Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (archive 1)
|
|
I think this may be a more fruitful entry than the separate terrorism against Israel and terrorism against Arabs entries, or the intifada entry as the primary place to put information. --The Cunctator
I have never heard the term "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" used before. Is this some wikipedian's ideosyncratic usage? Or attempt to slice off a digestible piece of the Arab-Israeli conflict? Absent a good explanation, I vote against having this article. Ed Poor
- Then read the Israeli press. That is often what it is called in Hebrew. Think of it as a subconflict within a larger conflict. Danny
I guess what confuses me is the meaning of the word "Palestinian".
- A Palestinian is any long-term resident of the Levant, the region often called "Palestine" throughout much of history.
- A Palestinian is an Arab living in the Palestinian homeland, which is defined as the territory bordering on Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon -- that would explain the maps labeling this territory as "Palestine"
Is it one of the above, or something else?
- Both and neither. Both in that Palestinian can be used to describe A and B. I know many Israeli Jews born in Mandatory Palestine, who birth certificates make them Palestinian. Neither because the two definitions are not exclusive. Palestinian means a lot of different things to a lot of different people (see what I did with nomenclature on the Palestine article). In the contemporary world, it is, however, most frequently used to refer to the latter option. Perhaps this is not an ideal situation, given the multiple meanings of the term, but one of the principles of self-determination is that peoples have a right to call themselves whatever they want. As for Palestinians and Jordanians (Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.), yes, they are all Arabs, as are Algerians and Saudis. There are, however, regional differences, whether dialectical or cultural--the Jerusalem dialect of Arabic is closer to the Egyptian than the Syrian dialect (Jerusalem is al-'Uds, not al-Quds). There are different local customs and traditions, different historical narratives, local differences of cuisine and costume, in fact all the elements of distinct cultures. One would not think of lumping all Eastern Europeans together as Slavs, nor should they lump all Arabs together either. Danny
- Agreed (though I do think the percentages are significantly different). What was important about Nusseibah's statement though is that it was an important example of a prominent Palestinian leader condemning violence from his own side in a meaningful manner. This has been done on many occasions by Israeli leaders (note the vocal peace movement in Israel). I think the media jumped on it because it may signify a turning point among some of the Palestinian leadership and the possibility of a peace movement emerging there too. Let's face it. Both sides are going to have to make painful compromises that extend beyond their current positions and red lines. Danny
- I agree with your sentiments, but I'm not sure about the part where you say the Israeli leadership have condemned their own side's violence. There is an important distinction between the two sides in that the people who are perpetrating the violence against Palestinians are the IDF, directly accountable to the Israeli government; the violence against Israelis comes from maverick militant groups. I don't remember reading about anyone in the Israeli government condemning the actions of the IDF. But that aside, how can we fix that bit of the article? It is a bit odd at the moment. (It is too daunting a task to attempt to fix the bias in the rest of the article). I favour just deleting that sentence. GrahamN
- As I see it, the political leadership in Israel includes the Knesset, where Meretz, the chief opposition party, has condemned the violence. Similarly, Peres and prominent members of the Labor Party have also rejected Sharon's policies, but for reasons of their own decided to remain in the coalition (ostensibly to act as a "moderating factor"). Furthermore, some, but not all Palestinian violence is by maverick militant groups. Other acts have been arranged, sponsored, etc. by the Palestinian leadership under Arafat, or at least Mr. Arafat and his deputies turned a blind eye to them preparations. Attacks committed by Fatah, teh group headed by Arafat, are an example. Anyway, that's my declaredly POV perspective. More importantly, I would agree withe deleting the sentence if that would resolve the bias issue. Danny
- I would agree to only one of the two: remove the quote altogether (anyway, it only represents Nusseibah and about 200 people who have signed his petition), or alternatively disclaim that he and his followers are a tiny minority. Representing him as some sort of a serious participant in the political apparatus of the PA is fallacious, and that I won't support. --Uri
Scanning the content about the Palestinian conflict I see that it is purely pro-Israeli. Any other information is promptly removed, rendering it meaningless for an unbiased person to participate. Only the "truth" that all Palestinians are murderers is allowed on Wikipedia. NPOV as usual. - A.
- Speak about specifics. Is Sari Nusseibeh's opinion one representative of a majority? Is Haifa occupied Palestinian land? I only delete trolls; I discuss topics worthy of a discussion. --Uri
A., I think you are mistaken: if anything, the anti-Israeli view is given great prominence. My pro-Israeli additions are routinely neutralized, and several other Jewish or pro-Israeli contributors constantly add information on Arab points of view. I haven't seen "all Palestinians are murderers" or anything like it. Is there some specific factual information or spokesman's viewpoint you'd like to see included? Ed Poor 07:42 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
Why is there a detailed timeline on this entry? It seems to serve no purpose other than as a dumping ground for biased descriptions of every terrible thing that happens in the region. We don't have WWII timelines listing German citizens killed in Dresden. I don't think this can be managed objectively, and I don't think it belongs
I agree. And since this Israeli propagandist timeline is all there is in the article, I propose that the whole article be deleted. GrahamN
- It's funny that you had no problem with that when you added Nusseibeh's quote. Talk about propaganda. --Uri
Everything above "Timeline" seems fine to me. Everything below should probably just be wiped out. Timelines should give major events that help someone understand the issue at hand, not a tit-for-tat recital by advocates. Marknau
- Actually I can see the problem with the timeline, do we want it to contain _everything_? I thought that what I added (information about the attack on gaza city, which probably started this discussion) was something major. But now that I think about it, the most important thing for Wikipedia to provide is for example good (background) information about Gaza City. If someone comes here looking for background information on Gaza City after the attack, they will of course already know (or at least have a general idea) about how many people who died in the attack. pty 13:22 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
- We could split off the timeline and rename it "Violence in the Levant" or something like that, with a link from Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ed Poor
Look, this is silly. Even if the time-line were hived-off to a different place it would still be a full-time job for someone to prevent it from being a mouthpiece for the Israeli Ministry of Defense. And meanwhile, we are none of us getting on with writing an encyclopaedia. The subject is so current and controversial, that it is literally impossible to write a NPoV article about it. It is just not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. I propose that the whole article be deleted. Do I have a seconder? GrahamN