Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Casualties and losses

Shouldn't be the casualties and losses specified whether these are Palestinians or Israelis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.249.238 (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

New article on current violence?

Not sure where to put this, but amidst all the talk of a possible Thirt Intifada, shouldn't there be an article about the latest round of violence during the last few weeks? It is certainly a separate development in the larger conflict, and deserves one IMO. Casualties have been piling up too, according to this Al Jazeera article from today they are already 27 Palestinian and 4 Israeli deaths confirmed (with reports of more deaths coming out of Jerusalem right now), more than 2,000 Palestinians and over 70 Israelis injured as well. Not sure what the title will be, or maybe an article like that already exists but I couldn't find it and was surprised no one has created it yet. Skycycle (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of coverage about it here List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015. Unless it officially becomes a Third Intifada and gains a popular name with the press I do not feel there is a need for a separate article on this particular week. Anyone disagree? - Galatz ^Talk 13:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As my research goes (in List of ongoing conflict), I have sources for 8 Jews and over 30 Arabs who got killed. There are riots and demonstrations all over Israel within the Green Line, there were over 20 terrorist incidents including one Jewish terrorist attack and failed Jewish terrorist attack, the rest are Muslim but now including attackers from the Green Line (mainly from the Triangle), The attacks have showen many attackers who are less then 16 years old and also violente demonstrations within the Green Line. There are also talk about imposing a curfew on Arabic neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. It is also the first time since the major phase started in 13 September (←This spesificstatement is based on OR) that the US have only condamned the Palestinians and didn't call for both sides to ease the tentions. It is a topic all of the time in the and if you think it matters, also in public opinion. I would like to give you sources but I recentely have a problem with that, therefore I bearly make edits on articles. --Bolter21 21:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

According to this hebrew source, 7 Jews were killed, 10 were injured sevearly, 15 moderately, 67 lightly since 1 October. There were riots that started in Al Aqsa in 13 September (Eve of Rosh Hashanah) and that was the new wave of violence (←again this is still considered an OR). Ive started a draft but I havent touched it, if someone wants to take on himself to make this draft an article to cover those attacks, go ahead: Draft:Al-Aqsa riots (2015) --Bolter21 21:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Casualties figure.

There is a great problem, in giving a casualty figure for 1965-2013.

According to one source, we can get the number 21,081 only for: Jews who were killed in terror attacks, Protective Edge, Operation Pillar of Defense, Cast Lead and the first and second Intifadas. The PLO also lost 1828 people in the War of Attrition (According to sources cited in the article). An aditional estimates of 3,200-5,300 Israelis and Palestinians were killed in Palestinian fedayeen attacks. This brings us to a number of 26,109-28,409. I do not suggest this number as the casualty number, there are other estimates that should be taken into consideration such as deaths in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and other things. My suggestion, is beside, searching for a valid source to give a fair estimate, we should remove the "21,500" figure from the infobox and simply link to the Fatality section. There is a serious problem with showing casualty figure from 1965-2013, especially after the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. --Bolter21 20:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Totally incorrect - the number of 21,081 refers to Israelis (not only Jews) and it is the total number of all victims in wars against the Arab League, not only with Palestinians. Most Israelis were killed in the 1948-1973 wars in the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The currently utilized source is referring to Israel-PLO violence more recent casualties of Israel-Hamas conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 05:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Starting date of Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Discussion from Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts, more relevent to here. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mateo:@Greyshark09:@Wykx:

................In current situation, the mentioned date (1948) is incoherent with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article and with factional history. The foundation of israel was indeed a major change in the conflict, but it's clear it didn't start the conflict or turned it into the Palestinian one. Keeping the article as it is makes an error at best. Either we call it the Israeli/Zionist-Arab conflict and count it since the Balfour Declaration, which means the conflict starts at 1919, or we keep it's name and count since the Palestine Liberation Organization got internal recognition from the Arab league, representing the Palestinian cause, which means the conflict started at 1964. In the light of previous founded discussion in this thread, I call for changing the date to 1964 and without factual objection i will do so in three days. Mateo (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Israeli" Palestinian conflict started when the State of Israel was formed and the war between Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine turned to war between the State of Israel and local (Palestinian) Arabs, along with the intervention of other countries. Fedayyun attacks existed long before Fatah and same do Palestinian political violence who dates back to the 1920's along with zionist political violence. The major conflict started in the 19th century, but the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict) started in 14 May 1948 when Israel declared independence. It was discussed before, no need to open this again. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's quite important to open it again and again, until we get all the facts right. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. Now In 1948 there was no local (palestinian) arab leader or organization, recognized as responsible for the fate of arabs in the region. Therefore it was the arab league, headed by Egypt, that denounced resolution 181 in their name and reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee to spark 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine in their name. This is known to be the first phase of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. These are the most basic facts of the conflict, agreed upon by Israeli and Palestinian historians alike. Referring to this war as "between the State of Israel and local (Palestinian) Arabs, along with the intervention of other countries" can only come from ignorance. I hope. 70-90% of the arab soldiers in that war where official soldiers of an arab state, and even small Palestinian militias like the Arab Liberation Army was formed through them. The only true local militia was the Army of the Holy War which counted for 10,000 recruits at most, and due to lack of resource needed Egypt supervision as well. The facts go on and on, showing a clear picture about 1948 war. In the aftermath of that war, arab paternalism towards Palestinians continued, with the finest example being the establishment of the All-Palestine Government that eventually got merged to the United Arab Republic. Until this day many Palestinians resent the paternalism that the arab league showed them at the time. Of course they made local action against Israel, like the fedayeen before and after 1948. But you forget they did the same to Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in those same years and up until the 80's. So it will be totally nonsensical to make the fedayeen the focal point of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The local Arab population protested foreign presence since 1919, but I do think It's at top importance that a Palestinian conflict will include a well recognized local leader or organization focusing on the Palestinian cause. Thus my proposition stands. Mateo (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there were two local organized armies made up of Palestinians called Army of the Holy War and Arab Liberation Army. Before that, we had the Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine from the 20's to 1947. We are talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Talking about Palestinian leaders, they also had Amin al-Husseini. If you want to change things up, this is not the place. Go to Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, get a wide consensus there and then come here. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned both militias and their origins quite clearly. Anyway, There isn't a wide consensus when did the conflict began, but there is one on when it DIDNT began. This is reflected in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article as well, where at "date" it say vaguely "mid 20 century" but counting The casualties from 1964 and concluding the main phase starts in 1964. This is also backed by a reliable resource. Keeping the factual coherence is of huge importance in Wikipedia and in science in general. 1964 isn't perfect (in hebrew they go with 1881 and in arabic 1897) but it's the most stable date acknowledged. Other then that Wikipedia doesn't set up dates on anecdotal consensuses or we might end up with the World starting 10,000 years ago.Mateo (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree - it is 1964 - the establishment date of the PLO, which became the main belligerent against Israel. Previous skirmishes of Israel with Palestinian Arabs (including the All-Palestine Government headed by al-Husseini and later the Fedayeen) were basically under the wider umbrella of the Arab-Israeli conflict, with Palestinians not carrying any unique role. Since 1964, however, things changed radically, and though shortly the Arab-Israeli conflict came to a halt (most notably after 1982), the PLO conflict continued on its own right, later joined by new Palestinian factions of PFLP-GC, Abu Nidal's group, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.GreyShark (dibra) 18:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as i remember - it was actually saying 1964 in the list in line with the source, but someone has changed it with no discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 18:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And Palestinian leader Zuheir Musen denied the existance of the Palestinian people in 1977, PLO was also created by the Arab League and was under it's umbrella. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

1964-1993 is the PLO phase of the conflict, during this phase, PLO was still under Arab League influence. As I said again, Syrian PLO leader was a pro-Syrian Ba'athist, with statements related to this ideologies in 1977. See here and here. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You missed my point - during 1948-1959 the conflict between Israel and Palestine was an integral part to the Arab-Israeli conflict (which is technically over), with All-Palestine playing only a symbolic role. On the other hand, shortly after the creation of the PLO in 1964 and moreover after the last major war of 1973, the conflict shifted to be specifically between Israel and PLO, with PLO being a dominant belligerent and the Arab League being merely the supporter.GreyShark (dibra) 21:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish-Arab conflict started in arguably in the 19th century, or in 1920 or in 1917. The "Israeli" incdicates that this is a conflict that includes the State of Israel. All-Palestine was not the only Palestinian party from 1949-1964, there was also the Palestinian Fedayyun attacks. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's true that the Palestine Liberation Organization was another Egyptian invention, but after the Palestinian Naksa it was Fatah that took over and gradually acted independently. One should remember that Fatah was the first true organization critical of both Palestinian situation and the way it was handled by the Arab states. Some would say that hamas is a better representative of local sentiment, and i think most would say no organization ever truly connected to the Palestinian wishes. As i said, 1964 isn't the ideal date, but it is a stable one as the PlO is Palestinian official representative since it's foundation. Ill wait one more day for comments before fixing the date. The fact it was changed without a notice says it all. Mateo (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts can have different phases. It is all about considering breaking dates. We have a recent illustration with different Iraq wars. For sure, 1948 was one date to be considered as a turning point because of the establishment of State of Israel and its recognition by international community at UN as a member state. From the palestinian side of the conflict, we have several "unrecognized" actors, more and more organized, i.e. Palestinian fedayeen during Reprisal operations from 1949 to 1966 (even if they were fighting other states than Israel in parallel), Palestine Liberation Organization since 1964, Hamas since 1987, Palestine since 1988. As those entities are multiple and no palestinian state has been recognized since 1948 at UN as a member-state, I don't see any major breakthrough since 1948. The second point to be considered is the Arab–Israeli conflict : it is clearly too large for me to be considered as a single conflict. That's why 1948 seems a reasonable date to me. Wykx (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As you know, Israels estublisment in 1948 was done in a regular proccess. It was in the mince of war that ended only in 1949. It was not a clear cut transition done one day. Though UN accepted Partition in 1947, it's official recognision came also only in 1949, as so as the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the Arab states.

Palestinians did continue to enter israel from the surrounding states, but it was predominantly for ecomnomic reasons and not for attack. It's under historic debate when did this situation escelated into the orginaized fedayeen, and it's also unclear how deep were the arab states involved in it.

As you see, breaking the Arab-Israeli conflict to the Palestinian one in 1948 just because thats the official year israel got estublished is a huge simplification. It implies that the Palestinians were well orginazed back then and that foundation of Israel was their main problem. It does harm to both sides, it is incoherent with all related articles in Wikipedia and above all it's just not historiclly accurate.

This conflict does have phases, as such all conflicts. Things change, and people evlove from an idea to a group and then organizaion with demands and ways to implicate it. But would you agree that in a conflict sides should be clear and well defined? Arabs of Palestine have been in conflict with thier opressors since ottoman rule. They rebeled agains the british easpicially during 1936-1939, and after the Nakhba went head to head against all occuping states. That's true up until mid 80, when fatah leaders got expelled to Tunisia. But until the estublishment of the PLO thier fight against Israel was a pion in the hands of the Arab states, and only at the Camp David Accords thier goal became truley seperated from it. If we wish to break the major conflict into the local one, the question infornt of us is when did the Israeli-Palestinian conflict really became more of an israeli and palestinian issue, then a regional one? The answer is that nobody can tell for sure, but in 1964 you had the two major organizaions you have now, representing a two well defined people with conflicting claims and nerative. That's why it's the most stable date, and i guess that why it was the stable date until sombody changed it without a notice. 00:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Mateo (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

First, you're right and I agree that:

1/ the conflict 1948 Arab–Israeli War was appropriate for May 1948-March 1949

2/ 1949 would be more appropriate than 1948 for the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Note that 1949 is still aligned with the consensus on Israeli–Palestinian conflict page which is 'Mid-20th century'.

No matter the reasons, from 1949 there were some attacks from external palestinian elements against Israel and a bit later on Israel carried Reprisal operations. The conflict had started, with some external supporters of both sides as in most of the conflicts. Stability of belligerents representative organizations is not a criteria for the conflict start.

So I would suggest to change date from 1948 to 1949. Wykx (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The Reprisal operations by Israel were carried not against Palestinians but against Arab states that supported the attacks. The article states it quite clearly: "Through the 1950s, Jordan and Egypt supported the Palestinian Fedayeen militants' cross-border attacks into Israel, while Israel carried out reprisal operations in the host countries." This is not completely accurate, but it shows that the fadayeen were not independently organized Palestinian militias. Thus, it is impossible to separate them from the Arab-Israeli conflict. They are in fact and integral part of the larger conflict and the fact they were one of the reasons for the 1956 Sinai war is another prove of that. So though you are right that 1949 is a better date then 1948, it's still oversimplify the conflict, and does little justice especially to the Palestinian side.Mateo (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the Reprisal operations were officially directed against host countries but attacks were launched by Palestinian fedayeen against Israel. Thus it clearly falls into the Israeli–Palestinian_conflict which is itself part of the wider Arab–Israeli conflict (as described on its own page). Wykx 09:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually already referred to the Fadayeen many times during this discussion and answered your argument in our other debate. Fact is since 1948 Palestinians rejected Israel's rule as part of their protest against any foreign rule. In December 1948 the government of Jordan and Egypt band any Palestinian militia don't did not co-opt with the official policy. This included also the biggest militia of the Army of the Holy War. You can look for the reaction of the Palestinians to the Abdullah I of Jordan assassination or to the Egyptian Revolution of 1952. I hope you begin to see that it's not as simple as "Foundation of Israel=Israel vs. Palestine". The middle east is far more complex then that.Mateo (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I answered you in the other debate Talk:List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#Starting_date_of_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict to avoid duplications. Wykx 17:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Root of conflict" claim in Agriculture section

The Agriculture section currently states the "root of the conflict" is land. Is this absolutely verifiable? Land may be a major or even primary source but to say it's the "root" may be excessive. I think that paragraph should be rephrased. If no one objects here, I will make the change. Tale.Spin (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2015 (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)

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)

Well I knew few approaches but before that I"ll have to clarify some things that are often forgotten in this subject.

If regarding the Palestinians as the non-Jewish inhabitors of the land before 1881 (first wave of Zionist migration), then the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or maybe the Jewish-Palestinian conflict or another way to explain it is the "Zionist-Palestinian conflict", is a conflict that started as a conflict between the Zionist Jews and the anti-colonialist Palestinians, mainly Arabs. According to Palestinian Nationalism article, upon the establishment of Tel Aviv in 1909, the conflicts over land grew in the direction of explicit national rivalry^[1]

The conflict might"ve started in 1881 because this year marks the beginings of Zionism in Palestine/Israel, this is used by the Hebrew wikipedia after they achieved a consensus but I couldn't find a proper source from the article or the consensus it self (which probably had sources).

According to the Israel, casualties of the Israeli-Arab conflict are listed since 1860 (Even though the first casualty was in the 1873, named Aharon Hershler who was killed by Arabs in Mishkenot Sha'ananim, the first Jewish neighborhood outside of Jerusalem, built in 1860 Hebrew source), when Jews started building neighborhoods outside of the Walls of Jerusalem. (Yom Hazikaron#Observance).

The Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine began with the Franco-Syrian war, after the establishment of the Mandate after the first clash between Jews and Arab since the creation of the mandate in 1920. I personally think this one is the correct one because it is the "Israeli"-Palestinian conflict and the way to 1947 war was with the establishment of the Mandate.

The obvious one in 1948 with the declration of independance of Israel, serving the "Israeli" part of the name.

Another apporach I deeply oppose is 1964, with the beginings of the "main phase" with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization - the organized Palestinian resistance.

The historical option is 1920 and the logical option is 1948.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Another option is 1917 with the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and the Balfour Declaration. I think this is where many begin.

Yet another is 1798 beginning with the French campaign in Egypt and Syria.

I feel very strongly against the 1948 option, i.e. starting from the Israeli Declaration of Independence. That's like starting the American Revolution article in 1776 and ignoring the Boston Tea Party. After all, the 1947 partition plan was put in place with the intention to END the conflict!

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, note that the reference you linked to below is another example of modern authors using the land-based "Israel-Palestine" term (rather than the people-based Israeli-Palestinian). Oncenawhile (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Sandra Marlene Sufian and Mark LeVine (2007) Reapproaching borders: new perspectives on the study of Israel-Palestine Rowman & Littlefield,-Remembering Jewish-Arab Contact and Conflict by Michelle Compos ISBN 0-7425-4639-X p 48

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2016

This edit request to Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This Wikipedia article states:

"Palestinian leaders insist that the Israeli decision, following attacks from Hamas, to impose a weapons blockade of Gaza, Israel's control of Gaza crossing points into Israel, and Israel's control of air above and sea around Gaza constitutes continued Israeli occupation."

The article provides as a source:

[31] http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/06/israel.gaza.occupation.question/index.html

The particular points being quoted are stated in the source, not in reference to occupation, but in the words of the one being quoted:

Israel has "besieged Gaza," Ashrawi said Sunday. "They control the territorial waters, the airspace, the land crossing points and they gave themselves overriding security consideration or powers."

A siege is not synonymous with an occupation, neither in a legal sense, nor even in a common language sense. Forces occupy a site subsequent to a siege - a castle under siege is not yet occupied. The Wikipedia article should be amended to "constitutes continued Israeli siege", or if we wish only to discuss occupation, most of the line be removed as the reasons given are not sourced in respect to occupation.

Neither is it completely rational - 'Israel's control of Gaza crossing points into Israel' is synonymous with 'America's control of Mexico crossing points into America', which as with any country border, is not indicative of occupation. If it were so, than the article should in all objectivity mention Egypt, as the same reason implies that Egypt is occupying Gaza, as they have 'control of Gaza crossing points into Egypt'. At the very least, that part of the sentence should be removed.

50.153.128.6 (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at note 21 in the article Gaza Strip.

The sources there are far superior to the CNN source linked above, and provide answers to your questions.

I suggest we bring that note into this article, and widen the above quote to refer to the international community's point of view.

Oncenawhile (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, while many of the points mentioned in that note (22?) are true, the credibility of the sources is questionable. Obviously dependency by choice or circumstance is not occupation (is the Vatican city occupied by Italy? they have similar dependencies for power, water, and sewage), rather dependency actively imposed by another power is a form of occupation and control. The article Gaza Strip incorrectly attempts to address this: "For its energy, Gaza is largely dependent on Israel either for import of electricity or fuel for its sole power plant. The Oslo Accords set limits for the Palestinian production and importation of energy." This is from a UN report cited there, note 21; however this is actually false. The full text of Oslo accords I and II are readily available online (http://www.jmcc.org/Documentsandmaps.aspx?id=392 and http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the%20israeli-palestinian%20interim%20agreement.aspx), and contain no such limits or controls. Feel free to check. Sources willing to fabricate lies in defense of their beliefs (or claim to be scholarly, yet not be capable of checking primary sources) should not be deemed credible or reliable. Or, at the very least, as Wikipedia attempts to be objective, context should be given, pointing out their unreliability or lack of scholarly research which their title/journal otherwise leads readers to believe.

18.189.1.177 (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis is WP:Original research. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. The sources in the note are written by respected scholars. As a Wikipedia editor, the fact that you disagree with them is not relevant. We follow the sources.

Ultimately, these sources are simply explaining the view of the international community. The existence of that view. i.e. that the international community still consider Gaza to be occupied, is a fact, just as the sky is blue.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fatah or any other groups to be added to infobox?

Should any other groups/organisations, such as Fatah (main part of PLO) be included in the infobox, Fatah because they still support the stabbing attacks and incitement against Israel? Should 'Palestinian lone wolves' be added too because they are still attacking currently, or should only actual organisations/groups be included in the infobox? (Just wondered) Thoughts?--PaulPGwiki (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Scepticism

Concerning the image depicting a "Chemical burns on a 15-year-old Palestinian child following Israeli bombings in the village of Khoza'a, Gaza."

How could we be sure that it is not a picture of propaganda? It could be a rare disease for example.

A similar image [1]

Secondly, I don't think that graphic image should be privileged on a sensible topic. It looks more like a competition into the sickening...

Concerning the image "Bar chart showing Israeli and Palestinian deaths from September 2000 to July 2014"... An indication about what happend during this period of time should be provided : second intifada (2000-5), fightings and conflicts with Gaza.

--Pargidey (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

About the first, I can confirm this photo is legitimate because of the symbol of the hospital on the bed. I don't have an opinion about wether it should stay.

About your second concern, I think the article talks about all of those phases in the conflict, so it isn't a problem.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing article's factually incorrect main map

The map is factually incorrect. Gaza (we'll discuss West Bank another time) has not been "Under Israeli occupation since 1967". Kamel Tebaast 06:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You must set forth your reasons why the map is incorrect. You cannot just state it is so, and then say we when you mean unilateral action undertaken by yourself. Regardless of the merits of the map, removing it because you think contrafactually that Gaza is not occupied is obviously improper.Nishidani (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, here is my reason, again. I wrote: "Gaza has not been 'Under Israeli occupation since 1967'". The quote of "Under Israeli occupation since 1967" is direc±tly from the map that I removed. Gaza is not under Israeli occupation, therefore, the map is factually wrong (among other reasons, that I don't even need to address). Please let me know if you need further clarification. Kamel Tebaast 15:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Gaza is under Israeli occupation according to several reliable sources. nableezy - 16:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Didn't read a single word from Kamel, but regardless of what he said, this map is awful. The borders of the Palestinian Authority are fictional.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You're quite right Bolter. The map (like 99% of the maps for Biblical Israel on Wikipedia - no editor will remove them) is a fiction. My only objection was to the suggestion Gaza is not occupied. It is. In other words the edit summary gave a false justification for the removal.Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In your view, does Egypt occupy Gaza? Kamel Tebaast 16:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a talk page for an encyclopedia article, not the comments section of a blog post. Our, including your, personal views are not relevant. Reliable sources say Israel occupies Gaza because it continues to exercise effective military control over that territory, regardless of the disengagement. The UN also considers Gaza under Israeli occupation. No reliable sources I have seen say Egypt occupies Gaza. nableezy - 16:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The map removed stated that Gaza is "Under Israeli occupation since 1967". This is an extreme WP:POV, considering that this is a highly contentious (and ongoing) debate with arguments falling sharply on both sides, generally based on pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian viewpoints. Few articles define the divide and debate better than this Washington Post article. Because the question of the occupation of Gaza is ongoing and unresolved internationally, a map with one viewpoint in the debate should not be used in the article in general, and as the article's main image in particular. That violates WP:NPOV. Kamel Tebaast 17:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It isnt quite that simple. Ill grant that it isnt as clear cut as the West Bank, but among reliable sources Gaza is still generally called occupied territory. Here is the UN saying Gaza remains occupied. Id be fine with a clarification that its according to the UN that they have been under occupation since 1967, and Ill see about adding that. But the idea that we should not call Gaza occupied is wrongheaded. nableezy - 17:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolter, what's fictional about it? That's pretty much taken straight from the UN. Or at least a version of that map was. nableezy - 17:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

it looks like it's just using PA as short hand for areas A and B. I don't see any problem there, and Bolter one pedantic point. The word border shouldnt be used in this argument, there arent any borders there. There are boundaries and whatnot but no borders. nableezy - 17:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not about whether you (and maybe the entire world in your eyes) think Gaza is occupied, or whether I think it is not (more argument that it is not). What is clear is that it is a debate at the highest levels. Because it is an unresolved debate, placing a map that states categorically that Israel is occupying Gaza since 1967 is POV-pushing. A map with a one-sided viewpoint is the last image that should be used as the defining image for for an article about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. How about we use an image of a blown-up pizzeria in Jerusalem? Would that better represent the Israel-Palestinian conflict? You have your Palestinian suicide bomber and dead Israels. Kamel Tebaast 18:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it isnt about me. There is no NPOV violation in saying occupied by Israel since 1967 according to the UN. That is an attributed view. Im going to go ahead and ignore the hysterical part of your comment, and suggest that if you want people to take you seriously and work with you that you not make absurd arguments. K thnx bye. nableezy - 18:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at this and take a look at this and tell me you don't see a radical enlargement of the Palestinian Authority. In the current map there are settlements completely serounded by the PA, the settlement of Beit El is placed inside the Palestinian Authority. This map should be deleted because it is just wrong. I"ve created enough maps of the PA and I remember to horror of drawing the 165 individual enclaves of it but in this map there is only three enclaves. This map has a list of sources, but the boundaries of the PA are not based on anything. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I do, but Im not sure either of those maps is accurate. Im looking at the source and I do see some differences. Ill see if we can get that rectified. nableezy - 17:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no difference. The map you sent is just more detailed, but the boundaries of the PA are the same.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, I meant I see some differences between the UN source and the map that is currently in the article. And Ill see how we can rectify that. But, I think the main image in this article has to be a map, not a picture of some politicians. The conflict has always been about land and title to it, and the best way to illustrate that is a map. nableezy - 17:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem creating a map. Green Line + East Jerusalem + Settlements + Barrier + Area A + Area B. Am I missing something?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I caution, a map will most likely be debatable and therefore should not be used as the article's main image WP:NPOV. Kamel Tebaast 18:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That isnt how NPOV works. nableezy - 18:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have edited one of my older maps and made a West Bank with settlements. I can continue and put East Jerusalem there, with the separation barrier (the complete map include Gaza). What do you think? (colors, borders etc. can be changed of course, this is a draft version).

Im thinking what would be best would be just this map without Areas A and B marked. This isnt an article on the PNA or on Oslo, so I dont really see what that should be in the image we use for the article. nableezy - 20:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want pictures, you"re going to have endless arguments on them. There are too many things to cover in photos.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2016: (Fix wikilink)

This edit request to Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request: Fix wikilink broken by change in section name. Fatalities 1948–present > Fatalities 1948–2011.

1) Find "[[Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Fatalities 1948–present|Casualties]] have not been restricted to the military, with a large number of fatalities in civilian population on both sides."

2) Replace it with "[[Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Fatalities 1948–2011|Casualties]] have not been restricted to the military, with a large number of fatalities in civilian population on both sides." 0x5849857 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Done — Thank you for pointng that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC).

Under Background Section

Hi! I was reading the background section and was thinking in the first paragraph to state how the nationalist movement was the Zionsit movement and that there were Jewish people and Palestinians living side by side in Palestine and the conflict arose once the Zionist movement started settling in Palestine. I would also recommend not calling them Arab, but call them Palestinian. It seems like calling them Arab shows biased and Palestinians was what they were referred to even before the establishment of Israel. Hope this was helpful! --Yusrao (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Yusrao (talk) 8 September, 2016

1834 looting of Safed, 1838 Druze attack on Safed, 1660 destruction of Safed, 1517 Hebron attacks, 1517 Safed attacks. The violence against Jews didn't start when the Jews started settling in Palestine, it started when the Arabs started building their nationaility. The violance against the Jews started when the British took the land, not in the earlier 40 years of Jewish settlement. Because the Jews were the allies of the Brits, they were an easy target. It is not that simple, that the Jews and Muslims lived in peace and then came the Zionists and ruined the party.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It is that simple actually - the "peaceful existence under Dar al-Islam" is one of the principle myths in Islamist theologic thought.GreyShark (dibra) 19:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Jewish people were "Palestinians" between 1920 to 1948 during Mandatory British rule over Palestine-EY (Eretz Yisrael). After 1948 most of the Arabs continued to be named "Palestinian" as nationality, while Jews and some Arabs (and also minority Circassians, Assyrians and Armenians) became "Israeli".GreyShark (dibra) 19:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Assyrians in Israel? And the Armenians became Israels in 1967. Poor lads, they will move to a Palestinian state in the future.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you joking concerning Assyrians and Armenians? What do you mean Armenians will move into Palestinian state??GreyShark (dibra) 13:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Palestinian proposal in 2008 was to annex all of the Old City of Jerusalem apart from the Jewish quarter. So the Armenian quarter will go to Palestine. As for the Assyrians, I didn't knew they were here, good to know.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, get familiar with prophecies on Wikipedia concerning your ideas of hypothetical Palestinian take over of Jerusalem's Armenian Quarter. Besides, most Armenians in Israel do not live in Jerusalem and i happen to personally be acquainted with an Israeli Armenian from Tel Aviv. Many secular Israeli Jews seem to be deeply ignorant about their own country and Israeli society - don't be a one.GreyShark (dibra) 08:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Transjordan when talking about the British involvement in partitioning of the land of the former Ottoman Empire? It seems deceptive to have Britain divide the land into Transjordan and Palestine, and then treat the discussion as though only Palestine existed or was relevant. PoqVaUSA (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2017

This edit request to Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just a grammatical change from "Prime Minister Sharon order the removal..." Changed to "Prime Minister Sharon ordered the removal..."

"In 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon order the removal of Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza. Israel and its Supreme Court formally declared an end to occupation, saying it "had no effective control over what occurred" in Gaza.[28] " Emsog (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching that. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Israeli–Palestinian 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:

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) 16:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, new here, and I perceive a GRAVE (& not even mentioned offhand) total-omission of the possible actual _ancient_ root of this conflict

Look here and read this section specifically of this article and see a historical (at least to those who hold it as a real and factual, plausible record) possible root of this conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael#Genesis_narrative Has no scholar(or any such as), or thus anywhere online, suggested/pointed to a genuine belief of this (oft/commonly though to be) possibly real historical account to show (and with its prophecy(no, I'm serious here) of "his descendants hands being against all men and all mankind's hand against his" in conflict) a possible far far earlier instigation of this hostility between what would then be truly brothers (Isaac(Jews progenitor) & Ishmael(Arab/Muslim progenitor)????????Sinsearach (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Technically, most Palestinian Arabs do not descent from Ismaelite tribes, so what is the point?GreyShark (dibra) 16:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

oh ok I didnt know that I would like to know how that is substantiated, genuinely curious20:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsearach (talk • contribs)

The Ishmaelite and Israelite descent question is unprovable and unknowable. Some people believe it, but no scholar will ever be able to assess it. Not least the question of whether Jacob (Israel) and his uncle Ishmael really existed... Oncenawhile (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If you ask Israel Finkelstein, Jacob was a figure from Israelite (northern kingdom) tradition while Abraham and Issac were figures from Judean traditions and when the Judeans compiled the Torah, they mixed the tradition in order to establish legitimacy for the tribe of Judah over all other Israelite tribes. The Arabs who compiled the Quran took the Jewish mythology and changed it to make the Arabs decendent of Abraham... In short, mythologies are an interesting subject but it is not relevent to our conflict.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

i see; ok so how about in the "see also" of "Arab–Israeli conflict"????? Sinsearach (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The see also section is for related articles, I don't see how does it fit there, or anywhere in the article, or any article. You need to provide sources, not your personal opinion or research.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"You need to provide sources," well obviously and of course, no question; and then with such a basis (well sourced, many sources) as required, there is not a majority of ways it would necessarily be strongly unrelated 2nd: "any article" well thats an extreme, there are many dozens of articles at least that, after a rock solid foundation here, would it not even be much more related to than these; various Biblical, mythological, ethnical articles and so forth, possible even theological ones. Yes(verily).....?Sinsearach (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you need to bring a serious source, that trumps or can be parallel to Benny Morris and Meron Benvenisti, that sincerely claims that the roots of the conflict between the Jews and the Arabs, which started as an ideological confict based on clash between nationalism, religious narratives and civilizations, has anything to do with a mythological story of a few pagans which was adopted by some Semites who combined some tales and wrote some Torah. In other words, give up.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Israeli–Palestinian 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:

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) 23:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Israeli–Palestinian 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:

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) 23:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Jordan

"Egypt, a founding member of the Arab League, has historically been a key participant." Jordan should be added to this statement in the lead. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Jordan is much more complex. Egypt was pro-Palestinian from the get-go (including encouraging militant groups - e.g. the Fadayin). Jordan - initially tried to control the West Bank and suppress the Palestinians - during the Jordanian occupation up until 1967. And after their occupation ends - we have Black September in Jordan in 1970. A case could actually be made for Jordan to be a belligerent against the Palestinians.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Pro or anti-Palestinian, it has still been a key participant. I like how you made Palestinians and Fedyaeen synonymous in order to support your skewed perspective of Jordan. Jordan annexed the West Bank at the behest and wishes of its residents. The Jordanian annexation then gave the West Bank Palestinians complete citizenship rights, unlike Egypt which kept Palestinians in Gaza under military rule. Jordan also did what no other Arab country did, it gave the Palestinian refugees complete citizenship rights and allowed their influx in relatively enormous numbers. Egypts' leaders seemingly pro-Palestinian rhetoric is mere lip service, 1967 and 1973 proves so. I suggest you read more about the background behind Black September. And after 1970s, Jordan under Hussein and Abdullah remained a key participant in conflict resolution. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is correct to state that Jordan's relationship with the Palestinian cause (at least 1950-1988) was "it's complicated". Yes - Jordan gave full citizenship to West Bank residents (though de-facto there was/is possibly some issues regarding equality, particularly following the assassination of Abdullah). However Jordan was opposed to Palestinian nationalism initially - attempting to subsume the Palestinians into Jordan. Contrast this with Egypt - which prior to 1978 actively promoted Palestinian nationalism (while, yes, keeping Palestinian refugees and Gaza, as separate and unequal - but this was part of what kept Palestinian nationalism "alive") - to the point this was a proxy force. Jordan is obviously deeply involved by it's location - but I wouldn't state it in one breath with Egypt - the relationship of Jordan (and its role in the conflict) has been quite different... If it goes back into the lead, it should be state separately from Egypt in a manner clarifying this status.Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Egypt supported Palestinians by promoting Palestinian nationalism, but deprived them of their basic civil rights. Jordan supported Palestinians by granting them their basic civil rights, but suppressed Palestinian nationalism. I am seeing that Jordan did at least equal good to the Palestinians, if not more good than Egypt, but certainly not less to be considered as a "belligerent". No there were no "issues regarding equality". Makeandtoss (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I won't argue Jordanian "demographic problems". But yes - I agree - Jordan was treating Palestinian individuals better (than all or just about all Arab states). However - it was not an ally of the national cause - it acted against it. This page is attempting to address the national conflict - and throughout the early history of the conflict (where Egypt was a notable supporter/player/instigator) - Jordan was in effect a 3rd player - advancing its own national aims. We should separate treatment of individuals, human rights, etc. - from supporting the national struggle. I'm not opposed to working Jordan into the early history of the lead - but not in the same breath with Egypt.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: you can be an ally of the Palestinian cause by treating Palestinians with dignity. The last edit you removed Jordan from being a "key participant", nothing to do with advancing or acting against the cause. All Egypt was did is lip service, ultimately leading to the Six Day War, a major drawback to "the cause". Your argument is not a common one, and I don't expect any reliable sources supporting it can be found. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It was stating Jordan as a key participant as part of the Arab league. Jordan was almost expelled from the league following the annexation, and the league strongly protested the granting of Palestinians citizenship. The league's position in 1970 was also complex. I don't have a problem with describing Jordan as a key player in the issue - but not as part of the Arab league.Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop twisting around. It is very clear what the sentence says. It doesn't say Egypt was a key participant of the Arab League, but it says its a founding member. Jordan is also a founding member, and it has been a key participant in the conflict whether pro or your unsourced anti Palestinian prespective.Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. It's complicated.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

None of these sources argue that Jordan was a "belligerent", or that it stood against the Palestinians on Israel's side. Your last edit removed a sentence that claimed that Jordan is a founding member of the Arab League and has been a key participant in the conflict. Both are true. Revert your last edit. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say on Israel's side - I said 3rd party - but yes - what would you call a country that occupied and annexed the region in dispute and in 1970 killed a few thousand PLO members (and a few hundred Syrians masquerading as PLA)? I re-inserted Jordan, as a separate sentence from Egypt (which was my objection - tying the two together).Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"1970 killed a few thousand PLO members (and a few hundred Syrians masquerading as PLA)" that is a common, propagandic oversimplification. It is exactly for people like you that I have decided to dedicate my time to work on upgrading the Black September article to GA. Implying as if it was a massacre for fun, completely disregarding the prelude to the events. You're welcome to read the background section and contribute to the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I never said it was for fun. I fully understand King Hussein's position - desperate times call for desperate measures, and those were definitely desperate times - and he did not initiate the showdown (to be precise - he had no real choice). I re-inserted Jordan on the peace process paragraph in the lead - with context relevant to Jordan's role (e.g. the 1988 disengagement) - is that OK? It could be tweaked a bit - what really bothered me with your change was the equivalence between Egypt and Jordan - as they really were quite separate in the 50s/60s/70s.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

So if you agree there were desperate times, then why differentiate between Egypt and Jordan. They are both against Israel on the Palestinians side, thats as accurate and concise as leads go. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Jordan annexed the West Bank (in a non-temporary state until 1967), and was then engaged in a conflict with the PLO (which culminated in Black September, but continued tension wise later). While Egypt was actively arming, funding, and encouraging PLO (and other / precursor) activity - Jordan was attempting to integrate the Palestinians within Jordan and avoid conflict. Jordan was definitely at war with Israel - yes - that doesn't mean it sided with Palestinian national aims to which it was quite opposed until at least the 80s.Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz, the lead should be kept short. That Jordan has "relinquished its claim to the West Bank in 1988 and is holding a special role in the Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem" is not pertinent. It is enough to write that Jordan, Egypt (and Syria and Lebanon, for that matter) have been key participants. ImTheIP (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Syria and Lebanon have not really played a significant role in the past 25 years. At this point Qatar probably rates a mention before them.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources please

Sources are what creates order from chaos. The subject matter of this article is contentious. Therefore controversial statements without sources should not remain in the article. "The conflict is wide-ranging, and the term is sometimes also used in reference to the earlier sectarian conflict in Mandatory Palestine, between the Jewish yishuv and the Arab population under British rule." Is such a controversial unsourced statement. I don't know Wikipedia policy by heart, but I know know there is a rule that let you delete controversial stuff from Israel-Palestine articles if no sources are given. I think even Jimmy Wales endorsed it. ImTheIP (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: you might want to self-revert due to 1RR (I'm not going to wikilawyer this - read the restriction and see if you meet or don't meet it). What you just reverted is sourced - in the background section (in general the lead should be a summary of the article, and the lead doesn't need to contain sources (in many articles it is "clean") - if the statement is sourced in the body). See the background section for sources provided. Beyond what appears in the article - the connection between the current Israel/Palestine conflict and Arab/Jewish events in 1919-1949 (and possibly also Ottoman times) is well established - this isn't a "new" conflict that arose in the 50s - it has a background. As an anecdote, when Hamas set up Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades in 1993 they named it for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam who died in a confrontation in 1935. Why do you think this connection (pre-1948 to current conflict) is contentious? It is made by both Palestinians and Israelis to the best of my knowledge, as well as just about any outside coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I have reverted once, not twice so I don't think I have broken any rules. If you believe that the statement I removed is factual, then please find a reference for it. Then we can add it using the [ref></ref> syntax and I can happily admit to being wrong. But the onus is upon you to prove that the statement is true, not on me to prove that it is false. ImTheIP (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: I believe you are running foul of "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 I'm not into wikilawyering (others are), particularly not regarding the particular mechanisms of 1RR/edits/restores - this is a friendly heads up - you made an edit, it was reverted, you restored it). Regarding sources - this is already sourced in the article body - paragraphs 4 and 5 of the background section. You don't need to source every lead sentence (or paragraph for that matter) - sources belong in the article body. If you believe this is un-sourced - you should make a congruent change to the body (the lead should reflect the body and be a summary thereof).Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Wikipedia policy is that each and every statement must be verifiable. Statements given in the lead aren't exempt from this rule. If it is, as you say, that the statement is factual it shouldn't be hard to find a source for it. If you can't find a source for it, then that proves my point. ImTheIP (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC) I Found the policy document Wikipedia:NOR: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources." ImTheIP (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: See WP:LEADCITE. This is cited in the body and should not be controversial (I really don't see why you are challenging this). However if you truly want an example for "The conflict is wide-ranging, and the term is sometimes also used in reference to the earlier sectarian conflict in Mandatory Palestine, between the Jewish yishuv and the Arab population under British rule" - and all that is needed is a single example (as this is a "sometimes") - see for instance - [8], [9]. The sentence should perhaps be phrased differently.Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This is what the LEADCITE page says: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. ... there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads ... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations"

The first of your cites is to a book about the Arab-Israeli conflict which is a different subject. The second of your cites, is to a book review about the previously mentioned book. The author of that book review clearly does not understand the difference between Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian. That is not a scholarly source. Israel did not exist before 1948, therefore there could not have been a conflict between any Palestinian entity and Israel before that year. ImTheIP (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead changes

I suggest that the Oslo Accord and the First Intifada should be discussed in the lead. Since the lead is already too long, text about the Quartet can be removed and the text about the Hamas split can be shortened. ImTheIP (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The lead could use some work.

1. You can definitely cut out/tone down the quartet (which hasn't achieved much and has been dead in the water in recent years - I haven't heard this being used as an active body recently).

2. Hamas - should be in the lead, especially since they de-facto control Gaza which has been the focal point of the actual warfare in the past decade and a bit.

3. The second intifada is also missing. We probably should have a very short and concise timeline (a paragraph) mentioning 1948, 50s-60s skirmishes, 1967, initial Israeli occupation, Intifada1, Oslo, Palestinian terror, Intifada2, Gaza withdrawal, Hamas takeover, and the 3 Gaza wars.Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

POV Background section

The background section appears to be trying to blame Husseini for the violence. But with no mention of agitators and militants on the other side such as Jabotinsky. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT - Galatz ^Talk 18:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I've vetted the sources listed in the text and they all seem to be factually correct. I also added some info about Jabotinsky and his actions in Mandatory Palestine. If you wanna add more, be my guest. But the POV template should be removed either way. Willschmut (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Israeli–Palestinian 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:

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) 17:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction claims that the Gaza Strip is occupied, which is a false statement; the Israelis unilatterally pulled out in 2005. It should instead state that the Gaza Strip is under blockade by Israel and Egypt.

Another issue is that the introduction only lists Jewish immigration and clashes in mandatory Palestine as "origins of the conflict". In my opinion, the Swedish Wikipedia summarises this much better, using reliable sources as well. This is my translation, slightly adjusted for English wiki articles & links:

"Today's conflict originated in tensions between nationalists in the region, mainly caused by increased Jewish and Arab immigration to mandatory Palestine^[1], contradictory promises from the Brits^[2], increasing acts of violence and Arab rejections of two-state solutions^[3]^[4]."

Willschmut (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Implementing the changes now. Any objections? Willschmut (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, user was blocked for gaming the 500/30 rules by making 500 sandbox edits. I have taken the liberty of rolling back the changes. ValarianB (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I belive the text is historically accurate – and the fact that the sources are used on Swedish Wikipedia further strengthens their credibility. I vote for restoring the edits. Dank Chicken (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israeli–Palestinian 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:

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) 09:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede

@Icewhiz: Why should my addition to "Fighting has been conducted by regular armies, paramilitary groups, terror cells, and individuals" be controversial? All these groups apply to Palestinians and Israelis alike. Examples for Israel include Israel and state-sponsored terrorism, Lehi (group), Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, etc.. It would be possible but difficult to find a source that makes so specific a claim. Not to mention the existing sentence is not sourced either. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is post-1948. Pre-1948 this would be easy to assert. Israel and state-sponsored terrorism is an accusation, not a bulletproof assertion. Covert action may be seen as terrorism and vice versa. Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin is a criminal act (and an inner-Israeli affair). You could argue "on both sides" - there would be merits for the argument - but it could also be refuted (both on the grounds of the definition of the entity, whether said entity was "on the side" of, and whether the action was part of the conflict (e.g. Rabin)). The current phrasing (without both sides) passed WP:V without an issue.Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:No clearly this article is not post 1948. "is the ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians that began in the mid-20th century". These were just minor examples, they are also reinforced by modern examples such as Israeli settler violence. Its not an "inner-Israeli affair" that Rabin was assassinated. More including Hilltop Youth, List of Israeli price tag attacks... There's no use in denial. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Are they part of the conflict or criminal acts? Groups or individuals? Israel has not claimed ownership for these, and has prosecuted the perps. I think it is best to leave "both" out of the sentence - which allows it to be read either way, rather tahn attributing and sourcing each one there.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course they are part of the conflict, read them yourself. I just linked groups and individuals. It doesn't matter if it claimed ownership or prosecuted the perpetrators, this is what happened. Now its either you remove the entire unsourced sentence or revert your last edit. Please don't waste any more time for both of us on this. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Messing with dead bodies is molestation not torture

Someone should either change torture to molestation or reverse the order of killing and torturing in this article.2605:E000:9143:7000:8137:276C:2FA4:A843 (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We have In the Gaza Strip, Hamas officials have killed and tortured thousands of Fatah members and other Palestinians who oppose their rule.. Some sources used this order, e.g. - Amnesty International: 'Hamas killed and tortured Palestinians'. I'm not sure that those who were tortured were killed and vice-versa - however I will swap the order in the article as it seems to me equivalent, and better to choose the order which is not misread.Icewhiz (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

False information

Israeli forces have launched attacks against Palestinians around the globe as part of the conflict. Israel has assassinated dozens of Palestinians and their supporters outside Palestine, mainly in Europe and the Middle East. Israel has also bombed Palestinian targets in many^[quantify] nations such as Syria and Lebanon, including the bombing of the PLO Headquarters in Tunisia, killing several hundred.

Claiming that Israel has bombed Palestinian targets in Syria and Lebanon is false if it cannot be backed by citations. Also, the operation killed Between 47 and 71, not "hundreds" and there is no proof of "many" nations. As they only cite one. Also it is important to note that they weren't launching an attack on Palestinians in that specific example but rather it was in response to a killing of an innocent Israel in Cyprus by a Palestinian militant organization, that should at least be stated. ShimonChai (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - did you update the article accordingly? 50.111.3.17 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed - as POVish, inaccurate and unsourced.Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing straggle between Israel and State of Palestine

Couldn't miss the ridiculous sentence in the lead that Israel struggles the State of Palestine (link from Palestinians) "from mid-20th century". First of all, Israel does exist from mid-20th century, but certainly not the state of Palestine, which was declared in 1988 of received UN observer status in 2013; secondly, Israel has never fought the State of Palestine - it did fight the PLO from 1965 to 1993 peace accords and there was a short confrontation between Palestinian Authority and Israel in early 2000s, but that doesn't have to do with modern State of Palestine. Moreover, State of Palestine doesn't control Gaza, where there are ongoing tensions, so there is no conflict between Israel and the Palestinian state. Finally, the BBC source for the claim sentence says "Israelis and Palestinians", with link to State of Palestine, clearly being original research.GreyShark (dibra) 20:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Suggest redirecting the piped link to Palestinians. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is not a conflict of two societies in military sense; in my opinion, the conflict is between political and military organizations affiliated with the communities (some Israelis support Palestine, some Palestinians support Israel, so it is complicated). In the Israeli case since 1948 the political and military organization is the State of Israel, while in Palestinian case in 1948 it had been the All-Palestine Government and Palestinian Fedayeen, but it was shortly disbanded until in 1965 the PLO emerged and led the conflict with Israel for decades, though in 1993 intermediate peace was signed and since 2005 PLO / Palestinian Authority refrained from violence, though some Palestinian organizations took the lead in conflict - most notably Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip pretty much independently. So best would be to link Palestinians to Palestinian nationalism.GreyShark (dibra) 16:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

question

Palestine denied security council full membership? what the hell? YES, it did not admit it as a full member and gave it limited status, but im pretty damn sure that to whichever editor who wrote that, the council did not reject it as it was never put to a vote (id give you a million if you can guess why) but was divided on the matter and could not reach a consensus.

Kawhilaugh42 (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

This edit request to Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The conflict began in early 20th century not mid . 86.177.32.12 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Amnesty report

The material that was excised as editorializing is explicitly attributed to an Amnesty International report. Some quotes from that report:

p. 30: This suggests the manner in which the soldiers had used their firearms was at least reckless.

p. 50: Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have documented and advocated against the Israeli forces’ widespread and persistent misuse of tear gas in a manner that violates human rights. According to Amnesty International’s research, Israeli forces have continuously and consistently misused tear gas in deliberate and reckless ways leading to the killing, injuring, and damaging of property in the OPT since 1988. In particular, Israeli forces have used tear gas excessively against protesters, many times in closed areas and close to residential homes; they have fired the tear gas from close distance and frequently in a manner that, as evidence shows, directly targets Palestinians and/or their properties with arbitrary uses of force.

p. 10: . In some cases that Amnesty International has examined and documents below, it appears that Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers were victims of wilful killings; if so, such killings would amount to war crimes.

There was no editorializing there, it was faithfully reporting what AI said and attributing it to AI. nableezy - 21:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Blown out of proportion - a single Amnesty report should not get such space on a top level conflict article. Furthermore, it was clealry off topic to the status of the peace process. Removed.Icewhiz (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that is an obscene edit. If somebody else does not revert it I will tomorrow. nableezy - 23:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. I can't avoid noticing how pathetic was the "off topic" excuse. If it is in the wrong part of the article, it can be moved. Being in the wrong part of an article has never been a valid reason for deletion and doing so is simply disruptive. Zero^talk 00:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Part of

Hi SharabSalam, I removed it because it is confusing and unsourced. The article says that the Arab-Israeli conflict developed from this one, which suggests that the situation is the opposite of what the infobox is saying.

The truth is that neither is part of the other – they are both components of the wider 100 year conflict over the region of Israel/Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I agree. Sorry it wasn't clear for me why you removed that parameter. I agree with you. They are different conflicts with different components.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks SharabSalam. Would you mind self reverting? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile I have self-reverted before I wrote the above comment. Check the history page.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - my fault for not looking properly. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2019

This edit request to Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I simply wished to read the worldwide public opinion article (PDF) from the link in the footnotes, one of the last footnotes, but the Pew site no longer supports your link; Pew Global Research – worldwide public opinion.

Does Wikipedia ever consider revising postings which, over time, lose such verifications/citings (A simple question which I doubt could have a simple or practical answer; especially given the complexity of the subject)?

Regards, Gregory D. Smith * lyledrive@charter.net

        Fairview Hts, ILL
        (< 15 miles from the St. Louis ARCH) 2600:6C42:7004:200:EC07:FFD5:251B:86F3 (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Done Link fixed. But Wikipedia does put a lot of effort into dealing with broken links. Since 2015, a bot automatically archives all links added to an article. There are many other efforts, see WP:LINKROT. Melmann 15:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this article still out-of-date?

why is there a banner requesting addition of "recent events" when said banner is now over two years old? from a cursory look at the history page this article has been edited many times since Snizzbut (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Snizzbut I clicked ctrl-F and searched "Trump" and I didn't find a single mention of him. Also fatalities section is until 2011. This article is seriously out of date. Finding edits in the history page doesnt mean the article has been updated.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2019

This edit request to Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change one of the images of injured civilian to represent Palestinian civilians. Currently, both images show injured Israeli civilians and for the sake of fairness, neutrality and accuracy, one of those images should reflect an injured Palestinian civilian as well as an injured Israeli civilians. 137.82.11.73 (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Not done Given the subject matter such a change would require consensus on the talk page. I do see there is a broad mix of damage caused to Palestinian and Israeli buildings/vehicles and so on but agree the only two images showing injured people show injured Israeli citizens, so this is a question that needs discussion here. I have no opinion on the matter. Fish+Karate 12:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Start Date

The Trump Peace Plan begins with: “Israelis and Palestinians have both suffered greatly from their long-standing and seemingly interminable conflict. For nearly a century, international leaders, diplomats, and scholars have debated the issues and attempted to resolve this conflict.”

The “for nearly a century” must refer to the conflict which began in 1920. If they can get over the fact that technically one group of protagonists to this conflict were not named “Israelis” until 1948, then so should we. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Trump plan is not an RS, when we find suitable RS getting over it, we can consider it then.Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition

Can you add 'Lebanon' to this sentence?

"The Israeli government asserts that the Arab refugee problem is largely caused by the refusal of all Arab governments except Jordan to grant citizenship to Palestinian Arabs who reside within those countries' borders"

Lebanon has also helped out.

129.127.32.138 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done. In fact most Palestinian refugees in Lebanon cannot obtain Lebanese citizenship. Besides that, the sentence is a statement of the Israel claim, not a statement of fact. Zero^talk 02:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

List of false claims

Jordan and Egypt supported the Palestinian Fedayeen militants' cross-border attacks into Israel, : FACT: the so-called fedayeen were not vaguely supported, they were created, armed, trained, commanded and financed by the arab league ( countries) and Jordan and egypt.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know where you get your information from, but it seems to be consistently wrong. It seems you know very little about Palestinians, and a great deal about Anti-Arab propaganda. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

From the CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP00T02041R000100220001-1.pdf and historians, what about you? This nasser quote speak for itself Egypt has decided to send its heroes, students of Pharaoh and the people of Islam and they will clean the land of Palestine ... There will be no peace on the Israeli border because we demand revenge, and revenge is the destruction of Israel

3 no of Khartum is also propaganda? --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

for the fedayeen, see for example p166 https://books.google.be/books?id=LXCjAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA166&dq=fedayeen+creation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihman8jt_pAhWOsKQKHRieDioQ6AEIOTAC#v=onepage&q&f=false or https://books.google.be/books?id=1WmPAAAAMAAJ&q=fedayeen+creation+by+arab+league&dq=fedayeen+creation+by+arab+league&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi80sSxkN_pAhXHwAIHHSPSBS04ChDoAQgmMAA

my list, was automatically deleted?! well this information is lacking https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/15/world/us-agrees-talks-with-plo-saying-arafat-accepts-israel-renounces-all-terrorism.html --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
On taba peace negotiations, it's easy to put the blame on sharon, but in fact the main problem is palestinian "need for time" and not for solution--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Laseitainravi2: Wikipedia is not a forum nor a soap box. So, no edit requests? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

yes I request you and other people to be skeptical about all the false claims presented and correct them all.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Laseitainravi2: Present edit request plus appropriate sourcing for consideration. Until then, nothing to do.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Use the edit request format of “change x to y”. That’s the only way editors who don’t meet the editing thresholds for this topic are allowed to edit. Also, please stop bludgeoning the talk page. You’ve made like a dozen edits here and opened a couple of new sections in just a few hours. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What factual inaccuracies?

Would someone clarify which factual assertions need attention? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Grave error on the map of 1949

Hello, the map of 1949 is incorrect, the fact is the ceasefire line wasn't recognize by both parties (israeli and jordanians, egyptians). It was written down in the ceasefire accords, especially for that reason. Adding to that, Israel refused to recognized the line as its border, and till this day Israel has no formal border with the former occupied regions by egypt and jordan. Please correct that asap, it's a grave error. --Iudaeorum (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The map says "showing 1949 armistice lines" which is perfectly correct. Zero^talk 04:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's very misleading : you use "green" color for jordanian occupation or for oslo accords areas. + the oslo is just area not de jure or de facto sovereignty. so it's BIAS. you should not use those colors. + the blue line of the armistice line is drawn like if it was a border, and it is misleading too. simply not factual, maybe factual enough for an illustration, but not for a geopolitical map. you welcome --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed before, and is the reason that the shades of green are different. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, first the continous line is not clearly defined ( and explained why it's continous and then on the next map not ), and its misleading to use the "green" color, and yes maybe you understand it, but it's misleading for someone else that doesn't know this bias and read it the wrong way, the one suggested --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Map of 1967 misleading too

What about the sinai occupation? Not enough important here so you prefer to whitewash history? Obviously context is not important, --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Map of " jewish owned land"

The map of jewish own land is problematic, most of the natural areas, which comprise more than half of the territory weren't own by no-one. This map makes it look like the white part were "non-jewish land" which is absurd. --Iudaeorum (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed exhaustively in another place that I don't remember. Someone will remind us. Zero^talk 04:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah this one is misleading too. + it's originated from pro-palestinian propaganda like bds groups. So it's controversial from the start, and it's meant to be that way --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It is shown this way, in such a series of maps, by numerous reliable sources. I believe the reason is that the Survey of Palestine did not carry out a cadastral survey in the West Bank, so a more fulsome map is simply not possible with the same level of certainty. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact is this map just represent jewish owned land, and it has nothing to do with sovereignty, so why do you use this map in our chronology this way. And it is untrue the british have produce map of land use. + the fact that the rest of the land is "non-jew" is ludicrous. and you should try to precise this mess.

where is the map of the balfour declaration (with san remo confirmation) de jure sovereignty btw?( yes it's not in bds propaganda, I know ) --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Another lacking fact, is the "state domain" of the british, ( and that were later handed over to israel )--Laseitainravi (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Laseitainravi, there was no map of the Balfour Declaration. I don’t know where you are getting your information from, but I suggest you spend a bit more time learning about all these matters. I can suggest some good and balanced sources if you like. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I never claimed that there was a map, but the balfour declaration was about the entire mandate territory, until the "white papers" so why not representing it? All of those map are BIAS and do not represent any evolution. All this is fake n.... PS: you can give me some of your good reads, but I know the facts, and I know good books too

what about using the british produced map of land use on this map. THe british were in power not the jews, it's an important contextual fact.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)(I just lost my password, sorry)

OK here are some books for you:

Garfinkle, Adam (1998). "History and Peace: Revisiting two Zionist myths". Israel Affairs. 5 (1): 126–148. doi:10.1080/13537129808719501., "After the Cairo Conference of March 1921, whereupon the Emirate of Transjordan was created, Article 25 pertaining to Transjordan was added to the draft Mandate – in August 1921. Article 25 notes that Transjordanian territory is not included in the Jewish National Home. This language confuses some readers into imagining that Transjordanian territory was covered by the conditions of the Mandate as to the Jewish National Home before August 1921. Not so; what became Transjordanian territory was not part of the mandate at all. As noted, it was part of the Arabian Chapter problem; it was, in other words, in a state of postwar legal and administrative limbo. And this is also not to speak of the fact that, as of August 1921, the mandates had yet to be approved or take effect."

Wasserstein, Bernard (2008). Israel and Palestine: Why They Fight and Can They Stop?. Profile Books. ISBN 978-1-84668-092-2.: "Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there – but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement."

Abu-Lughod, Ibrahim (1988). "Territorially-based Nationalism and the Politics of Negation". In Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens (ed.). Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. Verso. ISBN 978-1-85984-340-6.: "... the statement presented by Mr Herbert Samuel, the first British High Commissioner, to the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Transjordan between 1920–25 ... is sufficiently clear on the distinctness of Transjordan and its emergence and leaves no doubt that Palestine did not include Transjordan in prior periods ... The Zionist and later on the Israeli discourse stresses the 'fact' that Israel emerged on only a very small part of Palestine – less than a third – by which they mean the entirety of Palestine and Transjordan; hence the term 'the partitioned State' ... While Israel officially is more circumspect in its pronouncements, its official spokesmen often refer to Jordan as a Palestinian State and claim that Palestinians already therefore have a state of their own. A series of advertisements that appeared in major American newspapers in the course of 1983 claimed openly that Jordan is Palestine. The series was presumably paid for by 'private' sponsors who support Israel but have been reported to be acting on behalf of certain sectors of Israel's leadership. Though rightly discredited as spurious scholarship, Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial (1984) gave much publicity to the Zionist definition of Palestine as including Transjordan (and, throughout, her work utilizes seriously flawed data that specifically refer to 'Western Palestine'). Perhaps Israel's preference for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in terms of what has become known as the 'Jordanian' option reflects the same understanding."

Happy reading. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not serious literature, it's more a "debunking myth" kinda stuff regarding the political narratives. No in fact in 1920, san remo recognized the british mandate at the time as for "balfour declaration" application. And few time latter, the "non formal" boundaries were changed significantly, but yeah you can say it's not per se a partition because there was a lack of legal frameworks. The first ref is vague : "it was, in other words, in a state of postwar legal and administrative limbo", the second wasserstein claim that transjordan was "added to the mandatory area", however there is no proof of that claim, while there is proof that british mandate ruled in 1920, also on the transjordan area, with no other mandatory autrity than herbert samuel. the third ref,is a criticism of jabotinsky, not about legal frameworks at all.

You should read books like this one : The British Mandate in Palestine: A Centenary Volume, 1920–2020 edited by Michael J Cohen, it's more serious because it's written by specialists. And yeah if you read arab historians, you should know that their universities are bound to a dictatutre and many are using their distortion of history to promote their political activities.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is solid proof of this. You can see it for yourself at Borders_of_Israel#Border_with_Jordan – those two pictures on the right are straight from the British archives.

Your comment about Arabs is racist. Ibrahim Abu-Lughod was educated at Princeton. Even if he was educated in the Arab world, does that mean he doesn’t have the mental capacity for individual agency? Sadly you don’t appear to have learned that skill yourself. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Proof of what? that there was no partition. Ok, call it separation or whatever, it depend on a legal understanding anyway. This guy call it a separation, page 578 https://books.google.be/books?id=jiWQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA578&lpg=PA578&dq=transjordan+status+in+international+law&source=bl&ots=x2DamsVDMC&sig=ACfU3U3PKGVT7trQXpNUy4m66qJi1g56aQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAuoqR797pAhVODewKHczJBoAQ6AEwDXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=transjordan%20status%20in%20international%20law&f=false

No racism here, I am talking about the quality of arab academics in arab countries, which are totalitarian with obedient and intolerant societies, so don't expect to find great work quality. At one point, you have to choose between historians. Good for Princeton, I quicky checked and found that he was involved with bir zeit uni, no offense. And there was no racial connotation in my remark, so you just being ad-hominem.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws here. Weizmann himself admitted it in late 1921: "Transjordania, which in the first draft of the Mandate lay outside the scope of the Mandate, is now included. Article 25 of the Mandate which now lies before the League of Nations, contains this provision. Therewith, Mr. de Lieme, the question of the eastern boundaries is answered. The question will be still better answered when Cisjordania is so full that it overflows to Transjordania." (Zionist Organization (1922). Report of the Twelfth Zionist Congress: Held at Carlsbad, September 1st to 14th 1921. Central Office of the Zionist Organization. p. 69.; original German transcript at Stenographisches Protokoll der Verhandlungen des 12. Zionisten-Kongresses in Karlsbad vom 1. bis 14. September 1921 [Proceedings of the 12th Zionist Congress September 1 to 14, 1921 in Karlsbad (Karlovy Vary)] (in German). Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag. 1922. p. 279. ZDB 2176334-3. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help))

You will know by now that Article 25 was drafted as part of the decision to give Transjordan to Abdullah and exclude Jewish settlement there. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well this quotation is about the creation of "transjordan" and the fact that now there is a border. It doesn't mean that the region of transjordan in 1920 wasn't part of the british mandate territory, it was just unclear at the time. And if we are going to pick and choose quotation, the article 25 state : In the territories lying between the Jordan [river] and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions. Why do they say eastern part of palestine? Why do they need consent? Why do they call it "postpone or withhold application"? Because they created a new entity on the mandated territory. --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

San remo convention ( legal framework )

Article 5 The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

Article 25 : In the territories Iying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.. As I said the term partition is probably not the correct one, but it doesn't mean there was no "separation" or "postponed or withhold application" --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s been fun talking to you. I hope this has piqued your curiosity enough to not just take the stuff you have heard for granted. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, sure, but I was right from the start. And even without tranjordan, if we are going to do " palestine going to puberty" we should add that balfour and san remo apply to the territory. And concerning the jewish owned land map, please complete the map with british owned land, arab own land and bareland--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why you felt the need to write the first sentence above. Earlier you said “Secondly, the actual map allocated by the Balfour declaration was de facto and de jure to Jews, so why not representing it. Thirdly, the Tranjordan emirate was a first partition plan of the Britsh mandate“ which are both nonsense. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Look if you are going to create maps of the region, you will have to produce also a map of the territorial arrangement before 1922. It's a question of inclusivness, you cannot pick and choose the maps you find interesting, that's basically my point here. + Indeed, in my first message I used the term "partition", which I stopped using following your remark. So generaly, yes there was a separation of the initial territory, it's more coherent than claiming that there was no "separation" like you seem to believe, or a mere creation of transjordan with no regard to the "British Palestine" territory beforehand, if this make sense to you --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Laseitainravi2, the map of the arrangements before 1922 is already there – it is the first map in the series. The Balfour Delcaration and San Remo did not have maps, or any defined borders at all. Please just read about the history at Mandate_for_Palestine#Borders. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

About separation, quotation from "Churchill's Promised Land Zionism and Statecraft" by Michael Makovsky: This plan proved costly to the Zionists because Churchill, in his haste to establish the sheriﬁan structure, also decided to approve his staff’s recommendation to give the sheriﬁans 75 percent of Palestine. In 1920 British ofﬁcials had struggled with where to delineate Palestine’s eastern border. Late that year, General Walter Congreve, commander of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force whose jurisdiction included Palestine, proposed separating Transjordan (east of the Jordan River, now Jordan) from Palestine as a way to save money and disentangle from the conﬂict brewing there between the French, who coveted eastern and western Palestine, and sheriﬁans and their supporters. In early 1921, several senior colonial ofﬁcials, including Lawrence, recommended establishing a separate local government in Transjordan under the auspices of Abdullah, though it would be supported by Britain and would still report to the high commissioner in Jerusalem. They believed this would head off Abdullah, who was in Transjordan, from leading a party against the French, who evicted his brother Faisal. These colonial ofﬁcials believed sheriﬁan control fulﬁlled the promises made by Henry McMahon, Britain’s high commissioner in Egypt, to Hussein in 1915–1916, and the mandate’s instruction to respect the rights of non-Jewish inhabitants and to provide self-government (Transjordan was populated by Arabs). In 1922, McMahon objected to this interpretation of his correspondence, writing a senior colonial ofﬁcial that both he and Hussein understood that Palestine was to be “excluded from independent Arabia,” while also insisting that the Jordan River was not to be a boundary. Churchill did not bother to immerse himself in such details and interpretations. In late February, he accepted his staff’s recommendations without even consulting the Zionists—Weizmann’s appeal came after the matter was decided. (page 108) --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No words on arab migrants

There is no words about the arab immigration to the region during late ottoman period and british mandate. It is however well studied, maybe the estimations may be controversial, but the immigration in itself is not. Some historians estimates their number as a third to and half of the arab population in 1917, which is very significative. Plus, they played an important role regarding the conflict, and cheap labor. --Iudaeorum (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No respectable historians claim a third or a half. The overwhelming consensus is that it was insignificant, which is why it does not belong in a high-level article like this. Zero^talk 04:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Actualy, you are wrong. You just call historians "not respectable" just based on your biased judgment. it's actually far from truth, there is many serious studies and it's well know for example that there was an egyptian worker immigration, it's absolutly not controversial, what is controversial, is what number.

Rural Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine: Distribution and Population Density During the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Periods, by David Grossman, chapter: Migrations and settlement of various ethnic groups in the 19 century, 2017
Constructing Boundaries: Jewish and Arab Workers in Mandatory Palestine, Deborah Bernstein ( citing Joseph Vashitz, 25000 et 30000 in 1934)
Haifa in the Late Ottoman Period, 1864-1914: A Muslim Town in Transition, Mahmoud Yazbak, 1988
The Syrian Land: Processes of Integration and Fragmentation : Bilād Al-Shām from the 18th to the 20th Century, Thomas Philipp, Birgit Schäbler, 1998
Martin Gilbert ( 50000 in the 40'), Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2005
at the beginign of the mandate והמוסלמים לארץ ישראל רבקה שפק־ליסק ( 200000

--Laseitainravi (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That there were population movements within the Ottoman Empire is not only uncontroversial, but it is obvious and irrelevant. The question is how many. Mainstream scholars have concluded that such movement was relatively minor in the overall picture, and that the net movement was insignificant. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your example Bernstein says that 25,000 to 30,000 was "casual and seasonal migration" which is not immigration. It is temporary visiting and then leaving. Zero^talk 14:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

So what, it wasn't mean to be a permanent immigration, but many stayed and there is no census, so existing estimates are relevant and not mere propaganda ( it's describe in the Bernstein book as an example)+ it doesn't talk about other migrants, like egyptian migrants that fled conscription or were workers for example on railway projects --Laseitainravi2 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream scholar is a BIAS. It's absolutly not the case. there were egyptian migrants and other migrants at the end of the ottoman era, and it's well documented. regarding the case of the british mandate, it's non-consenual, but not "minor" or "debunked"--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No words on terrorism

Terrorism and political violence as long been a palestinian strategy in the conflict, and its impact has a critical importance. However this wikipedia page doesn't represent it nor describe it ( attacks on civilians, bombings, random shooting, bus and car attacks, kniving, jihadism, suicide bombers, etc ). It's a paradox not to describe it, maybe its an apologetic attitude, with the goal of presenting the conflict based on "ideology" and quick historical simplifications ( sorry but it's a valid assumption )--Iudaeorum (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Terororism

No words on Hamas (and other rebellious groups ) revendications, and one of the strongest point of PA is "historical palestine" or at least "1967 line", not mere "freedom of movments,etc ( that's mainly a rethoric of war and a peoccupation of humanitarian groups )--Iudaeorum (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Silencing terror

Why don't you represent all the palestinian groups in the infobox Belligerents? Why "all palestine" is mentioned as if it was representing the Palestinians, it wasn't a representative organ or anything, it's a creation of egpyt and the arab league with no power whatsoever, but why not the fedayeen -???

where is abu nidal and other terror groups? -Laseitainravi (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The map in the infobox is false too

The map in the infobox?? WTF? what is this green area please? and the israel separation barrier is first not completed ( and not along this exact line), and it's not a border in any way without annexation --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Issue in dispute?

How do you know what are the issues in dispute inside the negotiation room? I get it, you listed what you think is contentious... In fact, there is many issues, but you forget for example mutual recognition, borders, the goal to destroy israel which is widespread according to statistics ( + hamas and PIJ official doctrine.. so what about peace with hamas and PIJ and other groups? isn't it importnant too? ) --Laseitainravi (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Another problem with map : 1916-1922

In fact there was other proposals, but it wasn't to the Palestinians firstly. Secondly, the actual map allocated by the Balfour declaration was de facto and de jure to Jews, so why not representing it. Thirdly, the Tranjordan emirate was a first partition plan of the Britsh mandate. --Laseitainravi (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Laseitainravi, please read Mandate of Palestine. You will see that your second and third points are mistaken. Your third point in particular is well known as false propaganda. You should consider where you built your knowledge on this topic and consider starting again. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not the case, the British and san remo clearly meant " jewish homeland in palestine", not anything else, the arabs weren't even invited to discuss the plan. So yes, its not propaganda. concerning the transjordan creation, it was clearly a partition of the inital mandate of 1920. So what do you mean by " propaganda", I guess we have a different appreciation of this term.--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever thought to question the motives of the people you are listening to or the books you are reading? Your first sentence says "it is not because someone told me it is not"; a more healthy response would be "it is interesting to hear a new perspective - could you point me to the information you are basing this off, I will then assess its merits". Onceinawhile (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Laseitainravi: Hi, seems your account is quite recent. There is a procedure to ask for edits to protected articles of the form change A (what is there now) to B (what to change it to). See WP:EDITREQ. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am exposing the common misconception, folks can face reality or live with their lies, it's up to them--Laseitainravi2 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

This edit request to Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I just wanted to edit the grammar and the casualty count at the bottom I have found IDF docs that are much more substantive and accurate then estimates Johncena123412312141 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Should the Israeli–Palestinian conflict be part of the Arab–Israeli conflict? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As it says in the note at the top of the page, the IP conflict is treated separately from the wider conflict (which is mainly historical now). In sources, IP is usually treated separately .Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

This edit request to Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Belligerents and Supporters in the infobox, please add Iran on the Palestinian side as it is a major supporter of many Palestinian parties.2605:6000:1526:450B:956:77:243D:31F5 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are sources to back this up.^[1]^[2]

Theses sources appear to say that Hamas is linked to Hezbollah and since Hezbollah is linked to Iran, then Hamas is linked to Iran, which does not actually follow. Also, PHD candidates are not usually acceptable, PHD's are. The second source appears to say the opposite of what you are saying. Perhaps I have missed something, please explain exactly where the refs assert Hamas is supported by Iran.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Both Hamas and Hezbollah have been backed by the Iranian government. If we are not going to definitely put Iran under supporters, at least put it as allegedly. ^[3]2605:6000:1526:450B:E865:9545:B628:DADC (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please specify the edit you want to make ie Change X to Y; Insert X after/before Y; Remove X along with the required reliable secondary source(s). Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Absence of Balfour Declaration

Hello, I noticed that the Balfour Declaration is not mentioned at all in this article, which is a bit odd since the foundation for the establishment of a separate Jewish state was set in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration. In the Balfour Declaration, Arthur James Balfour, who served as Prime Minister for Britain from 1902 to 1905, wrote to Lord Rothschild relaying the British government’s sympathy with “Jewish Zionist aspirations” and approval for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people,” as well as a promise that the government would “use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.” You can find the Balfour Declaration at Yale Law School's “The Avalon Project." ^[4] WindermerePeaks (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)WindermerePeaks

BD didn't mention anything about a Jewish state and you appear to have overlooked the second half of the declaration. I suggest reading Balfour Declaration and then make some suggestion as to what you want put in and where.Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know it doesn't specifically say "Jewish state." As I put in my suggestion, it says “national home for the Jewish people." What I meant was that this declaration set the foundation for the future Jewish state, Israel, since it is now categorized as a state, not a "national home." I did not overlook the second half of the declaration since I included text from it in my suggestion. Moreover, I think information regarding the importance of the Balfour Declaration in legitimizing a Jewish state/national home could be included in the beginning of the article's "History" section. WindermerePeaks (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)WindermerePeaks

Please format your edit request appropriately (there are examples to follow here on this page). Make sure anything you want included is properly sourced (for instance the claim that the BD laid the foundation for either of Israel or a Jewish state will need a proper source (proper as in "not Howard Grief" or similar), I can tell you now that "legitimizing" won't get off the ground, even the Mandate didn't get anywhere close to such a thing and the Mandate was a legal instrument whereas the BD was nothing more than a best endeavors affair). A simple way to proceed is to ask for material that is already in the BD article to be simply copied over to some appropriate place here.Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and suggestions. I do have a source about the BD's role in the establishment of the Israeli state, however, I would like to check if it can be used here. ^[5] WindermerePeaks (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)WindermerePeaks

I would like to suggest that this section from the Balfour Declaration Wikipedia article be added to the beginning of the "Background" section or to the beginning of the "History" section: "The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917.^[6]"

In addition to this piece of information, I suggest that this statement be added as well: The Balfour Declaration played a pivotal role in the establishment of the state of Israel since it "determined the direction of subsequent developments in Palestine" and "was incorporated in the Mandate ^[7]. The United Nations has stated that the Declaration was the "direct outcome of a sustained effort by the Zionist Organization to establish a Jewish State in Palestine ^[8]and that it "can be considered the root of the problem of Palestine^[9]." WindermerePeaks (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)WindermerePeaks

The first part is very lengthy for this article,which is not about the BD, remember you will have a wikilink to the BD article, so readers can simply click there if they want all the gory details. You just need something simple, the first part is enough, I think "The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine" and then continue from there except that you are still attempting to impute a meaning to it that is not in the given source, let me repeat, the BD did not of itself play a pivotal role in the establishment of the state of Israel and for that matter, neither did the Mandate but yes I do agree that it is at the root of the problem in (historical) Palestine, I can also agree that the BD is a result of the effort by Zionists to establish a Jewish State but you need to mention that the BD represents a failure in that respect, they got nowhere near to such a thing with the BD or even with the mandate. You need to drop this idea that the BD -> State of Israel (or Jewish state) because it absolutely doesn't.Trying to explain a complicated piece of history that took place over many years (17 to 48) as an x leads to y won't really work.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion about the first part. I agree that the first sentence will suffice. However, I do not agree with the rest of your statement. The BD does have an important role in the establishment of the State of Israel, because the BD is the first official document, from a legitimate state, that recognizes and supports the aspirations for a Jewish national home/state in another existing state. This document is what set the precedent for what came after. You also say that the BD failed, however, the current Israeli occupation of Palestine does not support this. I never said that the BD was the direct factor that led to the State of Israel. I mentioned countless times that the Balfour Declaration was essentially the first step in the legitimizing the establishment and existence of the State of Israel. In your previous comment, you said that anything I wanted to include should have proper sources and I did exactly that; the United Nations themselves have stated the BD had a pivotal role. If the United Nations is not enough of a proper source, then I am not sure what else is. I have abided by Wikipedia guidelines and supported the information I added with “proper sources.” Also, the importance of the Balfour Declaration has been supported by several reputable academics. So, I am not confused or making anything up the BD’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So, I would like to make my edit request once again. I believe that this information about the Balfour Declaration should be added either to the beginning of the article’s “Background” section or the “History” section: “The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. ^[10]

The Balfour Declaration played a pivotal role in the establishment of the state of Israel since it "determined the direction of subsequent developments in Palestine" and "was incorporated in the Mandate" ^[11]. The United Nations has stated that the Declaration was the "direct outcome of a sustained effort by the Zionist Organization to establish a Jewish State in Palestine ^[12]and that it "can be considered the root of the problem of Palestine."^[13] WindermerePeaks (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)WindermerePeaks

You still need a properly sourced and properly completed edit request. Based on what you have written above, I would decline such an edit request for cherry picking statements and inadequate sourcing. I have added in to the Background section the part on which we agree which deals with your principal objection that the Balfour Declaration is not mentioned at all.Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Update to Fatalities

As noted under the "Fatalities" section, there is a need for information from third-party sources that are reliable and independent. I suggest adding information that is cited from data collected by the United Nations. This is what I suggest to add, "According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs database, as of October 25, 2020, there have been 5,587 Palestinian fatalities between the years 2008 and 2020 due to military occupation of Palestine by Israel. In the same time span, there were 249 Israeli fatalities. The greatest number of fatalities on both sides occurred in 2014 with 2,327 Palestinian and 88 Israeli fatalities." ^[1] Wintersflower (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Wintersflower

I have added a sentence about the counts. The entire section could do with reworking, snapshots from the UN database could be included. Anyone?Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties

[1] Sandra Marlene Sufian and Mark LeVine (2007) Reapproaching borders: new perspectives on the study of Israel-Palestine Rowman & Littlefield,-Remembering Jewish-Arab Contact and Conflict by Michelle Compos ISBN 0-7425-4639-X p 48

[2] ttp://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

[3] ttp://www.balfourproject.org/contradictory-promises/

[4] ttp://arabisraeliconflict.info/arab-israel-facts/fact-3-two-state-solution

[5] ttp://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/peel-commission

[6] ttp://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/twq12FallFrankel.pdf

[7] ttps://carnegie-mec.org/2018/07/11/flexible-resistance-how-hezbollah-and-hamas-are-mending-ties-pub-76782

[8] ttps://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-is-iran-shipping-arm-to-hamas-and-hezbollah

[9] ttps://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp

[10] ttps://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/#II_The_Balfour_Declaration

[11] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

[12] ttps://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/#II_The_Balfour_Declaration

[13] ttps://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/#II_The_Balfour_Declaration

[14] ttps://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/#II_The_Balfour_Declaration

[15] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

[16] ttps://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/#II_The_Balfour_Declaration

[17] ttps://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/#II_The_Balfour_Declaration

[18] ttps://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/#II_The_Balfour_Declaration

[19] ttps://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]