Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Archived Talk: can be found at Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada/Archive1

Contents

1 Clean up 2 Jenin; the Israeli POV inserted as objective fact, illiterate edits preferred over neutral facts, the future of Ziopedia 3 Haaretz is NOT independent 4 Israel is armed and funded by the US taxpayer, September 11 is the day we commemorate that fact 5 Israelis think they should have the right to kill anyone they want 6 6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni 7 Compromise suggestions 8 Uncle Ed wades in 9 operation days of penitence edits 10 David Biri's death is not part of al-Aqsa intifada 11 Wholesale changes made by Alberuni on Nov 9 12 Consistent naming 13 "Sharon was convinced that Abbas determined to stop terrorism" 14 Basic goals 15 POV 2000

Clean up

Please be more specific. It is not understood what do you want to "clean-up" or rewrite. POV is hotly debated in Talk page but IMHO it is pretty NPOV as well. But since the topic is contraversial, there will always be NPOV dispute, and hence proper notice was added. The article give important and broad information about the al-Aqsa intifada - with chronology of main events, statical summaries and overview of what happens there. I think there is no other place on the web with such a detailed and organized article over the second intifada. MathKnight 23:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please, seeing the form of the article makes me wish Alberuni were back... its just a piece of propaganda. Read how it starts! MathKnight, you are simply playing innocent. Uffish 22:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parts of it are fine, others are POV. And Alberuni is back, though editing only rarely under a sockpuppet userid. That said, he was banned for good reason; his kind of disruption does not help Wikipedia at all, and the fix for POV is not more POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jenin; the Israeli POV inserted as objective fact, illiterate edits preferred over neutral facts, the future of Ziopedia

"Especially fierce battles took place at the Jenin refugee camp. 32 Palestinian militants, 22 Palestinian civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting, while many buildings were reduced to rubble and hundreds of Palestinian explosives were detonated."

Why is the Israeli detonation of Palestinian explosives mixed in with the casualties to make the casualties look less important? This would be like writing, "Palestinian militants killed 22 Israelis and the bus and several cars nearby were severely damaged"

The report on explosives appear right after "many buildings were reduced to rubble". MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

" Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for several days as rumors of a massacre swirled through Palestinian communities. "

Israeli authorities prevented the press from entering for 2 weeks.

Palestian offical accused that hundreds of Palestinians were massacred in Jenin by the IDF, citing figures of 500 up to 3,000. [1] (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20052002-032952-3644r)" Palestian? Illiteracy. Misquote of article trying to blame the "Palestians". The article actually states: "Israel's own actions led credence to the myth. The Israeli army barred the international media from Jenin as its forces drove into the city. The only sources that the media then had for what was going on there were from the Palestinians themselves. And in the inevitable confusion of battle, what the great 19th century military theoretician Carl von Clausewitz called "the fog of war" applied. At the time, both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities appeared unclear what was actually happening on the ground."

"However, these allegations were later found to be false, as inquiry by both 'Human rights group and UN commission found that no massacre took place in Jenin." Illiteracy. The allegations were not false. Israel massacred 56 people inculding two dozen civilians. Human rights groups cited Israeli war crimes.

If you calling the killing of gunmen during combat a massacre, then you realy doesn't understand what that word means. You are the ONLY one insisting on a massacre in Jenin. Even the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm) report that "UN says no massacre in Jenin". Therefore, the allegations were false. MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

" Later, a UAV photage of Palestinians staging a mock funeral was released. "

What is the relevance? Israel claims it was a mock funeral. Palestinians claim it was a reenactment. photage? illiteracy.

The relevance? Let's say is related to inflating of numbers by PA officials.

These illiterate and factually incorrect edits were reverted dozens of times by Zionist editors who would rather promote their fellow hasbara propagandists' pro-Israel POV than bother to read and edit accurately. The future of Ziopedia is at hand; Israel first, facts last.

You are poisoning the well. Don't think I don't see your insults ans swearing, entangled in your flamming attacks on me. I will let other explain to you about Wikipedia etiquette. MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haaretz is NOT independent

"According to independent count by Haaretz, 87 combatants and 42 non-combatants were killed. Palestinian refugee camps were heavily damaged by the Israeli assault. The IDF announched that at least 12 Qassam launchings had been thwarted and many terrorists hit during the operation. Three Israelis also were killed (1 civilian)."

Haaretz gets its info from the IDF. Don't claim that it is independent. Using the IDF mafia terminology for killing people "terrorists were hit" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia although for Ziopedia, it makes sense. --Alberuni 19:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. Haaretz clearly stated that the count was made by its own reporters, and was reported side by side with IDF-given numbers (which were a little bit different from Haaretz count). MathKnight 21:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israel is armed and funded by the US taxpayer, September 11 is the day we commemorate that fact

"On the Israeli side, the advantages of a strong economy and arms trade relations, in addition to a centralized command authority, have led to opposite tactics. The Israeli Defense Forces stress the safety of their troops, using such heavily armored equipment as the Merkava tank and various military aircraft including F-16s, drone aircraft and helicopter gunships. Sniper towers are used extensively in the Gaza Strip, and are being increasingly employed in the West Bank. Heavy armored bulldozers, such as the Caterpillar D9, are routinely employed to detonate booby traps and IEDs, and clear houses along the border with Egypt used to fire at Israeli troops, in "buffer zones", and during military operations in the West Bank. Israel has also established the policy of destroying the home of the family of a suicide bomber. "

"advantages of a strong economy," what a POV pro-Israeli crock. Israel is a US taxpayer-funded welfare state having siphoned $100 billion from the US over the past 30 years.

This is the NPOV version: "On the Israeli side, the advantages of a highly organized military force armed with U.S.-supplied weaponry is capable of massive destruction against Palestinian civilians, Palestinian Authority infrastructure and the lightly armed Palestinian militants. The Israeli Defense Forces stress the safety of their troops, using such heavily armored equipment as the Merkava tank and various military aircraft including F-16s, drone aircraft and helicopter gunships. Sniper towers are used extensively in the Gaza Strip, and are being increasingly employed in the West Bank. Heavy armored bulldozers, such as the Caterpillar D9, are routinely employed to detonate booby traps and clear houses along the border with Egypt used to fire at Israeli troops, in "buffer zones", and during military operations in the West Bank. Israel has also established a policy of destroying the family home of suicide bombers. " --Alberuni 19:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israelis think they should have the right to kill anyone they want

POV "no-guilt" version of Israel's assassination policy: "Israel also pursues a policy of "targeted killings", i.e. the assassination of prominent militant leaders, to single out as a target those involved in perpetrating attacks against Israelis, and to intimidate others from doing the same. This tactic has been condemned by some as unlawful summary execution, while others (such as the United States) see them as a legitimate measure of self defense against "terrorism". Many criticize the "target killing"s for placing civilians at risk, though its supporters believe it reduces civilian casualties on both sides. However, the practice of militant leaders to hide among civilians in densly populated areas, and the usage of helicopter gunships' missiles, is sometimes leading to civilian casualties. Unconfirmed reports claim Israel developed a new missile, designed to reduce civilian casualties and focus the impact only on the target."

The USA does not see Israeli assassination as legitimate. The USA condemns the policy while saying that Israel has a right to defend itself.

NPOV version: "Israel also pursues a policy of "targeted killings", i.e. the assassination of militants and especially prominent leaders, to single out as a target those involved in perpetrating attacks against Israelis, and to intimidate others from following suit. This tactic has been condemned as unlawful summary execution and for placing civilians at risk, though its supporters believe it reduces civilian casualties on both sides. However, if militant leaders live in densely populated areas, and the Israel uses helicopter gunship missiles to assassinate them, civilian casualties can be expected." --Alberuni 19:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to ignore your inflammatory headline, but it is hard. The Israelis don't think they can kill anyone, but they do believe they have the right to defend themself from those who seek to exterminate them. Ahmed Yassin, Adnan al-Ghoul, Iad al-Bik and their fellows are not "peace activists" or just radical politician bur rather mastermind of terrorism, as many enlightened nations - headed by the USA, the EU and Canada - recognized Hamas is a terrorist group.

The USA is no longer condamning such methods, as it use to them itself to handle insurgents and terrorists' leaders. They do call Israel to show restrain and express concern, but stress Israel's right to defend itself - hence: saying that the act was legitimate, even if they think it was no the smartest thing to do.

The two version here are not so different and could be merge. All you need is just a little effort and a good will. MathKnight 11:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's definently a violation of the laws and customs of war to assassinate unarmed Palestinians, including unarmed Palestinian guerrillas. It is probably also illegal to fire a missile at an armed guerrilla in car when the car is driving through a densely populated residential area, because of the unacceptable civilian casualties. Presumably its just as wrong for Israelis to assassinate Palestinian politicians as it is th other way round (e.g. the murder by Palestinian assassins a few years ago of that extreme-right transport mininister--I think--who called for the forcible deportation of Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories).

I'm not sure if America still officially condemns the assassinations, but MathKnight is right that the Americans are now openly using the same tactics, for example the CIA's rocket-propelled murder of 6 alleged Al Qaeda militants (including a US citizen Kamal Derwish) in their car in Yemen (outside of any battlefield or any country the USA is at war with). US tactics are in Anglo-American occupied Iraq are actual much more lethal than Israeli tactics. No recent Israeli assault has been anything like the attack on Fallujuah, with its weeks-long carpet bombing turning thousands into refugees and killing hundreds, followed by the invasion and demolition of most of the cities and killing of over a thousand resistance fighters and God knows how many civilians. Kingal86 15:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni

6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni, you're on a hot streak today. Jayjg 04:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you and your team should read the article for a change. --Alberuni 04:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe if you were willing to use the Talk: pages for their purpose, rather than as a soapbox and a vehicle for abusing other editors, you would find it easier to achieve compromise. Jayjg 04:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If only that were true. I have tried to assume good faith with you but you just use the Talk pages to engage in your usual duplicitous sophistry to block edits that offend your pro-Israeli perspective. You are rarely reasonable and respectful with me so why should you be treated any differently? By the way, just look up a few paragraphs and you will see I did use the Talk page for its intended purpose but you ignored my efforts to make positive headway. You just revert, revert, revert. --Alberuni 04:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expect when a constant torrent of abuse and soapboxing issues from your fingertips with practically every Talk: comment. Even comments that might have some valid content are also liberally larded with the same abuse and nonsense; look at the titles of the sections you created. People are simply getting sick of it, and of you, as many Talk: page comments from many editors show. If you want to achieve consensus and influence people, you're using the wrong tactics. Jayjg 04:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its always my fault, of course, from your perspective. I'm well sick of you too, believe me. There's never been any hope of consensus with you and your POV buddies. Froim Day One you've been trying to harass me out of Wikipedia, as your User page said. "Block them until they move on to some other channel". You were referring to me. I don't appreciate that. --Alberuni 05:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you should at least quote me accurately. My user page says "One of my important roles on Wikipedia is to protect Wikipedia from these POV warriors until they understand what NPOV is, become familiar with Wikipedia norms, and either decide they can actually work within the Wikipedia paradigm, or leave for other channels in which they can evangelize their POV." Since all the things I am fighting for are exactly what Wikipedia demands of its editors, there is nothing objectionable in my stating it. Jayjg 04:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen, at the risk of stepping into the middle of a firefight, might I suggest you two step away from this for a day or so? This fight fundamentally isn't worth the energies you two seem to be putting into it. These words will not fundamentally change the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As it is, and as a newcomer, the article seems as close to NPOV as it will ever get. So, I'm suggesting you guys just back away, let it go, catch up on reading, whatever. Let tempers calm and energies focus on other things. Or not, and duke out your own private Thermopylae as you will. Five 05:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a neutral 3rd party here is my take: factually, the killing of the 2 Isreali reservists could be described as a "lynching". The use of this term by itself would not necessarily demonstrate a POV-bias in my opinion, as the actions of the Palestinian mob pretty well fit the definition of a lynching. However, the entire paragraph describing the "lynching" almost certainly does exhibit a POV-bias, as it describes in greusome detail the brutality of the killing. Sure, the description may be factually accurate, but it comes accross as gratuitous in the context of the larger article. To then call it a lynching on top of that is simply redundant. Here is my proposed compromise: Either remove the explicit description of the killing and simply say they were lynched by the mob, or keep the description and remove the clause describing it as a lynching. I think that would at least reduce the percieved POV-bias as well as the redundancy. Kaldari 23:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compromise suggestions

I believe that there is an element of truth to both arguments in this debate. 1) There does seem to be some POV bias in the way the killing of the 2 Israelis is described. 2) The term "lynching", however, is not innaccurate in this instance (although perhaps redundant). In an effort to reach a compromise between the 2 entrenched parties, I offer 2 alternate versions of the sentences in question. The first version uses the term lynching but removes the gratuitous description of the killing. The second version retains the description of the killing (edited down a bit for brevity) and removes the redundant lynching description. Either of these versions should be sufficiently NPOV to resolve this dispute, IMO. It will require a willingness to compromise by both parties however. As to the POV-bias in articles describing the killing of Palestinians, I would suggest bringing those concerns up in those articles rather than here. Since there is no unified editorial voice in Wikipedia, you'll have to challenge them one at a time. Complaining of a systematic policy of bias won't accomplish anything here. Anyway, here are my two compromise proposals. Feel free to comment...

An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station and lynched the two soldiers. The killings were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.

An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, beat the soldiers to death, and threw their mutilated bodies into the street. The killings were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.

These versions explain the events without either whitewashing the brutality of the killings or being unnecessarily gratuitous or belaboring. Whether the word "lynch" is used specifically seems irrelevent to me.

Here is the current version of the passage for reference:

An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, beat the soldiers to death, threw them out the window, stabbed them, dragged them on the road and mutilated their bodies. The killings, described as a lynching by international press, were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.

Kaldari 00:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amnesty International and the BBC (among others) described the killings as "lynchings" Amnesty (http://web.amnesty.org/aidoc/ai.nsf/afec99eadc40eff880256e8f0060197c/64f59dc0b44c5fef80256aff0058b1b8/$FILE/ch3.pdf) BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/969778.stm). Jayjg 03:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think his point is that calling them a lynching and then describing the act is redundant. Judge 'em as a lynching, which is abhorrent in and of itself, or describe the act. That's all I think he's saying, and not that calling the actions a lynching is unwarranted. (Side note: Jayjg, I tried to fixed your links. They weren't turning into links properly. The Amnesty one still doesn't. As a newb, if I've overstepped my bounds, I am sorry). Five 06:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, in an attempt to provide a compromise, my version left out the contested word "lynching" altogether, and instead simply described the actions, leaving it to the reader to decide if it was lynching, or a justified and reasonable killing (as Alberuni has posited). Jayjg 15:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed wades in

The term "lynching" is a loaded term. It is used to label a particular killing as unjustified. It thus takes a moral position.

Wikipedia articles do not take moral positions, for one very important reason: that is, none of us contributors can agree on moral issues; and the battles over WHICH MORAL POSITION any given article should take would be endless.

It's so much easier, therefore, to say something like:

• two reservists were killed by Arabs in the wake of blah, blah, blah.

If we want to add commentary to this, I suggest we QUOTE SOMEBODY OTHER THEN OUR OWN SELVES. Like,

• the Jerusalem post called the killings "the worst lynching since the 1930s in the US";
• the Palestine News-Free Press praised the killings as "the right lynching at the right time".

Don't get all hung up on whet TERMS to use, when describing a killing. Was it murder? Was it "extra-judicial"? Forget interpretations, because you are not writing an editorial for your hometown newspaper; you are writing an encyclopedia article which transcends time and place.

Stick to the undisputed facts. The men entered the area. They died there. (We all agree on this) Somebody killed them (i.e., it wasn't an accident). The killers were "Palestinian Arabs. (If we agree on the identity of the killers, fine. If not, we describe the dispute as "X says the killers were Arabs, while Y says the killers were Israelis or Chechnyans or Little Green Men from Mars").

Try to focus FIRST on the parts we can all agree on, would you, please? As a favor to me? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:49, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, the article doesn't use the word lynching, it hasn't since I took it out a week or two ago. Have you read the current version? Jayjg 20:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, oops! --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:41, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Actually Uncle Ed lynching is any killing that is done by mob violence or by vigilantes rather than state sponsored. KKK hangings are lynchings, vigilante hangings in the Old West are lynchings, etc. You need a wikictionary

operation days of penitence edits

the reference to al-durrah wasn't gratuitous. i'm not sure if it was also in any news links.

the reference is quite appropriate. the situations aren't so dissimilar as to merit repeated deletions. we could list all of the palestinian children killed as a result of a horrific military occupation, but one name (that also featured footage of a child being slaughtered by stray idf bullets) gets the point across sufficiently to people unfamiliar with the subject. we could also list references to all the families killed by suicide bombers, but, again, one (maybe two) illustrative references is sufficient.

embarrassed by the fact that either a) the idf shoots mercilessly at children or b) simply can't control the direction of their bullets?

The reference claims the attention given was similar to that given to the al Durrah incident. None of the sources provided make or support that claim. As such, it is simply an editorial. As for Muhammad al-Durrah, please read the article for the controversy surrounding his death; the case is actually quite different from the Iman Darweesh Al Hams one. Jayjg 16:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

do i need to find some journalist to make that association for me? if that's the case, then why don't we just make a newsbot to write these articles? most of history is editorial, or haven't you studied any? if you just list facts, then you get no substance, no understanding of the circumstances; you have to make associations between facts and incidents to help people understand them. the key on this site (or what the administrators claim to strive for) is making objective associations: NPOV; associations that do not reflect a biased point of view and will not unduly sway opinion on a controversial issue. the incidents b/t iman and muhammad are not similar; the only similarity to the events is israeli soldiers unnecessarily killing palestinian children. the association i made was to the type of criticism the IDF received as a result of the public broadcast of the footage of the events. if you pay any attention to the hebrew press, you'd have read about it, and if you read just one of the ext articles linked and the Muhammad al-Durrah article, it becomes clear to any sane, objective viewer.

and as to the muhammad al-durrah controversy, every respectable and legitimate news agency has dismissed the argument that he was killed by palestinians for publicity, including amnesty international who would have jumped on that kind of thing immediately if there was credible evidence to support it. they could accept that it was an accident, but the argument that it was staged by palestinians is absurd. it now exists only to confuse the issue.

Wikipedia summarizes the viewpoints of other sources; it is not a place for developing theses. What you describe as "mak[ing] associations between facts and incidents to help people understand them" is, in fact, the essence of insterting a POV, something Wikipedia diligently tries not to do. From Wikipedia:NPOV "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." It is your opinion that this incident received similar press to the al Durrah incident; if you have a significant source which states it that way, then we can quote that source. Jayjg 02:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

tell me, is marroon similar to crimson? is an orange similar to a grapefruit? are you going to try to debate the assertion that they are similar? what if you've never heard of marroon? what if you've never seen a grapefruit? if someone compares the two, won't that help you understand it? after looking at the two, and recognizing that there are differences, are you going to criticize the person who made the original statment comparing the two for not being more explicit about exactly what the similarities and differences between the two were?

The orange article on Wikipedia works just fine without mentioning grapefruit; it provides pictures of oranges and botanical information instead. Similarly, the Maroon (color) article works just fine without mentioning crimson. In your opinion it was similar to the al Durrah incident; in the opinion of others it was not. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a place for original research, but rather for quoting the research of others. Jayjg 17:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David Biri's death is not part of al-Aqsa intifada

The Israeli government website does not even use the term al-Aqsa intifada (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2000/). It just says he died in September 2000. No evidence that it was related to the al-Aqsa intifada. The intifada is traced to Sharon's visit to the al-Aqsa holy place two days later - that's how it got the name, "al-Aqsa intifada." --ThinkPink 04:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David Biri's nane appear here [2] (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/In%20Memory%20of%20the%20Victims%20of%20Palestinian%20Violence%20a), his was murdered onSeptember 27, 2000 by Palestinians [3] (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2000/Sgt+David+Biri.htm). His death was the bening of violence, dubbed by the Palestinians "al-Aqsa Intifada". Israel does not use officialy that name. I think I don't need to explain why the MFA divided the list of victim of terrorism to before Septtember 27 and after it. He was the first victim of the al-Aqsa intifada. MathKnight 17:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your first link doesn't work. However, there are plenty of sources which list Biri as the first victim: [4] (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=427748&contrassID=1) [5] (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_start.php) [6] (http://www.hsje.org/victims_of_terror_since_start_of.htm) [7] (http://www.nypost.com/movies/20720.htm) [8] (http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/122/documentid/1038/history/3,2359,650,122,1038) etc. Jayjg 17:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First victim of what? Biri's death is not part of the al-Aqsa Intifada because the intifada started after his death - after Ariel Sharon's visit to the al-Aqsa site. You see, that's how it got the name "al-Aqsa". The Israeli government propaganda repeated at the websites you list claims that the Palestinians started the al-Aqsa intifada before Sharon even visited the al-Aqsa site. Even the "Palestine Facts" source you cite and the objective Mitchell report point to Sharon's visit as the trigger for the al-Aqsa intifada. Of course there is constant violence in the area so anyone can name his own start date. We can go back to 1948 or 1917 if you want. It does no service to Wikipedia to throw Israeli government propaganda into the article. ( I am sure that won't stop you though).

• "Also on September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This visit became the pretext for instigating large scale demonstrations, the start of the al-Aqsa infifada." [9] (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_start.php)

• "On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon marched defiantly and provocatively through the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, touching off the current round of violence. " [10] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/intifada2.htm)

The Mitchell Report:

• "Mr. Sharon made the visit on September 28 accompanied by over 1,000 Israeli police officers. Although Israelis viewed the visit in an internal political context, Palestinians saw it as highly provocative to them. On the following day, in the same place, a large number of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and a large Israeli police contingent confronted each other. According to the U.S. Department of State, "Palestinians held large demonstrations and threw stones at police in the vicinity of the Western Wall. Police used rubber-coated metal bullets and live ammunition to disperse the demonstrators, killing 4 persons and injuring about 200."[4] According to the GOI, 14 Israeli policemen were injured.[5] Similar demonstrations took place over the following several days.[6] Thus began what has become known as the "Al-Aqsa Intifada" (Al-Aqsa being a mosque at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount). " [11] (http://www.mideastweb.org/mitchell_report.htm)

Furthermore, in the article Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2000#August, it says Biri died in August after being attacked by "terrorists". (If Biri was an Israeli soldier in occupied Gaza, why are his attackers called "terrorists" in Wikipedia?). You need to sort out your Israeli propaganda to at least get the dates and descriptors right.

"* August 27: Terrorists attack a group of vehicles traveling to Netzarim with two roadside bombs and automatic gunfire. David Biri, age 19, is wounded.

• August 28: David Biri dies of wounds suffered in a Palestinian terrorist attack the previous day.
• September 29: Border policeman Chief Inspector Yossi Tabaji, 27, of Ramle, killed and a second Israeli border policeman wounded by a Palestinian Authority policeman on a joint patrol near Kalkiliya District Coordinating Office. [12] (http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=69634)"

Yossi Tabaji and several unnamed Palestinian youth were also killed in the days before the "official start" of the al-Aqsa intifada because there are constant killings almost every day in the conflict. The al-Aqsa intifada is an upsurge in the violence that started after Sharon's visit to the al-Aqsa site. That is the commonly understood definition of al-Aqsa intifada. Adding stories about Israeli deaths that happened the day before is just Israeli government propaganda to deflect blame away from Ariel Sharon. --ThinkPink 19:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was probably a mistake in the article. I fixed it. Biri was attacked on Sep 27 died on Sep 28. Check relevant links supplied by me and Jayge. MathKnight 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for your other claims: there is no doubt that the riots on the Temple Mount helped fueling the flames, but as admitted by PA official themselvess - the riots have been planned earlier. The name "al-Aqsa intifada" was coined by the Palestinian and it one of the most used names for the 2000-2004 violence, but it is not the only name. The issue of rather the intifada started spontanously because of Sharon's visit to Temple Mount, or was engineered by the PA as a leverage tool is still debated and both views are presented in the article. MathKnight 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your argument is circular; you state that the Second Intifada began after Sharon's visit, and therefore any killings before it were not part of the Intifada. However, it is the start of the Intifada which is itself being debated. As well, though it criticized Sharon's visit, the Mitchell Report was quite clear that Sharon's visit was not the cause of the Intifada, vis "The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Initifada."" Also, please note that I have not written these articles, that using language like "your Israeli propaganda" is inflammatory. Finally, please assume good faith; if you do, I'm sure we can work out a reasonable resolution. Jayjg 20:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are copying one-sided (Israeli) material from Palestine Facts and Jewish Virtual Library [13] (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19a.html): "Soon after he left, outbreaks of stone throwing occured on the Temple Mount and in the vicinity, leaving 28 Israeli policemen injured, three of whom were hospitalized; no Palestinians were injured in these incidents." Other sources paint a completely different picture: "On September 29, the Israeli army increased its presence in Jerusalem and began intimidating the Palestinians. When the Muslims attempt to enter al-Aqsa for prayers they were barred and later Israeli forces opened fire at the civilian demonstrators, including children, killing 6 and wounding 220. In the first few days of the Intifada, the IDF fired about 700,000 bullets in the West Bank, and 300,000 in Gaza. In the first six days of the Intifada, 61 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces and 2,657 were injured, many of them children. At the same time four Israelis were killed, with 35 wounded." [14] (http://www.aqsa.org.uk/page_detail.aspx?id=59). Why are the names of Israeli soldiers like David Biri and Yossi Tabaji more important than the names of the numerous Arab civilian victims? This is a subtle form of racism where one side is humanized with names and the other is dehumanized as a faceless number of casualties. [15] (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Fatalities_Lists/Pal_by_IsSec_Oct_eng.asp) --ThinkPink 21:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have difficulty understanding some of your objections. The information about the stone throwing on the 28th is actually an indication that the intifada was not planned (as the pro-Israel side claims), but rather spontaneous (as the pro-Palestinian side claims). As well, it indicates a buildup, and I don't see how it can contradict information about what happened on the 29th. Also, I don't believe Yossi Tabaji is mentioned in the article; where do you see his name? As for Biri, he is mentioned because Israelis consider him the first victim of the Intifada. al Durrah is also mentioned, as the most prominent Arab victim. In contrast, the names of the most prominent Israeli victims, the two reservists lynched in Ramallah, whose deaths probably had as strong an effect on the Israeli populace as al Durrah's had on the Palestinian populace, are not mentioned. Anyway, which parts do you think shouldn't be in there? Jayjg 21:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's just presenting a one-sided Israeli perspective to write, "outbreaks of stone throwing occured on the Temple Mount and in the vicinity, leaving 28 Israeli policemen injured, three of whom were hospitalized; no Palestinians were injured in these incidents" while ignoring "Israeli forces opened fire at the civilian demonstrators, including children, killing 6 and wounding 220. In the first few days of the Intifada, the IDF fired about 700,000 bullets in the West Bank, and 300,000 in Gaza. In the first six days of the Intifada, 61 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces and 2,657 were injured, many of them children. At the same time four Israelis were killed, with 35 wounded." --ThinkPink 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

O.K., I took it out again. I still couldn't find any mention of Tabaji. Jayjg 22:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wholesale changes made by Alberuni on Nov 9

Some of the changes need proof. See [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Aqsa_Intifada&diff=7276280&oldid=7275073).

• between Sep 1993 and Sep 2000, "hundreds more Palestinians were killed in political violence" -- proof?
• At Oslo, "the Palestinian and Israeli authorities committed themselves to curbing violence." -- instead of "the PLO committed itself to curbing the violence" -- AFAIK, Israel committed to the "land for peace" principle.
• Rabin was "assassinated by an Israeli opposed to the Oslo peace agreement" -- instead of "Israeli extremist" -- I find this one particularly obnoxious: typically those who merely oppose the govt policies, even in public, can walk the streets without fear in Israel. Murderous extremists (of any race/religion) are being incarcerated.

I am restoring these points. Objections? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consistent naming

The name "Mahmoud Abbas" is being freely mixed with "Abu Mazer". The inconsistency is erratic and confusing; the article should pick one name and stick with it for all future references. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

All fixed, I think. The article could use a lot of other work, starting with grammar. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Sharon was convinced that Abbas determined to stop terrorism"

"After Sharon was convinced that Abbas was determined to stop terrorism, he agreed to meet him at a peace summit at Sharm al-Sheikh." - This sounds rather POV? I mean, that they meant doesn't sound POV, but this implies, or rather states outright, that Sharon's maneuver was not at all political, but only based on high ethical considerations -- call me jaded, but that sounds either naive, or propagandistic.

Yes, it does sound POV, although I'm sure it was an important consideration. Much of the article contains POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I didn't read the entire article. I just looked at it again, and it does seem pretty pro-hardliner Israeli POV -- and I've seen on another discussion page about something to do with Palestinians this user below MathKnight hurling nasty and racist insults, and I see a post by him/her responding to my comment, so I'll abandon any interest in this forthwith! (I have no interest in the exchange of insults on much of any subject, and especially not this one.)

Yeah, I'd say it's rather minor. Most articles implicitly assume politicians' motives are what they say they are, unless there's evidence to the contrary. The Bill Clinton article claims he "took a personal interest in The Troubles in Northern Ireland", etc.

It don't imply that Sharon move was not at all politic, since if Abbas could not or want not stop terrorism, the all summit issue than be just a waste of time, and will be doomed to be fail. It is not only a moral consideration, but also a practical one. MathKnight 14:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The bombing of the Dolphinarium club in 2002? in Tel Aviv should be mentioned as only Israeli High Schoolers were hit - which represents some of the worst Palestinian actions during this time

Basic goals

"The tactics of the two sides in the conflict are largely based upon their resources and goals. Despite the claims of both sides to the contrary, polling consistently shows that a majority of both Palestinians and Israelis agree on the same basic goals: a two state solution, established on the 1967 borders, with at least most of the settlements withdrawn, and a right for Palestinian refugees to return to the new Palestinian state."

The general opinion among israelies is that the "right for Palestinian refugees to return" would be the end of Israel as a democratic and a jewish state. Among 120 representatives in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, there are not more then five who agree with that goal. They are considered the extreme left.

A right to return to the new Palestinian state, not to Israel; I think most Israeli would agree with that. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reworded this to "a two state solution, established on the 1967 borders, with at least most of the settlements withdrawn, demilitarized Palestinian state, dismantling of all armed Palestinian groups such as Hamas, and a right for Palestinian refugees to resettle in the new Palestinian state, without right of return into Israel." I hope this is more clear. MathKnight 20:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And can anyone show polls showing Palestinians supporting those goals? I doubt it... - Mustafaa 23:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The National Census showed 160,000 Palis and 250,000 Israeli signed on the following outline: two state solution with demilitarize Palestine and no right of return into Israel. MathKnight 09:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not even big enough to be a significant minority, nor is it a poll. - Mustafaa 18:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I too doubt that a majority of Israeli and Palestinians support those goals. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

POV 2000

The two anon edits to the 2000 section from June 21 contain inflammatory rhetoric and do so while adding information about Israeli behavior while removing information about Palestinian behavior, all of which seem to advance a particular characterisation while removing support for other views. Take the following additions: "though much evidence was later found showing that it was not Israeli fire that killed him" and "A famous picture of a bloodthirsty Palestinian holding up his blood-stained hands in glee and triumph became a famous image of the Palestinian war of terrorism." This matched by the following deletion: "Because the soldiers were dressed in civilian clothes and one was reportedly wearing a Palestinian headdress, they were suspected of belonging to an undercover Israeli assassination squad." Before and after there are elements of apologism in the accounts of both sides, but the fundamental problem I sense is that these changes seem calculated to shift content from "he said, she said" to a condemnation of "Palestinian terrorism." Buffyg 11:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)