Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Previous discussions maybe found here:

• Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (archive 1)
• Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (archive 2)
• Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (archive 3)
• Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (archive 4)
• Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (archive 5) - an essay about "Hate, propaganda and information"

Contents

1 recent dubious edits 2 Major Inaccuracies 3 Why does the table of the emblems belong here? 3.1 Militant or Terrorist? 4 The Irgun poster 5 Today official emblems of major Palestinian organizations brandish map of Israel 5.1 Of maps and hegemony

recent dubious edits

I haven't been following this sufficiently to want to wade in with edits of my own, but I believe that the recent edits by GabrielF should be scrutinized closely. Among other things, he seems to have removed other people's cited references; the removals seem to me to have a political pattern (removing politically left or pro-Palestinian references). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's not simply dubious. It's mostly unrefined POV garbage.. sheesh. Tarek 16:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For anyone following this, it looks like Tarek followed his comment here with a good de-POV'd version of GabrielF's content. And the edits he made seem to bear out my view that just reverting would have been wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:26, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Re: sources - I removed a couple of sources and added a couple of sources. I removed the indymedia link because it was entirely in Hebrew and contains a disclaimer saying that it doesn't live there any more. I might have gone a little overboard on the rest because I thought it would be better to provide general reference materials with biases that are relatively slight (the Ross book) rather than materials designed to reexamine the conflict with a particular POV (Chomsky). If the consensus is to keep all references, thats okay with me.

As for the actual content, my point was to 1) emphasize the complex nature of the conflict, I think that this article is far too simplistic and does not take into account the multifaceted nature of the conflict. I think that a decision has been made to whittle this article down to a certain core in order to avoid POV issues and the result is that the article sounds like a 7th graders powerpoint presentation. 2) I wanted to rewrite the description of the Israeli perspective to be more accurate. You may notice that I did not modify the description of the Palestinian perspective, I believe that someone with a different viewpoint should do that. However, I think that calling suicide bombings "militant" or "terrorist" will be POV one way or the other, and it seems to me that "terrorist" is more accurate and should be used provided that we are very specific in what we refer to. GabrielF 20:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into most of this, but, please, when removing other people's citations, that is something where a specific reason should always be stated, otherwise it just turns into a pissing match. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:24, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, I didn't see any unreasonable (or any) removals of citations in the second round of editing.. Well, indymedia Israel, but it really was a broken link that I have now fixed. Tarek 06:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. And he commented that, which was my point. I wasn't complaining, just remarking. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:34, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you GabrielF for your contributions. I have a couple of comments:

1. To the best of my understanding, this is a "disambiguation page", basically serving only as a basic intro, and pointing to various other articles related to the conflict. Your comments and analysis on the current Unilateral Disengagement were, I think, important, but much too deep for this particular article. I do not see linked an article on Unilateral Disengagement, but I would be mortally shocked if one didn't exist, so I suggest finding it and contributing to it, then linking it into the page. I commented out some of your edits, and a couple of my own that were quite detailed about the disengagement plan..
2. It was my personal opinion that the "core issues" are sufficient. Perhaps we could add the detailed articles beside them (i.e., See Palestinian refugees or See Israeli settlements). What do others think of this? I recognize that you view the conflict as being extremely complex, but there is really no need to complicate the article if not necessary.
3. I understand that your wording is trying to be neutral / POV-ambiguous in some parts, but I found some of it to be stylistically cumbersome (e.g., the section on those sympathetic to...). Here, we can stand to make a summary, since virtually every statement is discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.
4. With regards to the reference on "Myths and Facts", I renamed the link according to the actual site title there.. However, I wish to object to the term "a pro-Israeli view" as opposed to what it used to be: "an Israeli view". I would like to note that it is the only time in the article that the term "pro-" is used (for either 'side').. There are many arguments against it, such as that it fails to recognize that Israel is not a monolith of opinion.
5. I'm more of the AP view that the word "terrorist" is so loaded that it is almost worthless as anything but a propaganda tool. However, the Wikipedia discussion is ongoing, and a policy is being formed here: Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development)

Tarek 06:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I won't go into the rest now, but regarding #5 - I used the term pro-Israeli because that is more accurate, the source is American, not Israeli GabrielF 12:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. I agree that this article should serve as an overview only, although it is significantly more complex than a disambiguation page. The article you are looking for is Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2004. It could use some work, particularly around format.
2. I agree.
3. I didn't find the "sympathetic" language so bad.
4. "Israeli" doesn't work, since, as you point out, it isn't the only Israeli position, and as Gabriel pointed out the view is American. I'm not sure what wording works better than "pro-Israeli"
5. I'm of the view that attacks that unambiguously and deliberately target civilians for death or injury are clearly terrorist, and avoiding that terminology when warranted is itself POV.

Jayjg 17:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for my prose jayjg :). Tarek: Sorry for editing that quote - I didn't notice thats what it was, but why are you using the quote there? If nothing else it isn't explicitly clear to a casual reader that it comes from the reinhart piece and the viewpoint could be easily summarized without POV as a statement, what is the advantage of having a blind quote?

Re: "pro-Israeli" - we could replace this with something like "generally supportive of the Israeli government" or something but it seems unnecessarily cumbersome, I think that if we specify the fact that opinions on neither side are uniform above as I tried to saying "pro-Israeli" below seems okay

Re: terrorism - why not avoid the issue entirely by specifying precisely what we mean when we say "Israeli security from..." I suggest wording it as "Israeli security from suicide bombings and other attacks" we could also use the word incursion to describe both attacks on Israelis and attacks on Palestinians.

Re: sources, I won't remove anything but I would like to reorganize and expand this section, I would like to add some more links to media, more scholarly journals (MERIP, Middle East Quarterly, etc), activist groups (AIPAC, etc.) and thinktanks (Washington Institute for Near East Policy, etc.) I think that the specific articles should be moved into a subsection "Specific Articles of Interest" or something. I think that the jerusalem.indymedia link should be titled Palestine Independent Media Center (its title). I will attempt to be balanced in what I link to, but it might be better if someone with a different viewpoint also adds links. GabrielF 19:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the quoter is non-notable, and the quote would probably better be summarized. Regarding terrorism, in other articles I've used "attacks on civilians" or similar language to be more exact and get over objections. I admit that the problem with that is that many anti-Israel groups and/or individuals assert that no Israelis are civilians. Jayjg 21:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major Inaccuracies

The thrust of this article is wrong. The list that is presented as the conflict's major issues is, in fact, the major issues of the two-state solution. That article is where this list belongs. The major issues of the conflict are different, and they include, for starters, who ought to control the territory, whether there should be one state or two, whether the Palestinians have the right of return, whether the settlers will be removed, and whether Israel will extend equal rights to its non-Jewish citizens.

I suspect that the authors wish the issues listed were the last issues not covered by broad agreement, but that's just not so. For the Israelis, Ariel Sharon's Bantustans are a fine solution for the next twenty years. On the Palestinian side, Hamas just kicked Fatah's ass in local elections. So while some may believe that smart people agree on everything but these issues, it isn't those smart people who are running the show.

This conflict is not a part of the larger Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab-Israeli conflict is geopolitical; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a civil war. The surrounding Arab states are concerned with territory and the balance of power; the Palestinians are concerned with freedom, security, and self-determination.

In its short life, Israel has made many enemies. Just because Palestinians are Arabs does not make their war a subset of the Arab states' feud with Israel.

I'm trying this discuss-before-editing thing. Comments and thoughts welcome -- sorry if the tone is strident.

-- Robert Farrell

Your general points seem sensible, although "This conflict is not a part of the larger Arab-Israeli conflict" is certainly arguable. What wording do you propose? - Mustafaa 17:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing your take on this (hopefully without being too destructive of what is here before we can build consensus. Like Mustafaa, though, I disagree with your claim that "This conflict is not a part of the larger Arab-Israeli conflict". I've literally never heard anyone make that claim before, and it seems like it is nothing more than an idiosyncratic personal view. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:50, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not confident that NPOV will be possible for someone who states "For the Israelis, Ariel Sharon's Bantustans are a fine solution for the next twenty years." Jayjg 01:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I agree entirely that "For the Israelis, Ariel Sharon's Bantustans are a fine solution for the next twenty years." - Mustafaa 11:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

we all have a point of view.. At least we don't have to guess his : ) I think a question to ask, though, is at what stratus are Robert's issues the issues, and why has the current list of issues lasted so long? The probable answer is that – at least at some level of the collective psyche – the two-state solution is it, so its issues are the conflict's issues. So, I think we will have to be very clear in distinguishing the issues and perhaps opt for a more explanatory model than that which exists now.. Tarek 03:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you are right about the issues being embedded in the collective psyche. Original thinking is frowned upon as groups have been divided into ideological categories for so long. If Robert can document that these alternative points of view on the conflict are espoused in the literature, instead of being his own original research, then I think we should welcome it into the article. --Pravda 03:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert Farrell, welcome to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You are obviously knowledgable and articulate so create an account for yourself and join the Wikipedia project. These pages don't belong to any editor or group of editors (despite what some may have you believe) but if you intend to make major edits that alter the "thrust" of the article, try to reach consensus with other editors and provide reliable references, especially for controversial articles like this one. NPOV (neutral point of view) is the goal so express your perspective freely on the Talk page but try to write descriptions neutrally in the article. Don't be surprised if other editors mercilessly revise your edits as described in the warning on the editing page. We look forward to your contributions. --Pravda 03:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New editors are welcome, but obvious sockpuppets intended to evade eventual consequences from ArbCom (like yourself), are not. Jayjg 04:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please observe Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "don't bite the newcomers" and assume good faith. If you can't be polite and work collaboratively, please consider another vocation. Merry Christmas! --Pravda 04:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I assume good faith with newcomers. I have long experience with you, and you've shown no evidence you can be polite or work collaboratively. Jayjg 05:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know who you think I am but you should always make an effort to get along with everyone. I am sure you are always polite and open to collaborate and I have no reason to believe anything else until you prove otherwise. --Pravda 05:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, you know exactly who I think you are, and, indeed, who you really are. And I am always polite and open to collaboration, even with sockpuppets created to evade ArbCom rulings. Jayjg 05:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about but I'll play along if it makes you happy. I'm glad that you are happy. --Pravda 06:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Farrell - good points I think, and well spoken. FT2 15:13, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I've made a small edit in Farrell's direction, simply noting that the governing authorities' positions are not necessarily those of the entire communities. I have not, however, attempted to detail the non-governmental positions. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:20, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hey Mabel! I enjoyed your edits, but made a few modifications. For example, I think you used "PA" as a geographical place, which is at least imprecise and more likely just inaccurate. Also, I thought there was a little redundancy ("one single point of view"), so I took that out and added some links.. Please let me know if any of those edits are problematic.. Tarek 15:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only one that's problematic at all is the use of "occupied territories". That is, itself a contentious phrase. I use it in my own writing outside of Wikipedia, but because the Israeli gov't objects to it we've generally tried to avoid it in the narrative voice of the articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. As usual, the term is intended only to insert POV; it doesn't actually add any useful information not already encompassed by "Gaza Strip and West Bank", which is precise and fully informative. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 22:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough criticism on the redundancy (it does appear two lines later), but I disagree that a) it is "contentious" and b) that because it is "contentious", it shouldn't be here. On the first point, certain parts of the more extreme Israeli population reject the term, but prominent figures in Israeli and Zionist history and even presently have recognized that there is an occupation as surely as there are occupations in Morocco, Syria, Indonesia, and North America. Outside of Israelis, the United States recognizes that there is an occupation (as Michael Freund laments in the 8 August 2001 Jerusalem Post while justifying his by theirs [1] (http://www.israelinsider.com/views/articles/views_0106.htm)), as does virtually every state and major judicial body in the world (the UNGA and UNSC resolutions are too many to list). So, occupation is not contentious, but calling it occupation is, just like making Israel(is) "look bad" to the "uninformed person" (as discussed in Talk:Israeli violence against Palestinian children). On the second point, I would like to point out that lots of things that are right are also unpopular. If we lived in Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, would we be obliged to tone things down for fear of being unpopular? So why here and now, especially when we face none of the same persecutions in our privileged lives? So long as we can source it and work vigorously to ensure its truth, it should be here! : ) Tarek 01:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the view of the U.S. is not as monolithic as all that. Rumsfeld specifically said they weren't occupied [2] (http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Diplomacy&enDisplay=view&enPage=ArticlePage&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article^l1316) Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 02:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for using the word in quotations, and I'd really like to see someone do the research on who does use the word and who doesn't, but it is tricky: for example, I would consider Gaza, the Golan Heights, and most of the West Bank to be "occupied", but East Jerusalem to be "unilaterally annexed". Not that one is "better" or "worse" than the other, but they are different. I think we would do well to quote, or paraphrase, with attribution the (in my view conclusive) case that this is an occupation, but I don't wish to suppress the conflicting point of view. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the term is both superfluous and incorrect in the next section. To begin with, as far as I know UNSC 497 deals only with the Golan Heights, yet that is the only part of the territories not mentioned in the description. Second, the status of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are inherently different from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Golan Heights is annexed, because Israel has annexed it. As for East Jerusalem, its status differs because it was never intended to be a part of a Palestinian state, but rather of an international zone. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 03:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough on both counts Jayjg, and touché on the monolith topic, which is exactly what the edit was about : ). I would like to point out, though, that Rumsfeld still doesn't speak for the "official" US line, which has grudgingly accepted international law on the occupation when it really comes down to it.. As for UNSCR 497, I was a little miffed by the selection of 497 as well, but never really looked into it. It's here: [3] (http://www.sphr.org/history/Documents/docs2/un/un497.htm). The best I can figure is that it is one affirmation that unilateral annexation is "without international legal effect" and calls Israel the "occupying Power". So, I agree that its use here is badly out of context. There are quite a few UNSCR and UNGA resolutions that call the territories "occupied" and discuss the issue directly, and so would fit as sources in this context. I'll try to update it tomorrow or so unless somebody else does first. Tarek 03:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why does the table of the emblems belong here?

It seems to me the table is somewhat distracting and is inherently POV. No Jewish organizations' emblems are shown (such as that of Irgun). Each article has its own emblem, putting them all together here on this page is distracting from the main point of the article. Also, the table is put right under the section about pro-Palestinian views as if to discredit them.Yuber

I tend to believe that the emblems of major Palestinian organizations are crucial to the topic of the conflict because - as of 2005 - all of them happen to brandish map of Israel. Your points 1 by 1:

1. Please explain why you called those emblems "somewhat distracting" "from the main point of the article" and what do you think that point is?
2. You said the emblems are "inherently POV": were the images distorted or misinterpreted in some way? Was the caption POV? See WP:RULES.
3. Irgun was dismantled in 1948, so including their emblem (which I do not necessarily oppose) would require some proof of relevancy from whoever insists on it.
4. I have no intention to discredit pro-Palestinian views at all.

On a personal note, I consider myself both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel: I believe they can be good neighbors, live in peace, trade and prosper. I do not believe that those who encourage Palestinian children into the line of fire are pro-Palestinian. Please assume good faith. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What seems a little problematic to me is the phrase "the land they claim as Palestine". This is literally true but, in the case of the PLO at least, misleading. Yes, they consider "Palestine" to include all of Israel (as do most geographers, and as did most Zionists a century ago; if anything, they meant something even larger), but they have long since abandoned the position that this would necessarily be the dimensions of a Palestinian state. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to believe that, but considering that the emblems are what they are, plus numerous post-1993 revealing speeches by Arafat and Kaddoumi, plus the fact that "new" PLO covenant was never officially published and the covenant of Hamas still calls for the complete destruction of Israel, plus the rifles, hand grenades & swords, I'd call that "abandonement" a little controversial if not outright deceiving. Imagine Pakistan brandishing map of India (or Germany - map of Sudetenland) on their official symbols. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

While you are entitled to that opinion, thats surely a POV and should not be chosen as text for these symbols. I also find it distracting; it's taking up too much place in this article which is more of a summary with links to other articles than a full blown one, and creates imbalance. --Cybbe 09:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the speeches, the convenants and the emblems are cold hard facts, not opinions. We are supposed to reflect the reality in encyclopedic way, instead of hiding relevant facts or creating some artificial balance. Please see WP:POV. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It is easy to use cold hard facts to support one own's POV. E.g. it would be nothing factual wrong with posting a large picture of the west bank wall (and then Im talking about the portions which definitively can be called a wall) with the text "The Israeli government is constructing a barrier in the West Bank which have been deemed illegal by the ICJ". These are also cold hards facts. My point is, these facts are all here on Wikipedia, the emblems are all in the relevant articles for Fatha, IHJ etc., and links to those articles are given: showing them here is making the article imbalanced, just as a large picture of a section of the Wall with the text given under would be awkward. Nothing is hidden, both the emblem and sections of the wall is covered in their own articles. This article is a gathering point for a lot others, there are tons of pictures that can be deemed relevant to the conflict, but these should be placed in their given articles, not in this one. --Cybbe 12:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

We can discuss the relevance of a wall picture with your caption but I won't: simply because it's a vague idea. As for the table, there is no dispute these are official emblems of major Palestinian factions pertinent to the conflict. Systematizing relevant stuff in a table in encyclopedic manner is what normally encyclopedias do. What you propose is to hide information because it doesn't suit your agenda. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 16:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

This seems akin to claiming that Israel wishes to rule "from the Nile to the Euphrates", or to say that the 10 Agorot coin represented a serious territorial agenda. Either of these may belong in that article, properly cited, as a claim that partisans of one side make about the other, but it's another thing to put it in the narrative voice of the article with the strong implication that it is an actual plan. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

This article is too short and too much of a reference article to other sources too justify including these emblems. They are not hidden away, if I would look up Fatahs emblem I would read the Fatah article. The text used show that the inclusion is motivated by a political agenda, it is not included too show the emblems, it is included too show the Palestinian map used even though this contradicts official Palestinian policy (and that is not mentioned at all). A neutral version would simply show the emblems without stressing the point it currently does, and even then it would be awkward to include it in this article which is more of a summary than a full blown one. --Cybbe 19:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think that encyclopedic systematization of the common elements in the official emblems is of the essence in relation to the conflict, especially because there is a controversy, even you admit it: "this contradicts official Palestinian policy". There is no clear reason for removal: switching arguments from "but this is distracting from the main point" to "but this is POV" to "but you too" to "but this is a short artcile" only makes partisan desire to hide the table more noticeable. All these arguments have been rebuffed above. If you find some info encyclopedic & important to the topic (10 Agorot, Irgun, barrier, etc), please add/propose your changes as we normally do. Finally, may I suggest those who claim consensus learn what the term means. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Your have not explicated why there is a need for the table. This isn't about us trying to give you reasons why it should be removed, but it's about you giving us a reason why there is a need for it. The only reason you have given is that there is a "partisan desire to hide the table" as if there was a table in the first place. The table was put in from a POV directly to undermine a pro-Palestinian argument (it was put in right under that paragraph, coincidence?).Yuber^(talk) 05:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason has been explicated many times: it systematizes common elements of major Palestinian factions' contemporary official emblems that "contradict official Palestinian policy" (quoting Cybbe). As for your last question, the table is in the next paragraph. Frequently pro-Pal. and pro-Isr. arguments follow each other, so what, are you going to go through WP and remove text/tables/images that don't serve your political agenda? Learn to face facts that contradict your opinions, that's what good encylcopedias are for. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not an article on the PLOs view on what constitutes "Palestine". And I find it rather funny you say it was included to shed light over PLO policy towards what constitutes Palestine, when that policy is NOT included in the article. So why is this table _really_ here? And why the POV text "the land they claim as Palestine", when this is simply not true? --Cybbe 18:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

This contradiction is a crucial aspect of the conflict. While other articles provide specific details, this one is supposed to systematize them. If you feel that something is missing from the article, please propose/add it as we normally do. As for this is simply not true: I can provide pictures from official Palestinian school textbooks that prove you wrong. Only in the interests of the peace process I intentionally didn't mention Palestinian National Authority here, but if you insist... ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't managed to NPOV the table/article by adding emblems of Jewish groups such as Irgun. But that is not the main problem I have with this table. You say the contradiction is a crucial aspect of the conflict, then you go and make a table that has no mention of the contradiction and the fact that there are organizations that accept the two-state solution. The table is just redundant, all the emblems are in their respective articles, it is ridiculous to say the table was made for NPOV reasons.Yuber^(talk) 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

We already discussed Irgun above and you did not respond. I don't see why the table is redundant, moreover I explained why it is crucial and you did not respond. Even though you sited various pretense reasons, notably you made no attempt to improve it, only a partisan urge to hide inconvenient but undeniable facts. IMO, the caption is NPOV and I am not in the mood to add inflammatory wording. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've read through this entire talk discussion and you still haven't said why it's relevant besides "to show the contradiction". There are plenty of other articles on the Palestinian organizations where you can show the contradiction, but a POV table on the conflict page is not one of them.Yuber^(talk) 02:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: There are plenty of other articles on the Palestinian organizations where you can show the contradiction, but a POV table on the conflict page is not one of them. Don't send me to "other articles", because this article, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is supposed to systematize the major aspects of the conflict. Are you trying to say the contradiction is NOT a part of the conflict? If you believe the table is irrelevant, please explain why you think so. If you believe the table is POV, please explain why you think so or try to improve it. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You have been removing my Discrimination against Israeli Arabs section from Zionism and racism, claiming that it exists in another article and therefore needs not be included in the Zionism and racism article. Here you're telling me that even though the logos exist in other articles, a POV table should still be put on the conflict page. Sorry, I'm not buying it.Yuber^(talk) 01:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You've been duplicating the entire article Israeli Arabs in Zionism and racism. Of course it is inappropriate: Z&R contains a summary and a link to IA article. Back to the table here: the NPOV caption was negotiated at Talk:Fatah & Talk:Hamas and per your request I compromised (assuming good faith) and made the table tiny, but you still keep removing it totally to hide the facts. You did not come up with a good reason to remove it and did not say what you think makes it POV. Did the Zionists design those emblems? Were the images misinterpreted or distorted in any way? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Militant or Terrorist?

We need a definition on terms here. While some claim that "Militant" is more NPOV, there will be others claiming that it is not NPOV because the term grants a certain legitimacy that "Terrorist" does not. ElKabong

The Irgun poster

If we decide to include it, it should be put in the correct perspective: a renegade militant revisionist Zionist group dismantled by Israel in 1948 and condemned by the mainstream general Zionists numerous times before that. OTOH, the caption under the Palestinian groups' emblems says "present-day" because those are 2005 images. Objections? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The land they claimed is present-day Israel, West Bank, Gaza strip, and Jordan. Is there something untrue about this statement? Also, I don't care if they've been condemned by mainstream whoevers, the Palestinian table certainly does not differentiate between condemned groups and groups that actually are supported by the U.S/Israel for a solution to the conflict.Yuber^(talk) 05:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

But we did not include the text about condemnations, did we? Your caption is misleading because there was no State of Israel and no West Bank at the time. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

You are not understanding simple English. Present-day West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jordan means the present-day (AKA as they exist today, AKA modern) states and territories.Yuber^(talk) 05:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll ignore your ad-hom for now. Would you say "Alexander the Great claimed the present-day India"? The poster is from 1920s to 1940s, why drag the old stuff into the "present-day"? To score poilitical points, I guess? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

If you read the article on Alexander, you would notice certain appositives that refer to what the present-day state is. He conquered Assyria, modern-day Iraq. Besides, Alexander isn't even a valid comparison. You're comparing events that occurred over a millenia ago to events that took place 60 years or so ago.Yuber^(talk) 06:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

As long as we say that it is an old poster of a dismantled renegade group, fine. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the Irgun-poster nor the Palestinian table should be included. Information about Irgun/PLO/Hamas etc can be found in their respective articles.

That been said, its hard to justify one of them without including the other. --Cybbe 11:03, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

This whole argument reminds me of just how much I hate this corner of wikipedia. First somebody drops in an image of the emblems of palestinian organizations in order to sneak in a POV, then that person's opponents feel the need to insert a more egregious image to counter the first image. The whole thing seems destined to descend into a brawl and the general public that increasingly relies on wikipedia continues to suffer. The table of emblems is clearly here because someone wants to further their POV, but at least its relevant. Yuber - I can understand that you want to counter the POV implied by the table of emblems, however the Irgun image is simply not appropriate for this article. It is irrelevant and quite frankly deceptive. I would guess that the poster dates from 1945 or 1946 and it represents a group and a position that simply does not exist any more. Put it in the Irgun article or in the godawful article on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, don't put it here. I'm inclined to say a pox on both houses and get rid of both images but that seems unlikely. I suggest as a compromise removing the Irgun poster and adding a sentence to the caption of the emblem picture saying that significant minorities of Israelis believe that Israel should encompass part or all of the West Bank or Gaza. GabrielF 21:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, the table was intended to sneak in a POV. I have removed it.Yuber^(talk) 21:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

An official emblem of an organization is a conscientious expression of their free choice how to present themselves to the outside world and to their own members. If their own emblems undermine their (or someone else's) posturing, again it's their choice. I don't see how including and neutrally describing the official emblems violates the NPOV policy. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Humus; the Table of Emblems is perfectly fine and relevant [personal attack removed]. ElKabong

I have removed the table again now that the Irgun poster has been removed. It seems that even when I offer a solution of both pictures existing, the pro-Israel POV must continue to be pushed with the inclusion of only one table.Yuber^(talk) 05:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yawn... See my comment a few lines above: "An official emblem of an organization is a conscientious expression...", etc. Throughout this entire talk page you were unable to prove your repeated claim that the table is POV. Please learn the concept of NPOV. Please don't insist that the presence of the table (even with the newly added text) somehow depends on that irrelevant Irgun poster of 1940s, it is preposterous. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I have made a new section called "Emblems of Organizations" and included both the Irgun poster and the table. I also made clear the fact that some organizations with emblems encompassing the entire region have committed themselves to peace and the two-state solution.Yuber^(talk) 04:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

... uh-huh, and their official emblems were drawn by the wicked Zionists. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

An Irgun poster from the 40s is irrelevant; it wasn't the emblem of the organization, and the organization was dismantled almost 60 years ago. Please try to include only relevant information in the article, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Today official emblems of major Palestinian organizations brandish map of Israel

I feel strongly that this issue contributes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and until someone presents a serious argument that it doesn't, the table stays. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I readded the Irgun poster to show that in different periods of the conflict different groups have used posters to claim land as theirs. These posters really do not mean anything.Yuber^(talk) 01:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Considering the discussion we've had about the Irgun poster in the article on Irgun, there may be a double standard here. This one poster from the past appears to be highly relevant for one side of the issue, but not for the others. It should probably also be mentioned that Palestinian text books have maps of "Palestine" that encompass all of Israel. These maps do indeed something. --Leifern 01:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Of maps and hegemony

I'll admit that the following may be (slightly) off-topic, but here goes anyway.

Given that the State of Israel today effectively projects power through the geographic area of the Irgun map, it seems to me quite likely that the main reason the Israelis today do not wave around such maps is that it would be redundant to do so, and that (due to the controversies over the occupation) it is something of an embarrassment to them to be in effective control of some of this territory. At this point, they are, for the most part, less concerned with claiming turf than with staving off the demographic threat of having conquered so much territory in which Palestinians live as to be in danger of being outnumbered in their own effective realm. Hence, the withdrawal from Gaza. Hence, also, various strategies proposed by various Israeli factions (especially, but not exclusively, in Likud and in the settler movement) to effectively annex as much West Bank land with as few West Bank Palestinians as possible. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I honestly believe that Israeli territorial ambitions have historically been based on the desire for security, not for hegemony. Remember that Israel is a very narrow country - 25 miles wide at the widest point. As a result a well-organized tank assault could cut the country in two in half an hour. Israelis are very much aware both of this strategically untenable position and of the fact that Israel has been to war three times in the last sixty years with all of the surrounding unfriendly regimes. The fact that Israelis no longer look to expand their borders beyond 5-13% of the West Bank is due to the fact that the Israeli security situation has improved vastly since '73. Israel is now at peace with Jordan and Egypt and has proven its military superiority over its neighbors. GabrielF 03:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with GabrielF here. Jmabel wrote: "Given that the State of Israel today effectively projects power through the geographic area of the Irgun map" - considering that 3/4 of that map is today's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, what are you implying? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have graphic access where I was writing that, I was trusting the written description of the map. Still, I think my point basically stands: those in Israel who wish to retain control over the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights are a real, present-day, fact on the ground, with the political and military means of power projection. Doubtless there are many Palestinians who wish to "drive Israel into the sea", but unlike the Israeli advocates of "transfer", they clearly don't have the means to achieve their goal in the foreseeable future. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:06, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)