Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict

So this underscores how important it is for one to cite their sources, qualify them for what they are, and be cautiuous and very selective in ..., well, you know ... El_C 04:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this; it's good to know that this was just a badly phrased throwaway comment rather than something he seriously believes. Out-of-context quotes can be a terrible thing... But it seems kind of off-topic here; do you think it might be better to move this to Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict? - Mustafaa 10:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I wrote: Heh, I seem to have placed the link where the contents should be, and the contents where the link should. Bah. El_C 10:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) at Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict#Revisited ! What? El_C 11:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revisited

Please see my comment here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Sources.2C_sources.2C_sources:_Yehuda_Bauer_revisited). El_C 04:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you think the article needs to change as a result? Jayjg ^(talk) 08:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not acquainted enough with the article to tell, I'll leave that as an open question. I just wanted to correct those who, on the basis of that incomplete quote, go on to suggest that Yehuda Bauer subscribes to crank theories. *** Heh, I seem to have placed the link where the contents should be, and the contents where the link should. Bah. El_C 10:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still think it's a crackpot idea - but sure, calling it a "theory" was hyperbole. It's obviously just a throwaway line which he would no doubt have had the sense not to come up with in more planned circumstances. And yet someone thought it was worth citing... - Mustafaa 10:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A crackpot idea? How so? He's speaking about war and annihilation. El_C 11:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I mean the specific throwaway line that "Now, if you are against the existence of Malaysia, for instance, you are anti-Malay, if you are against the existence of Israel, you are anti-Jewish" , not the broader argument, which is certainly defensible, although it leans somewhat heavily on this very questionable equation of abolition with annihilation. - Mustafaa 11:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moving backwards from your comment: again, note what I said above about possible language discrapencies; that is, existence as physical existence. I'm still not following you with regards to the throw-away line. In this context, what are your specific objections to it? El_C 12:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If being "against the existence of" meant "being in favor of the annihilation of it and its citizens", then he'd be right; but it actually means "being in favor of the abolition of it", in which case he's wrong on both Malaysia and Israel. - Mustafaa 12:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. El_C 12:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is turning into an issue of "choosing the right euphemism." It may be worth asking what precisely rejectionist anti-Zionists are advocating when they want to put an end to the state of Israel. If actual governmental policy in Jordan; and proposed policy in the West Bank and Gaza are any guide, it means "expulsion by any means necessary of all but a small remnant of Jews from our area." --Leifern 15:25, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

We can pierce through euphemisms with the concrete. In this case, mass expulsion; very pertinent to physical existence of a peoples. El_C 07:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Related links / External links

so, does anyne want to organize this? headings like treaties, summits, etc.? gren 07:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV qualifiers

• It is not POV to write that Israelis "claim" such and such; and it does not make the article less POV to take out such qualifiers when it comes to the Arab POV.
• It would really take a sick mind to dispute that Jews in continental Europe between 1933 and 1945 desperately needed a safe haven from persecution. This does not need a qualifier.
• The only edit that might need further clarification has to do with the ability of the land to absorb more people. But from what I know, there are no or very few Israelis that doubt whether there is room for all the world's Jews and all the world's Palestinians - the reason they're resisting letting Palestinians move in, is because they have noted that a) that would lead to an Arab majority in the country; and b) Palestinians are demonstrably hostile toward the existence of a Jewish state. You may disagree with that as well, but let's be clear what the assertion is. --Leifern 13:04, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I have just introduced an edit to these contested phrases. NPOV does not mean placing "they claim" before Arab views and leaving Israeli claims as statements of facts. Please refrain from inflammatory rhetoric (like "sick mind"). The acute need for relief from persecution is not disputed. It is the some-time Arab view that they were being made to pay for European atrocities that is a valid POV to be listed in an encyclopedia. --AladdinSE 13:43, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is valid to state the contention; what I object to is questioning the need Jews had for protection against Nazi atrocities; so I think we're in agreement about that. I made on correction - "mainstream Zionists" (whatever that means these days) aren't - as I've pointed out - concerned about it being too crowded in the area; they fear than an influx of Arabs/Palestinians would cause an intolerable demographic situation. There are (solvable) issues related to fresh water supply. --Leifern 16:38, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Works for me. --AladdinSE 17:37, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about the fact that "the Zionist immigrants arriving in Palestine from the late 1800s on did so with the intention of taking it over and establishing a Jewish majority state, in some cases by force". That is the definition of Zionism: an effort to establish a Jewish national homeland. As Israelis (including Leifern's own edit) constantly remind us, this involves establishing and maintaining a Jewish majority state, and that was their stated intention. And indeed, the need for relief from persecution is not disputed - but the a Jewish state in Palestine would not have prevented the Holocaust any more than it prevented the persecution of Soviet Jews, and if someone claims it would have that needs to be labelled as a claim. - Mustafaa 10:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your own premise is counter-factual: would not have, that itself needs to be labled as a claim just the same as the opposite one which you cite. El_C 10:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it would, if I were attempting to insert it in the article - but I'm not. Making your claim meta-counterfactual... ;) - Mustafaa 10:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supra-counter-factualities aside, it's just a bad example. Sorry. :) We should probably avoid including historiography that speaks in these what if terms (unless it's especially notable, at least). El_C 10:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One sided caricatures

Why are there only anti-Israel caricatures? Where are the anti-Arab ones? --Ezra Wax 17:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's NPOV. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to find and add some. More importantly, the Nasser kicking the Jew into the sea caricature is extremely detrimental to the Arab position, and as such is used to great advantage. I cringe when I see it, because I worry that it perpetuates the myth that all Arabs literally want to drive the Jewish population in Israel, to physically drown in the sea. I have never thought of deleting it because it's a valid measure of what was in the 1960s an overwhelming pan-Arab desire to abolish the Jewish state. While there are mudereous factions on both sides of this conflict, implications of mass genocide is a myth used to demonize the Arabs. It's nothing to wink at. --AladdinSE 04:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand your emotions, but please don't be so self-centered. Nobody says "all Arabs", but it doesn't even matter. I am sure all Germans were not ready to murder Jews either. First, all are not required. Second, with leaders reckless enough, propangda loud enough, technology advanced enough and some economic incentives, it's possible. I am afraid finding a similar Israeli anti-Arab cartoon won't be so easy, because AFAIK the mainstream Israel's press (while brutal towards the Israeli govt) does not demonize/dehumanize/calls to genocide their neighbors. I have a 1949 picture of Arab women voting in Israel that can be considered. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was talking in the context of a myth, and moreover I explicitly stated "overwhelming pan-Arab desire" so surely I am not being self-centered. Also, again I stress that cartoons like that are not a call to genocide, although murderous factions do exists on both sides. Calls for the abolition of the Jewish state, using the metaphor of Jews being driven into the sea, is not the same as a genocidal call for the destruction of Israel and the massacre of her citizens. As for anti-Arab caricatures being hard to find, nothing easier. Women in Green [5] (http://www.womeningreen.org/olegindex.htm) have a bevy of both anti-Arab caricatures as well as plenty of snipes against any Israeli figure that advocates the least modicum of rights for Arabs. I think the one of Arafat passing the dynamite to Abbass is a good candidate for possible inclusion in the article. --AladdinSE 01:03, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yikes

This one is so touchy I feel I should explain even one word changes... (Settlement building in disputed areas) is roundly condemned by most of the world except Israel and usually the United States. I have added "usually" as the U.S. does occasionally criticize Israel over settlements.

A few other notes:

• The shark cartoon is on the mark in terms of relevance and I really see no merit in the above arguments for its removal.

• I think a separate section on the Israeli-Egyptian "cold" peace is warranted as it provides the template for future normalization(s). It's mentioned discontinuously at present. Marskell 09:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Vs POV

Just came across this on a random link... I see a lot of arguing about whether something is POV, which is understandable considering such a contentious issue. A couple of things that would, IMHO settle a few of them:

• Simple wording:

An example:

Israelis and supporters cite a source of the Arab-Israeli conflict as the traditional interpretations of...

If this were reworded to avoid an us-and-them sentiment then it would appear less POV. As in get rid of the Isaelis and supporters and change it perhaps by deleting it all and making it start "Traditional interpretations of...".

And another:

Some Israelis contend that one of the primary reasons for continued Muslim Arab hostility towards Israel is that sharia forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims.

Could be changed to

(Also) Sharia forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims - if this is not a fact then add Some interprettations at the start.

And the picture:

Caricature illustrating the US as biased towards Israel, a view predominant in (but not limited to) the Arab world.

Even I've seen this picture before and so:

A often cited example of a caricature illustrating the US as biased towards Israel.

Adding the "often cited" makes it clear the articles not trying to push a POV case. Taken out the Arab world because it is very disdainful, and kind of obvious. It would be great if it could be referenced and most importantly dated (I seem to remember it was the 60s/70s). I'd just like the say the other caricature's labeling is a good example.

In summary, talking about "Arabs/Israelis view this ...." sounds inherently POV (and adding "Generally", "Some" or "Predominantly" before doesn't help). It doesn't mean what it's trying to be asserted is POV. Use "Observers", or "Reasons for the conflict may include" rather than "Israelis" and "Arabs".

• More refereces:

Wikipedia aims at being an accademic resource so sorting as many statements as possible especially the contentious ones would be great. If possible every subsection within "Reasons for the conflict" should have something supporting that it is not an original idea.

• Length

The article is hideously long. Not related to POV, but would be nice if new articles were made out of it. I probably only managed to read a fifth of it before giving up.

It is a good article, and if you sit down and read it without the points above it is reasonably NPOV. Thoughts welcome. -- Tomhab 22:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom's edits of April 20

Tom, rather than deleting well cited information and POVing the rest, why don't you bring your suggested edits to Talk: and get consensus first on this controversial topic, as per the Wikipedia:Be bold policy? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The pieces I cleaned up contained whole paragrpahs taken from a book by a "Historian" who advocates Whole-scale Ethnic Cleansing. It's lop-sided and opinionated, which is ok (It's also largly Wrong, wheter by errors of Ommission, or simply factually dishonest), but it's unchallanged, so it should be removed.--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense; those are well-cited summaries of an eminent historian on the subject; if you want to bring the views of historians who differ, you are free to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the copyright issue (he's not been dead for 50/70 years, and its a book so probably not public domain), its a hefty summary. How about adding "Despite the pact, Morris (2001) documents persecutions continued to occur." onto the paragraph before. Listing every one of them over 900 years isn't necessary as none are of special interest and pads out the article unnecessarily.

Also on the commented out paragraph, I'd very much like to see a historical reference for the stone throwing and the quote seems out of context. -- Tomhab 14:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom's edits have no credibility and diminish the quality of the project. This article will probably always be a hotbed for edits and attendant debates/arguments, but I think we should all try to resist the temptation to edit it to conform with our worldview at the expense of other's. As for source criticism, even people you disagree with are capable of producing facts. Read about Ad hominem rhetorical fallacies. --Leifern 16:45, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I think we should all try to resist the temptation to edit it to conform with our worldview. Bare in mind that reverting IrishpunkTom's edits does just that. I think saying it has no credibility is harsh. Going through his edits paragraph by paragraph:

1. This paragraph he's labeled that sharia (Islamic law) which requires, among other things, that Muslim territory encompass all land that was ever under Muslim control. is contended. Unless this is a stated fact there is nothign wrong with that. Some of the wording would need taming though.

• I contend that That is simply not true. I'd like to know from what scholar said is was so, and from what maddhab that scholar was from, and the exact wording of any Fatwa that says such. Comparrisons here should also note other lands that were once Muslim but are no longer. Spain, India and Sicily being obvious examples. --Irishpunktom\^talk

1. Muslims->Others is one of the things I've suggested above so I quite like. As for the quote removal, may not be right - IMHO it should just be a [6] (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp490.htm) link as its saying exactly the same thing as the rest of the paragraph so redundant.
2. First sentence looks fine from whoever's view. Adding Jewish in front is also fine, although I would word it "Pro-Israeli" - it makes it clear his bias (unless you're going to tell me that Morris represents the vast majority of views). Removal of the tear-up sentence, I don't know enough about. Sounds an odd thing to do, since if they were that rash they could happily just ignore it and expel all jews anyway.

• I'd agree. The Bias of the author is obviously important in an article of this nature. --Irishpunktom\^talk

1. As said above, there is no need to go into each of the persecutions. This article isn't about documented persecutions, its about what caused the conflict so as above "Despite the pact, Morris (2001) documents persecutions continued to occur" is plenty.

• Link to another site containing this paragraph. There is no reason to keep it, as it contains a Lopsided POV. For example, it mentions an attrocity in Granada as an example of Muslim prejudices against Jews in Spain, yet at that time the Most Major Muslim City in Spain was Cordoba where Jewish Persecution was non-existant. I'm not trying to deny that Persecution existed at that time in Grenada, but the way it is presended is Lopsided and Pushes a POV in to the direction of Bias of the author. --Irishpunktom\^talk

1. If its contentious and doesn't have a reference, then you can't really use it. If its from one of the links below adding a note would be handy so readers can know whether its an accepted fact, old wives tale etc.

• Frankly, I would like a decent reference to most of this from a verifiably NPOV source. --Irishpunktom\^talk

I don't really see how you can just knock down all his edits as simply "no credibility and diminish the quality of the project". Most edits were reasonable, and a couple are contentious. -- Tomhab 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He deleted huge amounts of well-cited information (which, by the way, violate no copyrights), and inserted completely un-cited personal opinions, filled with spelling errors. It astonishes me that you would suggest that any of his edits were reasonable. As for the other specifics, I'm not sure which you're referring to, but I should point out that labelling Morris as "Jewish" and Kadourie as "Iraqi Jewish" is poisoning the well, and it rather surprises me that you accept his labelling Morris and Kadourie this way, but prefer "Others" to "Muslims"; I haven't seen anyone but Muslims defend Sharia. As well, he removes information asking for sources, when Morris is clearly listed as the source. He moves the "repressive regimes that lasted a short time" disclaimer from the distinctive clothing dhimmi regulation to cover all dhimmi regulations without any sort of justification, etc. There's not an edit I can see that isn't either censorship, POV, uncited, or simply wrong. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Jay, Firstly, as you yourself have argued previously, not every israeli agrees on any one subject. So me inserting "Certain" in front of Israelis, i thought, would have met with your approval. Secondly, what these People, apparently, believe is the shariat seems to be woefully far from reality. I Cannot accept that that remains without the Caveat that it is a non-muslims belief of what the shariat entails. I am not defending the Shairiat, I am simply not believing this non-Muslim interpretation. I am non-Muslim. As I've stated previously, Morris is a Historian who crticisizes previous israeli Governments for not doing enough Ethnic Cleansing of the Arabs of Israel, and is a proponent of mass expulsion of Arabs from israel and the Occupied Territories, he is far far far far from having a NPOV on this matter.--Irishpunktom\

There's no point in inserting "certain" here; otherwise you'd have to put it before every single argument listed, since no single argument here is advanced by every single person in every single group on each side of the debate. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't beleive that that view is he;d by the majority of Israelis, nor have I heard it expressed by any representative of the Israeli State. Correct me if I'm wrong. Israelis are a wide and Varied group, but assigning a minority opinion to blanketly to them all should not be tolerated.. Do you understand?--Irishpunktom\^talk

Everybody is a wide and varied group; the arguments are clearly not held by every single Israeli, or every single anti-Israeli. Inserting "certain" or "some" or various other modifiers is silly. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Apologies, my Computer was slowly crashing last night so i decided to save what I had written and come back to it. I'll continue. I'm making this statement comparring my Edits to the reverts of Jayjg. 'Israel', in its present form was under Muslim hands since the time of the second caliph, save for the brief periods when it was under Crusader control. It was more that just the Ottomans is what i'm trying to say here, it's a connection that dates back to when islam was in it's infancy. Now, regarding that "Times of London" piece. The link is clearly not the Times of London, and if the Times of London ever Published it it seems apparent that it was posted as an opinion piece. Can you supply evidence that (1. The Times of London Published it, and (2. That is was not an Opion/Commentary piece? Irishpunktom

The British got it from the Ottomans, but that wasn't the critical issue; rather, your "NPOVing" inserted statements like "these Israeli's and their supporters promote their belieif", when the argument that this is Muslim land is clearly advanced by many Muslims, it's not just something "Israelis and their supporters" made up. As for the link, it was referenced properly, and it is purely your opinion that it was an opinion piece. In any event, I've cleared up the link issues. If you doubt source is reporting properly, go look up the Times article yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Considering you are referring to "Muslims" earlier, and Not the Ottomans, I think the origin of the Muslim link to the land should be stated here. Anyway, So, I went looking through the times Website (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/) and couldn't find the piece. Not saying it doesn't exist, but all I can find are references to that same sentence. I did a search on Google and found nothing but Mirrors and defunct Forum Pieces reposting it. Furthermore it's statement that only 2% of people living in the occupied Territories are Christian is factually incorrect, stands to be challenaged, and should be challanged or removed. Likewise, the only reason cited for the obvious decline in Christian Numbers is Hostility with their Muslim neighbours, surely even you can agree that they are other factors at work here? --Irishpunktom\^talk

My opinions don't matter; the properly cited source listed that as a reason. What percentage of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip do you believe to be Christian? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Also, Christians and jews *were* considered ahl al Kitâb, for more information ytou can look up People of the Book. The were given Dhimmi Status, which made them a protected people. Surely not even you would dispute this?

It's not particularly relevant to their dhimmi status; in any event, if you keep mixing in a tiny number of less controversial edits combined with a huge number of POV edits, they're all going to end up being removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It should still be added because it highlights a particularly relevent article. --Irishpunktom\^talk

Relevant in what sense? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• As I've said previously, the Bias' of Benny Morris should be stated before posted anything on the sublect to which he has a clear bias. I agree with Tomhab's suggestion of putting Zionist, or Pro-Zionist instead of 'Jew', but leaving it settle as though he is some sort of neutral observer is incorrect. Irishpunktom

No-one is completely neutral, but your emendation was an obvious attempt at poisoning the well. His name is linked, anyone can click on the link to find out more about him. It is merely your assumption is that he is "biased", and that this bias would lead him to falsify the historical record. In fact, he is generally considered to be a "post-Zionist" or "anti-Zionist" historian, and has been harshly criticized as such. Would you like to call him "anti-Zionist historian Benny Morris"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Obviously no one person can ever be completely neutral, and I would have no problem with Morris' paragraph being added if it were highlighted that this was merely the conclusions of man who advocates Ethnic Cleansing of Arabs, and should not be treated as fact. --Irishpunktom\^talk

Attempts to discredit a well-respected historian are poisoining the well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• though a later insertion to the pact allowed Muslim rulers to tear up the agreement at will and expel the protected communities - Eh? I mean this seems to state that all ahl al Kitâb living under Muslim rule where all ruled by one leader and one set of laws. Thats simply not true. There were mixed and varying Muslim rulers. Compare the Chinese Muslims with those in India, and again with those in Spain. Differenet Rulers, Different set of laws for different groups of Non-Muslims. Irishpunktom

I don't understand your point here; it is a statement of fact, not the implication you believe it to be. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• no, it simply is not. Cite the source that says such. Again, Compare the rules for Governing in the Chinese Muslim Areas with that in India. There you will see significantly different laws, and not some unifrom set of Muslim Laws as you suppose. --Irishpunktom\^talk

Explain what you are talking about, please. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• And I've removed Morris' lengthy quote because it stands as a Statement of Fact when it clearly is not. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:14, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? How do you know it is not a "Statement of Fact"? In any event, it is properly attributed to Morris, as the WP:NPOV policy demands. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Because it is not a fact. --Irishpunktom\^talk

Simply repeating yourself is not helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Benny Morris quote, it was inserted because an editor (possibly more than one, I don't recall) insisted on having a full quote and would not accept a summary or paraphrase. If we do summarize or paraphrase it, all that will happen is that another editor will come along and delete it for not being properly referenced. As for Morris being Jewish, he's a respected academic historian with a doctorate from Cambridge University writing about his area of academic expertise; is the implication here that, because he's a Jew, he would make these things up or in some way deliberately obfuscate evidence to the contrary? Furthermore, politically, Morris has often been held to be pro-Palestinian, though his views have changed somewhat in recent years. As for the copyright claim, there is no copyright issue here. It's not that long a quote and we attribute it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

And, of course, Irishpunktom knows this well, since he was involved in editing the page on the very day the discussion regarding the quote happened and the quote was added. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benny Morris' article shows a quote "Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history." He admits that Israel committed War Crimes, making him a member of the New Historians regarding the foundation of the state of Israel, however, he supports Mass expulsion and Ethnic Cleansing and as such cannot be used a Neutral source. His Statements are charged with his own Bias and should be countered fully, in detail, point by point, or removed. His Bias should also be stated. --Irishpunktom\^talk

What on earth are you talking about? The items listed here by Morris are uncontested by historians; if you think they are, then find some who contested. You can't remove quotations from well respected historians simply because you disagree with them politically. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• There are plenty of historians with Differing Views. Indeed David Irving can be considered a good historian, but is a Racist, a Nazi Sympathiser and a Holocoust Denier. As such, I would simply not use any of David Irving's work in article concerning the Second World War, or the Holocoust, etc. Morris supports the Ethnic Cleansing of Arab Palestinan Muslims. That you can not see this as a Bias is a Clear reflection of your own. --Irishpunktom\^talk

No, David Irving was found by a judge in a court of law to be a bad historian; in particular, he falsified information, made tendentious use of sources, etc. Your constant repetitions that Morris is biased are simply not adding anything to the discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The claim that David Irving is a good historian, the quality of whose work can be compared to Benny Morris, is absurd and can't be allowed to stand. Irving is an unqualified, self-taught writer, who has been shown in a court of law to be a fraud and whose work no one will publish anymore. Morris has a PhD in history from Cambridge University, holds an academic post at a respectable university, and is writing about his area of expertise. This isn't Noam Chomsky, a linguist, waxing lyrical about Iraq. This is an academic historian doing history, and that makes Morris a reputable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If you find opposing academic views regarding the issue we quoted him on, by all means add them with a citation, but Morris's views do not have to be qualified by referring to your perception of his bias. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that labeling Moris as Jewish is that he is a person. Talking about Muslims as whole is different - it implies that they have a collective viewpoint which many consider offensive and thus the POV allegations. If you note that in the section above I prefer the term others whenever it talks about what Muslims think AND Israeli's think. As said I prefer pro-israeli as it is more open (ie leaving the opportunity Jews may be pro arab and non-israelis may be pro israeli which obviously are around).

Anyway that is a very small point. My problem is that strawman arguments are being built against him and his whole collection of edits are gone.

I still so no relevancy to quoting the entire paragraph though - we don't need a list of attrocities here - this article is about the reasons for the conflict. It doesn't matter where, when and how the attrocities happened. A small note to say that despite the pact, persecutions did occur is sufficient. They belong in an article Pre-1948 persecutions of Jews by Muslims. The only reason I can see for the details being stretched out is to demonize Muslims.

As ever this is just an opinion, and I'm fine with changing it if there is good reason. -- Tomhab 19:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Morris, he is known as a historian; actually, the most famous of the New Historians, not as a "Jewish historian". As for the quote, as SlimVirgin pointed out above, the whole reason that quote was included was because some Muslim editors insisted that these things never happened, so they removed any reference to them, and refused to accept paraphrases, thus necessitating the use of exact quotes. Now that the quotes are here, people who were involved in the page at the time have suddenly decided they don't like to see them, and are trying to delete them. Next will come the denial that these kinds of things happened at all, followed by another round of inserting references, which will be rejected as biased paraphrases, followed by exact quotes. I prefer to break the cycle here, where the exact information is included, and properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that the Morris book the quote comes from is about the Arab-Israeli/Arab-Zionist conflict, so in using this quote, we're not simply lifting information about the persecution of Jews that no one has argued is connected to the conflict, and using that information to build a case. The inclusion of the information in Morris's book is part of his thesis that these issues are connected: that the current conflict is connected to previous conflicts. No demonization of any group is intended; rather, an historical context is being provided, with reference to a scholarly work, which is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I never said no mention was needed. My reasons for asking for a reduced mention of the quote is that he was writing a whole book whereas we have one article which is supposed to be kept well within the 32kbyte limit (suggested value of around 20kbyte and we're up to 56kbyte). Only guidelines but still.

I'm not questioning Morris's fame. He is certainly a contraversial character. Anyway. I better understand your thought processes (and dispite believing it should be drastically shortened) respect the view that it should stay. -- Tomhab 21:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About adding Jewish in front of Morris is poisoning the well, does anyone agree that Muslim scholar Muhammad Hamidullah writes in... is in a similar situation? -- Tomhab 23:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We've been through that one before. He is widely reknowned as a Muslim scholar; that is, in fact, how he is most widely described. He is not a historian, but a Muslim scholar. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems more like another example of your Bias Jay. Maybe you honestly do not see it, but time and time again I've seen it from you. No Disrespect, as you have said yourself nobody can be completely Bias free, however, it has become apparent a number of times. you also seem to have developed a paranoia regarding me. Rest assured, I am not stalking you. --Irishpunktom\^talk

Actually, you have demonstrably stalked me on a any number of occasions, sometimes with rather amusing results. But in any event, that's off-topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This seems like an aggressive attempt to turn this article into a soapbox for Irishpunk's political views. Disregarding all the rules and coming in here with guns blazing is not going to earn your edits any respect here. So tone it down.

Guy Montag 05:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Thats Not very fair, nor true. There are some statments here that are written as though they are fact when in fact they are opinion. What some people believe of the Shariat is written as thought it was in fact the Shariat, when clearly it is not. I don't mind if it is said that "some people believe that the Muslim Sharia says...X,Y and Z", but to state that the Shariat Bluntly says something that it simply does not should be cleaned up or removed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's completely fair; you keep making claims about fact without any sources to back them up, then claiming that other well-sourced information from respected historians needs to be removed because it is also not "fact" (again, with no evidence). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What unsourced claim have I made Jayjg? That Morris is jewish? He is. That he supports Ethnic Cleansing? he does What Specific unsourced claim have I made? Please tell me and I will source it for you. --Irishpunktom\^talk

That the persecutions that Morris describes never happened. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Also, Guy Montag, Judging from your statement "I am primarily here to represent the nationalist right wing in Israel", is it possible that your own Bias could be tainting your view here?

--Irishpunktom\^talk

Other than the fact that you are using a logical fallacy (poisoning the well) to lead this conversation in another direction, I have nothing to say on the issue. I have stated my position clearly on my page. Yet, I do not burst into threads and do some unileteral redecorating without cooperating with other posters on the issue. I know there is a tendency for new users to come in and do something controversial to get their name out, but it is not acceptable in wikipedia. If you disagree with something, take it to talk. If you have a wider disagreement with the take on Sharia, take it to the Sharia article and work to change it from there. Like I said, I have my position, and there are times when I find something I do not agree with, but I work within the system to change it through agreement, and if that is not possible, I leave it alone until I find something to support my position or someone more knowledgable does. And if not, I just leave it alone.

I have no vested interest in your edits. I never liked Benny Morris, like I never like any New Historian, and after he changed his conclusion, my views of him slightly improved. Even I grudingly accept his historical nerrative. In the end, you erased supported historical information from a controversial historian, and that doesnt fly here.

Guy Montag 17:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

tom, you're an Irish convert to Islam; is it possible that your own bias could be tainting your view here? Everyone has their own biases, and from what I've seen, you more than most. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Which part of "I am a Non-Muslim" do you not understand? I will not be your Straw-Man Jay. --Irishpunktom\^talk

LOL! Tom, you're a convert to Islam; or don't you recall saying this last February? "Salaam, of all the hadiths, this is My favourite (is it right to have a favourite?). Whenever people misquote Islam, or ask why I converted I can qupte it back to them. It's.. perfect As salaam alaikum" [7] (http://p092.ezboard.com/flearningislamtogetherfrm8.showMessage?index=1&topicID=10.topic) If you were more honest here you wouldn't have so much trouble editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg , with the exception of Tomhab and myself, everyone who has posted here has done so at your Request. Is there any reason why you chose these users, including a user who states on his userpage "I am primarily here to represent the nationalist right wing in Israel", in particular? Can you really say that they are a neutral third party? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:21, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

From what I've seen they range from vastly more neutral than you, to (in the case of Guy) somewhat more neutral than you. In any event, they're people who have an interest in the issue; most people won't touch Arab-Israeli articles with a ten-foot pole. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• An interest in the issue from a Biased source is not really that good for maintaining a NPOV, don't you think? --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:05, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, but you persist in editing anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh they have a point. By the way if you do a search on the Time's archive page (http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/pages/free.asp) you can find an abstract from the article (but nothing more without paying (UK£10):

"Alleged intimidation by Muslims has made many Christians reluctant to celebrate the birth of Jesus in public, writes Christopher Walker in Bethlehem. LIFE in Bethlehem has become insufferable for many members of the dwindling Christian minority..."

Getting an exact quote doesn't mean that much to me however -- Tomhab 15:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Areas of dispute

This is all getting very confusing and bordering on personal. I suggest we start subsections regarding EACH of the edits discussing their relevance rather than whitewashing Irishpunktom edits as no credibility and diminish the quality of the project and He deleted huge amounts of well-cited information (which, by the way, violate no copyrights), and inserted completely un-cited personal opinions, filled with spelling errors. It astonishes me that you would suggest that any of his edits were reasonable. Both are unfair comments attempted to squash all of his edits rather than considering each of them in turn. Granted, many may be without merit, but he deserves to have his say without being flamed.

The same can be said about the converse - Mass expulsion and Ethnic Cleansing and as such cannot be used a Neutral source doesn't mean he's wrong and bringing up other irrelevant historians who are Nazi Sympathiser and a Holocoust Denier is a blatent atempt to get a rise out of the Jewish quarter on this talk page. Also labeling biases are irrelevant. They may still (and often do) have valid points.

Splitting up this section:

Sharia law

Irishpunktom labels different interpretations of sharia law mean that not all might agree:

Certain Israelis and their supporters cite a source of the Arab-Israeli conflict as what they view as the traditional interpretations of sharia (Islamic law) which they believe requires, among other things, that Muslim territory encompass all land that was ever under Muslim control.

I guess it depends on whether there are different opinions of sharia law or not... I have no clue :) -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is controversial that some Muslim groups insist that Israel (and Spain etc.) are Muslim land, is it? Al-Qaeda has made the claim often enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of when Muslims controlled the area

From:

Since the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine once was part of the Ottoman caliphate, some Islamic clerics believe that it is unlawful and unacceptable for any portion of it to be usurped by non-Muslims.

to

Since the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine was ubder Muslim rule from the time of the second Caliph, these Israeli's and their supporters promote their belieif that some Islamic clerics believe that it is unlawful and unacceptable for any portion of it to be usurped by non-Muslims.

Not sure I see any problem (other than the spelling) or unless wrong. The line these Israeli's and their supporters promote their belieif seems out of place however and IMHO should go. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change it you take out the POV "these Israelis" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Propose:

Since the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine was under Muslim rule from the time of the second Caliph, some believe that Sharia law dictates it to be unacceptable for any portion of it to be usurped by non-Muslims.

Hopefully we can at least get this one done. I know this may seem like a petty change but its these kind of consessions which revolve conflicts. -- Tomhab 22:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You left out "Islamic clerics"; it's not Jews or Christians who claim this. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Muslims -> Others

Changing the wording from Muslims to Others.

As said above I feel this is very relevant. Its not only Muslims who might say this. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which others defend sharia, or say that it does not say that? Muslims comment on Sharia, not non-Muslims. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the wording at present implies that only Muslims could possibly comment on sharia nicely (which irishpunktom has shown is he's not a muslim). It just sounds very POV and relatively offensive and thats why you'll get people agreeing with the {{disputed}} or {{totallydisputed}} tags. I think its a very small concession for making the article sound less judgemental. -- Tomhab 22:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, if non-Muslims have defended sharia in this way, I'd like an example. Second of all, Irishpunktom has not shown that he is not a Muslim, but rather that he has been deliberately misleading in his comments. In fact, he admits converting to Islam, as his "Whenever people misquote Islam, or ask why I converted I can qupte it back to them." here (http://p092.ezboard.com/flearningislamtogetherfrm8.showMessage?index=1&topicID=10.topic) shows. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that the Wikipedian is the same person as the poster who chose that username on ezboard - which has not been proven. - Mustafaa 23:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right, there must be dozens of Irishpunktoms roaming around, all incredibly bad spellers who like to capitalize random words, and who are obsessed with Islam and bashing Israel. Well, aside from those no-doubt coincidences, there are a number of other pieces of information which I will not reveal publicly in order to protect Irishpunktom's identity, but which are easily available to anyone who cares to spend 5 minutes investigating this, and which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed the same person. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

K no need to go ape over this. -- Tomhab 00:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom has been fundamentally dishonest about any number of things, including this, his stalking, his reverts out of pique, etc. from the very start. He has reverted pages time and time again without even looking at the content, often complaining about text that wasn't even in articles, or alternatively claiming sources weren't there simply because he failed to read them. He has inserted POV that is rarely, if ever, supported by sources, and in general completely ignored Wikipedia policy. His every edit is for the purpose of propaganda, yet has the nerve to accuse others here of "bias". I think there is a reason to go a bit "ape" over this. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh well - can't comment on his religion, but the point remains that its just an interprettation. Unless you're implying the only reason why they defend it is because they're Muslim, I still don't see your point. If you are saying the only reason why they defend it is because they're Muslims then it sounds very judgemental, thus making it POV. -- Tomhab 23:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Christian problems within the PA ruled area

In December 1997 The Times of London noted: "Life in (PA ruled) Bethlehem has become insufferable for many members of the dwindling Christian minorities." (Source: The Beleaguered Christians of the Palestinian-Controlled Areas (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp490.htm))

Personally, I think this quote should be changed for a short summary such as

"In recent years tensions between the Muslim majority and Christian minorities have occures[8] (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp490.htm)."

Thats a personal preference as I never like quoting direct for copyright reasons and they often may be POV (as this one can be seen as). Definitely think it deserves a mention. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I prefer quotes, especially when I don't think the paraphrase captures the essence of the quote, as in this case. And quoting like this is specifically allowed under copyright law, there is nothing whatsoever controversial about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its just a preference which I'd like others to consider (but not necessarily support). I believe my point is made. -- Tomhab 22:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dhimmi clarrification

dhimmi, or protected people

to

ahl al Kitâb, or People of the Book, and given Dhimmi, or protected, staus

A very relevant change for a uninformed reader. Nothing even contentious about it -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possible poisoning the well

Adding

Jewish

to describe Benny Morris.

Looking at what was written and the fact that he has a wiki link I personally don't think its entirely needed as all he does is summaries without any POV language (unless he is refuted - which he isn't at present within the article). Don't think its necessary. (I realise this goes against what I said above but what can we do) -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "right to tear-up"

Removal of

though a later insertion to the pact allowed Muslim rulers to tear up the agreement at will and expel the protected communities

I can see why this might be contentious but does sound odd and only semi-relevant IMHO. If a Muslim ruler were ever want to expel the protected communities they would. Certainly would stop and go "oh no - theres this pact so we can't do it". Fair comment? Anyway, I can see why others might disagree. Tear-up is emotive and should be changed to terminate. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terminate is fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moving of line

Moving the line

and under particularly repressive regimes that lasted a short time

implying that the statement also covered

were allowed to ride asses only, not horses or camels, and then only sidesaddle; were not allowed to build new houses of worship or repair old ones;

This depends on if it is correct. Was a Jew or Christian never allowed to ride a horse or camel normally, or build a house of worship during the period of the dhimmi? I don't know enough about it. Perhaps a reword may be relevant. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possible poisoning the well

Adding

Iraqi Jewish

to describe Elie Kedourie.

I take it this is correct? I notice that Muhammad Hamidullah is described as a Muslim. Although I felt Morris didn't require labeling Jewish, this quote is quite emotive and his bias needs labeling. I personally feel that both should stay (although pro-israeli rather than iraqi jewish). -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Morris quote

Removal of Morris quote documenting persecutions by Muslims over the previous 900 or so years.

As above I'd much prefer a summary - no direct quotes as the wording is not important. I don't feel it requires deleting however. -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Direct quotes is the only way to go to ensure accuracy; and, again, there are absolutely no copyright issues with this. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but generally, quotes are not needed unless the exact wording is what you're after (which its not). There is no need for it to be so long. Anyway small point which I think I'm heading towards conceeding -- Tomhab 22:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commenting out last paragraph

The status of the dhimmi improved marginally with the rise of the Ottoman empire, when the Sublime Porte declared in 1856 that all Ottoman subjects were equal, but it worsened again when the empire collapsed. Morris gives as an example of the treatment of the dhimmi, the phenomenon of stone-throwing at Jews by Muslim children, which, he says, amounted to a local custom in Yemen and Morocco. The Jewish dhimmi were forbidden, under pain of death, to defend themselves by striking the children. The Syrian delegate to the United Nations, Faris el-Khouri, told the U.N. in 1947 that: "Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world, (New York Times, February 19, 1947).

I am very cautious about the bit about stone-throwing. I threw stones when I was a kid. Without a decent reference that can be fairly disputed I'm not too sure. The Syrian quote needs better context. I think it could be relevant but in a different paragraph. Sounds more like a warning perhaps? -- Tomhab 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this work, Tom. It's very helpful. A point about the stone-throwing. (Did you really throw stones at adults as a kid?) It wasn't only that children threw stones at Jews, but that: "The Jewish dhimmi were forbidden, under pain of death, to defend themselves by striking the children." You may have thrown stones as a boy, but if any adult had taken you to task for it, they would not have been killed. Additionally, we have a decent reference, and we've attributed the information to him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:11, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oh errrm sorry - completely missed the bit about Morris and I've read it several times :). Without a reference challenging it I don't see much wrong. Would be very nice if we could get a timeline or do we just assume its between the young turk revolution and 1947? -- Tomhab 19:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great "example" - Morocco and most of Yemen were never under Ottoman rule. - Mustafaa 20:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point.... Doesn't mean the quote is useless though. It's still about Arab Muslim treatment of Jews. -- Tomhab 20:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tomhab

Tomhab, even nothing ends up changing, thanks and well done for your Mediation. --Irishpunktom\^talk

Heh well I'd helped start the mess. Lets just see how people respond. It is important to remember that the changes are important, not who and why it was done. -- Tomhab 21:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there's a talk page?

Am I invited? Why not? Erm, I mean [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-Israeli_conflict&diff=12649214&oldid=12649199). Incidentally, this section often read like an overdarwn polemic (at times, sophomorically so) rather than an encyclopedia article, and unfortunately, these issues have yet to be fundamentally remedied. Unincidentally, I have yet to read the article in full, only that section in isolation, so why am I editing it? Someone revert me, STAT! El_C 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

El C, would you mind if I put back the quote from Benny Morris about the massacres? The reason it's there is that a number of editors put us, as I recall, through hell. I remember paraphrasing it in various ways they weren't satisfied with until they demanded a quote, which is why it's there. One of those editors now want to get rid of it; in a few weeks, they'll be back trying to delete the section because there's no quote. As Jayjg said above, we should break the cycle now, and leave the quote where it is, and I agree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't participated in —nor read— the discussion (by which I mean: who? why? and to what end?), but I fail to see why Morris needs to be cited at such lengths, listing these massacres individually. It seems an off-topic issue to the Arab-Israeli conflict. What am I missing? El_C 06:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, the whole reason that quote was included was because some Muslim editors insisted that these things never happened, so they removed any reference to them, and refused to accept paraphrases, thus necessitating the use of exact quotes. Now that the quotes are here, people who were involved in the page at the time have suddenly decided they don't like to see them, and are trying to delete them. Next will come the denial that these kinds of things happened at all, followed by another round of inserting references, which will be rejected as biased paraphrases, followed by exact quotes. I prefer to break the cycle here, where the exact information is included, and properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not read the above, so I have no rights here! You two have chosen to speak to me rather than revert me (and for that you have my sympathies). Anyway, why not embed it with the arrow and dash thingy, whatever you call it (and what do you call it?), do you not find it to imbalance and hinder the flow of that section? At any rate, hypothetically, someone on the other side may ask for the Hamidullah passage to be expanded for this or that reason. I only wish to avoid overquotationing. You can't please everyone, and it seems to me that verifiability for the passage has been established. I hold no strong opinion on this aside from form and format. El_C 06:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At least if it remains the stated opinion of Benny Morris, the reader is not led to believe that it is taken for fact. The "Muslim editors" (who a quick check of the archive reveals were not all identifiably Muslim) can always add in contrary opinions from other sources. That has to be a better way to go than endlessly inserting our POVs and reverting anything we don't agree with.Grace Note 06:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is taken for fact; no-one disputes these specific matters (or at least no-one knowledgeable on the subject disputes them). Jayjg ^(talk) 06:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is? The (raw) account itself seems historically sound, I believe the contention has more to do with his interpertation. At the event, it remains the stated opinion of Benny Morris with my changes, just not at such length and in such detail. El_C 06:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any way to discuss that with you, Jay. You have basically poisoned the well by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the factualness of Morris's opinions is not "knowledgeable" on the subject. That rather closes the discussion, which, in any case, I do not wish to have.Grace Note 07:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see a way to discuss this with you, Jay. :) El_C 07:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hamidullah does not dispute the factualness of the various massacres, just the overall tenor of the relationship. You're right about Zen though, not Muslim. Sorry about the well poisoning. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's how. Yes, let's avoid inter-editorial ethnic/ religious/ political/ etc. (Jewish, Muslim, Zionist, Arab, Palestinian, Israeli, etc. editor) identification, and address the issues, with calculated detachment (can I get any more pompous and pretencious? Yes, I can. And I will! For a little while). El_C 08:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I enjoy a nice bit of pompousness (pomposity?) myself, so long as it's not coming from me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Just point and laugh. My work is done/has just began here! El_C 09:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

El C, the discussion on the dhimmi passage is in archive number 3. It seems that Dr Zen (a peculiar name for a Muslim) suggested that Morris had not said that Muslims "rose up" against Jews in the incidents mentioned. It all seems rather flimsy justification for quoting so much of one person, but that's a matter of judgement for the interested editors. Since one is SlimVirgin, whose judgement I generally trust, I wouldn't demur. Dr Zen also gave a reference to Hamidullah's article. I believe Hamidullah's works are widely available. He's quite well known and respected on this and other subjects, although apparently not "knowledgeable". Grace Note 07:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I remember Dr. Zen. Okay, well if he objects, send him my way. My circular ramblings should do the trick, trust me (though you have no reason to). El_C 07:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, does Hamidullah suggest that these particular massacres never happened? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No but I think the point is rather that he suggests that the overall relationship was favourable to dhimmi. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either view, Jay, simply suggesting that that is what the views in question are. The massacres are not necessarily indicative of a broader bad relationship nor does what happened in 900 necessarily reflect what happened in, say, 1800. Times and people change. For instance, the Protestants were severely persecuted in France, often by their neighbours, in the most savage way, but that doesn't mean that a Protestant would today encounter problems in Paris, or that recent French history, for example, has been characterised by anti-Protestantism, or that the same thing necessarily happened in other Catholic countries. It doesn't even suggest that the anti-Protestant feeling was particularly widespread (although other things do confirm that). That's not to say, either, that Jews might not have the feeling that previous discrimination is indicative, only that we ought not to be too quick to endorse the inference from one to another, or to draw too broad a conclusion about how widespread it was from one incident or another.Grace Note 00:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, the section is already personified with the two of them (at least, that's the logical conclusion I've drawn to make the whole thing coherent) — perhaps this in itself needs to be rethought. More specifically, Morris depicts his point poorly for us. Maybe he just didn't think this through (I don't know, I never heard of him), considering his rather propagandist line (unless, again, he elaborates, clarifies and qualifies elsewhere), the only concrete casualty figures he gives us amount to less than ten thousand. This paints a glowingly favourable picture of Islam's treatment of Jews in past Centuries — at a minimum, one tenth of of the Chmielnicki massacare. The rest is uninformative for the purposes of such a (pivotal) comparison: casualty-less massacres, a district almost being destroyed (which tells very little in and of itself), and a few dozens murdered by Nazi mobs. As for such an underlying attitude by Muslims (just) towards Jews (?), I mean, 'infidelism' is a property of every religion that I know of, without exception, whatsoever. It's all about degrees, which we measure foremost with human lives. El_C 08:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yikes, I leave wikipedia over night and I come back and this is all done. The sections certainly has a less repressive feel to it (dispite, not removing any facts). By the way, I feel that a massacre is largely irrelevant to the amount. In my books it refers to the attitude of the murderers (ie indiscriminant, largely without reason). -- Tomhab 12:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's called yikes (which aptly sums up my reaction to reading that section) copyediting. I am afraid that your own (in my view, peculiar) opinion as to the predominance of intent versus consequence in massacres is largely not in par with the standards of a general, social-scientific historical account; one which, again, concerns itself foremost with the broadest demographic strokes. El_C 13:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just getting a web definition "the act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly." My point that its the latter part which is the difference between a lot of deaths and a massacre (take for example the siege at Stalingrad - around a million soviet troops died but its not a massacre). I do get your point actually come to think of it. Comparing a few dozen with other wholesale murders may be a little overly emotive. -- Tomhab 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you get my point. I don't wish to get too deeply into the semantics of it at this point in time (as it goes beyond the scope of my comment), only to note it as a key indicator for our immediate purposes here. El_C 02:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never disagreed. Just pointed out that massacre may refer to a "blood bath" which does not depend on size. However after thinking on it, I couldn't see them being the same in a NPOV way. -- Tomhab 03:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. El_C 03:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you ought to get deeply into the semantics of it, El C. Let's see what you're made of. ;-p SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

No need, I can tell you what I'm made of. I'm made out of People's! Sorry, I'm a bit distraught right now, trying to protect the sceintific credentials of my cat. So tragic. :( El_C 03:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== watch that neutral point of view ==

I just want to let everyone know that this article is very biased. Just a little inside note, be careful about any sources that date prior to the 1980's. This is when the Israeli government opened government vaults for selected access. Much has been discovered about the war since then, which is why websites are untrustworthy.

How very pedgogically magnanimous of you, anonymous editor. ;) But that link is, at present, inaccessible. El_C 04:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

And so it is.

Heh, yes, well, you could always choose to actually share your thoughts with the other editors about any specific items you would highlight as most in need of npoving. A daring thought! El_C 15:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Arguments section creates a misleading impression

The arguments about sharia law are interesting, but if you ask 100 Israelis what the reasons for the war are, I doubt even one would say this.

If the Israeli arguments section is supposed to explain what the arguments are that Israelis make, then it is at best extremelly misleading.

This section should leave the reader with an understanding of what Israelis would claim are the reasons for the conflict. It should be an NPOV description of the pro-Israeli POV.

The most common pro-Israeli explanation of the conflict is that they believe the Arabs want to eliminate Israel. I've started a section summarizing the most frequently encountered version of this. I will try to add to this in the future.

Somebody else should explain the argument (made by some Israelis) that god promised them the land. I am not qualified to elucidate this argument. ~~~~ Jsolinsky 22:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

So you've met or know a lot of Israelis? Also, please sign your comments with four tilde signs, like this: ~~~~ Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've conducted my own (badly biased as is the nature of personal experience) version of the 100 pro-Israeli argument survey. I don't think I can claim that the Israelis I have met and interacted with are a representative sample (for one thing, I'm much less likely to have this discussion with somebody who doesn't have strong views) but it is a large enough sample that when I hear arguments I hadn't heard previously, I want to figure out why. It could be a random bias in my sample. It could be an interesting bias in my sample. Or it could be that the argument is very rarely made. Whatever the explanation is, I am certain that this argument does not belong at the begining of the list. ~~~~ Jsolinsky 05:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Added Jsolinsky's signature for simplicity's sake. Although I understand his point, I don't think that it should ignore reasons that some (even a minority) may feel. It might be prudent to be explicit that this is a less commonly cited reason though. I don't really know about Israelis' views on sharia to be honest so note my generic wording. Jayjg, it would be useful if you commented that you actually disagreed rather than replying with a quick retort. Do Israelis commonly cite sharia as a reason for the conflict? -- Tomhab 00:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't deleted the sharia section. If somebody actually makes this argument, I don't think it needs to be removed. But it strikes me as being very far out of the mainstream. In the section I added, I have cited examples of pro-Israeli sites using the arguments I mentioned. I would be interested to know if there is any pro-Israeli literature that cites sharia law as the main or even a primary reason for the conflict. Even religious Israelis who claim that god has promised Israel to the Jews (again an argument that I am not qualified to elucidate) focus their arguments on the Jewish bible and Jewish law, ignoring Islam.

This section strikes me as an argument that would be advanced by a religious Israeli who has figured out that the people he is arguing with have a very negative opinion of the "god promised the land to the jews" argument. In this way they are saying "oh yeah, well Islam also claims the land on a religious basis, so you can't blame Israel".

Reguardless, I am arguing for its demotion in the list of Israeli arguments not because it is flawed or ineffective, but because I believe that it is difficult (if not impossible) to find Israelis that consider this a primary explanation for the Israeli Arab conflict. If there are lots of people who make this argument, I would have been interested in a reference, so I could learn more about their views. ~~~~ Jsolinsky 05:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the Sharia issue is connected with Islamic fundamentalism that claims all of the Middle East for an Islamic state. Islamic terrorist groups such as Al Quada and Hamas consistently use their interpertation of Islamic law to legitimize terror against Jews. It is also connected with the idea that having an "infidel state" in the Holy Land would be blasphamous as it is their belief that Islam must rule the world.

Guy Montag 04:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

About the whole sharia thing... If someone asked me (not involved in this conflict at all, but find it interesting) why arabs might be less than amicable towards israelis I'd say it was to do with their belief that its their land. I guess thats not saying "sharia" but thats cuz I'm not too familiar with sharia law, on first glance it seems very similar. -- Tomhab 09:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Reorganizing the "reasons for the conflict" section

Looking throught the talk page, it appears that many people have made negative comments about the organization of this section (or of the entry as a whole). I think that there is some merit to the idea of reorganizing the entire "reasons for the conflict" section. I think the section often makes it difficult (for somebody unfamiliar with the conflict) to determine which points of view are representative of which side. I also think the section does a poor job of prioritizing (clearly some points of disagreement of created far greater amounts of discord than others) and of relating the various arguments to each other.

I propose reorganizing the section on a point by point basis. Each subsection ("Historical claim to the land" might be one) would have an Israeli position subsubsection that cites the arguments commonly used by pro-Israeli commentators, an Arab position subsubsection that cites the same for pro-Arab commentators, and where appropriate a reconciliation subsubsection section, citing points of commonality, arguments made by pro-Peace factions, and information that nether side likes to cite (like the recent study showing that Jewish and Palestinian mitochondrial DNA are more similar to each other than either is to European or Saudi Arabian).

The subsubsections would not try to argue the positions per-se. They would just try to provide an encyclopedic reference of the arguments that have been made and their relationship to each other.

Of course I acknowledge that the diversity of viewpoints on both the pro-Israeli and pro-Arab sides creates challenges, but it will create challenges no matter how we organize the material, and we shouldn't allow this difficulty to impede progress. Arguments that are made by extremist minorities can be cited as such, and positioned towards the bottom of their respective subsubsections.

I will leave this here for discussion and further ideas. If at the end of the month people seem to be in favor of this, I will use the talk page to propose an outline for a new "reasons for the conflict" and after discussion implement this.

--Jsolinsky 12:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

On a personal note I think it could work. The only problem is someone will have to do it. Can you be bothered? :). Wait for more comments than just mine though. -- Tomhab 12:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Genetics have very little to do with this conflict.

Guy Montag 21:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I would advise some care over original research, here. There is always the urge to frame any war to seem pointless (Look, they have the same genetic background! or nobody liked Franz-Ferdinand anyway!), but, unfortunately, the conflict is real and needs to be addressed based on real sources. I would suggest that a good starting place are the pro-israel and pro-arab links that I added awhile ago when sorting the references for this article. They lay out the arguments from both sides, and address the other's posiitons. Use them as a framing device, rather than an orginal approah. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

My prefered approach is to cite directly from Pro-Israeli and Pro-Arab literature, as I did in the small edit which I recently made. Any failure on my part to do so will be a consequence of laziness, not a belief on my part that we need some new narrative of the conflict. As far as the possibility of making the conflict seem pointless, while I believe that there should be a place for including Pro-Peace arguments (certainly in recent years comparatively neutral arguments have become an important part of the dialog) I don't think there is any danger that including such arguments will make the conflic seem like a silly misunderstanding. --Jsolinsky 04:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Suppose we had a "Historic claim to the land" section. It probably should reference the argument that Jews aren't native to Palestine, but instead are of European or Khazar descent because there are still some Arabs who make and publicize this claim, along with the standard rebutal. Similarly, it should probably reference the claim that Palestinians aren't a distinct people and/or are the result of Arab invaders from the period when Islam spread throughout the region because there are still some Jews who make and publicize these claims, along with the standard rebutal. Neither of these belong at the top of their respective subsubsections, but they ought to be discussed given the significant number of contemporary arguments that still make these claims. If we present those claims, shouldn't we also reference information that argues against both of them? --Jsolinsky 04:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Map Caption totally biased POV

"Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and the future of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights are at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict."

But I'm not going to change it - let the readers form their own conclusions about the blatant Zionist bias of this article.24.64.166.191 08:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Other than Israel's right to exist, Israel's right to be a primarily Jewish state, and the status of the disputed territories, what issues are "at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict"?

This article is only going to improve if people make beneficial edits to it, but I'm surprised to see complaints about a Zionist POV direct towards the caption for a map that clearly shows the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as being separate from Israel. --Jsolinsky 16:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As you get to know Wikipedia better, you'll come to accept that it is full of anonymous IPs and sockpuppets crying "Zionist bias" at the sight of any article that doesn't make out Israel to be the most repressive country the world has ever known, the Palestinians to be the most oppressed people in the history of mankind, and Zionism to be an ideology that combines the worst features of Apartheid and Nazism. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Arab - Israeli conflict?

There is no conflict between Israeli Arabs and other Arabs. Shouldn't this be called "Jewish - Arab Conflict"? or "Zionist - Arab Conflict". Even this is a matter of belief. Arabic is a language group and "Jewishness" is a religious belief. "Jewishness" has no more scientific basis than "White Race" or "Aryan". Any argument that uses terms like "Jewishness", "White Race" or "Aryan" must ultimately have a way of classifying individual humans into these groupings, like the Aparthied "Race Classification Board" or the "Israeli Rabbinical Courts". How could Israel exist without an official/legal way to say if a person is "Jewish" or not?24.64.166.191 08:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

There have been official ways of deciding if a person is a Jew that have existed for thousands of years, the existence of Israel has nothing to do with that. But what do you mean by "There is no conflict between Israeli Arabs and other Arabs"? "Arab" has no more scientific basis than "White Race" or "Aryan". Any argument that uses terms like "Arab", "White Race" or "Aryan" must ultimately have a way of classifying individual humans into these groupings, like the Apartheid "Race Classification Board". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

There are several reasons for this name:

1. It is more commonly used than any other phrase to refer to the conflict.
2. It is a historical convention to label conflicts based on the nations involved. We don't say that Germans attacked Poles in 1939. We say that Germany attacked Poland even though many of the Germans living in Poland supported the Nazis.
3. Jewish is used as both an ethnic group and a religion. There are many examples of people who are ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish. There are a number of examples of religiously Jewish people who are not ethnically Jewish.
4. There are many non-Jewish (in either sense) non-Zionist Israelis who fight for and support their country. The Israeli Druze population is a good example.
5. It is common to characterize the nations that oppose Israel as being Arab, both inside and outside of the Arab world. You might also want to take a look at Pan-Arabism

--Jsolinsky 16:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite right on all counts. The idea that countries don't have conflicts because not all of their citizens support the government position is silly at best; next we'll be saying that the United States wasn't at war in Vietnam because not all Americans supported the war. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Jewish and Arab militias?

I have heard of the Irgun and the Stern Gang but I am not aware of any Arab Militias. Can anyone provide a link? -- Anonymous

First of all, please sign your entries. Second of all, give me a break. The Jordanian Legion was a highly organized and trained military unit, commanded in part by British officers. Without question, among Arab military forces the Jordanian military has the most to be proud about in the wars against Israel, both from the point of view of conduct and accomplishments. Many of the Jewish/Israeli communities were attacked by Arab irregulars, i.e., people with guns and a cause. In at least one known case, soldiers from the Jordanian Legion prevented rape and massacre by these mobs By and large the irregulars were roundly defeated, and even when they weren't, the Israelis put up resistance way out of proportion to the odds. As for being "highly prejudicial" to Palestinian nationalism, it's hard to see how blowing up discos, pizzerias, restaurants, shooting at random cars, stabbing random individuals, etc., helps. --Leifern 19:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Most of the attacks by local Palestinian groups are simply identified as "arab militias". For example:

On December 10, 1947, Arab militias attacked a convoy bringing food and water to Gush Etzion, and killed ten Jews.[10] (http://www.raiseyourspirits.org/Laughter%20in%20a%20Time%20of%20War.htm)

Abdul Khader al-Husseini was a famous (and very successful) leader of the Arab militias in and around Jerusalem. If you are interested in this subject you could research and write an entry about him. He was effective in leading and coordinating a series of attacks that made it extremely difficult for Jews to get food and supplies to Jerusalem during the months leading up to Israeli independence. His death on April 9th or 10th of 1948, seems to have been a big loss for the Arabs.

Also the Arab Legion attacked numerous Jewish settlements before Israeli independence (see, for example, Kfar Etzion massacre), but I wouldn't call them a militia. Although in this and many other instances, they acted together with arab militias, those militias remain poorly documented.

There is a good reason for this. Whereas Jewish terrorists like those in Irgun and Lehi often bragged about their exploits, even to the point of exagerating casualties (see Deir Yassin massacre), and claimed some credit for the ultimate result of the war, most Arab participants in the war consider it to be a catastrophe (Nakba). They are unlikely to brag about their role in the war. Also, written accounts of thousands of Arab militiamen shooting civilians and raping women would be highly prejudicial to the cause of Palestinian nationalism.

Here is a time line of events from December 1947 to March 1948[11] (http://medialdea.net/historyguy80538/prewar.htm), including numerous Arab attacks. Since it contains factual errors that are both pro-Arab and pro-Israeli, I suppose it satisfies some defintion of NPOV :) --Jsolinsky 15:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Some minor changes

I made some minor changes to certain sections. I changed the Israeli viewpoint on Muslim law section to show that Palestinian Christians themselves regard the creation of Israel as the cause of the diminishment of their community. I also took out the part that said "considered by many to be a pre-emptive strike" since it was a pre-emptive strike. My edits were reverted within 20 minutes by an anon ip. If you wish to revert my edits, please revert edits on specific sections and not the whole version.Yuber^(talk) 17:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of your edits are too brief or too off topic to be made on this page. If you wish to add new information, than first add it in the relevent article (Six Day War, Palestinian Israeli Conflict ext.) After that we can check the factual relevency of these additions on each seperate article and then we can add it here.

Guy Montag 21:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The point about Palestinian Christians is not off-topic. That paragraph contains a Pro-Israeli argument about the numbers of Christians dropping being a result of Muslim persecution. It is very relevant to that paragraph that Palestinian Christians themselves think that it is Israel responsible for their decline. I have re-added that edit for now, as for the others I will check other articles to see what I can reinstate.Yuber^(talk) 21:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

You can add that, but do not broad stroke every Arab Christian in that line of thought. No one will object as long as you follow NPOV standards.

Guy Montag 05:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I have added two more sources. One of them is a Christian zionist source that talks about Palestinian Christian revisionism and how Palestinian Christians blame Israel for their problems. It also says that Palestinian Christian theology cannot be disconnected from Palestinian nationalism. In reality, the sentence should say "most" but I kept it as "many". However, your reasoning that it is a minority view is very POV.Yuber^(talk) 19:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, you keep adding links, but none of them show the information you keep inserting into wikipedia. You have shown one site about a man who blames American Christians for "turning their back" and leaving Palestinian Christians to the conflict, you linked to one which blamed the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict for the plight of Palestinian Christians, and now you are linking to one about an article which talks about an anti-Zionist group of Palestinian Arab Christians called the Middle East Council of Churches who are against the existance of Israel. None of this is directly linked to your claim that "many" Palestinian Christians believe Israel is persecuting them and making specifically them leave because of their religion, which is supposed to be a counter claim to what directly comes before it, mainly Muslim persecution of Arab Christians. Unless you can provide direct proof of:

• widespread belief among Palestinian Christians that Israel is persecuting them because of their religion in effort to encourage them to leave (as they are in the PA and other Muslim countries (Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt ext.)

• that they blame specifically Israel and not the conflict in general.

Then your edits will constitute conjecture and a personal pov that a majority and not a minority or whatever large number of people have this view. If it cannot be directly supported through sources, and it is a controversial viewpoint, than I have to use the information given to make an npov document. From the documents that you have provided, and I have read every one of them, I can only conclude that some Palestinian Christians blame the Palestinian Israeli conflict for their problems.

I have asked other posters, including Jayjg, and they have all concluded that your edit is reaching into territory that your sources do not support.

Also, remember that sources you provide to directly relate to the article as a counter to a claim must directly state this counter inside the source, if it doesn't, than it doesn't even belong in the article at all.

This means that if "some Palestinian Christians believe that Palestinian nationalism directly relates to Christian theology" and we are talking about Muslim persecution of Palestinian Christians, this information does not belong there as a counter. My edit stays until you can provide sources on the 2 points I have contention with.

Guy Montag 02:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Your removal of the part about the Anglican bishop is blatant censoring of information. I will reinstate that part and then address your points.Yuber^(talk) 02:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

As for your two points:

• widespread belief among Palestinian Christians that Israel is persecuting them because of their religion in effort to encourage them to leave (as they are in the PA and other Muslim countries (Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt ext.)

The fact of the matter is that all the Palestinian Christians that were in those sources specifically said the creation of Israel was the cause of their diminishing population. That section on Islamic law and non-Muslims in Israeli views is implying that it is Muslim hatred of other religions that caused the Christian population to diminish. I am simply providing sources that show that Palestinian Christians specifically blame the creation of Israel. You are being an obscurantist when you say that it is solely the conflict they claim has diminished their community.

• that they blame specifically Israel and not the conflict in general.

There are numerous quotes in those sources that show Palestinian Christians blaming Israel in more ways than one. I have included a specific one, but if you truly are asking for it, I will include every single specific quote in that section. You seem to not want a simple one-sentence summary about what many Palestinian Christians themselves think, and instead you want specific references. This will be to the detriment of the article as it will double the size of that section, but if you wish, I will add them.Yuber^(talk) 03:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, like I said, I read all the sources you provide. The specific instance that we are talking about is present Muslim persecution of Arab Christians because of their religion. The quote you have used is from an article that talks about Israeli fear of violent conflict between Arab Orthodox Christians because of the conduct of ex-Patriarch Ireneious. What you are trying to counter is a specific persecution of someone because of their religion despite their ethnicity. In all the cases provided, Palestinians, are singled out because of the current conflict, despite their religion. Arab Christians are singled out by Muslims because of their religion. What the sources you use say basically the same thing. How the sentences are constructed depend on the biases of the author. Like I said, it is up to you to prove to me that "many" Palestinian Christians feel this way. Specifically that Israel is persecuting them because of their religion and not because they are part of an enemy population. Also, try to make any changes so they are not detrimental to the quality of the article. If the changes will be detrimental as you say, I suggest you find a better way in making them.

Guy Montag 05:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I just added a source from the American Jewish Committee that says that Christian groups around the world hold Israel responsible for the diminishment of the Palestinian Christian community. This refutation has to stay in order for the section to be NPOV. You can't claim that I'm using biased sources as it is the AJC that has recorded this, not a Pro-Palestinian source.Yuber^(talk) 19:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, this actually depends on what the source says, not what you claim it to say.

Guy Montag 19:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is the exact quote from the AJC:

Mainline denominations increasingly relied on churches in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza as a primary source of information and spent time with Palestinian Christian counterparts during frequent visits to the Holy Land. Many viewed Israeli military operations as an attack on their Palestinian Christian brethren and, hence, on peaceful Christian communities. They also held Israel largely responsible for the shrinking Palestinian Christian population in the region.Yuber^(talk) 19:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

So this talks about Presbyterian divestment from Israel and their warped reasons for why they are doing it. It did not actually talk about the views of Palestinian Christians but about American left wing churches, their beef with Israel, and how they view the conflict. It's still not on topic, but now I see what you did with the quote, and I have no problem with it.

Guy Montag 20:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's marginally close to the topic, once it has been NPOVd; unfortunately his summary of the source, as usual, didn't actually match what the source said. Nevertheless, since Yuber is so desperate to find anything at all to support his POV, and this is the best he can come up with, I think we should try to accomodate him. What do you think? I've edited his insertion to actually match the source in a NPOV way, let me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The "best I can come up with" is a direct reference to Christians holding Israel responsible for the shrinking Palestinian Christian population. Not to mention it was from the American Jewish Committee, so none of your usual labeling of my sources as "hate-sites". If you are going to suppress this source as well, then it is clear to me that you are not committed to the NPOV policy. In any case, that information was included to refute an Israeli claim.Yuber^(talk) 20:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. It only took a couple of minutes for you to add some completely unsourced claims again to that properly sourced, though improperly summarized, claim. Yuber, please do not insert information which is not supported by sources. There is no evidence that the claim that Muslims are responsible for oppressing Israeli is "widely disputed" by anyone; in fact, you have yet to bring a source which even comments on it. As for the "best you can come up with", it was indeed some American Protestant denominations which held Israel largely (note, not completely) responsible, which is why, though it didn't actually comment on the claim that Muslims suppression was (perhaps also) responsible, it was at least almost relevant, and why it was left in (after the obvious need to make your text actually reflect its source). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to pick specific paragraphs out of the sources? Here is another one:

There are two main religious-freedom issues. The first is whether Israel has accorded religious freedom to Christians, particularly Arab Christians. I have access only to data concerning the relative numbers of Christians in the Holy Land, which is one (albeit very limited) measure of the climate of freedom. Leaders of the Christian Arab communities have insisted for years that, as Greek Catholic priest Elias Chacour puts it, “the Holy Land is being emptied of its Christians.” The Holy Land Foundation (begun in Washington, D.C., in 1994 to alert Christians to the “dilemma that Christians are facing in the Holy Land”) declares, “Because of a policy of systematic discrimination that impinges on every facet of daily life, Palestinian Christians along with Palestinian Moslems, can no longer live peacefully and securely in their native land. Christians are departing from the Holy Land at an alarming rate, and it is possible that they could one day entirely cease to exist in the very land where Christ founded His Church.”Yuber^(talk) 20:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

And another one: [12] (http://www.indcatholicnews.com/srmbk.html)

Recently I began reading a fascinating book by a British prizewinning author, William Dalrymple. It's an insightful travel diary of a young man's journey among the Christians all throughout the Middle East -- an elegy to the slowly dying civilization of Eastern Christianity and those people who have tried to keep the Christian faith alive. Yet I am finding it most informative and not a depressing book.

Dalrymple writes about the great monasteries of Palestine "before the Zionists expelled half the Palestinians and began to turn the country into an American suburb...."

I guess what also made this very real to me is that I had just set the book down and called a friend in the Bethlehem area. A frightened teenager answered the phone and told me of the bombing by the Israeli Occupation Forces of a house in their neighbourhood last night. She spoke of the screams, the fire and the smoke. It isn't easy for a Christian to live in this land....Yuber^(talk) 20:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this next source destroys whatever argument you may have had [13] (http://www.al-bushra.org/latpatra/sabella8.html):

3) There are some who mistakenly argue that Palestinian Christians leave because of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Research results on Christian emigration throughout the last 12 years show that people emigrate because of the bad economic and political situation. The rise of fundamentalism certainly poses some serious questions but in itself and by itself is not cause for departure. People, who are not familiar with Islam, as Palestinian Christians are, often see things in black and white. This is not our experience. We have lived with Moslems as neighbors for centuries, our children go to school with their children and make life-long friendships, and we experience together the same difficult political, social and economic conditions. The mutual tolerance of Islam and Christianity shows itself in practical activities of daily life: this is the real dialogue of life. But some would argue that there are Christians who are not comfortable and who have some concrete complaints, certainly not on religious freedom but on practical matters of daily life. This is true not only of Christians but of other Palestinians as well. What happens often is that a conflict over property or any other matter is reduced to religion as a cause. In reality, however, the causes of conflict can be found elsewhere: in legal claims, in some people wanting to usurp the property of other people or for a variety of other reasons. It is expedient to say that my Moslem neighbor is doing this to me because I am a Christian but this would not be the explanation, rather it would be sometimes a cover for it.

A Palestinian Christian himself citing the mutual tolerance of Christianity and Islam, and noting the unity of the Palestinian Christian and Muslim communities.Yuber^(talk) 20:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

How could your finally bringing an on-topic source destroy my argument? My argument was that you hadn't brought relevant sources, which was correct. Remember, the Talk: page is not a place for re-enacting the conflict; we are not here to decide which side is correct, but merely to quote correctly sourced and relevant material. I'm quite pleased you have at long last found some relevant material to add, it helps bring balance to the article. This source actually discusses the argument that Islamic fundamentalism has led to the emgration of Christian Arabs. Please use this source as an example in the future for the kinds of sources which are relevant and on topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, all the sources were relevant. Dr. Bernard Sabella is dismissing your unfounded argument. But even if you are quite pleased, Guy Montag has just removed all the sources and the quotes that were worked to a compromise.Yuber^(talk) 21:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, I haven't made any argument here; the article simply quoted a properly sourced argument saying the cause is Islamic fundamentalism. Please stop personalizing this. As for the rest, Guy clearly explained why these sources were not relevant; some were dead, most were off topic. I explained that as well, so your claim about "compromise" was illusory. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, the sentence "this claim is disputed" along with the 5 sources that blame Israel (and not the PLO) for the diminishment of the Christian population is NPOV.Yuber^(talk) 21:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

But the section isn't about that, it's presenting arguments regarding the effects of Islamic fundamentalism and Muslim law; as such, arguments pitting the PLO against Israel cannot possibly be included here, since the PLO is a nominally secular organization. I urge you to remove this sentence, since it is not only off topic for this section, but also indicates yet another complex revert 3RR violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

All information other than Dr. Sabella was irrelevent to the subject, couldn't be found, was innacurate as it relates to other wikipedia articles, or in one case actually helped the Times argument. Even though Dr. Sabella uses complex arguments, and not just economic ones, it is the only source that conforms to wikipedia standards.

Guy Montag 21:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

I replaced the embattled Yom Kippur War section with summary language from the Yom Kippur War page. The notion that Israel's victory in the war is a direct consequence of American assistance is one that I hadn't heard before. If true, something should probably be written about it on the Yom Kippur War page, and citations provided there. Reguardless, I am highly sceptical that US aid was of such magnitude that it belongs in a three sentence summary of the war. (I'm not disputing that the 1973 war was a textbook example of Cold War politics, but a) that's not what the old language said and b) I still don't it belongs in a three sentence summary of the conflict.) --Jsolinsky 03:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, no surprise there; it was part of a huge unsourced POVing introduced by a User:Alberuni sockpuppet last December:[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-Israeli_conflict&diff=8621175&oldid=8615447) Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jewish refugees

Theres a section in the text that refers to "Jewish refugees from Arab nations and Arab-controlled areas of Palestine".

The most prominent definition of refugee in wikipedia is:

a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion... and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.

I agree it occurred in mass numbers, but refugees? When people moved to the Americas during the colonisation they weren't refugees because their religious rights were restricted in Europe but not in the New World (or were they?). My point is, wasn't the Jewish exodus voluntary because although they were persecuted, they had no intention of returning. In otherwords I'm suggesting it might have been emigration. I note that Emigration says ethnic cleansing is one push reason for emigration.

Compare this to Palestinian refugees who had the intention of returning. Even after the Arabs lost the 1948 war, they cannot possibly return. I think many would agree that a fair few would want to return even though an Arab victory over Israel is particularly unlikely.

Using the same word for both in this article is slightly misleading as it suggests equal or similar circumstances. Particularly unfair as being a refugee doesn't fit in with the original Zionist "returning home" idea.

In summary my arguments:

• Arab Jewish exodus was voluntary and had no intention of return so emigration
• Jews in a fair few places still could return (if the original person who emigrated/refugeed is still alive)
• Palestiniain refugees had intention of returning but cannot

Just in case anyone's preparing a flaming reply, I'm asking this out partly of ignorance (not knowing any arguments against). If I was 100% sure I was right and no way of being convinced otherwise I'd have already made the changes. -- Tomhab 16:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term refugee is consistently used with respect to conditions in the country of origin, not the country of destination. So yes, the Pilgrims have many times been characterized as refugees because they fled a place where they faced persecution and "took refuge" in a place where they did not. Many, if not most refugees have no intention of returning to the land they came from, and willingly choose to leave behind the place where they were persecuted. Not many people would want to return to a place where they felt they had been be persecuted. The Palestinians are the exception to this, in a large part because they have an expectation that they will be able to change the nature of Israel as a primarily Jewish state simultaneous with their return. --Jsolinsky 09:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, despite disagreeing with small points, the overall theme of what you're saying makes sense. I still think its an odd term though. -- Tomhab 11:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comment! I do get the impression though that many Sephardim and Mizrahim (Jews native to Arab states) left in fear for their lives. If these Jews don't qualify as refugees, then who does?

A related point is that Jews leaving the Arab states (or, for that matter, leaving Europe) did have somewhere to go, where they found a welcome. Although it is true that many arrivals in Israel suffered sadness and longing for their former homeland, can this really be compared with Arab refugees, who today, almost sixty years after leaving their homeland in fear for their lives are still living in squalid refugee camps? --Philopedia 15:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was more questioning the status as a refugee but didn't realise it only meant some of the jews (I thought it meant every jew that wanted to go to israel rather than those expelled). My mistake. Although palestinians refugees endure harder times calling all of the jewish refugees emigrants would, imho be unfair -- Tomhab 16:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jews didn't just "leave" Arab countries, they were forced out by persecution and in some cases expulsion. They suffered greatly when they arrived; the initial conditions were no better than what faced the Arab refugees. The subsequent difference is due to the fact that Israel integrated them into Israeli society, whereas Arab countries (except Jordan) kept them as refugees for political purposes. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)