Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process

NPOV dispute

The NPOV dispute is long and non-productive. Important points:

This page must limit itself to cited polls, and the referenced opinions of important figures. Anything else is not NPOV.
If an entry is the view of an important figure or is information gathered by a poll, it must not be deleted. --Bensaccount

Current NPOV problems

Views of the Palestinian people - This could just be someones POV (no polls are mentioned) Bensaccount

Copyright infringement

Material in a prior version of this article contained an identical selection of quotes as [1] (http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publications/dispatch/betweenthelines/Article-27.html). Choice of this many quotes from a single interview involves a creative act and is therefore copyrightable.

Martin added a link to that article, and wrote a brief summary of the externally linked article.

For the complete discussion on copyright infringement see Copyright infringement

Discission page format

The discussion page is now organized. The format is simple so don't go and post how the article is NPOV in the copyright section. --Bensaccount

For the continuing discussion of page format see Discussion page format

Intro and article location

For further discussion on intro and article location see Intro and article location -- Bensaccount

Views of Palestinians or documented views of Palestinians

This page has twice been moved to Documented Palestinian views of the peace process. The first time it was moved back on the basis that:

This article about documented Palestinian views of the peace process defines the subject using verifyable sources and therefore suddenly these selected documented views become the views of EVERY Palestinian. (Yes, I know it makes no sense but this was the reason).
Some people think that although views vary from Palestinian to Palestinian, it is still possible to get every Palestinian's view in this article. (Impossible)
This article should be entitled Palestinian views of the peace process, so that any rubbish POV can be posted here.

The reasons for this move are:

This article is about documented Palestinian views of the peace process and therefore should be entitled Documented Palestinian views of the peace process.
The article Palestinian views of the peace process should not exist because these views vary between Palestinians.
The new title doesn't allow any Palestinian who has a view on the peace process to post rubbish on the page. Bensaccount 15:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

28/03/04 Discussion

The old title didn't allow anyone to post their personal views either, just as the article cat doesn't allow me to post information about my pet cat. Moved back, as supported by Zero000. Martin 16:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But the article Canadian views on pet cats would entitle me to post my view there. (I decided against creating this page to say my cat is fat because it would be impossible to know the view that every Canadian cat owner holds about his or her pet cat). Bensaccount 05:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I still think this article should be moved. Bensaccount 14:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think Canadian views on pet cats would entitle you to write "Ben thinks cats are ugly". Your opinion on cats isn't informative (because you're not a cat expert, etc). So adding "documented" to the title doesn't help prevent you from adding your views, because you are already prevented by the nature of Wikipedia, and our general policies and guidelines. IE: Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Does that answer your question? Martin 23:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Being a Canadian does semantically entitle me to write my views on a page entitled Canadian views. What makes you think that Canadian views refers to only the views of important Canadians? Bensaccount 13:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Those semantics only apply if you take the article's title out of context. In the context of an encyclopedia, the semantics are clear: an article entitled "Canadian views on pet cats" will contain only encyclopedic information on Canadian views on pet cats. Your views are not encyclopedic.

Similarly, our article on cat will contain only encyclopedic information on cats. Non-encyclopedic information, such as that at User:MyRedDice/cat skinning, won't make the grade. The cases are equivalent. Martin 21:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion to be continued at Wikipedia:Unencyclopedic_subject Bensaccount 22:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Peace process or Oslo accords

This article is not limited to the Oslo accords, it also attempts to define the documented Palestinian views of more recent attempts towards peace (although these attempts aren't subsectioned). Bensaccount

Article format

The article format has been defined. This article needs to classify by people whose views are documented (ie. important people & general population). Bensaccount

Past attempts

The article made a failed attempt to dichotomize the peace process into its events and define the documented Palestinian views on each event. Bensaccount 03:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article also makes a slightly better attempt to dichotomize the peace process by the Palestinians whos views are documented. This is the classification system that is now used throughout the article. Bensaccount 03:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

State of affairs 28/03/04

The talk page has been organized. The article has been organized. The title has been fixed. The article sections need to be examined for NPOV (see NPOV dispute).

It is not an easy task to write about this subject. It is hard to gather polls and documented views.

I think that much of the current content should disappear in a puff of POV.

A non-biased article under this title will no-doubt be much smaller to start with and much less "informative". Bensaccount 16:32, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales speaks out against censorship of this article

In regards to the article, ""Palestinian views of the peace process", Martin Harper (MyRedDice) is still censoring vast amounts of historical facts and verified quotes. Instead of working with others to make improvements, he is hiding facts that he finds inconvenient. This is totally unacceptable. On Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 UTC 2004 Jimbo writes about this very situation:

"But in tems of actual content, I don't see the problem. There is no question that a full understanding of the Palestinian situation requires understanding what Palestinian views of the peace process actually are. There is no question that one point of contention is whether Palestinian leaders, in particular, view the peace process as "permanent and irrevocable" (or similar) or whether they view it merely as a short-term negotiating tactic in a longterm effort to destroy Israel. Simply omitting information on that question is unacceptable. This is an important part of one of the major questions of our time."

On Fri Jan 9 16:24:36 UTC 2004 Jimbo Wales wrote:

"I don't really see how it's original historical research in any way shape or form. Palestinian attitudes are well documented and discussed -- except on Wikipedia, where people have chosen to delete rather than work for neutrality."

People like Martin Harper, are violating NPOV by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people. Viewpoints that he disagrees with, even if they are mainstream and majority views, are censored and deleted. In contrast, the material I have contributed shows a wide range of views from a wide range of Palestinian leaders, so that Wikipedia readers can read the range of views and make up their own mind. In the recent past, others have mass-deleted all this material. Today Martin Harper is doing this all over again. This is vandalism and censorship. RK 14:57, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

In support of the range of views presented within the article, Jimbo Wales writes on Fri Jan 9 17:11:56 UTC 2004 "The text could be improved, of course. But it is very good precisely becasue it presents "balanced and balancing viewpoints with the proper historical context". The quotes are dated and exact references are given. Alternative views and background information is given.

"Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of information because it doesn't comport well with the prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I think that the material is good, though not excellent, but my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It should be *improved*."

"In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist, the majority of Palestinians polled support the destruction of Israel. We can only come to understand that better when we come to understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable with that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't think censorship is too strong a word."

Martin's response

As I said before last time you copy and pasted Jimbo's words out of context like that, I agree with Jimbo that this article should not be deleted, but should be improved. I have improved the article in a variety of ways. Your reverts are not helpful. Martin 15:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Martin Haper is being disingenuous. Jimbo Wales's words are quoted in full context. Martin has not "improved" the article; he has simply deleted almost every fact and quote, in order to promote his pro-Arab, anti-Israel political agenda. His non-stop reverts and censorship must be stopped. RK 15:22, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I am not lying, as a careful review of the evidence will demonstrate. If anyone believes RK's accusations, I will be happy to refute them in detail. Otherwise, I shall not respond further. Martin 16:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Although I may not agree with everything Martin changes, he provides reasonable arguments for his edits. You however, RK, just made a major revert for no reason whatsoever. Quoting Jimbo doesn't explain the need for a major revert here. There was progress being made on this page. Reverting was not necessary. Bensaccount 15:27, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Martin Harper reverted most of the material in this article weeks ago, and has repeatedly reverted and deleted the material since then. Please check the edit history. His claims to the contrary are false. Aren't you aware of the history of this article? Please see the discussions on the Wiki-En list archive! It is unfair to blame me for Martin's reverts and censorship. Censoring this article to promote Martin's pro-Arab political causes is not progress. RK 15:45, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I have since made some contributions to the current version that was being worked on recently before you reverted. I dont care what happened weeks ago. Those are my edits you are reverting and I know they arent vandalsim. (And dont delete text on this page that isnt yours). Bensaccount 15:49, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Ben. Martin 16:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You need to care about what happened weeks ago; there is a huge difference between blaming the right person and the wrong person? I am not the one removing vast amounts of material, and reverting any new addition. It is only Marti Harper (MyRedDice) who was doing that. I was merely restoring what he kept deleting. RK 15:58, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Reversions

In general a revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. It is not the advised action when dealing with edits that were made in good faith - indeed, we strongly recommend against it. Instead, have a look at our advice on staying cool when the editing gets hot.

If the edits reverted by RK were not vandalism, then RK is the only one at fault here. --Bensaccount

But it is Martin that keeps reverting and deleting material. Just see the Wiki-En archives. This point isn't even debateable; this is a historical fact. RK 15:58, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Martin didn't revert my material. You did. Bensaccount 16:14, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RK, if you keep wiping out nearly six months of work by any number of people (your latest revisions are identical (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_views_of_the_peace_process&diff=4069723&oldid=2223337) to those from January, less the inclusion dispute header), I'm just going to roll your edits back. Take your own advice and stop constantly reverting this page. And I swear I've said this before Jimbo doesn't settle article content disputes by royal fiat (for which he deserves many accolades)—so quit appealing to his comments as if they were the final word on the matter. —No-One Jones 12:50, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry man, but I won't let pro-Arab, pro-Arafat cronies vandalize thispage by systematically deleting all facts and quotes which they do not approve of. You can play word games all you like, but the simple fact is this: You contantly delete and censor every Arab quote which does not promote your political views. You only include those qotes which promote your own political views. In every other article on Wikipedia, that is a violation of NPOV. I will not stand by and allow you to continue your abuse of Wikipedia to push your personal beliefs. RK 13:13, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

As Jimbo Wales says "Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of information because it doesn't comport well with the prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I think that the material is good, though not excellent, but my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It should be *improved*."

I agree that this article should be improved. I also believe that reverting to a six-month-old version, thereby eradicating 51 separate edits by ~half a dozen different editors, does not count as improvement—unless every one of those edits damaged the article, which somehow I doubt. And don't make hollow threats to ban me (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_views_of_the_peace_process&diff=4070021&oldid=4069981), please; they just make you look silly. —No-One Jones 13:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry guys, but it seems to me reversion war was not a very good choice. Hence the protection. SweetLittleFluffyThing 14:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Versions

Well, I did a section-by-section comparison of the two versions here, and despite the appearance of the diffs, they are actually quite similar. I think a comparison and discussion of each section separately would help to work out a revision acceptable to all editors. We can try it with the intro and see how it works. (Version 1 is the revision of 13:14, 13 Jun 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_views_of_the_peace_process&oldid=4070021), by RK; Version 2 is the revision of 02:48, 30 May 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_views_of_the_peace_process&oldid=4040873), by Tagishsimon.)

Introduction - competing versions

Version 1	Version 2
This article discusses various Palestinian views of the peace process with Israel, aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some high-level officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA) have said that their peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel; others have said that it is only a temporary measure designed for the ultimate purpose of destroying Israel.	In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are a variety of Palestinian views of the peace process. This article discusses the views held by important Palestinian figures as documented in interviews or in other sources, and by the general population as documented by polls.

Version 1

Version 2

This article discusses various Palestinian views of the peace process with Israel, aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Some high-level officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA) have said that their peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel; others have said that it is only a temporary measure designed for the ultimate purpose of destroying Israel.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are a variety of Palestinian views of the peace process. This article discusses the views held by important Palestinian figures as documented in interviews or in other sources, and by the general population as documented by polls.

Comments and suggested revisions

This should be easy:

Since this section is meant to serve as a summary of the article's contents, it may need revisiting later, after the rest of the article has taken shape.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are a variety of Palestinian views of the peace process. This article discusses the views held by the general population, as documented by polls, and those held by important Palestinian figures, as documented in interviews or in other sources. Some high-level officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA) have said that the peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel; others have said that it is only a temporary measure designed for the ultimate purpose of destroying Israel.

I integrated the information from the two versions, with tweaks to the structure of the second sentence, removal of the unnecessary bolding and duplicate links, and the addition of a link to peace process. Further comments and/or suggested revisions, please. —No-One Jones 16:52, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I dispute this:

others have said that it is only a temporary measure designed for the ultimate purpose of destroying Israel.

I believe this is one interpretation of certain comments by PA officials, but not necessarilly a correct one, and would thus prefer to remove this entire sentence. For example, some Palestinians hope to achieve a "one state solution" and rely on demographics to eventually remove the current Jewish character of Israel - but it is a point of view that such demographic changes would "destroy Israel".

Regardless of this, I also feel that this sentence places undue emphasis on a single aspect of Palestinian views of the peace process (and narrowly within the PA at that), which indirectly promotes a certain point of view, as has been noted in the talk page before now. There are many broad brush things that could be said about Palestinian views, truthfully or not, and I don't feel precedence should be given to any particular characterisation. Martin 00:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is however better without the bold. Martin 00:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Valid points all. How about this instead:

Some Palestinian leaders have said that the peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel; others have maintained, throughout the entire process, their goal of destroying Israel.

This summarizes the full range of views, from "we want peace" to "we want to destroy Israel", without relying on disputed or distorted interpretations. (The "others" in the second half of the sentence are, of course, Hamas and PIJ, whose views are, as far as I know, not in dispute.) —No-One Jones 18:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That would definately be more acceptable to me - though "others" should be "other Palestinians" to be clear, I think. However, my concern remains that this is highlighting only one aspect of the disagreement between Palestinians. Another one might be between those Palestinians who believe that believe the current peace process to be a route to permanent peace, and those who believe that Israel is (to mirror similar Israeli quotes) "not a partner for peace". Or between those who view the proposed Gaza pullout to be a genuine concession, and (the majority IIRC) who take a more cynical view.

Which reminds me, the "views of Hamas" sections needs to explicitly state Hamas's current view - we correctly state that their end goal is to overthrow Israel, but don't mention their current statement that they officially support a "strategic" peace, with the eventual overthrow of Israel "left to future generations". Which is of course exactly the view that Robert (incorrectly, I believe) attributes to PA leaders. Martin 22:12, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is good, but we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here; once these views are laid out in detail in the body of the article (as they currently are not), working them into the introduction should be easy. (Also I want to change their goal to the goal if we're going to say "other Palestinians"—otherwise the sentence suggests that all Palestinians share the goal of destroying Israel.) —No-One Jones 22:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair point. Thumbs up then, for now! :) Martin

Now we just need RK's input. . . :-/—No-One Jones 06:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Israeli Intelligence Assessment

This is a proposed additional section based on a number of sources, especially on the Haaretz articles here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/437895.html), here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/439571.html), and here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/439137.html).

The dispute over the ultimate motivations of the Palestinian leadership is fought even within the upper echelons of the Israeli intelligence establishment. In June 2004, a public debate broke out between a number of recently retired intelligence leaders, notably Amos Gilad - who headed the research division of Military Intelligence (MI) between 1996 and 2001, and was coordinator of activities in the territories from 2001-03, and Amos Malka - who was head of MI from mid-1998 to the end of 2001, and was Gilad's direct superior. Gilad expressed the belief that the destruction of Israel was the only acceptable outcome to Arafat and his supporters, and in particular that Arafat would never agree to less than a massive return of Palestinian refugees to their former places of living. Malka, on the other hand, claimed that Gilad's opinion was not based on any intelligence research; rather that his department's internal assessment was that Arafat would accept a Palestinian state comprising most of the occupied territories, a compromise on Jerusalem, and formal acceptance with token implementation of the right of return. Malka claimed that the Palestinian leadership used measured doses of violence as a technique to prod the diplomatic process forward - an assessment that Gilad vigorously denied. Each of the two found high-profile supporters.

I like this. Should it go under views of the PA? Martin 19:19, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Or in Amos Gilad and Amos Malka? Martin 18:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Husseini

The first essay referenced in the article can be found at: [2] (http://www.orienthouse.org/about/Articles/art.LA.1.html). A link and summary is better than a long quote. Perhaps fuller quotes could be provided at Faisal Husseini?

Robert has used selective quoting from Amir (http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publications/dispatch/betweenthelines/Article-27.html), who himself selectively quotes. The result is not neutral. It fails to mention Husseini's note about the powerlessness of the pre-Oslo Palestine liberation movement, his fear that the US and Israel would seek to exploit that, his description of the Oslo accords as being small, weak and ugly, from a Palestinian perspective, his praise for "gradual diplomatic goals", or his faith in returning to Israel, settling, and striking new roots, as the eventual means to ensure the "liberation" of Palestine. Husseini is not alone in noticing the Palestinian demographic edge, on all sides of the struggle.

While I am unclear that Amir is any more neutral than Robert, I would prefer to link to his original analysis, rather than including our own analysis (necessarilly highly controversial) of his analysis, as that will ensure that any bias that does exist is attributed to Amir, rather than to Wikipedia. Perhaps Robert could write his personal interpretation elsewhere, and we could link to it, in parallel to Amir's, and any other reviews of Husseini's public statements. Compare Jews in the New Testament. Martin 17:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 4 edit war

The edit war of July 4, 2004, which led to this page being protected, centered on the amount of material to include regarding Faisal Husseini. Hopefully we can resolve this through consensus, rather than reverts.

The short version is as follows:

Faisal Husseini, former Palestinian Authority Minister for Jerusalem, was well known in Israeli circles as a Palestinian dove and moderate. He was an extremely high-ranking official who represented the most liberal faction of the Palestinian Authority. He stated that "Palestinians believe that Jerusalem should be a shared, open city; two capitals for two states."

On 24 June 2000, in an taped interview with journalist Shafik Ahmed Ali, given to the Egyptian newspaper el Arav, Faisal Husseini compared the Oslo accords to a "Trojan horse", and stated "the strategic goal is to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea". [Amir, 2001]

The long version is like this:

Faisal Husseini, former Palestinian Authority Minister for Jerusalem, was well known in Israeli circles as a Palestinian dove and moderate. He was an extremely high-ranking official who represented the most liberal faction of the Palestinian Authority. In 2000, The LA Times ran an editorial by him "The Holy City Must Be Ruled Fairly" which states:

No single group should be able to claim either religious or political exclusivity in Jerusalem....Palestinians believe that Jerusalem should be a shared, open city; two capitals for two states. In our vision, East Jerusalem, as defined by the 1948-1967 borders, would be under Palestinian sovereignty, while West Jerusalem would be under Israeli sovereignty....Creating shared administrative arrangements is especially important in the Old City of Jerusalem, as this concentrated area evokes the most passion among Jews, Christians and Muslims.

However, the following quotes come from the June 24, 2000 issue of el Arav, an Egyptian newspaper. In a taped interview with journalist Shafik Ahmed Ali he stated:

"The Oslo agreements were a Trojan Horse....The strategic goal is to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea."

When asked about the intentions of Arafat and the Oslo peace deal signed in 1993, Husseini recounted the classical Greek story of the Trojan horse:

"we all know what happened afterwards. Had the US and Israel understood before Oslo that all that remained of the Palestine liberation movement and the Pan-Arab movement was the Trojan Horse named Arafat or the PLO, they would have never opened their fortified gates and let him in." Husseini stated that he told Israelis and Americans "Get on the horse and don't ask what it is made of. Get on the horse, and your entry inside will turn into the dawn of an era of building and not an era of the end of hope!"

Husseini stated that it is the obligation of all the Palestinian factions to view the peace process as only "temporary" and "gradual" steps. "We are setting an ambush for the Israelis and cheating them." He said that the final goal of the Palestinian Authority is still the "liberation of all Palestine from the river [Jordan] to the sea [Mediterranean],...[even if it takes] 1,000 years, or generations upon generations."

So what's the consensus? They both seem factually accurate and NPOV to me. Is one version much more preferable than another? Quadell (talk) 20:34, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Palestinian_views_of_the_peace_process"