge previously demanded to support a land claim are now increasingly seen as perpetuating a form of legal violence, since such evidentiary procedures actually rest on the very treaties and legal forms of expropriation which sundered indigenous people from their land in the first place.'
• 'Patterns of colonial exploitation, from the expropriation of land, to the imposition of taxes to the creation of famine-inducing ecologies, were violent economically and had violent effects on the body, not least starvation.'
• in the form of robbery,organized oppression and exploitation, including the annexation and colonisation of the Caribbean marked the rose dawn of capitalism. . Violence was at work in the construction of colonial fortifications to expropriate the lands and subjugate and/or exterminate the indigenous population. .'.

It is simply not good enough for editors to constantly, as does SJ, insinuate that an argued thread where reasons are given, sources are supplied, is irrelevant since 'aspersions are being cast'. Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of repeating myself when I told you at the outset that I think an RFC would work. Let's remember that the "protocols" for this page was written by you. It can also change. When people talk about violent incidents, they talk about actual violent incidents. There really is no point continuing this discussion. As I said now half a dozen times, I would be more than happy to open an RFC and abide by that decision. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the act of building something illegally is not intuitively a violent incident. There could be violent incidents that occur due to that, and indeed it can be seen as a politically or socially or economically violent act, but this—like, for eg., purposefully bolstering unemployment—is different from sheer physical violence. El_C 14:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So we now have three editors who don't believe it should be added to this list. At this point, I think consensus is clear that only actual acts of violence should be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

From the Ma'an article:

Activist Kathem Hajj Muhammad said that Israeli settlers have set up caravans in the area of al-Tabbun in al-Mughayyir, Abu Falah, and Kafr Malek villages. He added that the settlers had placed barbed wire around the caravans in the new outpost, while opening a road in order to facilitate reaching the outpost from a nearby settler bypass road, Muhammad said.

and the next paragraph: The new outpost is the second reported since the start of the year, with Israeli settlers setting up mobile homes on land belonging to the village of Azmut in the northern West Bank district of Nablus at the start of the year. The new outpost is located just a few hundred meters away from the illegal Elon Moreh settlement.

See also this B'Tselem report: In practice, each and every restriction Israel has imposed on the residents of ‘Azmut, Deir al-Hatab and Salem has enabled settlers to encroach on these lands and increase the land under settler control. The separation Israel has created between the Palestinian residents and their farmland and pastureland allows settlers to build houses, establish outposts, dig pathways, plant crops and groves, graze flocks, and take over natural water sources on that land. Meanwhile, villagers are also regularly subjected to physical attacks.

I have no idea if the Ma'an report is true in all details, but for the following, I'm assuming that it is. If I come into your house with a gun and put barbed wire around your bedroom, that doesn't count as "violence", but it only counts as violence if you attack me? You have to see the violence inherent in the system! Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that Nishidani wants all property incidents to be included, regardless if there's violence or not. Yes, pointing a gun at someone would be a violent incident, but going to court and showing that a building was built without a permit or improper zoning and then forcing the inhabitants to remediate, is not a violent incident. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is you are refusing to address the issue of definitions. The protocols of this series of pages include property expropriation, in accordance with numerous specialist definitions. I.e.’Political violence is generally understood to mean behavior that violates the prevailing definition of legitimate political action’. p.39 Operationally political violence includes 'forms of action such as attacks on property, when damage or theft of property is the main goal.’ p.42 Joseph Thomas Social Movements and Violence, Mittal Publications, 2001 pp.39,41

Could I therefore prevail on you to look at the technical definitions rather than wave the kitchen sink feeling for the word 'violence'?Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with it. This list should only be actual violent incidents, not property issues. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Numbers are not what counts. I understand that evidence is ignored generally by editors here, but EL C, I would expect that you, at least, would address the actual evidential basis I have supplied, which would suggest that the expropriation of land is widely perceived in comparative studies as a form of violence. I did not refer to 'building something illegally' in the first place. The article removed referred to the fencing in with barbed wire of an area of land that the Palestinians claim is Palestinian. In that POV, it is denial of an economic resource (most often grazing lands) consequent upon appropriation. The building is neither here nor there. Policy requires that our arguments address sources, otherwise, as the 3 comments show, we simply have opinions that are neither here nor there. Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, no editor requires consensus to put up an RfC, so I thought SJ would proceed with his proposal. I have no objections. When it is put up, I will collect the dozen or more academic sources which equate land theft across the world with violence, and I hope neutral editors will address this issue. We cannot rely on our personal feel for words, when they are used in the technical literature more broadly that our restricted vernacular usage suggests.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Except, I don't think it's viewed as actual physical violence—political / economic / social violence, yes. But direct harm (or threats) to life and limb is what I think is ought to be listed in this article. The Arab woman and her daughter we discussed above serves as such an example. Land expropriation does not apply, I'd argue. I, however, am not arguing it isn't a form of violence—obviously, it is. Just not the direct physical kind. El_C 07:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There are no adjectives attached to violence in the protocols (b) I gave a dozen examples where in the academic literature, all similar situations world-wide are described in terms of violence. I don't think we have a remit to go beyond what sources say, esp. in definitions. I guess you mean chronic, quotidian harassment is not a form of 'violence', which means at least for 1,000 years anti-Semitism was not 'violent', because 99% of the time no one was physically injured, though their livelihoods or careers or education were systematically compromised. Not only to me, the obdurate maltreatment of others in any society because their identity is despised is an obvious form of violence. We allow the uprooting of trees to be an act of violence (property damage) but

If Palestinians decide to walk through a Jordan Valley village, for example, or to plant trees on their land in the hills around Hebron or Jenin, it is not at all uncommon for the Israeli military to issue demolition or confiscation orders a few days later in a clear if unstated retaliation for their actions.(Mark LeVine, 2016 p.24)

the confiscation, with its economic consequences on livelihoods, is not violence. It's just, um, whatever. . . To privilege the vernacular use of the word 'violence' as it was used before adjectivalization refined its nature from the 1960s (there are many childhoods that are 'violent' without anyone laying a finger on anyone else*) is to ignore the work of several decades of scholarship. Still, I am waiting for an RfC to be raised, not simply because I'm a lone voice. I think this needs detached neutral input looking at the evidence of usage. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• In short, Bella Kovner and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian (bopth of Hebrew University Jerusalem), 'Children's rights, state criminality and settler colonialism: Violence and Child Arrest in Occupied East Jerusalem,' (State Crime Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, Palestine, Palestinians and Israel's State Criminality (Spring 2016), pp. 109-138)'s minute survey of numerous examples of night arrest of children down to 8 years old**, being handcuffed, isolated in police cells, shouted and threatened without their parents present, etc. is not a form of violence because, besides peeing or shitting themselves, they are half the time not punched up, and therefore this is not 'violent' though constantly infringing both Israeli and International Law. No parent I've ever met would say if that happened to their child, that it didn't qualify as violence, but then again I've lived only in countries where this is never done.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • An example the other day occurred in Hebron, on video. To anyone surely, certainly to B'tselem, that is filmed is trauma-inducing violence to a child whose rights to basic protection from this kind of behavior are guaranteed by international law and every civilized democracy. In your take, he wasn't physically injured, so it is irrelevant to I/P violence? Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add incidents that are clearly not violent. Demolishing a home that lacked permits is not a violent incident. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I and others have been adding this material on demolitions for years and no one has reverted it. You are introducing a new theory against the page practice. I will do so in conformity with an accepted reading of the protocols governing this page, which have stood for several years, and which generally, editors have no objected to, since the pages have been packed with instances of such demolitions and to my knowledge, you are the first to question them. To remind you, the governing protocol reads:

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including civilians killed or injured during protests, Israeli search-and-arrest operations, traffic incidents involving both parties whether deliberate or from as yet unknown causes,[1][2] property damage and expropriation, involving a violation of rights, taking place between Israel and Palestinians.

These articles have two POVs to be balanced. For Israelis it's okay to knock down a Palestinian house without an Israeli permit (Israeli outposts with numerous buildings that are illegal even in Israeli law are not demolished on sight, but go through extenuating legal processes that can last a decade, and even then do not often lead to demolishment, though on Palestinian land. To a Palestinian POV, the denial of one's right to build on one's own land, because the occupying authority controlling the zone militarily refuses you a permit, is a violation of their right to a home, and the demolishing of such buildings is the destruction of a family's wealth. Since when is one POV to have a censoriousa priority over another? Both must be included per WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Claiming ownership of an article is not a valid excuse. Furthermore, claiming that nobody objected is not a valid reason either. In fact, I did mention this in a prior article, and furthermore, there was never a consensus, it was just you deciding on what is or what is not acceptable for entry into this page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Best to define physically violent incidents by an intuitive standard—if there is physical violence. Maybe there could be mention of other indirect forms of violence, like demolition, etc., in this article, but only as a passing mention other forms of violence exist. Not list every one of 50,000(!). El_C 20:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no mention that the instances of 'violence' listed must be 'physical'. That editing protocol has been in place for three years, and no one has objected, or mechanically reverted the hundreds of listed cases of home demolitions as (in a Palestinian perspective) violent, then why at this late date is just the one latest example in the sequence being reverted. If applied it would gut a huge amount of these articles. And, secondly, to repeat, El C, this is not about Israel's POV ruling the roost, as you appear to be saying. It is about WP:NPOV which obliges us to respect both POVs. Having your home reduced to rubble is in a Palestinian perspective (not theirs alone) a violent measure. The most astonishing thing here is that Bolter has (rightly in my view) together with myself, consistently added every instance of Palestinian damage to Israeli vehicles, broken windows to these articles. No protest, justly so. But if an occupying power destroys your home, that is not acceptable for wiki. If the occupied people damage your Citroen while you driven in their part of the world, that acceptable 'violence'. Go figure, hmmm. . . . I guess the next move will be to state that settlers uprooting 500 olive trees on a Palestinian patch of land ain't violent. Fucking bizarre.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this list exclude incidents of demolition of homes built without permit? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

---

RfC closer should note the confusion brought by the original RfC having been replaced long after it had gone live, despite an objection from the RfC author, and with no record of the replacement being made anywhere in the header(!). No record that people had !voted for another question. Never do this again, Kingsindian. [Do not even think of modifying this comment.] El_C 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Survey

• Yes a violent incident is one where there was a violent incident. Not all property instances are violent. Demolishing a home for example where there were no permits is not a violent incident. Even knocking down a home of a terrorist is not a violent incident, knocking down a terrorist would be a violent incident. When people say violence, they refer to physical violence, not necessarily political violence. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• No. Editors from both POVs have no problem over the last several years in adding material about material damage to Israeli vehicles from stones thrown by Palestinians to this article. The article defines its scope as including the destruction of property owned by either side. The article includes hundreds of cases of thousands of olive groves being uprooted. Until today, no one challenged the guiding protocol nor the several hundred edits over three years which added instances of this behavior, which, from a Palestinian POV, is a violent denial of livelihood and the right to a roof over one's head on one's own property. The attempt to restrict 'violence' to physical acts is POV-driven, endorsing the perspective of the belligerent occupying power(the official legal definition of Israel in this area) while disinvalidating the right to equal mention the opposing POV, that of the Palestinians. The proposal in short is an egregious challenge to WP:NPOV. It is not a matter of taking sides, but of ensuring a pillar of wiki reportage is studiously observed.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Social / Economic / Political violence, oppression and stratification should have their own article. El_C 21:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes I agree with the point of view that home demolition for reasons based in civil administration does not qualify as violence as in the sense of this article's title. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• No and comment. Home demolitions seem to be able to fall under the WHO definition of violence as provided on that page, and, I suspect, in the colloquial sense of the word too. Given the seriousness of the claims that they're being done as a form of collective punishment by one side of the conflict, incidents of home demolitions should not be excluded from this article when pertinent to the conflict. I'm not sure a name change is necessary, but it probably wouldn't hurt. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 04:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• No: "Violence" goes on all the time; every time a person is put in jail, that's violence. The issue is whether the violence is "legitimate" or not. Israel controls the occupied territories, and house demolition goes on all the time. See this UN OCHA page which has its own entry for property destruction. I quote from there: The destruction of property in an occupied territory is prohibited under international humanitarian law, unless absolutely necessary for military operations. This goes on all the time. For instance, see this UN report about permits in Area C in the West Bank. The planning and zoning regime applied by the Israeli authorities, including the ways in which public land is allocated, makes it virtually impossible for Palestinians to obtain building permits in most of Area C. Even basic residential and livelihood structures, such as a tent or a fence, require a building permit. See this Amnesty International report, and this B'Tselem report.

  I suggest the following: Make property destruction its own section and have a header at the top of the section laying out the Israeli position as well as the international position. (we could also copy the lead from the House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article). From the UN report:

  Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• No -- our article on violence refers to the WHO definition which includes force/power that results in psychological harm / deprivation. House demolitions obviously fit those elements of the definition. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• No The question is badly phrased, even disingenuous: house demolitions are themselves a violent incident, and should clearly be included in this list. RolandR (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Israel occupied another country in 1967, and since then it has bulldozed 48,488 Palestinian structures there. According to SJ, there is nothing violent about that policy and its application. It is thus considered by Palestinians, and the argument is, an Israeli perspective must prevail, and the Palestinian perspective is immaterial.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't discuss other editors in your discussion, stick to your comments and opinions, no need to bring other editors in. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I discussed exactly your personal opinion as expressed in your edit summary, so your remark is pointless. It is normal in Wikipedia to name the person who makes and edit, in responding to them.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We can't list every one of these 50,000 as an incident(!). El_C 20:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, there. Now we have, rightly so, 15 detailed articles by Israeli editors mainly on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. They detail every rocket attack editors have had time to note down from sources since 2000. Are you seriously suggesting that no such parallel close documentation can be listed when dealing witn damage done to Palestinians? Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you comparing a rocket attack from Gaza into Israel being the same as a house being demolished because it didn't have permits? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I am referring, which both you and El C are avoiding, to the following article 53 of the Geneva Conventions to which Israel is a signatory.

Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Housing demolition among an occupied people by a military power is regarded by numerous scholars as an example of collective punishment )See Avi Kober Israel's Wars of Attrition: Attrition Challenges to Democratic States, Routledge, 2009 pp.130ff.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

How does that translate into violence? And just for the record, Israel has stated that they are not required to follow the GC in the West Bank because they are not an occupying power under the terms of the Convention. But regardless, again, what does any of this have to do with violence? This list should be about actual violent incidents. Right now you are BLUDGEONING. We heard your opinion and you heard ours, there is no need to keep on going. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Not avoiding anything, you are just evading the point. The question whether those incidents deserve their own article is worth pursuing—I just don't think they belong in this one, which intuitively is about physical violence. El_C 21:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are evading the point. This article has accepted for several years precisely material of this kind. No one objected, except Sir Joseph after 3 years. Now you say, this doesn't belong in an article which specifically lists property damage as part of its list. Obviously, all one need to avoid the total evisceration of this article is to change the title to List of incidents of damage and violence, if you insist 'violence' excludes 50% of the stable material here. You're an admin.Try to resolve the issue creatively. Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

My creative solution is a new article dedicated to those issues. El_C 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not creative, because it means a month or so of eviscerating several articles to excerpt material a few of you think is not violent. See below for a creative solution.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, changing the title also works. I'm game with that. What do you say, Sir Joseph? El_C 21:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what the suggestion is. I also think the RFC below is not worded neutrally and is also not needed at this point. You don't open an RFC before even discussing the issue on the talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Rename this article List of incidents of damage and violence. El_C 21:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be more appropriate, but again, should only include events that can be directly tied to the conflict. In the incident I reverted today, a home was demolished because it didn't have proper permits, not because it was the home of a terrorist or something like that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a more convoluted title, but it does offer a compromise that maybe all sides could swallow. El_C 23:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess the counterpoint is that (Arabs in general) virtually never get permits to begin with. El_C 21:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

One reason that may be so, is that they don't request permits. Same reason why many don't get Jerusalem residency cards, to them it means they recognize Israel. And indeed, JPOST reported that Jerusalem does indeed grant permits to Arabs who request them. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, everyone knows Israel's position, but that is not what governs NPOV. You need the perspective of both sides, not the Israeli official position alone. The home, in land outside of Israel's borders, on property owned by the family who built it, was regarded by the occupying power as illegal. The point is 'Israel approves less than two percent of all requests for building permits submitted by Palestinians, and then razes the homes and shops that lack one.' On the other side, it approves 87% of building requests in the Israeli area of West Jerusalem. As I documented, Israel technically in international law does not have this right.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Stark numbers. We've also seen that point of contention flair up in the Negev with Bedouin. El_C 22:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Should this list be refined so that the incidents of uprooting of trees, housing demolitions, and incidents of violence registered some several thousand times from 2015 onwards be reflected in a more comprehensive and unambiguous way? If so, please offer suggestions that would make the titles given these several articles more consonant with the material they contain. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Rename this article List of incidents of damage and violence. El_C 21:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• I second that.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily object to this being expressed in !vote format, but what you can't do is bulltepoint and copy my comment as one. You can certainly start your own survey and hope I'm consistent, but this goes a step too far. No real harm done. but please don't do this again. (And I was wandering, when did I write that...) Thanks. El_C 23:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The statement of the RfC was not neutral. It is virtually begging the question. What the hell does "actual violence" mean? If I bulldoze your house while nobody's at home, does that mean it's not "actual violence"? I have neutralized the question. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Do not modify or add to text that has already been replied to(!). El_C 06:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

So far we've seen:

1. An entire new RfC added while this one was still in progress.
2. Copying a comment to then be used as a !vote.
3. Modifying/adding to the RfC and to text that already been replied to.

Folks, this type of behaviour will not fly so long as I am around here. El_C 06:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Do you have any problems with the way I neutralized the text? Also, if you're going to be participating in the discussion, you are acting as an editor, not an admin. I am fine with reverting the edit, but then this whole RfC is meaningless because the header is begging the question. I am fine with re-doing the RfC if one agrees on a neutral text beforehand. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously. The text has been responded to already. Stop modifying or adding to it. I'll admin this discussion if I have to against gross violations, even if I am involved in the discussion. That does not preclude me from maintain WP:TPG as admin. Take to ANI if you disagree, but cease immediately. El_C 07:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I have no intention of escalating this anywhere; if anyone cares, you have violated the ARBPIA restrictions by restoring disputed text. But the rule is stupid anyway, as both you and I agree. Here's my point. This RfC is meaningless because the header is not neutral. It is begging the question, by implying that house demolitions are not "actual violence", whatever the hell that means. Either you can go ahead with this meaningless RfC, or one can neutralize the question in a sensible way. It's very easy to do, I'll ping all of the people who have responded, and they can indicate whether they think the version which I put up is neutral. In the meantime, please remove the RfC header, so that more people don't answer the question and we'll then have to ping them too. How does that sound? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus rule does not apply to breaches of WP:TPG. The RfC has already been listed. It's too late for that. Do not modify or add to text that has been responded to. El_C 07:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

More about you modifying the RfC and Survery after they had been responded to on ANI. Let's spare this talk page. El_C 07:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why you went to ANI while not responding to my points at all. My main point was not whether you were acting improperly while being WP:INVOLVED, but about how we can come to a consensus, neutral wording. But whatever. I have opened a separate section below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I went to ANI so someone else can keep an eye on this Talk page while I'm away. The neutrality of the RfC is not pertinent to it already having been responded to. El_C 08:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wording of the RfC header

Sir Joseph, Debresser, El_C, Nishidani, Basawala I find the header to be not neutral, as required by the RfC guidelines, since it begs the question somewhat by implying beforehand that house demolitions are not "actual violence". Would you agree to this rewording: Should the list exclude incidents of demolitions of homes built without permits?. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is what you should have done to begin with. You ought to know better. El_C 07:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you fine with the alternate phrasing or not? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the original header is not neutral, and would support this rewording. It seems like it ought not to affect the content of the question, although without a note about the original question, it would look weird why so many of us commented about the definition/scope of 'violence'. It doesn't affect my response under "Survey"; perhaps ping the users who've responded again, if you change it. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 08:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC should be specifically about violence the home demolition is only example.--Shrike (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No objection—just don't see the point. The RfC asks whether we should go beyond physical violence, in general. Which seems clear and neutral enough to me. El_C 08:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say physical? The text says "actual". And to digress a bit, it's not even immediately clear to me whether "physical" violence excludes damage to property, but I think that's besides the point. Perhaps a brand new RfC really is needed, with more neutral and precise question(s). ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 08:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

One RfC at a time. El_C 08:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: How do you define "actual violence" without begging the question? The RfC does not talk about "physical violence" (what does that mean anyway?) If you mean violence against persons, as against property, then the RfC should say: "Should incidents of property violence be excluded". This is why I said the RfC is meaningless in the present form. Writing the RfC header is not an easy task; I have opened many RfCs in my time here.

Anyway, if you're fine with the proposed wording, can I change it back now? If you look at the responses, you'll see that everyone is talking about house demolitions, because that was the example given in the header. I am worried that someone else will post a reply and then I'll have to ping them again.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Actual means threat to life and limb. Let's not play with semantics. El_C 08:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That... doesn't sound neutral to me at all, you'll certainly not find that as a definition for actual in a dictionary. I interpret actual to mean "existing in fact" as opposed to fake. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 08:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As long as you understand what was meant. I would have phrased it as physical violence myself. El_C 08:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that the RfC "is meaningless in the present form"—I think it's working out alright. El_C 08:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Do not modify the RfC or Survey header until: 1. Everyone who participated is informed. 2. There's consensus for it. El_C 08:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: No, this is not a matter of semantics. The distinction between property violence and personal violence is an absolutely fundamental question. For instance, in the 1970s the PFLP used to hijack airliners, make all the people deboard, then blow up the airplane. Is that violence or not? As for consensus, I am unaware of any "consensus" for this RfC wording. Certainly, I wasn't asked about it. Nor was anyone else, to my knowledge. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That distinction was already made clearly enough. But if you want to argue over the header instead of continuing the discussion that Nishidani, Sir Joseph and I had already advanced, by all means. El_C 08:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we, without modifying the existing survey section, start a new survey section in this RfC with the question worded in a neutral and precise way that all users are fine with? ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 08:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I already explained it. There are other participants to consider. If they agree, we can go ahead. Not everything has to be done instantly. El_C 08:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we really need everyone's permission to start a new section in the RfC? I don't think we do, although everyone should certainly be informed that a new discussion exists. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 08:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, did you mean that you support Kingsindian's proposal, and that we should just wait until everyone involved responds? ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 08:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We should wait until more participants had a chance to respond to all this. El_C 08:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have no objection to Kingsindian's proposal. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• I am not sure what to say. I was pretty clear in my question that I was referring to actual violence, as in stabbings, shootings, rock throwing, etc. Demolishing a house built without a permit is not actual violence. As Bolter pointed out above, we don't need to include every incident between an Israeli and a Palestinian, no matter how it is reported in Maan "news." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: The problem is that people have different conception of what "actual violence" is. From the responses to the RfC, everyone has replied based on the one example you gave, which is house demolitions. If you want an RfC about whether house demolitions should be included, why not simply ask it directly instead of using this term "actual violence" which is not defined anywhere? Do you have any issues with the alternate wording? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but I think it should be a new RFC, not the present one. This one should be closed and a new one should be opened. You can't redo an existing RFC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: As discussed above, the aim is to get a wording which is neutral and clear the wording. Everyone who has responded so far has worked with the "house demolition" question anyway. I'll make the change now, and ping the people who were left out in the previous ping, to make them aware of the changed wording. Nomoskedasticity RolandR Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you replace the RfC anyway even though the author objected? RolandR feel "[t]he question is badly phrased, even disingenuous"—what question are they referring to? This is confusing, we don't know who responded to the original wording and who the supplanted one. El_C 18:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And the yes votes makes no sense either. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC Re-run

As should be evident above, acting as an uninvolved administrator to end ARBPIA sensitive topic questionable behavior, I have closed the RFC. This is not a value judgement on the appropriateness of having an RFC or on the topic material. It is not acceptable for modifications to be made to the RFC as happened here and that should not be repeated. Please come to a consensus on RFC wording and re-launch the RFC with cooperation from all parties not to go mucking about with its phrasing after it's launched.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have opened another RfC with the revised wording below. Hopefully, this will run smoothly now. I have also pinged all the participants in this RfC. Let me know if anyone has any issues. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You could have avoided a lot of tension by adhering to the talk page and RFC guidelines, waiting patiently for the consensus to rephrase the launched RfC. I, for one, am dissapointed at more than one person here for their overall lack of consideration. El_C 05:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a prediction: the !votes on the new RfC will be exactly the same as the !votes on the old RfC. The whole bureaucratic rigmarole was a massive waste of time, nothing else. But I am happy to do everything by the "book" if it makes you happy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing details that are customary in these articles

One of the first entries on this page runs as follows:

3 January

• According to initial Israeli reports 2 Palestinian motorcyclists were severely injured, and another lightly injured, at an Israeli flying checkpoint between Jenin and the al-Jalama checkpoint in a vehicular ramming attempt in which 2 Israeli border police also sustained injuries. Two 2 Palestinian motorbikes were involved. The initial report was later revised defining the incident as an accident. It was later reported by Palestinian media that a teen, Sharif Khanfar, was apparently riding on a Vespa motorcycle with three friends when they were arrested for allegedly attempting to hit the Israeli soldiers, and that they were injured when struck by an Israeli jeep. Khanfar later required surgery which led to the amputation of his leg below the knee. Many circumstances regarding the event, according to the boy's lawyer, remain unclear.

Obviously one cannot boil this down to:

2 Palestinian bikers were injured and 2 Israeli border police were injured at an Israeli checkpoint. Details, as reported, are required to make sense of the incident.

We do this throughout these articles. Thus at List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014(March 12–14), for one of hundreds of examples, we get the circumstances and detail.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad Militants fired at least 60 rockets at Israeli cities and towns, in the heaviest barrage since 2012. No direct injuries were reported, but a 57-year-old woman was lightly injured while taking cover in Sderot. At least eight rockets fell within communities, with one exploding near a gas station and another near a public library. Explosions rocked the cities of Sderot and Netivot, and sirens sounded as far away as Beersheba.[23][24]

In compliance with this practice I added: 29 March

Siham Nimr (49) of Shuafat refugee camp was killed by Israeli forces after she reportedly tried to stab them with a pair of scissors at Damascus Gate. Her son Mustafa Nimr had been shot dead when a vehicle he was in, driven by a druinken driver on drugs, rammed past a checkpoint in Eastern Jerusalem during a night raid, by border guards who mistook them for terrorists in September 2016. Palestinian sources say she was shot in the chest and left to bleed to death after a altercation with police at the site. She was with her daughter at the time.

The following detail was edited out, namely ’Her son Mustafa Nimr had been shot dead when a vehicle he was in, driven by a drunken driver on drugs, rammed past a checkpoint in Eastern Jerusalem during a night raid, by border guards who mistook them for terrorists in September 2016. Palestinian sources say she was shot in the chest and left to bleed to death after a altercation with police at the site. She was with her daughter at the time.’ with the edit summary, ' removing extra words not needed in a list.' So we get

Siham Nimr (49) of Shuafat refugee camp was killed by Israeli forces after she reportedly tried to stab them with a pair of scissors at Damascus Gate.

Message. Israel killed a terrorist.

This is wholly subjective, but worse still, it colours the facts by preempting the reader's right to know what happened, i.e. other relevant facts (from a different POV). It reads like the IDF army bulletins. Why is the mother's possible motivation for her act cancelled when all sources report it? Why are details allowed on a page dealing with violence against Israelis while SJ is denying similar detail on this page? please note that for 3 years, these lists have always had such circumstantial details of any incident when a separate article on the incident does not exist. Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Your post violates TPG. Please reformat or risk being reported. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what part of the post you don't like? I'll try to fix it if I can. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

For starters, it is my understanding that we do not include user name in the title of the thread. Discuss the edit, not the editor.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Your name is only included because you made the edit. Nobody is discussing you in the abstract, only your edit. However, to eliminate needless irritation, I have removed the name from the title of the section. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Why would her son's death be relevant here? Why is the fact that she was with her daughter relevant here? She tried to stab a soldier, she was neutralized. That's the incident. We don't need to know that a while back her son was killed, or are you saying that it's then justifiable to kill Israelis if your son is killed???? Also, in the future, try to use one or two sentences to get your point across. When you can do that instead of posting three paragraphs it greatly helps everybody. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with SJ its exactly the same as Azaria case that we had already RFC on that the article only a list so those details are WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Shrike. Please do not keep citing irrelevant policies to justify your edits or votes. WP:OR cannot have any relevance whatsoever for an edit that faithfully paraphrased the content of some articles. You also ignore the fact that the Azaria page has an independent article, this incident doesn't, and therefore contextual detail included nowhere else is permitted. SJ. I don't determine relevance, nor you. One edits according to RS. If 3 RS on an incident contain those details they are considered in reportage to be notable, and this establishes their relevance. You have trimmed it down that looks like an Israeli army bulletin, eliding the Palestinian POV, and the repetition in Israeli sources that she was depressed over her son's being killed 'accidently' by Israeli forces months earlier. I give all details whoever the victim is, Israeli or Palestinian, and have so for 2 years. You are removing the Palestinian details. Thirdly, you both ignore that throughout this page and earlier ones significant details have been given re Israelis and Palestinians, including background. On 3 occasions, SJ, you have tried to introduce an innovation in what has customarily been included here, without prior discussion. You revert one item after another of types we have long accepted.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC rerun: House demolitions

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Among rationale provided by different people supporting their stances in the discussion, the arguments raised by the includers seems to slightly stack-up against those provided by the excluders--esp. on the issues of definition et al.

Thus this list shall include the incidents of demolition of homes.Other formailities(contents, location etc.)could be decided later.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Should this list exclude incidents of demolition of homes built without permit? 23:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No: "Violence" goes on all the time; every time a person is put in jail, that's violence. The issue is whether the violence is "legitimate" or not. Israel controls the occupied territories, and house demolition goes on all the time. See this UN OCHA page which has its own entry for property destruction. I quote from there: The destruction of property in an occupied territory is prohibited under international humanitarian law, unless absolutely necessary for military operations. And this UN report about permits in Area C in the West Bank. The planning and zoning regime applied by the Israeli authorities, including the ways in which public land is allocated, makes it virtually impossible for Palestinians to obtain building permits in most of Area C. Even basic residential and livelihood structures, such as a tent or a fence, require a building permit. See also: this Amnesty International report, and this B'Tselem report.

  I suggest the following: Make property destruction its own section and have a header at the top of the section laying out the Israeli position as well as the international position. (we could also copy the lead from the House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes this list is a list of violent incidents. We don't need to expand that list so that we have the potential of thousands of entries. In addition, when a home is demolished without a permit, it would be synth to say that it is 100% a result of the conflict and not because there is no permit in place. Furthermore, the claim that Israel doesn't permit building with a permit is irrelevant, for this article. That can be in another article. The end result of building without a permit can be demolition, whether it's in Tel Aviv or in Jerusalem. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes I agree with the point of view that home demolition for reasons based in civil administration does not qualify as violence as in the sense of this article's title. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• No and comment. Home demolitions do seem to be able to fall under the WHO definition of violence as provided on that page, and it doesn't seem natural to draw distinctions between different types of violence, when they are all incidents in a single conflict. Given the seriousness of the claims that they're being done as a form of collective punishment by one party of the conflict, incidents of home demolitions are often relevant to this conflict and when relevant, should be included. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 05:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• No. Per Basawala: when relevant. I was concerned with the definition of physical (threats to life and limb) versus institutional forms of violence. I didn't object to other forms included, but thought the article should have been renamed first. But Basawala does raise a good point about reliable sources (WHO). In the interests of clarity, perhaps rename can still serve as a compromise solution, though. El_C 05:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• No, absolutely not. It' s preposterous to pretend that house demolitions, in this context, are not a violent act. They're part and parcel of a sustained campaign of extreme violence and humiliation being directed for decades against the Palestinians. The demolitions would not take place at all unless they were being backed up by the use of overwhelming military force, so they are violent on that ground alone. It's disingenuous to pretend that the lack of a permit somehow justifies these atrocities, since it patently has nothing in common with the normal planning/building consent process in countries, for example, such as the UK (where I happen to live). Those voting "Yes" here should ask themselves how they would feel if they and their families were being made homeless in this manner. --NSH001 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• No -- our article on violence refers to the WHO definition which includes force/power that results in psychological harm / deprivation. House demolitions obviously fit those elements of the definition. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• No for the reasons given above, by myself and other editors. I should add that I thought I was being, over the years, extremely stringent in defining what was to be included, compromising with editors who might have taken exception to the many things I might otherwise include (a) the summary arrest at night-time of 20-30 people in their homes on undefined 'suspicions'; (b) the detention of children 8 upwards by police and army officers and their interrogation without the presence of lawyers or family, all daily occurrences, protested as violent by reputable international observing NGOs. etc.etc. These are excluded despite my own beliefs, solidly grounded in the literature. To propose that the article deal only with physical violence is to go to the other extreme (while retaining as unproblematical the recording of incidents when stones hit and slightly damage Israeli cars). I might add that length is no problem. Any time a page risks that, we split it, and creating separate pages and subsections is just a needless complication, making the reader jump from section to section with dates reduplicated for different contents of violence.Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• No. Include per violence defined as including using force to damage property. Comment, add a definition of "violent incidents" to the top of the list.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• No Not only is it damage to property (i.e. violence), but it's one of the main issues regarding Israeli aggression. Kamalthebest (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes per Kamalthebest. This is a partisan effort to stretch the term violence beyond all reason in order to substantiate partisan claims. Demolishing an un-permitted structure isn't violence. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - whomever administers a territory is obligated by law to demolish or take other action (forfeiture, arrest, etc.) against criminals who build without permits. While issue might be taken with the permitting process (who and how a permit is obtained), building against zoning laws and without a permit will lead to enforcement action in any jurisdiction. Equating demolition of houses without permits (and usually outside of zoning regulations) with violence is the same as treating traffic stops due to, say, speeding in the occupied zone as a violent abduction of the stopped driver. The military administration is actually typically required by customary international law to maintain law and order in the administered territory - to treat each and every arrest or enforcement action as an act of violence would lead to a position advocating anarchy in an occupied area.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

See the aborted RfC above. I have reworded the RfC header according to the consensus wording in this section. Pinging the participants there: Sir Joseph, Debresser, Nishidani. RolandR, Nomoskedasticity, Basawala, El_C. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

My !vote above is contingent on the article not becoming excessively lengthy. If it does, an Incidents of House demolitions subarticle may be needed after all (my original position). A separate section does sound like a good idea, but without copying the lead from elsewhere. El_C 06:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) El_C, length is not a problem, since these lists can always be split into ones covering shorter time periods, as we've already done once (6 monthly instead of yearly). We've managed fine so far while including house demolitions. --NSH001 (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a problem if these types of incidents become so numerous so as to be disproportionate to the other ones. At that point, the proposed property destruction section may as well become its own article. El_C 09:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

NSH001, please adopt a less inflammatory tone. The ARBPIA articles are heated enough already. Speak about the edits not the editors. El_C 06:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I said nothing about other editors. It's a useful check on neutrality to consider how you would feel in the other person's position. --NSH001 (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British woman killed by Palestinian reverted by Nishidani. The Jamal Tamini case

Apparently, Nishidani feels that if the perpetrator has a history of mental illness, it is not a violent incident. [2]. I think this should be reinstated. There is no reason not to include this, [3]. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I dont think that was what his edit summary stated, and you would do well to not attribute arguments to people they have not made. His revert was based on it not necessarily being related to the conflict, not on it not being violent. Try arguing against that and not against the argument you wish had been made. nableezy - 16:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Judah Ari Gross, British woman stabbed to death in Jerusalem tram attack, The Times of Israel 14 April, 2017.
• ''Mentally unstable' Palestinian detained after stabbing, killing British student in Jerusalem,'Ma'an News Agency 14 April 2017.
• Nir Hasson, jack Khoury, 'British Student Killed in Jerusalem Stabbing Attack; Assailant Mentally Unstable,' Haaretz 14 April 2017.
• Peter Beaumont 'Jerusalem stabbing: British woman killed close to Old City,' The Guardian 14 April 2017 writes:-

Describing the attacker, later identified in the local media as Jamil Tamimi, Yoram Halevi, a police commander in the city, told Israel radio that the suspect had a history of domestic violence, sexual assault and mental illness that had seen him hospitalised.“We can say the terrorist is relatively old, 57 years of age,” Halevi said. “He is very mentally unstable.” Echoing Halevi’s remarks, a statement issued by the Israeli domestic security service, the Shin Bet, said the attacker was known as being a troubled individual who was known to authorities. The statement also speculated that the motive for the attack may have also involved “suicide by soldier”, which has been apparent in other incidents in the last 18 months. “This is another incident of many in which a Palestinian suffering from mental health or personal issues has chosen to carry out an attack as a way out of his problems,” it suggested.'

• Roi Yanovsky, 'British student murdered in Jerusalem light rail stabbing,' Ynet 14 April 2017

The Shin Bet later reported that the terrorist attempted to commit suicide this year by swallowing a razor blade while in hospital. In 2011, he was convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter. the terrorist boarded the light train at the Nablus Gate station, riding the train until IDF Square. When he noticed a young woman standing next to him, he pulled out a knife and began stabbing her repeatedly

It's too early to say whether or not this was a 'nationalistically' motivated crime. We have consistently excluded violence and murder between the parties that relates to criminal syndicates or the underworld, and cases of people with a long history of psychiatric illness, incest and attempted suicide do not, on the face of it, enter into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict data sheet. In any case, editing in the incident while ignoring all of the circumstantial details given by the source quoted regarding his mental instability and psychiatric history is bad practice. Let's wait.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It happened just a few hours ago. The initial reports mention mental illness and connect it to the "lone wolf" attacks earlier, but aren't clear about the motivation. I agree with Nishidani that the part about the mental illness should have been mentioned in the edit in the first place. For now, I'd support waiting a bit. Let the circumstances and motives become clearer. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

So mention that he was mentally ill, the point is that it was a violent incident that is related to the conflict. That he saw this as his only way out is another issue, but going on a Jerusalem light rail and stabbing someone is certainly worthy of inclusion on this list. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

'So mention it' directed at others, when you failed to mention it, is rather odd. No one doubts it was a violent incident. Whether it was 'nationalistically motivated' or not is to be determined. Again, rushing to judgement is bad practice. I would also note an incongruity in your editing practice. Here you removed text which threw light on the possible background circumstances of a violent incident (which I included despite concerns like the above). You said in your es that this was a list, and extraneous material not referring to the incident itself was to be reverted out. Now you say we can add extraneous material that casts light on a possible motivation. Try to be consistent. Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing this incident would be an assertion that the guy would stabbed that British student even if there was no conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He could have also stabbed a fellow Arab from his neighborhood, but instead he went to a mostly Jewish part of the city, boarded a train and stabbed a white-looking woman. The Shin Bet statement read: "This is yet another case of a Palestinian suffering from personal, mental or moral distress choosing to commit an act of terror to escape his problems". This is a violent incident in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it was done as a way for a mentally-ill person to deal with his problems, but it is still a violent incident in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In October 2015, a Jewish teenager from Dimona stabbed four Arabs. He was also mentally-ill, but it doesn't change the fact he purposely went on a rampage and stabbed Arabs, and not Jews. If there was no conflict, those people wouldn't committ these spesific attacks, maybe they would have done something else, but it is beyond any reasonable doubt, that these two men made those attacks, being driven by their mental problems, but influenced by the conflict.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I am not asserting anything. I just want to wait till the circumstances become clearer. The suspect will be interrogated by the police or security services; more details might come out. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Bolter, I've motivated my removal. I insist editors be consistent, and not to jump the gun before we have better information. Your argument is based on hypotheses. We have no idea as yet whether Tamimi would have stabbed someone regardless of the conflict. It's quite possible. Even Israeli sources say it looks like just one more example of a Palestinian killing or threatening to kill or wound someone in the hope (s)he would be killed (suicide by cop). In those cases, borderline, the I/P conflict is a pretext to commit suicide, which may have personal motivations in the subject's private background that are either unconnected to the event, or indirectly connected to the event (the desperation of being occupied in a shit colonial economy). In writing,'he went to a mostly Jewish part of the city, boarded a train and stabbed a white-looking woman, you are claiming something that looks extremely odd. I.e. in the I/P area, Jews are white, and Palestinians are coloured folks. That is quite weird, indeed a racist distinction.

Equally off is your earlier statement. He got on the light rail at Nablus Gate and knifed the woman at IDF Square,'when he noticed a young woman standing next to him, he pulled out a knife and began stabbing her repeatedly.' (Roi Yanovsky, 'British student murdered in Jerusalem light rail stabbing,' Ynet 14 April 2017). You are saying that he waited on a train running through the Old City/East Jerusalem with its mixed Jewish Palestinian population and waited till he arrived at the area the Jewish proportion thickens to make an ethnic point. The source from Ynet simply says he suddenly pulled out a knife when he saw a woman standing near him. Who knows the dynamics, ethnic, sexual, suicidal, etc? I don't, and I don't think we should fiddle with speculation. No doubt the Israeli police will make a determination, probably 'nationalistic'. That will be partisan, but if it comes out, it will warrant inclusion. But the details (as I have argued against several of you before) must go in, otherwise it would be prejudging a complex issue by giving one version, and suppressing what sources also say of other possible motives.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And yet you wanted a neighbor dispute to be listed merely because it involved a Jew and an Arab. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop distorting what I do. Merely has nothing to do with it. A stun-grenade was thrown by Israelis into an apartment to drive Palestinian women out of the area. To you that is a 'neighbor dispute'. Look up the word 'neighbour'. My personal view is that this will probably be classified as 'nationalistic', and be included. So far, that determination is lacking, and therefore in principle one does not add it. This is not a POV game of oneupmanship, SJ. It is being consistent, and getting the facts right, as far as sources allow, which is not much.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a POV issue because you continue to refer to that issue as a Jew and a Palestinian, but the sources all call the people involved Jew and Arab. And yes, neighbors sometimes get into disputes. It isn't always because of some greater conflict. But a stranger stabbing someone on the light rail is a far cry from not being part of the conflict. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

'you continue to refer to that issue as a Jew and a Palestinian'.

On a simple point of elementary grammar, SJ, I am neither a Jew nor a Palestinian.

The only incongruency here is that I pointed out your reversion of back ground details regarding the psychology of a 'terrorist' earlier, and now you say one can include the background details regarding a terrorist. Get your act together. Which principle is the one you will agree should be applicable to all entries? That is your contradiction, and you owe the page an answerNishidani (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Mental illness notwithstanding, instead of stabbing someone closer to home, the suspect want to look for someone who is a Jew—that was driven by the conflict. El_C 07:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have proposed a text giving all the relevant details (see the recent edit). I have self-reverted for now. My impression is that it will (eventually) be classed as a terrorist incident anyway, so we might as well put it there for now. We can always remove it later if it the motivation is deemed to be otherwise. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

That is my impression as well, but there is a formal problem. El_C, one goes by evidence, not by surmise, and as far as I can see, there is as yet no official determination that this was aimed at a Jew. All texts underline Tamimi has sexual problems (I say this because I live in a country where 'feminicidio' or killing women is a daily occurrence). It wouldn't be unusual for a sexual neurosis to take on a political edge, however. I don't know. Patience is a virtue, and I think it best to wait a few days until we have the official conclusion. While we're on this, I would appreciate if SJ could tell me why he reverted out information on the background of one incident similar to this, saying lists cannot contain background, and yet edited this is, and, when reverted, stated that the background information can be included. Since he frerquently reverts, he owes the page a clarification on this contradiction, so further edit conflicts will not end up in switching opinions depending on subjective feelings without a coherent policy approach.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I endorse this text. It seems neutral and appropriate. This incident clearly belongs on this list. Rami R 13:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The text that KI presented seems to be ok. If Nishidani thinks we should omit some details that he thinks its already covered by main article I agree to this too of course.--Shrike (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It may seem ok to you but it preempts things by introducing an apparent deeply disturbed person as a 'terrorist'. The act may well be described as conforming with terrorist acts, but the person per wiki usage should not so be defined, particularly in this case. Whatever, as I have twice noted, I don't object to registering this event if it emerges that Israeli police reports determine it was 'nationalistically motivated'. There's enough shooting and stabbing there without our 'jumping the gun'.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

---

He says "I attacked her so that a soldier would shoot me"^[4] (italics is my emphasis). Suicide was family-motivated, but happened in the context of the conflict. El_C 05:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There are a large number of suicides among Palestinians related to this conflict. Does it make a difference if you kill yourself from despair, or provoke an incident so that a soldier will do it for you? Possibly, I don't know for sure. The death by heart attack of the boy who was refused reentry to Israel for his heart condition is related to this conflict, according to B'tselem's reportage, but it was reverted out. The official who turned down his permit at the border when he wouldn't give information on his neighbours in Gaza made a political decision that lead to his death, etc. All I am asking for is that editors be coherent in their application of policy. Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The death by heart attack of the boy who was refused reentry to Israel for his heart condition is related to this conflict. Indeed. It also merits inclusion. El_C 23:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• an article 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing was created about this attack, now at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

2015 hatnote

Thanks to NSH002 for reverting my erroneous removal of the hatnote. I couldn't think of another reason for it to be there, so presumed it was carried over from a previous version of this article (i.e. the 2015 one). Should've looked closer. That said, I still find it utterly confusing. The 2015 page neither includes content included/excluded from the 2017 article, nor an outline of types of content included/excluded. It's in the lead, obviously, but then what this hatnote in fact seems to mean is "for this page's lead, including an explanation of what this page is, see this other page". The explanation should simply appear here, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an edit for April 18

For the entry for events on April 18th "Palestinians" is spelled "Palesdtinians" (accidental d in there). Firebrass11 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2020 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)