Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

The Arab statements bellicosity

@Huldra: Yours editing :"totally one-sided arguments, cherry-picking every bellicose statement you can find is no way to write an article. Bring it to talk". What is one sided? Where is the cherry-picking? Ykantor (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Huldra's description is an understatement. According to your edits in multiple articles, Israel never did anything but react to Arab evil. The fact that you can find sources to support your thesis means nothing; as you know full well, you could easily find sources supporting different theses. Zero^talk 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, what your edit described is known as a pretext. Decisions to go to war are always complex and multi-faceted. The idea that one factor such as "bellicose statements" was the crucial factor is preposterous. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You also silently removed cited text, such as the sentence "The UNEF was only deployed on the Egyptian side of the border, as Israel refused to allow them on its territory." Zero^talk 03:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

-@Zero0000 and Oncenawhile: So what is your alternative wording?

- Zero, yours:"According to your edits in multiple articles, Israel never did anything but react to Arab evil." The Fedayeen terror, the Egyptian blocking of the Suez Canal and Tiran straits, the huge eastern block modern arms deal, the concentration of Egyptian forces in Sinai, the bellicose statements, all of them were initiated by the Arab side, with no prior direct Israeli threat. The Arabs reasons were a revenge for the "Nakba" and the mere existence of Israel, as Nasser openly said.

Your version is like a Zionist coloring book. The fedayeen attacks were mostly launched in direct response to Israeli attacks on Gaza. Even rightist historians like Michael Oren have documented that. No direct Israeli threat? What about the Israeli attack on the Gaza market in April that killed 66 people, mostly civilians, and injured 135? But the most appalling distortion is the failure to credit the Sèvres protocol with contributing to the decision, when it is well known to have been the major reason. The French promise of air support and Britain's promise to renege on its defence treaty with Jordan had nothing to do with Israel's decision to initiate a war? B-G salivated over the prospect of Nasser being overthrown "without one Jew's falling in battle" and proposed to the French and British that the war be the first step of a major rearrangement of the Middle East that would see the dismemberment of Jordan and Israeli annexation of the West Bank and southern Lebanon in addition to bits of Egypt. Was it irrelevant that France offered to help Israel build a nuclear reactor in return for Israeli cooperation? The list of facts goes on and on, nothing at all like your one-dimensional text. Zero^talk 12:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

- in my opinion, This deleted sentence is of very minor importance. Why should it be included in the article? Is it important at all? It does not expose an alleged Israeli dirty behavior since it was a part of detailed negotiations, in which each side tried to win. It does not show that Nasser was a peace lover, but rather might show (according to Morris) that the Israeli army was revealed as a sufficiently capable force and at that time Nasser did not want start again a military dispute. Isn't it? Ykantor (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

When Egypt ordered UNEF out of Sinai in 1967, it was regarded as one of the contributors to the war, but when Israel refused to accommodate UNEF at all, ever, that was of very minor importance? This is a common double standard but we don't need it. Zero^talk 12:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

- If there is a double standard, then it's the historians double standard. The sources says that when "Egypt ordered UNEF out of Sinai in 1967, it was regarded as one of the contributors to the war". I am not aware of historians claiming such an importance for "when Israel refused to accommodate UNEF at all" at 1957. Why won't you provide a wp:rs that claims that this event is important?

-You mentioned killing of civilians in Gaza's market. Will you please supply more details? It is not listed in the Reprisal operations.

-yours: "The fedayeen attacks were mostly launched in direct response to Israeli attacks on Gaza.". I am not aware of that, and have to check it. I'll appreciate it if you have a link to a wp:rs (Oren?) who claim so.

"No longer able to resist pressure from within the army and from Gaza Palestinians to retaliate against Israeli attacks, but still incapable of mounting a conventional response, Nasser ordered the formation of Palestinian fidayeen..." (my emphasis), "The IDF responded on 5 April with a mortar barrage on the Gaza market: sixty-six Egyptians, most of them civilians, were killed and 135 wounded. The incident touched off a second wave of raids by the fidayeen..." (Michael Oren, Escalation to Suez: The Egypt-Israel Border War, 1949-56, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 24, No. 2, Studies on War. (Apr., 1989), pp. 347-373. We also find there that fidayeen attacks from Gaza had ceased by the summer of 1956, months before the 1956 war. Plus, the "massive shipments of arms from France" Israel received during the summer is seen as a factor (and absolutely must be mentioned if the Egyptian arms receipts are mentioned. You can read more about the market attack in Morris, Israel's Border Wars, pp. 387ff. Briefly, there had been no incidents for several months, then a series of border incidents then Israel shelled the center of Gaza "not closer than one kilometre to a military position". Then Nasser responded by ordering fedayeen attacks. Zero^talk 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

-yours: "failure to credit the Sèvres protocol". There are about 150 words only describing the 1956 Sinai war. I tried to minimize my added text size, and concentrated at the reasons, so "my" version had grown to about 220-230 words. It seems that relative to the war reasons, mentioning the Sèvres protocol is of secondary importance, since the Sèvres protocol was important in terms of timing, but was not a reason for the war. According to Morris, Before the Sèvres protocol, "Israel's leaders has set a course for war...During the summer of 1956, only 2 questions remained: When? and what target?" (Morris, Victims, p. 288-289). However, I accept adding it to the article. BTW Please note that my text did mentioned a beforehand agreement between the 3 allies.

Wars happen at a time and in some circumstances. It is very likely Ben-Gurion would have gone to war on his own, but only much later. He told his cabinet that he would have preferred another 6 months. A reason for the war to happen 6 months earlier than otherwise is obviously one of the major causes. Zero^talk 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

-Yours: "Was it irrelevant that France offered to help Israel build a nuclear reactor'. My contribution concerned the 1956 Sinai war, and has not dealt with other important issues, such as this one.

- As said, what about an alternative wording? Ykantor (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Pretext_or_trigger_event_guidance. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn´t only that User:Ykantor manage to come up with an astonishingly one-sided sentence ("In late 1956, the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat of the concentrated Egyptian forces in the Sinai, and Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai peninsula")..he then manage to spam exactly the same into the articles History of the Israel Defense Forces, Golda Meir, Israel–United States relations, Operation Musketeer (1956), in addition to this article. I´m removing it, until it is discussed, Huldra (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Huldra- It will be appreciated if you behave yourself. Although asked for your sources, you ignored it but you still dare to name a well supported text as a spam or astonishingly one-sided sentence. If you won't apologize, I will revert it back. As an experienced editor, you are expected to deal with the substance (e.g. provide alternative wording with a proper support) and not this kind of unsubstantiated dirt throwing. Please. Ykantor (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The people who lived in Palestine were never given a choice about their land being colonised, just as the Sudetenland was wished away by Great Power realpolitik and until self-determination is applied there can be no justice and therefore no peace, because occupation is a violent act. When some Palestinians had a vote of sorts and elected the Hamas party as the government of Palestine, the zionists and their US sponsors began another pogrom. An article which accepts the occupation or implies that it can be legitimate is inherently biased. Arguments about whose fault the Yom Kippur War is or who's to blame for the Sabra and Chatila massacres or the legitimacy of the occupation of the Golan Heights tend to miss the point, that if self-determination was applied and honoured, it's inevitable that the victims of the occupation would end it. Point-scoring about details misses the point.Keith-264 (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Keith-264:- I had a look in your contributions, and it seems that you are a valuable editor. I can understand the Palestinian's deep feeling of injustice, but is not it much better to look for a better future for all of us, Arabs and Israelis? Israelis should not rule Arabs, and Arabs should not rule Israelis. Let us stop the ongoing bloodshed. Ykantor (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Zionist racist imperialist antisemites can end the nightmare overnight, by offering to leave Palestine if the rightful owners want them to. If you are a zionist I want no more to do with you.Keith-264 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Keith-264:-Yes I live in Israel. I am very sorry to read your response. Ykantor (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

- Zero: Gaza market attack- Thank you for the info. I found it in Morris, Victims. p. 287. (the page is available here). This killing is horrible, and Moshe Sharet called the attack a crime. However, according Morris's previous rows, during the months before this cruel attack, the Egyptian troops use to fire at the Israeli soldiers almost daily, there were repeated mining attacks and ambushes to the IDF patrols, and in day day before they shot dead 3 Israeli soldiers. So at 5 April both armies were shooting each other, and Egyptians were bombarding Israeli settlements. So the Israeli army had to respond , but the trouble was the huge scale of the Israeli response and the chosen target.

The pattern of the events is typically an Egyptian attack, followed by an Israeli response.

Fedayeen- According to Morris's first lines, the Egyptian clamped down on civilian infiltration during Dec 1955 up to Febr 1956. Why haven't they stopped the infiltration during the previous years?

- Yours: "that fidayeen attacks from Gaza had ceased by the summer of 1956, months before the 1956 war. ". According to this Morris's page , This truce started at April 1956. However, An Egyptian ambush shot dead an Israel civilian at 29 April. It seems that that the truce hold on later, while Fedayeen continue to infiltrate and kill Israeli civilians, but the came from other Arab countries, mainly Jordan. Some sources claim that the Egyptians were behind those infiltration.

-"Yours:"massive shipments of arms from France". You are very experienced and if you want to add it to the article , it is fine. The Egyptian-Czech arms deal size was much bigger e.g. included 150 Jet fighters (Mig15) Vs Israel's 16 French made Mystere and 22 Oragan fighters. Ben Gurion wanted a pre-emptive war in order to beat the Egyptian army before it could absorb all these arms.Ykantor (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You write: "The pattern of the events is typically an Egyptian attack, followed by an Israeli response". Do you honestly think this is correct? Do you think that Israel is always just reacting to aggression or threats? Or do you accept that right-wing elements in the Israeli military and government have often chosen to provoke situations for strategic gain?

Please try to look at these issues from a neutral perspective. World events are never simply a conflict between good and evil. The most frequent case is that both sides make mistakes, and war only happens if at least one party expects to gain from it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Keith-264: A reminder to AGF and of NPA seems to be called for here. This is a page for discussing edits, not editors. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hertz1888: I look forward to you showing impartial behaviour under both policies. I would also remind you that an admission of zionism demonstrates the fact of bad faith. Keith-264 (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile: Yes, I agree with you that some influential elements in Israel wanted (and wanting) to initiate an Israeli aggression e.g. Ariel Sharon. However, during those times, they didn't have to be the first one to shoot at the other side. They just waited for the next Egyptian shooting/ Ambush/ bombardment and over reacted. Later I'll quote Arab sources concerning Nasser behavior. Ykantor (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor, it sounds like we are broadly agreed then. They may not have "just waited" of course, patience is a virtue that not many of us share.

Either way, this is known as a pretext. Thus it is relevant but must be presented very carefully. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

- "meeting on November 15 (1956) ... Amer also lashed out at Nasser, accusing him of provoking an unnecessary war and then blaming the military for the result.”

- "the prominent historian and commentator Abd al-Azim Ramadan, In a series of articles published in AlWafd, subsequently compiled in a hook published in 2000, Ramadan criticized the Nasser cult, …. The events leading up to the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, as other events during Nasser’s rule, Ramadan wrote, showed Nasser to be far from a rational, responsible leader. … His decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was his alone, made without political or military consultation. … The source of all this evil. Ramadan noted, was Nasser’s inclination to solitary decision making… the revolutionary regime led by the same individual—Nasser— repeated its mistakes when it decided to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967. Both decisions led to a state of war with Israel, despite the lack of military preparedness" Ykantor (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, one problem with you adding such statements on several pages are that when some of them gets reverted, they still stand on the other articles you have copied them too. For example, this statement still stands here and here. It it silly to make it like Israel "had to" attack Egypt in 1956 and though this has been rejected here, this still stands at other articles. Until this is solved, they should be removed from there too, which I will do now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it now. Surely you can understand why it is not a good situation to spread the text around to what seems to be every article you can find about the topic (like the one about Woodhead Commission, where 10 articles still contain the text inserted by you). I noticed something similar recently on these three when I was reading about the Egyptian-Israeli peace process: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jarring_Mission&diff=prev&oldid=650705210, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rogers_Plan&diff=prev&oldid=650705305 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golda_Meir&diff=prev&oldid=650705362. That was also a one-sided representation about another Arab-Israeli war. It is the same about the fedayeen attacks discussed here, where you keep copying the one-sided texts to other articles. Is this some kind of tactic? --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

- to Zero. Yours: "that fidayeen attacks from Gaza had ceased by the summer of 1956, months before the 1956 war. " . It seems that this truce did not hold on until the war.

-"by late April (1956), Hammarskjold was able to bring about a cease-fire...The resulting calm along the demarcation lines proved only temporary. The situation deteriorated again for a few weeks in July and then improved for several months, Khouri1985p204

@IRISZOOM: The edit about the reasons for the Israeli attack is well supported. If you oppose it, why don't you propose an alternative wording? why don't you find a source to support your claim that my edit is sided?

Please note that Zero's remarks here are not negating my edit, but adds some background. among the 5 mentioned Israeli attack reasons:

- there were 3 reasons that no one here opposed them: the Egyptian blocking of the Suez Canal and Tiran straits, the concentration of Egyptian forces in Sinai, the bellicose statements .

-reason: The Fedayeen terror. Zero's claim that "The fedayeen attacks were mostly launched in direct response to Israeli attacks on Gaza" is not correct. He probably meant that Nasser formalized the Fedayeen raids in response to a big scale Israeli retaliation attack. But the Egyptian side raids were there for years up to this step of Nasser. Zero said: " fidayeen attacks from Gaza had ceased by the summer of 1956, months before the 1956 war.". At April 1956 Egypt and Israel agreed to a truce. A couple of weeks later, Fedayeen shot dead a Jewish settler but Ben Gurion decided not to retaliate and to continue with the truce. Beginning at July there were more Fedayeen raids, that subsequently subsided. Moreover, at the same period there were a lot of Fedayeen raids originating in Jordan, and some historians claim that it was an Egyptian initiative.

-Reason: The huge eastern block modern arms deal. It is true that France supplied arms to Israel, but the scale of the Egyptian arms supply was much bigger.

- Zero's claim: "the most appalling distortion is the failure to credit the Sèvres protocol with contributing to the decision,". the Sèvres protocol was indeed important. However it was relevant for the war timing and was not a reason for the war. Besides, my edit mentioned a prior agreement .

- It seems that my initial edit was correct, but there are claims that the background was not explained properly in 2 of the 5 reasons plus the Sèvres protocol. (Should the context include al-Azim Ramadan and Amer notes also?.) I accept it, but since the 1956 war is just a small part of the article, there is a question mark about the size of the added background text.

-Concerning Woodhead commission, if you compare my initial edit that was reverted, and the final(?) edit that was not reverted (yet?), there is not much difference between them. Most of the claims against my edit have not influenced the final(?) edit.

-What is the problem with my edits concerning peace initiative before the 1973 war? Ykantor (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A Reasons have already been told by three editors and I just told mine. The wording was better before your addition. You added that "the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat". It even looks like only one of the sources you added say so (Beyond Guns and Steel: A War Termination Strategy by Dominic Joseph Caraccilo) but it gives the look that all agrees. But what is most significant is that there are several others of authors who classify this is a "war of choice" but this of course is not mentioned by you. You just add sources that support the Israeli view and as others have said, you can find sources that say the total opposite.

B The part "it was impossible, whatever boundaries we might recommend, to set up an Arab State which should be self-supporting" was rejected and still stands in 10 articles. You didn't explain why you are adding similiar statements to many articles. Can't you see that this is unusual compared to other editors? I mean, you seem to copy sentences to every article about the topic.

C Your problem is that you fail to note that Israel was not ready to return all of occupied Egyptian territory, which Egypt could not accept, and that Israel was seen as the one who made the Jarring Mission fail. The article was and still a mess because it is mainly based on what the Israeli foreign ministry and their embassy in Washington write but then you added this part, which made it more one-sided, and you presented it as a fact when it was taken from Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

-As for your first passage, designated with A : yours: "You just add sources that support the Israeli view" is not true. My edit is valuable since it is well supported, there is no dispute over 3 of the war reasons, and the rest 2 reasons are correct but should be expanded according to Zero's supported notes. This process of upgrading is a normal Wikipedia practice. Instead of blaming me for a missing view, or if you do not agree with, why won't you find a wp:rs and add your view (e.g. "war of choice") to the article?.

-As for your's B passage: Please read again the relevant discussion and the sources. This sentence is written in the Woodhead report, so it could not be rejected. Moreover, the 1947 U.N partition report was the same, so they suggested that the planned Jewish state will have to subsidize the future Arab state. In my opinion instead of all this mutual fighting and killing, such a partition could have been a very good solution for both side, and the with the subsidies the Arab state could keep a relative good standard of education and health system, while developing the economy to a level of a modern and self sufficient state. Nasser, Israel greatest enemy ever, used to say that to attack Israel before the army is ready is a crime. It is a pity that On 1947-1948 the Mufti attacked the Jews although he did not prepare his people to a war.

-As for your's C passage: Again, why do you blame me for the article shortcomings? I am not the article owner. And again, If you do not agree with, why won't you add your supported view?. Concerning Rabin's memoirs, I'll find and add wp:rs. BTW yours " Israel was not ready to return all of occupied Egyptian territory, which Egypt could not accept" : accepting it is a matter of negotiations. What about Sadat 1971 peace proposal? Sadat demanded that Israel will return (or formally agree to) all the occupied territories to the 3 Arab countries and then, and only then Egypt would agree to start and negotiate a peace agreement but without a direct talk? Do you think that Israel had to accept this proposal? giving away the playing cards before any negotiations? You probably don't think that Nasser 1967 steps made the war inevitable (although lot of wp:rs think so), but Syria and Jordan attacked Israel in response to The Israeli attack on Egypt. was it justified to demand that Israel will return the occupied territories to them unilaterally while they refuse to have peace with Israel? Ykantor (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I and others should not have to make the article more neutral just because you fail to do so by presenting one particular view as the truth. Now that the text is not any longer there, it is not as a big issue as before but I could indeed add more about it soon. You did not respond to the other part. Which other sources speak about "the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat"? Was it one of the sources? A ref tag should come after a particular statement.

I have read it and you know very well that the discussion was not if the sentence was in the report but how you presented it and that you as usual copied it to many articles. Regarding the other part, Wikipedia is not a forum and I will only say that if it was only about Arab disavowal, it does not explain many actions taken by the Israeli side (including expulsions after the war).

First of all, I did say that you took something from Rabin's memoirs and presented it as a fact and that to an article that was already a mess. I think it is very clear that the Israeli refusal to return the occupied territories (including only the Sinai to the Egyptians as they were willing to agree to according to many sources) was there no matter what the Egyptian position were. Golda Meir even mocked Egyptian claims to some parts of the peninsula (as you can see for example here or here). That Israel said they could not return to the 1967 lines were stated clearly. Archives released two years ago also show that while Meir said Israel were willing to return most of the peninsula before the war, they were not willing to return all of it.

I did add what Finkelstein wrote about the Jarring Mission and there is also some more that could be added about the peace proposals, including the one in 1971. Chomsky has also written much about it. Shlomo Ben-Ami have also written about that. Here is parts about what Ben-Ami wrote and this is copied from a piece written by Finkelstein who compared his texts to Ben-Ami's, which can be cross-checked to see it matches what Ben-Ami wrote and many pages are accessible on Google Books:

Both Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan were forced to acknowledge the revolutionary change in Egypt's position. In an interview with the London Times the Prime Minister admitted that Sadat was 'the first Egyptian leader to say that he was ready to make peace'. Dayan believed that this was an entirely new situation that called for a 'careful assessment', one that was never made. In fact, Sadat's response to Jarring went even further: it indicated that Egypt wanted an Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab lands, but it did not link Egypt's readiness for peace with the withdrawal from other fronts. Sadat was in effect anticipating the premises upon which he would strike a separate deal with Israel at the Camp David summit.

Mrs. Meir's Cabinet did not rise to the dramatic challenge posed by Anwar Sadat. In the same interview where she recognised the boldness of Sadat's reply to Jarring, the Prime Minister continued to insist that Israel 'must have' Sharm-el-Sheikh, that Egypt 'could not return' to Gaza, and that the Golan Heights and much of the West Bank, including united Jerusalem, must remain under Israel's control. She also took the liberty on another occassion to say that 'Sharm-el-Sheikh is of absolutely no use to the Egyptians'. (Scars of War, p. 134)

The pages around that section are worth to read. Same with this from Israeli Peacemaking Since 1967: Factors Behind the Breakthroughs and Failures and this from The Global Offensive: The United States, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Making of the Post-Cold War Order too about the peace process. Furthermore, why do you pick and choose from Rabin's memoirs from what fits you? Don't you think the statement by Golda Meir in 1971 is relevant too, especially when we are discussing the Jarring Mission? Rabin reports (p. 210) the following and Galia Golan reports that too in the her book (p. 31):

"Israel's policy aims toward a considerable change in her border with Egypt. That means a change of sovereignty, not just an Israeli presence. We do not employ the term 'annexation' because of its negative connotation."

That was in 1971. Also the cabinet decision from 31 March 1971 are mentioned by Rabin (p. 211 and quoted by Galia Golan at p. 38):

"A secure border for Israel requires changes in the former international border, including retention of the Gaza Strip, continued Israeli control at Sharm el-Sheikh, and a territorial link to the State of Israel. Continued control does not signify a presence but rather concrete military control, though the Israeli position regarding the legal form of such control has yet to be formulated"

Rabin also told Kissinger a year later that Israel "demands border changes, and Dobrynin should be told that" (p. 211). Nothing of that is mentioned by you and you are cherry-picking to make it look like Israel wanted to compromise while Arabs did not want too.

Nothing of this is either mentioned at Yom Kippur War#Background and this must be solved, which I am going to go forward with. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

- Golda repeatedly said that Israel won't return all of the occupied territories and she probably meant it. According to Rabin memoirs, he himself was surprised when Golda accepted in principle the Egyptian sovereignty over Sinai on 1973 beginning. But she was very interested in advancing the arms deal with the U.S (e.g more Phantom fighters) and the U.S hinted that she had to bow toward the American policy before a further advance of the arms deal. (I might be mistaken because I recall the story from memory).

-In my opinion, concerning Sadat peace initiative on 1971, the main obstacle for a peace agreement were the Egypt's preconditions of returning Sinai before the negotiations. The basic give and take was peace Vs the occupied territories. For Israel the "give" was returning part of Sinai and the "take" was a peace agreement. If Israel was required to give away the main "playing card" before the negotiations, than it could be expected that the subsequent negotiations will be futile. Years later, Sadat openly said that recovering Sinai was his main motivation for the peace process.

- Israel had its share of faults, because it declared that only a part of Sinai will be returned to Egypt. But if negotiations would have started without preconditions, than this declared attitude could be changed with a proper American pressure, which is what happened to Menachem Begin's starting position while negotiating with Sadat and the Americans. To be continued. Ykantor (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

-Concerning the article neutrality, again: It is not "my" article and you are welcome to edit anything in the article. My edit refers to the war reasons, while the ""war of choice" refers to a different question - if the reasons justified the war.

-Yours: "you fail to do so by presenting one particular view as the truth". My edit is 100% true. No one here presented any error in this edit. Sometime it happens that wp:rs contradict each other but in this case, no one mentioned such a contradicting view. Please be careful next time and avoid such an accusation. My edit was valuable, and it should be expanded with Zero's comments. This is a normal process in Wikipedia.

- "bellicosity of recent Arab statements ": if you wish to move the reference to the middle of the sentence, you are welcome, although once I was told that a reference should be inserted at the sentence end only. BTW One hardly need a source for the very apparent Nasser's statements bellicosity.

- Concerning the "Golda accepted Egyptian sovereignty", I admit that initially I had to add the "according to Rabin" words. However, I in the meantime added more sources, so there is no need anymore to have this words.

- Yours "it does not explain many actions taken by the Israeli side (including expulsions after the war)." I am an Israeli but it is not my duty to defend Israel wrong actions. I agree with you in that sense.

- It will be very appreciated if editors won't quote the pseudo scientist Norman Finkelstein. He presents himself as a victim of the Jewish lobby(?)that devoid him of getting a job, but in fact he is just a poor researcher. There are other anti Israeli academics who hold a job with no problems. Some editors here said that Ephraim Karsh is too biased toward Israel, so I avoid using his interpretation (but using his factual sentences.)

- You have not replied yet if you agree to include the following views in the article:

--"meeting on November 15 (1956) ... Amer also lashed out at Nasser, accusing him of provoking an unnecessary war and then blaming the military for the result.”

-- "the prominent historian and commentator Abd al-Azim Ramadan, In a series of articles published in AlWafd, subsequently compiled in a hook published in 2000, Ramadan criticized the Nasser cult, …. The events leading up to the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, as other events during Nasser’s rule, Ramadan wrote, showed Nasser to be far from a rational, responsible leader. … His decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was his alone, made without political or military consultation. … The source of all this evil. Ramadan noted, was Nasser’s inclination to solitary decision making… the revolutionary regime led by the same individual—Nasser— repeated its mistakes when it decided to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967. Both decisions led to a state of war with Israel, despite the lack of military preparedness" Ykantor (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

-Concerning Woodhead commission, I repeat: if you compare my initial edit that was reverted, and the final(?) edit that was not reverted (yet?), there is not much difference between them. Most of the claims against my edit have not influenced the final(?) edit.

---The main claim was against my initial edit that "On November 9, 1938, it reported that "it was impossible, whatever boundaries we might recommend, to set up an Arab State which should be self-supporting. It proposed a modification of partition which, ...seems, subject to certain reservations, to form a satisfactory basis of settlement", if the U.K was prepared to provide a "sufficient assistance to enable the Arab State to balance its budget"'".

--- My final edit was : "It preferred a modification of the partition, which forms a satisfactory basis of settlement, if the United Kingdom government accept "the very considerable financial liability involved," that balances the Arab state budget...It found that "it is not possible, under our terms of reference, to recommend boundaries which will afford a reasonable prospect of the eventual establishment of a self-supporting Arab State. This conclusion is, in our opinion, equally valid under plan C, plan B, and any other plan of partition which does not involve the inclusion in the Arab State of an area containing a large number of Jews, whose contributions to tax-revenue would alone enable that state to balance its budget". They suggested that the Arab and Jewish states not be given fiscal independence but instead the UK government accept "the very considerable financial liability" and provide a sufficient assistance to enable the Arab State to balance its budget."

-Please see the relevant talkpage section too. It seems that my initial edit was correct. Ykantor (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was a grotesque distortion. Zero^talk 14:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So Egypt demanding all of their territory back is the main problem and not that Israel insisted on keeping parts of it in opposition to the consensus it was occupied and therefore must be returned, though of course under certain conditions such as security solutions? As I said before, there are many who say that Sadat offered a peace agreement (and not only something less than such a treaty), including agreeing to Jarring's proposal unlike Israel. That view must also be there. My question about why you only added a certain part from Rabin's memoirs has nothing to do if it's "your" article or not so I don't understand why you keep bringing that up. Why not include Meir's and Israel's earlier statements, including their reply to Jarring, and only picking the position they stated in early 1973? Their insistence on refusing to withdraw to the 1967 lines, and seeking border changes, is highly relevant.

Finkelstein have written about Sadat's willingness to reach peace and I added that statement to Jarring Mission and more can be seen here and here. Chomsky has also written about it. Galia Golan writes about it here too. Shlomo Ben-Ami also writes about it here.

No, I stand behind what I said about your addition, which several other editors also objected to. You are trying to make it look like that Israel "had to" attack in 1956 and are looking up sources and statements (so no, those two quotes don't belong there) to support that view but that this is not how you build an encyclopedia. You start with looking at what different reliable sources report. As you know, it is easy to look on sources from the total opposite side and add that but that does not either make it better. The current wording, which in an accurate and neutral way describes the tensions, nationalization and the response to it etc., is much better. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion on why Finkelstein is an unacceptable source is not relevant. If you think he is not a WP:RS, go get consensus for that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Woodhead Commission, I will later respond in that article's talk page, and my mention here was more about your habit to copy additions to many articles. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you adapted a tactic to accuse me for what I have not said. e.g

- "So Egypt demanding all of their territory back is the main problem"

- "You are trying to make it look like that Israel "had to" attack in 1956"

- You have bizarre demands, that:

-- if I use a source (e.g. Rabin memoirs) I have to quote all the source's other statement , although not related to my edit.

-- I have to insert the reference in the middle of the sentence rather than in the end of the sentence. Really bizarre.

-You accuse me of inserting a bad edit in "Woodhead Report" and avoid verifying yourself that this initial edit of mine is correct . In my opinion you should apologize for your wrong accusation.

- You have not replied yet if you agree to include the Amer and Ramadan views in the article.

- yours " The current wording, which in an accurate and neutral way... is much better.". It is not disputed that my deleted edit is correct, relevant and important. The claims are that it had to be expanded with more background. Do you really mean that the current wording which is misleading and miss the Israeli reasons for the war, is good?

With this confronting behavior , should other editors wp:Assume good faith of yours ? Ykantor (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor, many times you say other "accuse" you and should "apologize" etc. I think that is a confronting behaviour. Lets see what you write and how I interpretate it.

I said "So Egypt demanding all of their territory back is the main problem". What did you write? "In my opinion, concerning Sadat peace initiative on 1971, the main obstacle for a peace agreement were the Egypt's preconditions of returning Sinai before the negotiations".

I have said that "You are trying to make it look like that Israel 'had to' attack in 1956". What did you add and keep supporting? "In late 1956, the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat of the concentrated Egyptian forces in the Sinai, and Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956".

So in which way did I interpretate it wrongly? If I did, I will apologize.

You are saying that I have "bizarre demands". Well, I do find it hard to understand why someone who are going to describe Israel's view about giving back Sinai in the article about for example the Jarring Mission would narrow the history to only what happened in early 1973. I think the earlier rejections, which many saw as destroying the chance for peace, and others also as paving the way to the 1973 war, is very relevant. You don't even have to check other sources to know what had happened earlier. Rabin describes it himself in same book, some pages earlier. So why narrow it to what Meir had for view in early 1973? Was her demand two years earlier to keep parts of Sinai, and negative response to Jarring's proposal from the beginning, not worthy to mention?

What I am saying is to put a ref behind the statement it is meant to support. Otherwise, if you put several refs that support different things, it will be unclear what is supported by what and harder to check. I think that is reasonable and it does not take a second more to do, though I understand that this is something that is easy to not notice and I started by asking about which statement was supported by what and said how it should placed.

I looked at it and stand behind the claim that your first addition was a misrepresentation. Secondly, as I said just in my last response here, it was "my mention here was more about your habit to copy additions to many articles". In that response, I did also reply about the both statements you are asking if we should include: "so no, those two quotes don't belong there".

How is your addition that said "In late 1956, the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat of the concentrated Egyptian forces in the Sinai, and Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956" not disputed? I do think the current description is much better of the reasons I mentioned in my last reply ("which in an accurate and neutral way describes the tensions, nationalization and the response to it etc."). It also does mention that Egypt's closing of the straits and blockade. The point is if you want to improve it, do it without keep portraying the Israelis as just responding to Arab actions. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Yours:"On the contrary, it was a grotesque distortion." If it is distorted you should blame the 5 sources that my edit reflected faithfully: ShemeshTroen2005p5, Alteras1993p192, Caraccilo2011p113, Dowty2005p102, Bickerton2009p101. Your notes added important background, which should be added too. (although some are not accurate or missing relevant information). Ykantor (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Hasan Afif El-Hasan : "Israel was looking for war to pre-empt the potential threat of Egypt's arms purchase and to thwart Nasser's support for the Palestinian guerrillas. It found one by aligning himself with the french and the British" Ykantor (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The Arab statements bellicosity II

A proposed edit: (should be expanded)

The Arab statements bellicosity

During the years before the 1956 Suez crisis, Egyptian leaders talked openly about destruction of Israel. The Egyptian Foreign Minister, said early in 1954: "The Arab people will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East" . Nasser said at 31.8.1955 that "There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." On October 14, Nasser said: "I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations."

Tiran straits block

Egypt blocked the Suez canal for shipping and refused to comply with the 1951 Security Council order that Egypt should open the Canal to Israeli shipping. On 12 Sept 1955 Egypt tightened the Tiran straits block for an Israeli shipping, and closed the airspace for Israeli flights over the Gulf of Acaba.

Fedayeen

During the early 50's , the infiltration from Gaza strip to Israel was mainly for economic reasons. Gradually, they developed into violent robbery and deliberate killing attacks. During those years, Israel responded by retaliation operations. On Apr 1954 The Egyptian military send an "official" Fedayeen across the borders. (morris,victims, p. 291). this infiltration posed a very serious problem for Israel in general and the border settlements in particular. Many of the inhabitants of the border settlements were new immigrants from Muslim countries. Infiltration from across the border placed their lives at risk, exacted a heavy economic price, and undermined their morale to the point where wholesale desertion became a real possibility. (shlaim, morris, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Israels%20Dirty%20War.html) . The Egyptians tried to stop the infiltration, but it continued. The Egyptian succeeded to clamp down on civilian infiltration during Dec 1955 up to Febr 1956.

On February 28, 1955 Israeli military raid of an Egyptian Army outpost in Gaza, in retaliation for recent fedayeen attacks on Israel. The Gaza Raid resulted in the deaths of 39 Egyptian. Nasser responded by ordering the formation of Palestinian fedayeen units and employed them as an official instrument of warfare against Israel. The amount of the Fedayeen raids increased. Egyptian troops use to fire at the Israeli soldiers almost daily, there were repeated mining attacks and ambushes to the IDF patrols. Egyptian agents recruited and armed Fedayeen in Jordan and Lebanon too. (morris,victims, p. 283). The Fedayeen attacks stopped after the Israeli destroyed Khan Yunis police fort on 31.8.1955 .

In 4 Apr 1956 the Egyptians shot dead 3 Israeli soldiers, and Egyptian troops use to fire at the Israeli soldiers almost daily, there were repeated mining attacks and ambushes to the IDF patrols. At 5 April both armies were shooting each other, and Egyptians bombarded Israeli settlements. The Israeli army responded by a mortar barrage on the Gaza market: sixty-six Egyptians were killed. The incident touched off a second wave of raids by the fedayeen..." (Michael Oren, Escalation to Suez: The Egypt-Israel Border War, 1949-56, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 24, No. 2, Studies on War. (Apr., 1989), pp. 347-373.

By late April (1956), Hammarskjold was able to bring about a cease-fire. An Egyptian ambush shot dead an Israel civilian at 29 April but Ben Gurion decided not to retaliate. The resulting calm along the demarcation lines proved only temporary. The situation deteriorated again for a few weeks in July and then improved for several months, ( Khouri 1985p204). During these months, Fedayeen continued to infiltrate and kill Israeli civilians, but they came from other Arab countries, mainly Jordan. Some sources claim that the Egyptians were behind those infiltration.

Arms supply

In September 1955 Nasser obtained the massive Soviet arms deal. This deal threatened to tip the military balance against Israel.

Israel received massive shipments of arms from France, although not in the scale of the Egyptian arms deal. E.g. The Egyptian-Czech arms deal included 150 Jet fighters (Mig15) Vs Israel's 16 French made Mystere and 22 Oragan fighters. On 18 March 1956, the Israeli Prime Minister had warned that 'war within a few months could not be avoided unless Israel obtained the arms needed to counter Egypt's weapons'.

According to Hasan Afif El-Hasan : "Israel was looking for war to pre-empt the potential threat of Egypt's arms purchase and to thwart Nasser's support for the Palestinian guerrillas. It found one by aligning himself with the french and the British"

The Sèvres protocol

French promise of air support , Britain's promise to renege on its defence treaty with Jordan

The war reasons

In late 1956, the bellicosity of recent Arab statements prompted Israel to remove the threat of the concentrated Egyptian forces in the Sinai, and Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956. Other Israeli aims were elimination of the Fedayeen incursions into Israel that made life unbearable for its southern population, and opening the blockaded Straits of Tiran for Israeli ships.

According to Hazem Kandil, Israel was alarmed by the Czech arms deal, and believed it had only a narrow window of opportunity to hit Egypt's army.

The war

Israel occupied much of the peninsula within a few days. As agreed, within a couple of days, Britain and France invaded too, aiming at regaining Western control of the Suez Canal and removing the Egyptian president Nasser.

After the war

--The United States and the United Nations soon pressured it into a ceasefire

Several months later Israel withdrew its forces from Sinai, following strong pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union. In return, Egypt agreed to the demilitarization of Sinai and the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was stationed in Sinai to prevent any further conflict in the Sinai.the Fedayeen murderous incursions into Israel were stopped.

Arab critics

meeting on November 15 (1956) ... Amer also lashed out at Nasser, accusing him of provoking an unnecessary war and then blaming the military for the result.”

The prominent historian and commentator Abd al-Azim Ramadan, In a series of articles published in AlWafd, subsequently compiled in a hook published in 2000, Ramadan criticized the Nasser cult, …. The events leading up to the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, as other events during Nasser’s rule, Ramadan wrote, showed Nasser to be far from a rational, responsible leader. … His decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was his alone, made without political or military consultation. … The source of all this evil. Ramadan noted, was Nasser’s inclination to solitary decision making… the revolutionary regime led by the same individual—Nasser— repeated its mistakes when it decided to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967. Both decisions led to a state of war with Israel, despite the lack of military preparedness

References

Turkey's support to Arab side

Is there any reference for this. It is well known that Turkey supports Palestine but this support does not extend for all the Arab world. Turkey is one of the Israel's largest arms and tech customer, they participated in joint military exercises against Iran and signed a free trade agreement etc etc. kazekagetr 08:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel civilian casualties

In the infobox, it says that 1,723 Israeli civilian have benn killed in the conflict. This number must be incorrect, because that during 1948 Arab-Israeli war 2,400~ cicilian had been killed. When considering all other wars and armed engagements, the number should be higher than 1723. If no one will disagree, I will change the number of civilian casualties. Guy1286 (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

new book, may be of interest for Arab–Israeli_conflict#1929_events

Year Zero of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1929 by Hillel Cohen, translated by Haim Watzman, 2015, Brandeis University Press/University Press of New England Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Table

I created this table a few months ago; does it clarify things? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles

Please see WT:IPCOLL#RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://crdc.gmu.edu/docs/recommendations.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928001621/http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Politics/Presidency/President/Interview/000001/0401050300000000000154.htm to http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Politics/Presidency/President/Interview/000001/0401050300000000000154.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A plea for a 100 year narrative

Given the importance of the conflict articles to our project I had hoped for more feedback at this RFC, but I think I overcomplicated the description. Some editors may also be thinking "we've been just fine for 10 years so is there really a problem here that needs solving"? I would like to encourage more editors to contribute.

The core issue behind the RFC question is that most readers know very little about the conflict and therefore need one single summary article to read and begin their journey, and we need that single summary article to broadly match the picture that the 1,000s of books summarizing this conflict take. Instead we have sat for many years with three primary articles (IPC since 48, AIC since 48 and ICMP 20-48) which are fine but are missing something above them to thread them together into the 100-year-narrative of the conflict presented by the vast majority of books on the topic.

I recognize that many editors may find the question is a little more dry and boring than many of the debates around here, but its importance to the average Wikipedia reader can hardly be overstated.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071224031940/http://www.geocities.com:80/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html to http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517000830/http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9399 to http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9399/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426210424/http://www.lebanonundersiege.gov.lb:80/english/F/Main/index.asp? to http://www.lebanonundersiege.gov.lb/english/F/Main/index.asp?
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517105419/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080424-14.html to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080424-14.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121128084157/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20444499 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20444499
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130523074243/http://www.mzv.cz:80/jnp/en/issues_and_press/statements/x2012_11_15_prohlaseni_mzv_cr_k_aktualnimu_vyvoji_situace_v_izraeli_a_pasmu_gazy.html to http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/en/issues_and_press/statements/x2012_11_15_prohlaseni_mzv_cr_k_aktualnimu_vyvoji_situace_v_izraeli_a_pasmu_gazy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090201053723/http://www.strategicforesight.com/Cost%20of%20Conflict%20-%206%20pager.pdf to http://www.strategicforesight.com/Cost%20of%20Conflict%20-%206%20pager.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120204203437/http://diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/issued?openform&cat=Middle_East to http://diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/issued?openform&cat=Middle_East

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120112113617/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-53356391/struggle-against-jewish-immigration.html to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-53356391/struggle-against-jewish-immigration.html

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120324002524/http://repec.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp89.pdf to http://repec.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp89.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Typo at the end of the "Background" section

At the end of paragraph "Background" it says: "as suggested, for instance, by Paul in Romans 11Cfrom the Bible.hristian Zionism teaches that the return of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ"

The "C" before "from the Bible" belongs to the next sentence. In addition "in the Bible" is the better preposition. Corrected version:

"as suggested, for instance, by Paul in Romans 11 in the Bible. Christian Zionism teaches that the return of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ"

However, as the article is locked I can't initiate the correction myself.

 Done Strawberry4Ever (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer this wording: "as suggested, for instance, by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans, chapter 11. Christian Zionism teaches that the return of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ" Markewilliams (talk)

 Done. Although it might be obvious, I kept the words "in the Bible" for the benefit of non-Christians. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Is this the whole conflict's parent article?

The consensus is "No, we don't need a parent article; the split of three top articles (Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Arab-Israeli conflict, and Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine) is fine."

Cunard (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Per Wikipedia:Summary_style#Rationale, for major topics Wikipedia should "distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic". It goes on to discuss the parent-child article structure. I have tried in different ways to get the community focused on this question for the huge and complex Israel-Palestine topic, but I have continually failed to get a proper discussion going, probably because I have been asking the wrong question. Here is another attempt, with a hopefully better question.

Please could editors comment as to whether you believe that this article should be the overall parent article of the whole conflict, which began in 1917 or 1920 depending which scholar you look at. Proposed options below:

• Yes, this article should be the parent article of the whole conflict
• No, the parent is at another article
• No, we don't need a parent article; the split of three top articles is fine

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Question: What are the other two top articles? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The three top articles are:

• Israeli–Palestinian conflict (c.60,000 views/month) => Current scope is 1948 onwards, covering only the part of the conflict which didn't include the surrounding Arab states. It contains little history and is almost exclusively focused on and overlapping with the Israeli–Palestinian peace process article.
• Arab-Israeli conflict (c.21,000 views/month) => Current scope is 1948 onwards, covering only the part of the conflict involving the surrounding Arab states (and excluding Iran).
• Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine (c.600 views/month) => Covers the conflict in 1920-1948 Palestine, including major events such as Deir Yassin, the King David Hotel bombing and the Hebron massacre.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• No, we don't need a parent article; the split of three top articles is fine: It looks like there is a clear division of scope of the top three articles. Having three articles is fine as long as there are links to the other articles where appropriate. I don't see how making Arab-Israeli conflict the overall parent article would make things clearer. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, we don't need a parent article; the split of three top articles is fine. And this RfC seems to be yet another attempt at asking the same questions as were asked here and here... Number 57 09:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, we don't need a parent article; the split of three top articles is fine As stated above. Also, using "Israeli" to describe pre-1948 conflicts is technically inaccurate. So long as Israeli–Palestinian conflict appropriately links to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, it's great for these articles to sit side-by-side.--Carwil (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, we don't need another article. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the parent article of Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the sectarian conflict in Mandatory Palestine and various violent events against Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa were the background to the Arab Israeli conflict, but since there was no Israel (and technically also no Arab League until 1945), it is very much non-continuous. The Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan similarly began in 1948 with a background of ethnic tensions.GreyShark (dibra) 17:49, 17 May 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575008_10/Israel.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564886/Arab-Israeli_War_of_1973.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206055402/http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/world.mideast.misc/1/wed/bq/Alebanon-war-deaths.RYBR_GDS.html to http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/world.mideast.misc/1/wed/bq/Alebanon-war-deaths.RYBR_GDS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109191230/https://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/israel_palestina/index.asp to http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/israel_palestina/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524094913/http://domino.un.org:80/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253 to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116103234/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403024612/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ezra and Nehemiah

ISTM that the conflict didn't start in the 1800s. It started in the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah (and yes, I know there were no Moslems back then).

In Ezra 4:1–4:3 the Jews reject the help of other Israelites living around Jerusalem. Hang on, are these others Israelites? They probably are descendents of Israel. But they've intermarried with other peoples and are no longer considered part of Israel by the Jews. The Jews recorded this disaster in 2 Kings 17:18. From that time on, the tribe of Judah (the Jews) considered themselves the only Israelites (occasionally also acknowledging the remnants of the tribe of Benjamin and even the tribe of Levi).

Am I the only one to have noticed this and its significance? I'm not a reliable source of course. But surely reputable scholars have discussed this too? Andrewa (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806072438/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/F5A49E57095C35B685256BCF0075D9C2 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/F5A49E57095C35B685256BCF0075D9C2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603150222/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%2BProcess/Guide%2Bto%2Bthe%2BPeace%2BProcess/Declaration%2Bof%2BEstablishment%2Bof%2BState%2Bof%2BIsrael.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mideastweb.org/ga997.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575008_10/Israel.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern%2BHistory/Centenary%2Bof%2BZionism/The%2BArab-Israeli%2BWars.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564886/Arab-Israeli_War_of_1973.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?%2Fworld.mideast.misc%2F1%2Fwed%2Fbq%2FAlebanon-war-deaths.RYBR_GDS.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lebanonundersiege.gov.lb/english/F/Main/index.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%2BObstacle%2Bto%2BPeace/Palestinian%2Bterror%2Bsince%2B2000/Victims%2Bof%2BPalestinian%2BViolence%2Band%2BTerrorism%2Bsinc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-8-6/44648.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://chinadaily.cn/world/2006-07/30/content_652972.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606104652/http://m.euractiv.com/details.php?aid=516096 to http://m.euractiv.com/details.php?aid=516096
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306020711/http://www.brookings.edu/saban.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/saban.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

European Union in the infobox?

User:Supreme Dragon, could you please explain this edit? What sources do you base on to say the EU supports Israel? (when usually it seems the opposite) Thanks.--181.90.39.122 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds very dubious to me too. I'll revert it for now, let's restore it when there is a source supporting this claim. “WarKosign” 07:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I forgot to cite this edit I found in this link. Supreme Dragon (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It's an interview with Avi Pazner, representing his personal opinions. It does not specifically mention european countries supporting Israel militarily, certainly not support by all of EU. “WarKosign” 14:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

EU in the box is nonsense.GreyShark (dibra) 07:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Benny Morris

Benny Morris' account of the reasons behind the refugee problem is not accepted by other historians who did research on the topic. He is also the only historian mentioned in the entry and no other point of view is given, which can give rise to bias. Mainstream historians point up that Morris did not review Arab language documents and strongly disagree with his analysis on the matter; it is likely that both the Arab leadership and the Jewish one are responsible for the refugee problem but blaming one side conclusively is not possible. See for example:

Shabtai Teveth, “The Palestinian Refugee Problem and its Origins”, Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, 1990, pages 214-249. 

and Ephraim Karsh, “Fabricating Israeli History: The “New Historians””, Frank Cass, London, 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhadani (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://repec.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp89.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060301003045/http://memri.org/conflict.html to http://www.memri.org/conflict.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2018 CAN YOU ADD MY BOOK : Calvo Michael A, THE MIDDLE EAST AND WORLD WAR III - Why No Peace, Foreword by Colonel Richard KEMP - CBE, Create Space 2017, 541 p.

46.117.113.110 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This apparently islamophobic and extremist work is a self-published book written by a lawyer with no historical credentials. The reviews it has received are primarily from propagandists. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

It is requested that on the right side of the Arab–Israeli conflict article, in the column with the map, under Belligerents, India should be written as supporting the Arabs and Palestine. This can be accredited to the article, Egypt–India relations. 100.33.3.16 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Not done. According to Egypt-India relations (which by itself is not a reliable source), India supported Egypt and the Arabs against Israel in 1967. It's not clear if the support was anything more than announcing the support. Even if India could be considered a belligerent in 1967 war, it does not make it a belligerent in the whole Arab-Israeli conflict. “WarKosign” 10:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2017

The romanization of the Arabic text should be changed from Al-Sira'a Al'Arabi A'Israili to aṣ-Ṣirāʿa l-ʿArabī l-ʾIsrāʾīlī. The current one is nonstandard and contains mistakes. Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 09:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Same reason as Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The Arabic text says: الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي‎‎, or with full vocalization, الْصِرَاعَ الْعَرَبِي الْإِسْرَائِيلِي. According to DIN 31635, it should be romanized as aṣ-Ṣirāʿa l-ʿArabī l-ʾIsrāʾīlī. The current one is nonstandard and contains blatant mistakes, e.g. not distinguishing between short or long vowels, or glottal stops and pharyngeal fricatives, and there's missing letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty12302 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Because of the discretionary sanctions on this article, if this change is later reverted, it can't be restored for a full 24 hours. That's why I ask for a consensus, in case someone disagrees with this change. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I support the change. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I support as well. Oshawott 12 (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Israeli civilian deaths

The ~1700 Israeli civilian deaths listed in the opening column seems rather low. Our very own article on the First Arab-Israeli war says 2400 Israeli civilians died in that war alone. I believe the number cited by the Ha'aretz article was specifically about those killed in terror attacks not including the larger number killed either intentionally or not by the regular armies of the Arab states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.57.119 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Icon for Portal:Arab–Israeli conflict

Please see relevant discussion at Template talk:Portal#Portal:Arab–Israeli conflict icon – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

External Links Policy

It would seem to me that the external links section on this page is a violation of WP:DIRECTORY. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." (in this case a directory of the various parties to this conflict). I propose it be blanked, or at most 1-2 links per belligerent. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

PRESERVE

Blanking and putting it here per WP:PRESERVE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Government and official sources

• Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism since September 2000
  • The Arab-Israeli Wars, by Netanel Lorch
• League of Arab States
• Palestinian Authority Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• United Nations on the Question of Palestine
• Arab-Israeli Conflict from UCB Libraries GovPubs

Regional media

Israeli

• Israel News – Yedioth Aharonoth Israel's largest newspaper, centrist (Hebrew)
• Jerusalem Post, Israel's oldest English newspaper, conservative
• Ha'aretz Israeli newspaper, liberal
• Jerusalem Newswire Christian-run Jerusalem-based news website, conservative

Arab

• Lebanon Daily Star, largest English-circulation newspaper in the Arab world
• Al Ahram, Egypt's largest newspaper (see also Al Ahram)
• Palestine Chronicle, weekly electronic paper

Think tanks and strategic analysis

• Dean Peter Krogh Examines Prospects for Peace from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
• NGO Monitor, NGO watchdog group, highlighting perceived instances of anti-Israeli NGO bias
• Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
• Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA), Palestinian research organization
• Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information Joint Israeli-Palestinian think tank
• Middle East Research and Information Project (see also Middle East Research and Information Project)
• Saban Center for Middle East Policy (see also Saban Center for Middle East Policy)
• Washington Institute for Near East Policy (see also Washington Institute for Near East Policy)
• Original analysis of current developments in the peace-process, from Middle East Media Research Institute
• The Ariel Center for Policy Research
• A Regional Perspective on the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Jay Shapiro
• Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies

Peace proposals

Main article: List of Middle East peace proposals

• A historical summary of Middle East Peace Plans and Proposals

Maps

• MideastWeb Middle East Map Collection
• FactsOfIsrael.com Maps, history, statistics, victims
• University of Texas Map Collection

General sources

• Crisis Guide: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from the Council on Foreign Relations
• The State of Israel The Jewish History Resource Center, Project of the Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Daily digest of commentary about the Arab-Israeli conflict from around the world
• Israel and the Palestinians
• Encarta Encyclopedia on the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Archived 2009-10-31)
• Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, includes links to historical sources, as well as sources representing the Arab and Israeli sides of the conflict.
• The Guardian (UK) A Brief History of Arab-Israeli Conflict (flash)
• Israel-Palestine Conflict at Curlie
• Diplomacy Monitor – Middle East
• Information (articles, reports, maps, books, links, ...) on the israeli palestinian conflict (middle east conflict)
• Holy Land, Unholy War Independent coverage of the Middle East conflicts by the news agency Inter Press Service
• "A Brief History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Jeremy Pressman

Lead section

The lead sections has been stable for quite some time, significant edits should be discussed.GreyShark (dibra) 21:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

I want to add a link in the external sources that leads to the University of Utah's digital collection of Fayez A. Sayegh's accounts and thoughts on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

• Fayez Sayegh at University of Utah Digital Library, Marriott Library Special Collections CorinneAJ (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@CorinneAJ: Not done: Please see WP:EXT to learn the guidelines on external links. They have to be directly related to the article with information, and not generally opinions. I'll close this request, but if you want, you can reactivate the request for another person to review your request. To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} [[User talk|(talk)]] 05:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

The legend provided for the map in Arab–Israeli_conflict#Shift_to_Iranian_conflict_(2006–present) is incomplete. It does not define most of the colors used in the map. The complete legend is (copied from [1]):

  Israel and Palestine

  Recognition of only Israel

  Recognition of Israel, with some relations to Palestine

  Recognition of both Israel and Palestine

  Recognition of Palestine, with some relations to Israel

  Recognition of only Palestine

  No data

2601:401:C680:4240:A938:DF99:3F0F:9BF7 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done thank you for pointing this out. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews

There's new DNA research on Canaanites, can somebody edit the article and add some info about this?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/05/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews/ Sitak87 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How is it related to the topic?GreyShark (dibra) 15:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Arab League's conflict with Israel

It is no doubt that the conflict is over. The only countries at odds with Israel are not Arab League members (Syria is out, Hamas is not part of the League and Hezbollah is not a state, but an Iranian proxy in Lebanon). Iran's conflict with Israel is not the topic of this page. No one is using the IA conflict in present tense, so perhaps it is time to put an end date to it. I can suggest to put 2005, the end of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, is a good marking end point for the conflict, as Arab League member PLO/PA ended its warfare vs Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 13:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2020

The genius changed "cite web" for "cute web", therefore erasing the source for "Time to Test the Arab Peace Offer". Some people don't check how their changes appear in article. Not so cute at all.--Watchlonly (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2020 (2)

Please change

Morris, Benny (2009). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15112-1

Reiter, Yitzhak (2009). National Minority, Regional Majority: Palestinian Arabs Versus Jews in Israel (Syracuse Studies on Peace and Conflict Resolution), Syracuse University Press (Sd). ISBN 978-0-8156-3230-6

to

Morris, Benny (2009). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15112-1

Pressman, Jeremy (2020). The Sword is Not Enough: Arabs, Israelis, and the Limits of Military Force, Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-5261-4617-5

Reiter, Yitzhak (2009). National Minority, Regional Majority: Palestinian Arabs Versus Jews in Israel (Syracuse Studies on Peace and Conflict Resolution), Syracuse University Press (Sd). ISBN 978-0-8156-3230-6

Nutmeg39 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Seemplez 12:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

May 2021 Operation Guardian of the Walls

Is there an article yet about the current conflict? And can it be added to this article? Nerguy (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Jerusalem clashes‎‎ nableezy - 16:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

The last section for the 1948 Arab Israeli War section. No source is provided for the statement that French and Jews were not granted citizenship. Aymene Rabah (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aymene Rabah: Thanks for pointing this out. I added a "citation needed" tag. You can avoid getting bitten like this if you make your observations without using the "edit extended-protected" template unless you are proposing replacement text. Zero^talk 06:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 Oct 2021

Elevedevie (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph three of the introduction ends with: ", both however turning to support Iran." Does this mean (a) supporting Iran's position(s) in the area, or (b) attempting to gain the support of Iran for their positions in the area?

If the latter, I propose that the sentence end: ", both however turning for support to Iran" but do not want to make any change w/o consultation. Elevedevie (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

 Done: I think that is a big problem.

The Arab–Israeli conflict involves political tension, military conflicts, and other disputes between Arab states and Israel ImChessFan21 (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Introductory paragraphs

Although the introduction is fairly well written, this section could use an edit: "Part of the Palestine–Israel conflict arose from the conflicting claims by these movements to the land that formed the British Mandatory Palestine, which was regarded by the Jewish people as their ancestral homeland, while at the same time it was regarded by the Pan-Arab movement as historically and currently belonging to the Arab Palestinians,[7] and in the Pan-Islamic context, as Muslim lands." Though it is true that the Jewish people 'regard' Palestine as their ancestral homeland,the various historical, genetic and anthropological data are clear that they did in fact arise there; the average reader, however, would not discern this, and would instead regard this as some sort of claim. Since the phrasing seems to be motivated by a desire to take balanced view of the conflict (i.e. regarded is used twice there, applying to 'both sides' of the conflict) a complete rewording seems in order to avoid the issue. If concerned about impact on bias, one could also include content here about the evidence regarding Arab populations in the region during the Ottoman period, or in the Levant in general prior to that. 108.175.233.87 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

What is clear to you is disputed by a number of reliable sources, and as such it cannot be presented as undisputed fact. The current phrasing presents a belief of a shared homeland, while not presenting it as undisputed fact because it is not undisputed fact. nableezy - 20:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The question of whether a nation "arose" in some place is an abstract one. One cannot assume the Jewish people just spontaneously generated there 4000 years ago. The Jewish people are a Semitic people and presumably arrived there during the migrations of the Semitic peoples. Israel can in some ways be viewed as just one of many spots the general lineage of the Jewish people migrated to and eventually from over their history. Which is fairly typical for any nation. Like, it's very plausible for instance that there was a proto central Semitic people who included both the ancestors of the Jews and the Arabs, that they dwelt in Canaan for a period of time between 4000 and 2000 BC, and that the Arabs eventually migrated south and split from the northwest Semitic peoples. When they emerged into history, they were located in Arabia, and considered that their homeland. When Jews emerged into history, they were located in Canaan, and considered that their homelands and the place of their sole belonging they had always been. But of course this is only tradition. The Semitic people's migrated to Canaan from elsewhere, before they migrated into Canaan they were somewhere else before. Why is that not their true and eternal homeland it some such? It is just an arbitrary tradition and an artifact where they happened to be located at the time period in which they came into history. Before they came into history, their ancestors had been in many places, many of which they probably lived in for a great deal of time, such that they considered that their place of settlement since time immemorial, and then migrated elsewhere and forgot it completely. But at the time they discovered writing, the current location they considered themselves to have always been in happened to be Canaan. And they wrote this down, and after that, they could not forget it. And the Arabs, while it plausible they dwelt in Canaan before Arabia, they left the area before discovering writing, and by that time they considered themselves to have always been in Arabia, and had totally forgotten Canaan. Both groups are human beings of the same species though, you cannot presume that they somehow separately spontaneously generated as distinct groups in said areas.

Moreover, before the Semitic migrations, there were entirely other people's who lived there before, and were supposedly either pushed out or assimilated in the Semitic migrations. These were not the Canaanites (honestly it's difficult consider the Jewish people as having been fundamentally different than them), but someone before that, before any Semitic peoples at all. And presumably there had been other groups before even them. Why would you consider it that the Jewish people are somehow the exclusive and sole peoples ever who "arose" there, that of all the countless peoples who have lived there, they alone somehow they have no legitimate homeland besides it, and that it is legitimately nobody's homeland besides them? Merely tradition, you look at the recorded textual tradition, that they wrote down at a time when they incorrectly assumed the way things were then was the way they had always been.

The Jewish tradition is particularly strong in this point of course, claiming among other things that a vast area was deeded to them by the omnipotent God of the universe for all eternity, and moreover that any time they are not dwelling it is because they are literally being punished by God. Medieval Jewish literature treats the concept of "Zion" as an abstract, metaphysical entity, akin to heaven, a place in which they would be in a state of spiritual fulfillment and inherent belonging, from the misery of their punishment by God. Unfortunately, Israel does not exist in the metaphysical realm, it is actually a place on earth. Honestly not even a particularly good piece of land on a global scale, although if you had ever been an iron age desert dweller I guess it would seem pretty nice compared to the literal desert and you might get carried away.

The Palestinian ethnogenesis is fairly complex as well of course. I will not even go into it because I do not want to get caught in endless discussion. All that is certain, is that this must not acknowledged. Instead we must assume that all of history from the time the area ceased to be Jewish majority is merely a mistake to be abrogated. The conflicting national narratives are inherently contradictory and have inherent tendencies towards the mutual erasure and denial of each other. Here we have two traditions of two people, each of whom claims this their exclusive homeland from time immemorial, that they "arose" and presumably spontaneously generated in that location, that they legitimately are at home nowhere else, and that no one else is legitimately at home there. It is too wounding to the pride for either side to accept the chagrin of doing any but the most shallow attempts at accomadating the narrative of the other. Inevitably they sink into paranoia, imagine their utter erasure in the total triumph of the other aided by any give on their part from the maximal narrative from their tradition, and eventually give up and decide to engage in regurtation of self pleasing myths in which the other is denied in total. And so we have been circling the wheel for going on a century now.2601:140:8900:61D0:A8CD:A8C8:4D85:46 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

On your use of Semitic people/s and Semitic migrations see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people. Mcljlm (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 Sep 2021

In the section Notable wars and violent events, another item should be added to the table: 1991, Gulf War, 74 Israelis killed by Iraqi SCUD missile attacks, Result: Israel refrains from joining war against Iraq, allowing Arab partners remain in anti_Iraq coalition This was a significant cause of tension during the war, as Iraq tried to split the coalition by attacking Israel. If Israel had responded to the attacks, Syria and Jordan may well have joined the war on Iraq's side to fight against Israel. Other Arab nations would have found the situation of being in a war with Israel against an Arab nation impossible to continue. 10:15, 13 Sep 2021 (UTC) 77.102.249.89 (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Israel was actually preparing a retaliation on its part for these attacks. The war ended before it got off the ground though and so they called it off. GHWB was able to spin a narrative though that he had done some kind of majestic diplomacy convincing Israel to restraint to prevent some kind of pan-Arab war. Honestly as well its pretty difficult for me to conceive it Jordan joining a war against Israel at that point in time. 2601:140:8900:61D0:A8CD:A8C8:4D85:46 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done: Agreed. ElderZamzam (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)