Talk:Struggle over Palestine

Changing the name article

The title of the article is misleading and POV. The common usage for the phrase "occupation of Palestine" is in context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This article deals with the entire military history of the land of Israel, even before the Roman name "Syria-Palestina" was given to it. I propose the name "Military conflicts over the land of Israel". MathKnight 21:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the name is bad, but "land of Israel" is a strictly Jewish term. How about the following:

Occupiers of the Palestine region
Occupiers of Palestine
Occupations of the Palestine region (notice the s!)
Occupations of Palestine

I favor the first Gadykozma 00:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your ideas are good, but the usage of "Palestine" term is somewhat misleading. We need to find a proper name to this region - how about the "Holy Land"? MathKnight 13:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Too Jewish as well. Palestine is the only neutral term that I can think of. Gadykozma 22:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

or, more precisely, Judeo-Christian. Sorry, MathKnight, but internationally "Palestine" is pretty broadly considered the neutral term for the land. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:18, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

New name: "Military conflicts over Syria-Palestina". See my comment below. MathKnight 10:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support changing name to "Military conflicts over Syria-Palestina":

MathKnight 21:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support changing name to other title (suggest name):

Occupations of Palestine seems more accurate, Occupation of Palestine could re-direct. Jayjg 22:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Occupations of Palestine region - to distinguish from Filastin (a state to be). Since the (neutral in the early 1900s) term "Palestine" nowadays seems to be preoccupied by the Palestinian Arabs and the rest of the world, the current name is not neutral. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I could live with either of the above, though I would hope that Occupation of Palestine and Struggle over Palestine will both be redirects to it, and that it will contain a highly visible link to an article about the present Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:13, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Keep current name:

Jmabel | Talk 01:52, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) -- At the time I wrote this, the current name was Occupation of Palestine. I find the move of this comment of mine to a page of a different name to be accidentally misleading at best, and possibly malicious. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:13, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Comments'

"land of Israel" is absurdly Judeo-centric. Palestine is the most neutral name for this territory. Other than specific references to the ancient Kingdom of Israel or the present-day state, the use of "Israel" to refer to the land is inherently polemical. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:52, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

The name of this place is highly problematic issue. Palestine is not accurate enough (the article deals with bible-time wars, where there was no Palestine) and may be mislead with the WB and GS, a specially when the title is "Occupation of Palestine" or "Struggle over Palestine", which conote to the Isr-Pal conflict. The title should indicate this article deals with ancient history of the region, and not with the current conflict. MathKnight 10:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hellooo. This article title already went through, and survived, a VfD.

There is nothing to discuss or vote about here, case closed. HistoryBuffEr 02:39, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

A re-name is not a VfD. Jayjg 22:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Starting Over

The current title does not match the article text, which discusses all historical occupations of Palestine, rather than the current one as the title implies. Following other examples (such as "Occupation of Iraq", which talks only about the current occupation by the U.S.), I have moved all historical text to Occupations of Palestine (note the s).

I have created a new stub for this article, Occupation of Palestine, so we can start with an NPOV description of the current occupation.

As most statements in the previous version of this article were far from NPOV, please do not rush to copy your old lines over into the new article. Review your references and prepare to supply evidence for pretty much every statement that can be reasonably contested.

Also note that the Intro/Summary should be written only after there is sufficient NPOV background text in the article.

Thanks for your cooperation. HistoryBuffEr 02:20, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Boring boring boring. Haven't you learned nothing from the events of last month? Gadykozma 02:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but you never know, maybe there are some decent souls still out there (but are right now too busy talking to Martians :). HistoryBuffEr 02:51, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Essential Facts

To get started with an NPOV version, here are the essential facts:

Brief history:

The area of (1947) Palestine was inhabited by various groups (Philistines, Caananites, Jews, etc.) from pre-biblical times.
The number and composition of residents changed over time. Since about 1,300 years ago Jews became a minority (5% in 1880) and Arabs a majority in the area (95% in 1880).
Diaspora Jews in 1917 convinced Balfour, an official of Great Britain which colonized Palestine at the time, to issue declaration of support for establishment of a Jewish home there. Palestinian residents were not asked for opinion and they opposed this idea.
The pogroms of Jews in late 1930s and 1940s greatly increased support for a safe-heaven for Jews. After the WWII the British empire began crumbling. Facing increasing terror by Jewish groups in Palestine, the Brits decided to leave and hand over the area to the U.N.
In 1947 the UN GA voted to partition the area in roughly 2 halves Jerusalem. One half was assigned to Jewish control, the other to Palestinian control and Jerusalem to international control. Palestinians and other Arabs opposed this plan.
Israel proclaimed an independent state and began ethnically cleansing the area of Palestinians. These acts violated the Partition resolution.
Some Arab neighbors attacked Israel. Israel invaded and occupied areas outside of its partition and occupied some neighboring lands as well. Israel was condemned numerous times for these acts by the UN SC and GA.
After several wars, Israel ended up occupying more than 80% of 1947 Palestine, plus Jerusalem, plus parts of neighboring lands.

Current status:

Israel is:

Illegally occupying areas outside of its U.N. assigned part.
Illegally occupying parts of Syria and Lebanon.
Regularly attacking, bombing and killing Palestinian civilians.
Employing helicopters, tanks, APCs and other advanced arms (against mostly unarmed civilians).
Israel has killed over 3,300 and wounded over 40,000 Palestinians since 2000 (about 1.5% of population.)
Regularly bombing and demolishing Palestinian buildings, orchards and infrastructure, leaving tens of thousands homeless and impoverished.
Engaged in collective punishment, killing or imprisoning relatives of suspects, destroying their homes (over 62,000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed or damaged by Israel since 2000.)
Imprisoning more than 10,000 Palestinians without trial or even charges.
Torturing Palestinian prisoners, using Palestinian civilians as human shields.
Maintaining and expanding occupation colonies throughout Palestine.
Blocking Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes (while inviting Jews from all over the world to immigrate.)
Maintaining Jewish-only roads and taking most water resources for Israel.
Preventing anyone but Jews from owning land or other real property within Israel.
Preventing Arabs living in Israel from marrying Palestinians (in effect.)
Restricting movement of Palestinians within their areas, with numerous checkpoints and curfews.
Holding 1.2 million Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip penned in a giant cage.
Building a wall around WB Palestinian towns, cutting off many from work or school, and grabbing more land.
Violating the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention and 69 UN resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw, cease attacks on civilians and violations of human rights of Palestinians.
Violating peace plans it signed (the Oslo and the Roadmap.)
Refusing to acknowledge the Palestinian right to self-determination and state, while most Israelis support these rights (if there is peace.)
A major military power, in posession of at least 200 nuclear bombs.
Above the U.S. in GDP budget expenditures per capita.
Receiving from the U.S about US$ 6 billion in military and financial aid each year.

Palestinians are:

Engaged in violent resistance against Israeli occupation.
Attacking and killing Israeli soldiers and civilians, mostly using suicide bombers.
Launching improvised rockets (mostly duds) into Israel and occupation colonies.
Palestinians have killed about 1,000 and wounded 5,600 Israelis since 2000 (about 0.1% of Israeli population).
Frequently throwing stones at Israeli tanks, APCs and soldiers.
Not complying with the peace plan promise of best efforts to reduce attacks on Israeli civilians and disarm militias.
Officially recognized Israel's right to exist, some extremists remain opposed (while there is occupation.)
Receiving food assistance from the UN Refugee fund, about US$ 300 million from EU, US$ 500 million from Arab/Muslim world (after recent Saudi aid increase) US$ 20 million from the US (since 2003.)
More than half the work force is unemployed, nearly 2 million (60%) are poor, live on US$ 2 per day, with many incidences of severe malnutrition.

Views of others:

Most of the world supports Palestinian right to self-determination and Israel's right to exist and condemns Israel's occupation, killing and oppression of Palestinians.
Most of the Arab and Muslim world strongly supports Palestinians, many refuse to trade with Israel, some refuse to recognize Israel while there is occupation, Arabs have offered recognition and trade in exchange for peace.
The U.S. government strongly supports Israel, but also calls for Israeli withdrawal and a viable Palestinian state.

HistoryBuffEr 02:48, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

... Which are no more than cheap propoganda. These "facts" are merely the Palestinian POV which try to whitewash their terrorist attacks against Israelis and their goal of eradicating Israel and its Jewish inhabitants, while condamning Israel's legitimate self defense against Palestinian terrorism. MathKnight 12:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recovering same discussion from two weeks ago

To get started with an NPOV version, I suggest we lay out the facts first and then agree on a fair interpretation of those facts. Keep in mind that our goal is not to please all fanatics or cover every irrelevant detail. Here is a brief overview of essential facts:

To help the process along, I'll present a version of the facts that is as POV as and more accurate than the version you have presented. Please keep in mind our goal is also not to over-simplify the situation, or divorce it of any context, nor is it to provide a soapbox for propaganda and insults of those who disagree, even in Talk: pages. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The area of (1947) Palestine was inhabited by various groups (Philistines, Caananites, Jews, etc.) from pre-biblical times.
The number and composition of residents changed over time. Since about 1,300 years ago Jews became a minority and Arabs a majority in the area.

Jews were a majority in the area from around 1,000 BCE to around 700CE; Arabs became a majority after conquering the land, and through a series of discriminatory policies meant to increase the number of Muslims in the territory. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Influential diaspora Jews in 1917 convinced Balfour, an official of Great Britain which colonized Palestine at the time, to issue declaration of support for establishment of a Jewish home there. Palestinian residents were not asked for opinion and they opposed this idea.
The pogroms of Jews in late 1930s and 1940s greatly increased support for a safe-heaven for Jews. After the WWII the British empire began crumbling. Facing increasing terror by Jewish groups in Palestine, the Brits decided to leave and hand over the area to the U.N.

The Holocaust was more than a "pogrom". Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In 1947 the UN GA voted to partition the area in roughly 2 halves Jerusalem. One half was assigned to Jewish control, the other to Palestinian control and Jerusalem to international control. Palestinians and other Arabs opposed this plan.

There was little distinction between "Palestinians" and "other Arabs" at the time. Arabs opposed the plan. And this ignores the earlier dividing of Palestine in 1920, which gave 80% of the land to the Hashemites. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Israel proclaimed an independent state and began ethnically cleansing the area of Palestinians. These acts violated the Partition resolution.

Nonsense. Israel did not begin to "ethnically cleanse" the area; the history is vastly more complex than that. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, a larger number of Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab lands, most ending up in Israel. Similar large 20th century population transfers have not historically been "rectified" by "return". Jayjg 07:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some Arab neighbors attacked Israel. Israel invaded and occupied areas outside of its partition and occupied some neighboring lands as well. Israel was condemned numerous times for these acts by the UN SC and GA.

All Arab neighbours attacked Israel after it declared independence, and some Arab non-neighbours did so as well. During the course of the fighting Israel conquered areas outside of the partition. What neighbouring lands did it conquer? The UN Resolutions made demands of both Israel and the Arabs. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

After several wars, Israel ended up occupying more than 80% of 1947 Palestine, plus Jerusalem, plus parts of neighboring lands.

After 1948 the majority Palestinian country Jordan ended up occupying over 80% of 1917 Palestine, plus half of Jerusalem, and still occupies over 80% of 1917 Palestine. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Current status:

Israel is:

Illegally occupying areas outside of its U.N. assigned part.

Occupyting disputed territories outside of the U.N. assigned part. Even the U.N. recognizes these territories as part of Israel, and does not expect Israel to relinquish them. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Illegally occupying parts of Syria and Lebanon.

Israel occupies none of Lebanon, as certified by the U.N. Israel has legally annexed land captured from Syria in a defensive war. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regularly attacking, bombing and killing Palestinian civilians.

Incidentially killing Palestinians civilians in response to armed terror attacks by Palestinian militias and terrorist groups. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Employing helicopters, tanks, APCs and other advanced arms (against mostly unarmed civilians).

Employing helicopters, tanks, APCs and other advanced arms (against mostly armed terrorist groups).

Israel has killed over 3,300 and wounded over 40,000 Palestinians since 2000 (about 1.5% of population.)

NPOV source for wounded? Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Israel has killed approximately 2,500 Palestinians. Palestinians who are killed by other Palestinians, or who blow themselves up, don't count on the Israeli totals. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regularly bombing and demolishing Palestinian buildings, orchards and infrastructure, leaving tens of thousands homeless and impoverished.

Palestinian policies and its kleptocratic leadership have left Palestinian impoverished. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Engaged in collective punishment, killing or imprisoning relatives of suspects, destroying their homes (over 62,000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed or damaged by Israel since 2000.)

NPOV source please. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Imprisoning more than 10,000 Palestinians without trial or even charges.

NPOV source please. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Torturing Palestinian prisoners, using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

NPOV source please. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maintaining and expanding occupation colonies throughout Palestine.

Israeli towns and villages in the disputed territories are not "occupation colonies". Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Blocking Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes (while inviting Jews from all over the world to immigrate.)

UN Resolutions do not require Israel to do so. Anyway, the vast majority of Palestinian "refugees" have never lived in Israel, so they can't be "returning". Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maintaining Jewish-only roads and taking most water resources for Israel.

Myth. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Preventing anyone but Jews from owning land or other real property within Israel.

Mythical nonsense. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Preventing Arabs living in Israel from marrying Palestinians (in effect.)

Prevented Jews living in Israel from doing the same, though the "in effect" is a wild distortion. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Restricting movement of Palestinians within their areas, with numerous checkpoints and curfews.

Israelis equally restricted, and searched before they enter any building. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Holding 1.2 million Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip penned in a giant cage.

POV nonsense. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Building a wall around WB Palestinian towns, cutting off many from work or school, and grabbing more land.

POV and silly simplification. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Violating the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention and 69 UN resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw, cease attacks on civilians and violations of human rights of Palestinians.

No violations of the UN Charter or the Geneva Convention. Have ignored 69 biased and non-binding UN resolutions, which have generally been ignored by the Arabs as well. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Violating peace plans it signed (the Oslo and the Roadmap.)

In response to blatant violations by Arabs. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Refusing to acknowledge the Palestinian right to self-determination and state, while most Israelis support these rights (if there is peace.)

There is no such "right" under International Law. I don't see the Kurds or Tibetans getting it. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A major military power, in posession of at least 200 nuclear bombs.

Speculation, and irrelevant. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Above the U.S. in GDP budget expenditures per capita.

Irrelevant. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Receiving from the U.S about US$ 6 billion in military and financial aid each year.

Nonsense. $3 billion. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Palestinians are:

Engaged in violent resistance against Israeli occupation.

Engaged in a war of annihilation against Israel. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Attacking and killing Israeli soldiers and civilians, mostly using suicide bombers.

Attacking and killing Israeli civilians and occasionally soldiers, mostly using suicide bombers.

Launching improvised rockets (mostly duds) into Israel and occupation colonies.

Launching thousands of rockets (sometimes lethal) into Israel and Israeli villages in the territories. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Palestinians have killed about 1,000 and wounded 5,600 Israelis since 2000 (about 0.1% of Israeli population).
Frequently throwing stones at Israeli tanks, APCs and soldiers.

Attempt to trivialize real conflict. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Frequently firing guns, rifles, and rockets at Israel civilians, and suicide bombing them. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not complying with the peace plan promise of best efforts to reduce attacks on Israeli civilians and disarm militias.

Actively supporting attacks on civilians. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Officially recognized Israel's right to exist, some extremists remain opposed (while there is occupation.)

Unofficially recognized Israel's right to exist; still haven't managed to modify official Charter. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, Palestinian schools still do not teach that Israel has a right to exist, and most Palestinians continuing support terror attacks on Israel even if they were to have their own state in the territories. The PA itself has supported the creation of a culture of shaheed, or martyrdom, where children are encouraged to kill themselves in attacks on Israelis. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Receiving food assistance from the UN Refugee fund, about US$ 300 million from EU, US$ 500 million from Arab/Muslim world (after recent Saudi aid increase) US$ 20 million from the US (since 2003.)

Assistance from UNRWA considerably higher, and food is not the primary assistance. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More than half the work force is unemployed, nearly 2 million (60%) are poor, live on US$ 2 per day, with many incidences of severe malnutrition.

Not relevant to the conflict itself, but certainly designed to sway emotions. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Views of others:

Most of the world supports Palestinian right to self-determination and Israel's right to exist and condemns Israel's occupation, killing and oppression of Palestinians.

Unattributed POV. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most of the Arab and Muslim world strongly supports Palestinians, many refuse to trade with Israel, some refuse to recognize Israel while there is occupation, Arabs have offered recognition and trade in exchange for peace.

Many Arab countries have been at war with Israel, or supported boycotts of Israel. Even Arab countries officially at peace with Israel support unofficial boycotts of any contact. Most Arab countries have never offered recognition for peace; some post 1967 have offered recognition for land. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The U.S. government strongly supports Israel, but also calls for Israeli withdrawal and a viable Palestinian state.

That's it in a nutshell. Let me know if I missed something IMPORTANT. Otherwise, propose how to word these facts in a way that is both neutral and readable. HistoryBuffEr 07:17, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Note: I have edited facts above: added more numbers, added Arab/Muslim view, fixed typos and wording. HistoryBuffEr 18:24, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

You missed many IMPORTANT facts, and included many non-facts and much trivia and nonsense as well. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HBE - (I) much of what you write here is factual. However this is the wrong article - this kind of information should go to Israeli-Palestinian conflict where it would really improve the article. (II) "our goal is not to please all fanatics or cover every irrelevant detail": (1) calling other Wikipedians "fanatics" is not at all helpful - no matter how strongly we disagree on things here, in the end we will have to settle by hammering out a compromise based on consensus (2) our goal is not to find out "The Truth". Our goal is to write a NPOV article, and according to current NPOV policy, this means essentially that in cases where there are disagreements, the conflicting views are described to maintain neutrality. - pir 10:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, pir, and we're back to square one. HistoryBuffEr created this article in order replace Israeli-Palestinian conflict with his own POV, and the topic still belongs in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In an NPOV world there would be just one main article on the subject. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not NPOV titled, so it cannot be the main article. Word "conflict" is the term used by Israel and denigrates the suffering of Palestinians. Also, "conflict" is not specific -- a specific term should be used whenever possible (we don't say "US/Iraqi conflict" but "US Invasion of Iraq".) HistoryBuffEr 18:24, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Buff, I feel you don't understand the nature of NPOV. The NPOV policy is designed to enable us writing an encyclopedia in a POV world. You cannot decide to just ignore the NPOV policy. If you do, you will never achieve anything at Wikipedia, all your edits will be reverted and your efforts will be futile. The willingness to engage with opposing POVs, to accept their legitimacy/existence and incorporate them into articles is the key to writing stable articles. Those who reject this will ultimately not be successful.

Also, NPOV is not about determining The Truth. It is about describing opposing views and trying to find formulations that can find consensus. It is for readers to judge the opposing views and determine what the truth is, and much truth is already expressed in the faultline that runs between the opposing views. It is for us editors to enable readers to do this by describing the opposing views in a fair way. Right now that is not the case for the I//P articles, and we ought to redress that.

As for the title "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", I agree that there are minor POV problems with it, mostly because it suggests that it is a conflict between to equal groups. However it is a very descriptive title, free of emotive language, and it expresses the core of what it is about. If you can think of a better title that is likely to find consensus, please name it - I certainly can't. - pir 13:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As HistoryBuffEr has made clear, he will not accept any NPOV title, because it doesn't tug at the heartstrings, or advertise "the suffering of Palestinians." In fact, as he has stated before, he believes any title with the word "Israel" in it is inherently POV. It's hard to create NPOV when working with people of such extreme views. Jayjg 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The specific and accurate term here would be "Palestinian war on Israel", but I suspect we'll have to make do with a bland term like "conflict" instead, even though it denigrates the suffering of Israelis, and masks the true intent of the Palestinians. Jayjg 07:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Struggle over Palestine

"Struggle over Palestine" is more NPOV . IZAK 04:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bullshit. "Struggle over Palestine" is an entirely different matter than "Occupation of Palestine". I strenuously object to this move, and I even more strenuously object to your unilateral action in an obviously controversial area where there was no consensus on moving an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, firstly, no need for profanity (I thought that went out with Nixon's "expletives deleted"?) Secondly, have you noticed that User:HistoryBuffer is merrily changing and redirecting this article without consensus or discussion? IZAK 05:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

~~Firstly, no apology for the profanity.~~ Saying that your opinion is somehow "more neutral" than mine is laughable at best. No, I had not been closely following the history of the article. Believe it or not, I don't spend my whole day tracking articles about Israel/Palestine, but lately I feel like I'm being sucked into a black hole by the POV warriors who keep trying to slant these one way or another, and taking cheap shots at one another (and at me) on the talk pages, rather than to improve the substance and make the articles more useful to readers. And frankly, I'm getting totally tired of hearing people defend their own inappropriate actions by pointing to someone else's. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

To which I should add: am I wrong in my belief that moving the article was under discussion on the talk page? And that no consensus had been reached? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:38, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, I'll copy this para over to the original Talk:Occupation of Palestine, we should continue dicussion there rather than at this redirected page. HistoryBuffEr 05:46, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

An honest question

So let us say that I am a user of Wikipedia -- not an editor -- and I want to find an article on the post-1967 Israeli military occupation of territories outside the Green Line. How do I find it? I personally would expect to find it at either Occupation of Palestine (which as of this writing redirects to the much broader topic Israeli-Palestinian conflict), Israeli Occupation of Palestine (red-linked), or Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories (red-linked). From a point of view of serving users, this seems wrong to me.

Putting back on my editor hat:
1. Is there such an article?
1.1. If so, what is it called?
1.2. If not, is there an argument being made that there should not be such an article?

Depending on the answers I get to this, I guess I'd have a lot of different questions (e.g. how exactly that article should relate to the more specific Israeli settlement, which inevitably touches on some of the same material), but I'll confine myself to these three to begin. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:26, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, I don't remember if you participated in the infamous Vfd, but I'll summarize it for you anyway. Basically, the Israeli side is unhappy with the term "Palestine" because Palestine most normally refers to the entire territory, so the title implies that the Jewish parts of Israel are also occupied (during the VfD it became more-or-less clear that this is the reason the "Palestinian side" pushes for this title). Also, I think the Israeli side thinks that the topic is developed very well in Israeli-Palestinian conflict so a page about the occupation would duplicate most if not all of that page. What did you mean when you said it's a "much broader topic"? Gadykozma 00:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I dispute your characterization that there is a Palestinian side and an Israeli side. There are Wikipedians who are producing a neutral and balanced encyclopedia and then there is a small gang of extremist POV pushers who promote a Zionist bias in Wikipedia encyclopedia articles. The reason why there is a concerted effort to eliminate reference to what are internationally recognized "Israeli Occupied Territories" is because this gang of Zionist POV pushers is promoting the extremist Israeli government position that the phrase "disputed territories" should be used instead of "Occupied Territories". Virtually no one in the world refers to the Occupied Territories as disputed EXCEPT Israel. [1]. Israelis want to deny that there is an occupation so that they can deny that Palestinian resistance to the occupation is legitimate and they hope to illegally annex more Arab territory to build settlements for Jews. It's well documented - except on Wikipedia. [2] --Alberuni 00:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your summary is pretty accurate Gadykozma, you got both points and both sides exactly right, although you missed the fact that the Palestinian side is hell-bent on pushing an anti-Israel POV regardless of Wikipedia's goal of NPOV, and they have made this goal quite clear. Jayjg 02:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It must be a nightmare to live with your delusions. --Alberuni 03:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if you watch Palestinian television and read the Arab press, you will see that the Palestinian side is hell-bent on the total destruction of Israel as well. --Viriditas 02:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boo hoo. You mean the Palestinian refugees don't watch Seinfeld? What's wrong with those barbarians?--Alberuni 03:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They put their hate toward the Jews in front of everythings. They have no moral values but to promote the extermination of Israel's Jews. This is well reflected in your edits and HistoryBuffEr edits. MathKnight 07:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How is it that my edits reflect what you attribute to Palestinian refugees, hate towards Jews or the "moral value" of exterminating Israel's Jews? Would you care to point out a single edit of mine that reflects that "moral value"? Did you ever consider that Palestinians have a good reason to oppose foreigners occupying Palestinian Territory and destroying their lives, their families, their future? Didn't Jews oppose the Nazis who oppressed them? I know its no use discussing this with you because you would rather stew in self-pity and hatred yourself.--Alberuni 18:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adding nothing but Israel-bashing and Palestinian propoganda who whitewash terrorism and forcing a Hamas-used terminology on already flammable issues is reflecting the Palestinian education which glorifies suicide bombers as "martyrs" (Shahids) and cermons who emphasis the need to innilihate Jews - no matter what the cost. Who ever thinks Hamas is a legitimate organization is a miserable lot indeed. MathKnight 15:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a pretty ironic remark coming from you, Alberuni. Other POV-pushers around here at least make positive contributions (say to articles about Judaism) in addition to POV pushing. A quick glance around your contributions shows exactly 1 contribution out of 50 which is not POV pushing. Gadykozma 11:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You haven't kept up with my edits very well. I have worked ona large number of subjects. In your opinion, almost any edit I make in a Middle East related subject is POV pushing. That is false. My private opinions expressed in Talk pages ARE anti-Zionist but my edits are neutral and balanced, unlike the pro-Zionist edits that are blatantly deceptive and manipulative. That you consider my neutral edits a POV just reflects your own (admitted) pro-Israel POV which you often insert into articles. I don't do that. I write neutrally. Neutral writing offends your pro-Israel POV. It's that simple. Please point out where I push a POV and I will correct it. --Alberuni 17:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of nightmares, how do you think God sleeps at night, with all His children killing each other over a few crummy square miles of land? User:Ed Poor (Or dope?) 16:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Psalms 121:4 "Behold, He who keeps Israel Shall neither slumber nor sleep." Jayjg 17:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Jerusalem, Jeruslem, killing the prophets and stoning those I sent to you. How many times would I have gathered you together like a hen placing her chicks beneath her wing." -- some obscure Jewish rabbi, shortly before Rome destroyed the city. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or:

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matthew 23:3739; Luke 13:34-35)

I don't think he was a rabbi, was he? He apparently frowned on the title. And it was about 2 generations before Rome destroyed Jerusalem. And according to Yasser Arafat, he wasn't a Jew, he was a Palestinian. Jayjg 19:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Grin. Okay, doc, you obviously need to read Wikipedia's article on definitions of Palestinian. And rabbi is what some people called him -- kind of an informal term of respect, chief. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Arafat read Wikipedia's article on definitions of Palestinian, and I seriously doubt he meant it in its broadest sense. I note that he has conspicuously failed to mention that Jesus was a Jew; but that's not surprising coming from a culture which promotes revisionist history; he also denies that there was a Temple in Jerusalem. Jayjg 19:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prozac.--Alberuni 01:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Arafat is well enought to take Prozac; or were you suggesting that's what you need? Jayjg 02:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are attacking Arafat for not declaring Jesus a Jew (imagine how the Christian Palestinians and around the world will feel when Arafat, the Muslim,starts expounding on the Jewishness of Jesus). Has GW Bush declared jesus a Jew recently? And then you attack all of Palestinian culture for beliefs (which violate your very extreme point of view) of some Palestinians who are daily being crushed by the oppressive "Jewish state"? Then the gibberish about the Temple, I'll need a reference to decipher that one. And all in one sentence. Whew, cut back on the freebase, at least. --Alberuni 05:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I was noting that Arafat considers Jesus a Palestinian, not a Jew. Palestinian and Arab revisionism and denial are an on-going cultural problem, of which your edits are just one small example. As for Arafat, he claims there was no Jewish Temple in Jerusalem; he even told Bill Clinton as much. Apparently he thinks it might have existed in the mountains of Yemen. Of course, he's not alone in this kind of denial; here are some choicer quotes

"There is no tangible evidence of any Jewish traces/remains in the old city of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity." (Statement issued by the Palestinian Ministry of Information, December 10, 1997)
"All the events surrounding Kings Saul, David and Rehoboam occurred in Yemen, and no Hebrew remnants were found in Israel, for a very simple reason - because they were never there." (Arab historian Jarid al-Kidwa, on PLO education program, June 1997, quoted in Ha'aretz July 6, 1997)
"Jerusalem is not a Jewish city, despite the Biblical myth implanted in some minds. There is no tangible evidence of Jewish existence from the so-called 'Temple Mount Era.' The location of the Temple Mount is in question. It might be in Jericho or somewhere else." (Walid Awad, Director of Foreign Publications for the PLO's Ministry of Information, interviewed by the IMRA news agency, Dec. 25, 1996)

And there's no need to share with us your plans to cut back on your drug use, I don't think anyone is interested. Jayjg 18:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Skimming through I noticed this remark about Arafat considering Jesus a Palestinian. In this respect, it must also be remembered that on at least one occasion (an interview published some time in the mid-1980s in the New York Review of Books, sorry I can't be more precise, this is from memory) he also referred to Ezer Weizmann as a Palestinian. Surely in the latter remark he was not denying that Weizmann is a Jew: he was apparently trying to underline that his vision of Palestine (at the time he was still promoting a unitary secular state, not the two-state solution he later embraced) did not systematically exclude Jews. And, yes, here I am getting just as off-topic as the rest of you. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:18, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'd have to see such a quote before believing it. Jayjg 02:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey Alberuni, that is why Wikipedia was invented to provide information to the (self-proclaimed) clue-less...so here goes, try these articles, they are fairly good introductions to the self-imposed historical amnesia that's reflected by "Then the gibberish about the Temple, I'll need a reference to decipher that one." So therefore, in order to fill the gaps in education and give the needed "reference", here goes (in chronological order):

That should be it for now...enjoy! IZAK 09:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, I know what the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif complex is. My question was about Jayjg's statement "he also denies that there was a Temple in Jerusalem." Any clues what he's referring to? Keep up the God work!--Alberuni 14:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel replies to Gadykozma

Gadykozma asks way above "What did you mean when you said it's a "much broader topic"?" Sorry, Gadykozma didn't notice this until now, low signal-to-noise ratio on this page.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a 38,000-foot view ("At 38,000 feet Emerson/Is dead right" - Robert Penn Warren). (Although in one sense it is very narrow: it only starts in 1991. There's also a decent, related History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, but most of what I am about to say applies to that too.) It's about peace proposals, negotiations, etc. At a quick read it looks like a decent article, but it's on a very different topic. It simply doesn't touch upon how Israel came in to administer the Territories in 1967, with the slow shift from a strictly military presence to a settler presence, with the politics of road-building; it deals only tangentially with the views of different foreign countries on the legitimacy or otherwise of various aspects of that Israeli presence in conquered but un-annexed territory (nor, for that matter how they view the annexation of East Jerusalem); what systems of law applied in the Territories at what date; I could go on (and on), but I hope my point is clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Asking again

I believe that in all of this bickering, no one has answered any of the questions I asked at the start of this section (though I may have missed it: frankly, I'm getting to where I try to skim past the wide-ranging off topic arguments). So I will repeat:

1. Is there such an article (that is, an article on the post-1967 Israeli military occupation of territories outside the Green Line)?
1.1. If so, what is it called?
1.2. If not, is there an argument being made that there should not be such an article? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:39, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I answered your questions and gave you links explaining the reason why. The issue is being censored by extremist Zionists. --Alberuni 14:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, I understand that you favor this, and I hope you understand that this is a point on which we agree. My question was (and is) addressed to those (the majority on VfD when it came up) who rejected Occupation of Palestine as the topic for such an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there an article called Israeli occupation of the West Bank or Occupation of the West Bank by Israel? If not, is the matter discussed in Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip or Occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by Israel? IZAK wrote a series about non-Israeli occupations of various Palestineian lands. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, as of this writing none of these exist (as you can see from the fact that they are all red links). That fact is close to the thrust of my question, and so far as I can tell, no one is giving me much of an answer. My question still stands. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I hope you are not holding your breath. The reason there is no NPOV article on subject is that a small group of extremists is blocking it, and all you'll ever hear from them is their laughable BS about "NPOV". They know they are wrong, so they don't dare admit their position: "There is no occupation, there is no Palestine, it's all land god gave to Israel, and there is only this minor conflict with evil Arab anti-Semite pests killing innocent Jews."

I am pretty sure you know this, so why do you ask? Religious extremists can't and won't be dragged or shamed into reality while doing what they think is "god's will", so don't waste your time. The only way to get to NPOV is with the force of numbers. If the moderate majority gets together and keeps reverting them, the loonies won't be able to push through their POV. HistoryBuffEr 01:14, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

And the moderate majority is indeed working very hard to revert yours and others extremist anti-Israel views, regardless of your straw-man descriptions of their positions, since you know you're wrong, but obviously won't be dragged or shamed into reality. Jayjg 02:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, Jayjg, HistoryBuffEr is right. You and the rest of the gang of pro-Israeli extremists have warped the descriptions on the Middle east related pages with an incredibly strong pro-Zionist bias (as if you thought the rest of the world agreed with your POV and no one would ever question it) and the moderate majority will have to work long and hard to undo the damage you have done. --Alberuni 02:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are another of the anti-Israel extremists who is trying to warp descriptions on the Middle east related pages (as if you thought the rest of the world agreed with your POV and no one would ever question it), and the moderate majority will have to work long and hard to undo the damage you have done and are attempting to do. Jayjg 03:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Asking yet again

Jayjg, you keep jousting with Alberuni and HistoryBuffEr whom you can easily paint as unreasonable extremists, but ignoring me. You are obviously familiar with Wikipedia's work in this area, so unless you are willing to lay the same charge of extremism against me, I think it is reasonable to ask you to respond to my question which I now direct to you individually:

1. Is there such an article (that is, an article on the post-1967 Israeli military occupation of territories outside the Green Line)?
1.1. If so, what is it called?
1.2. If not, is there an argument being made that there should not be such an article?

-- Jmabel | Talk 04:25, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not Jayjg, but the article you are looking for (q1 and q1.1) can be found in here: Palestine#Status_of_territories_captured_in_the_Six-Day_War. MathKnight 17:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jmabel, with all the nonsense going on I'm losing track of things. I'm not purposely ignoring you. Have MathKnight and Gadykozma been able to answer your questions. Jayjg 20:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reply to Jmabel

Sorry for not answering before, this time it was me who lost your answers in the noise... I also had internet problems over the weekend. Anyway, to your questions

No, there is no such article
I have never seen anyone advance an argument why such an article should not exist. The arguments against the original Occupation of Palestine article were the title, and the history of the page.
I got a feeling from a number of people (which are not Alberuni or HistoryBuffEr...) that they would prefer if the explicit word "occupation" would appear in the title. Personally I have nothing against this.
I got a feeling from Jayjg and IZAK that they would prefer if the word "occupation" would not appear in the title. None of them stated so explicitly, so it would be better to wait for their input on that. Jayjg? IZAK? Are you reading this?
I would however much prefer if duplicity between the proposed article and History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Arab-Israeli conflict would be minimized. Perhaps it can be made a "subpage" of the History page (I mean here of course that the History page will refer to it as the "main article" and would contain only a summary).
Please, please, please, this time let's pick a name we can all live with.

Gadykozma 13:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gadykozma, One presumes you meant to write "duplication" rather than "duplicity", though there has been plenty of both. Other than that detail, it looks like you and I are in agreement. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:56, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer if the word were not in the title, as there is a perfectly good and non-controversial term already in use in a reasonably good article. And I think the articles should be merged. Again, I'm sorry to have ignored you, I'm being inundated on a number of fronts (not by you). Jayjg 21:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jay, I'm sure you know what you meant just now, but it's so vague that I do not. (1) you would prefer if what word were not in the title? "Occupation" or "Palestine"? (I presume you have no problem with "of", but the way this has been going...) (2) what "perfectly good and non-controversial term" are you referring to as being used in what "reasonably good article" (3) What articles should be merged? (4) Apology accepted, except now that you noticed my question I still don't understand your answer. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:09, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

We have a reasonably good Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, which is why we don't need an Occupation of Palestine article. The word "Occupation" is disputed and the word "Palestine" is vague, as it could mean the West Bank and Gaza, or it could mean the British Mandate of Palestine. While you might assume it means the former, many proponents of a state of Palestine insist it means the latter (see State of Palestine). I also don't like the duplication of many articles, and don't see why it would be necessary., which is why Occupation of Palestine, History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict and perhaps Arab-Israeli conflict should all have most of their contents merged. Does this explain better? Jayjg 22:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It clarifies, but it doesn't convince. Surely this will not all fit in approximately 32 Kb, so we are going to have to factor it somehow. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:35, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

OK, what's the latest suggestion on the table? Jayjg 02:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm not sure this "no occupation in title" approach is still tenable, now with IZAK's occupation pages. It's quite clear that as long as there is no page with "occupation" in the title, the heat on this topic is going to continue, and I think the compromise suggested is reasonable. Take it. Gadykozma 01:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine. I'll go along with it. Jayjg 02:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, convince HistoryBuffEr and we might have a deal. Gadykozma 14:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made a new page called Israeli Occupation of Palestine and moved it to Israeli occupation of Palestine (note the lower-case "o").

I mentioned this in Talk:Israeli_occupation_of_Palestine, and Gady replied:

If you are so bent on cooperation, why don't you participate in the discussions about a name for a page on ths topic rather than making unilateral moves whose obvious sole purpose is to annoy? Gadykozma 14:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, if the sole effect is that I've annoyed you, then (please believe me) it's not going to achieve me actual purpose. I was just trying out an idea that might satisfy Jmabel. :-( --user:Ed Poor (porous reed) 15:33, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, the suggested compromise is Occupation of the Palestinian territories. Please state: for/against, and reasons. Thanks. Gadykozma 18:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes... Gadykozma 19:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Add topic