Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 4

Disengagement plan

What's wrong with just saying "West Bank"? It appears to be the more commonly used term. Khoikhoi 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Samaria"

There's been several reverts back and forth about the use of Samaria in sentence about the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from four settlement outposts in the northern West Bank. Samaria is the name of the biblical area roughly comprising the northern West Bank (the area around Nablus, or Shekhem as some people like to call it). It is also part of the name of an administrative region claimed by Israel recognized by nobody else. I think Samaria deserves mention in the article about the West Bank, but not in any article that the northern West Bank is mentioned in. Wikipedia is not a forum for pushing the Israeli point of view (through multiple reverts), but should use language understood by AND agreed upon by the World community, that is as neutral as possible. --Fjmustak 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this thread, but as I said in my edit summary, this has nothing to do with the modern Israeli state, its administrative divisions, or any politics. Samaria is a geographic term describing a specific region within the northern West Bank. I think that people are being confused by reference to Judea and Samaria, which is an Israeli administrative area and political term. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik, Palestine is also the name of a geographic area, however, just like Samaria, it can also refer to a political area. Part of the geographic region Palestine is the modern-day State of Israel, and the geographic region Samaria is roughly equivalent to the modern-day northern West Bank. So if an article is talking about pre-1948 Palestine, I would use Palestine, otherwise Israel it is. Same with Judea and Samaria. If it's about biblical history, then Judea and Samaria it is. In the 21st century, the West Bank (and maybe in the 22nd century a real State of Palestine). --Fjmustak 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Palestine refers to a geographic area, and so does Samaria - neither currently refer to a political area. As I said above, I fear that you are confused with Judea and Samaria, which is a political term/Israeli administrative area. Samaria refers to the northern part of the West Bank north of Jerusalem, and is not an exclusively Israeli/Jewish term. Tewfik^Talk 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality problems in the Prior Events section

The "Prior Events" section has some serious POV problems. The way it is now, it is essentially an argument for the view that the Intifada was preplanned by the Palestinian leadership and that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif was not such a big deal. And it is clearly biased to give such a large amount of space to the views of Yossef Bodansky, a known Israeli-American hawk. Most of the Bodansky passage deals with the Sharon visit anyway, which is not "Prior Events". I propose creating a new section, "Causes of the Intifada", where the "Palestinians planned it all along" view can be presented along with other views on the causes of the Intifada. The "Prior Events" section should be a neutral summary of events before the Intifada everyone acknowledges are important, such as the withdrawal from Lebanon and the failure of the Camp David Summit. Sanguinalis 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that those editors who have a strong opinion on this subject refrain from editing, at least for a little while? This article could be written in a far more encyclopedic and objective manner, if it were written by someone who was not interested in the normative, so much as the positive (i.e. descriptive) aspects of the article. Fuzzform 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not necessarily anything wrong with editors who have strong personal views on the subject working on the article, so long as they are willing to abide by the Wikipedia NPOV policy.

No one has raised any objection to my proposal. When I find the time, and if no else does, I will create the new section and make the indicated change. I also plan on summarizing or significantly shortening the Bodansky passage. Sanguinalis 00:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can't really say I agree. I understand what your concern is, that prior events are just that, and it is hard to argue a negative on that basis. But mention of the withdrawal from Lebanon and Camp David are already presented, as are the PLO's explicit response to the 'pre-planned' position. The Bodansky passage does not seem to deal with his opinion, but is an account of what seems to be the undisputed chain of events preceding the Temple-Mount visit. Tewfik^Talk 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to hold off on the new section if there is no consensus for it, but no matter what the Bodansky passage should be moved. It's almost entirely devoted to Sharon's visit and the planning of it, so belongs in the "Sharon visits the Temple Mount" section in the Timeline. And I still believe more neutral sources can be found. Sanguinalis 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've moved the passage as you requested. Tewfik^Talk 03:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge: The shooting on Gilo

The article The shooting on Gilo is really small and unlikely to get larger or more informative. I am suggesting that we merge it into this article, al-Aqsa Intifada, Gilo and Operation Defensive Shield were more readers will encounter the information. It seems like a straight forward merge to me. --Abnn 02:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Intifada

It's really hard to explain anything, did they agree on anything? Is this still second intifada or third (usually few months of low fighting and then new strong fighting/ go figure). If so, then this intifada is to last long time?! May be second intifada can be classified as ended when Abbas took over in Jan 2005 and then in January 2006 when Hamas won, third intifada, it's much worse now than under Arafat, situation is getting from worst to worse or from worse to worst every day. Hate only grows. And circle of violence continues, the roots will remain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.2.219 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone talk about a Third Intifada. We can't make up new names for things on Wikipedia, we can only follow the usage in the news media and other published sources. There is one Intifada that started in September 2000 and never really ended, though there have been periods when the level of violence was relatively low. Sanguinalis 01:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps should we agree that any naming of an operation in a conflict is always POV. Eg:

- French Resistance is POV, Nazis were calling it terrorist actions

- U.S. independence is POV, for UK it was a rebellion

- Pax Romana is POV, for Jews it was Roman occupation

- Prague Spring is POV, for URSS was insurrection
 
- Endure Freedom in Afghanistan is POV, just another occupation for the Afghanis

- Iraq liberation is POV, Iraqis tend to call it occupation too

Intifada is just the struggle of occupied people, throwing stones and some handmade rockets against tanks, helicopters, and other aircrafts. By disgrace, the only effective weapon they have is to send their children to blow up from time to time in some bus or coffee shop. They call themselves their struggle Al-Aqsa Intifada. They starve and die under bombs, tanks, snipper shots every day for that struggle. The minimum respect we owe to their suffering is to at least let them name their struggle the way they want. And yes, if Palestinian believe it is because of the Al-Aqsa incident that they throw helplessly stones at tanks, then is the bare minimum respect to use their naming for their struggle. At this point, it is just about bare minimal morality not to silence a people suffering one of the most ruthless occupations ever conducted in human history. Delnogal 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This intifada is the struggle of terrorists islamic groups sending brainwashed people to kill themselves and murdering as much innocent Israeli civilians as possible, for no political purpose other than killing. This is the most immoral fight in recent history. So, no we do not owe them anything, on the contrary. And to say that the Israeli occupation is "one of the most ruthless occupations ever conducted in human history" shows only you have no idea in History and what is going on in Israel, or that you are just one of those fanatical activits. Benjil 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess it is not the place to argue moral issues. My rules are simple to know to whom goes my compassion:

- Israel has a Human Development Index(HDI) of 0.927 and a Life Expectancy at birth of 80 years ( for comparison Switzerland has 0.947 and 80.7 and US has 0.948 and 77.5 ). Having been their for work, Israel is a nicer place to live in than many countries in Europe.
- Occupied Territories have HDI 0.736 and Life expectancy at birth of 72.6 years.
Those figures are from 2004 ( so before all the recent Israel military actions and further development of the wall which didn't improve the situation ) and are kindly provided by U.N.:[1]
In my country, where we had to fight against Nazi occupation, we call the ones who have a short life expectancy, economic starvation and foreign tanks in their streets "occupied". We call the ones having the tanks "occupiers" and the ones fighting against the tanks "resistants".
You can call me fanatic if you want, but I'm really proud to have family members who were fanatic enough to be killed in fighting Nazi occupation.
Therefore, in all due respect to courageous people fighting for their right to live free against tanks, helicopters and F16 with stones, handmade bombs and light guns, we can name their uprising by the name they use: al-aqsa intifada. The same way we've always named the same people fighting against Nazis "resistants" and not terrorists as Nazi propaganda did. Delnogal 10:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparing HDI and life expectancy to determine who is right in a conflict is really irrelevant and borderline stupid. As well as the fact that your family members were fighting nazis (all my respect for that) - mine were killed by nazis also - so what ? This has nothing to do with the reality of the situation and the real reasons of this conflict. And this place is indeed not for moral discussions. Benjil 10:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Benjil, comparing HDI just says who suffers the most. And for whatever "stupid" reason, I'm naturally compassionate with the ones who suffer the most.

So as stupid and fanatic as you want to call me, popular uprisings against a force( right or not, it is a matter of POV ) are usually called by the name they give to themselves, except by their opponents( which have obviously another POV ): eg. "French Resistance" vs "Terrorists" by the Nazis, "EZLN" vs "Subversives" by Mexican Gov, "ETA" vs "Terrorists" by Spanish gov, "IRA" vs "Terrorists" by UK gov, "Prague Spring" vs "Prague insurrection" by URSS, "al-aqsa intifada" vs "second intifada". Dear Benjil, are you a declared opponent of this popular uprising called "al-aqsa intifada" ? Delnogal 12:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

HDI has nothing to do with suffering ; and "who suffers the most" is totally irrelevant also and childish. The fact of murdering innocent people - with the intention of killing as much as possible - is pure fascism and has never been "resistance". You are insulting the French Resistance and others who NEVER murdered hundreds of German civilians - and did not send kids to blow themselves to do it. You seem to have no moral compass and a very simplistic and dangerous view of events based on "whoever "suffers" is right". Benjil 08:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Benjil, if I sum up your opinions, I'm fanatic, stupid and childish (do not fear to add some more, words don't kill whatever violent they can be). I can forgive you for that, as I understand your emotional binding with one of the parties involved in this conflict. Nevertheless, I'll try on my side to keep cool, even though the suffering inflicted to occupied population is outrageous. I think I can meet you on your last comment: murdering innocent people is pure fascism. I will even add to that some other fascism symptoms most people agree on:

- military occupation of territories and their populations( some well known examples: Nazi occupation of many European countries, Italian occupation of Ethiopia, French occupation of Algeria,...

- building walls to isolate and/or separate populations ( Warsaw ghetto by the Nazis, South African townships, Berlin wall )

- deportations ( Nazis, URSS was good at that, Spanish Franquists too, Khmers and some other nice people )

- use of the army to control civilian population ( that's so typical of fascist regimes, they all did it )

- political assassinations ( frankly, I don't know if the use of airborne missiles in civilian areas for that purpose is a Russian or Israeli invention )

- strong propaganda depicting the opponent as terrorist, fanatic, under humanetc. ( Nazis brought this technique to the level of a science which has been sadly copied all over the world )

- huge imbalance in the forces in presence ( for any reason, fascists fear to fight mightier powers. They only dear to attack someone outrageously weaker )

- strong militarization of the population ( an army is not democratic, fascists love so much the army )

You see, dear Benjil, I do not hate Israel. I am just compassionate with people suffering an occupation. And I'm fearing that a country ( Israel ) which has been built by one of the people who suffered the most ( the Jews, and I have a lot of compassion for that ) instead of being the Holy Land, is sliding on the slope of fascism. Never forget, dear Benjil, that Hitler has been elected, by a people hating and fearing another one. Fear and hate are the ground for mind manipulation and fascist take over. Mighty nations and mighty men neither fear nor hate. Martin Luther King and Gandhi are vivid examples of what real courage can achieve. Please, dear Benjil, do not hate me, do not hate those children throwing stones at tanks, do not hate those people who have lost their homes, their land, their lives. Violence leads to violence. Only forgiveness can break the circle, and only the mighty can do the first step, as he is the one suffering less.

Dear Benjil, this is a goodbye I guess. You drove me totally off topic, so it's time for me to stop. But I'll let you the last word. Nevertheless, in all conscience, according to all arguments I've read on this page, 'Al-Aqsa Intifada' is the right title for this article. 'Second Intifada' is just propaganda to pretend the Al-Aqsa incident was by no means a provocation and cannot by no means be linked to the popular uprising popularly known as 'Al-Aqsa intifada'( and that's absolutely not neutral ). Please, dear Benjil, inspect your conscience, get rid of your emotional link to the situation and think about it in justice. Isn't it right to call a popular uprising or movement by the name it has chosen ? Don't you say Prague Spring, Black Power, ETA, IRA, Zionism ?

Delnogal 23:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you are a political activist who does not understand what Wikipedia is - a scientific and neutral project. Wikipedia is not here to promote your very strange political POV but present the reality as it is or at least give all the facts. Your arguments are just a big mess, you mix things that has nothing to do together and very simplistic and demagogic way try to link them. Well, this is not the right place to do that. So try to learn more about wikipedia and about the israeli-arab conflict before you come back here. Thanks. Benjil 08:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

End date of the Intifada

It is written taht this intifada is still ongoing but I think that most observers say that the Intifada ended with Arafat's death in 2004. Most of the violence has ended, and what is left is by no mean an "uprising" (meaning of Intifada) but attacks by terroristes groups like there were between 1993 and 2000 (in fact much less than during this period). So I propose to write that the intifada finished in november 2004. Benjil 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a source for that? --Coroebus 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well with difficulty. There is no "official date". It's like the first Intifada that was ended in the facts by 1991-92 but not until the Oslo agreement in september 1993 did people (journalists ?) decide it was the official end of the intifada. For the Israelis the Intifada has ended years ago, and they (and the Arabs) sometimes speak of a possible third intifada. Here is a 2005 article from the Guardian written by Marwan Bishara (brother of Arab nationalist MK Azmi Bishara): http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1551402,00.html. Benjil 16:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

yes I think the same. Hardly it caould be ongoing with the current crisis among Palestinians. --TheFEARgod (?) 18:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So seriously - we should change the "ongoing" status of the Intifada to "ended in 2004 or 2005". There is not one date it stopped but it is finished and the new events need to be analyzed in this context - meaning the consequences of the failure of the intifada. The death of Arafat on november 2004 or maybe the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005 can be chosen as ending date in my opinion. If someone has anything else to propose, be my guess. If you oppose, please do it also, I don't want to change the article if there is no approval from a majority. Benjil 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed TotallyDisputed tag

I removed the TotallyDisputed tag, not because this article is perfect (it's not), but because there does appear to be any ongoing dispute, other than the title dispute which does not by itself justify this tag. I would invite editors who find neutrality or factual problems in this article to just fix them. If we reach an impasse then the tag can be restored. Sanguinalis 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:AlDurrah2.jpg

Concerning this picture, I have a series of these showing how it really happened step by step (sorry, ain't got no copyright to publish it here) but if someone knows something about ballistics, will see studying the bullet holes in the cinder block wall that shots came not from the right where supposedly Israelis were, but from the direction where camera was, little to the left. It looks to me like killing of this kid was staged for the sole purpose of recording that. Let me know on my talk page if you're interested, then I may send it by email. Allow a day or two to do that. greg park avenue 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)