Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process/archive 6

Contents

1 NPOV dispute 1.1 Palestinian textbooks 1.2 Anon commentary 1.3 Martin's objections 1.4 Further discussion

NPOV dispute

This article consists mostly of a lot of junk someone has copied from some propaganda site. Readers who are interested in an impartial viewpoint on these issues are warned that this is not it.

No, it is merely an NPOV discussion of the various views that Palestinians have of the peace process with Israel. It clearly and fairly describes their points of view in their own words. As discussed in depth on the Wiki-En list, it has been censored many times for left-wing, anti-Israel purposes. That kind of censorship will no longer be tolerated. RK 14:21, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally it is quite normal in Israel to find maps that show all of Israel+West Bank+Gaza labelled as "Israel". I have one that is just an ordinary road map. Such maps appear even on Israeli government web sites, for example on http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00me0 (look at the map with Israel shown green). At http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dtq0 you can see a map that, despite marking areas A and B, shows the whole place as "Israel". There are very many other examples. Mention of Palestinian maps like this without noting the corresponding Israeli practice is a good litmus test of NPOV in Wikipedia articles. zero 00:34, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Fine, but do Israeli maps delete the existence of Jordan and Egypt, and also label them as "Greater Israel"? (No) Does the State of Israel teach its public school children to sing songs about "the Arab enemy that must be crushed", and the conquest of its neighboring nations? (No) I do agree that this article should be NPOV, but if you really want to compare Palestinian practices with Israeli practices, it will have to deal with these issues as well. RK

I disagree with Zero0000. Many Palestinian officials have publicly stated that the entire peace process is just one phase in the total destruction of the state of Israel. Like many people I have met, most of whom happen to be on the political left, Zero0000 seems to be bothered by the fact that these ideas (unpopular with those in the West) are being made public. But we must not project our own beliefs onto others. Whether we like it or not, to most Arabs in the Middle East, the views quoted in this article are not shameful. Further, these views are necessary to report on in any NPOV article on this subject. Readers should know that when Palestinians and Israelies mention the "peace process", they often are using the exact same words to refer to very different goals. We should allow Arabs to speak for themselves, allow Israelis to speak for themselves, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. What is wrong with that? RK 22:57, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The first thing that's wrong with it (the article) is that you do not allow Arabs to speak for themselves at all. You only quote Arabs who say things that you want them to say. Even if all your quotations were correct and in context, your process of selection means that the final product is just as misleading as if you faked them. And anyway I very much doubt the truth of some of your quotations and I'm absolutely certain that many of them are missing vital context. Of course there are many Arabs whose position is one of complete rejectionism. The degree to which their opinions are popular depends on the circumstances. After Oslo there was overwhelming public support amongst the Palestinian public for a deal with Israel, but it faded over the next few years. The same is true of many Israelis. Sharon's rejection of the very idea of a Palestinian state was quoted widely until he became PM and pretended to hold a different opinion. zero 12:33, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) The second thing that's wrong is that you have absolutely no standards when it comes to repeating material that you like from other sources. There is a war going on and both sides are making up propaganda like in all wars, but you are happily presenting the propaganda from one side as if it is fact. Well, lots of it is not fact. There are frequent examples of intentional mistranslations and omitted context. I don't believe you have any source other than Israeli advocacy outlets for a large number of the things you post. zero 12:33, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sources are from translations of Arab newspapers and other Arab media. Much more Arab press is now available in English than ever before. RK 14:13, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article is now considerably less lame than a month ago. However, the problem I still have with it is that the way the various POVs are presented implies that the fate of the peace process depends on the goodwill of the Palestinians, which appears uncertain, and hence Israel is the victim of their apparent duplicity. Let's be real: Israel is the occupying force here and has far, far greater military might (not to speak of economic power). The Palestinians are virtually mendicants. Hence it is ludicrous to quote Faisal Husseini calling for "the liberation of all Palestine from the river to the sea" without placing it within the governing geopolitical reality: Israel is armed to the teeth, backed by the even more powerful USA, and has between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.

Your anti-Israel political rant is of no help here. If you can't be productive, then why are you here? Please do not start a fight. RK

Palestinian textbooks

Just a peek at the last sentence here, Neither report denies, however, the extreme chauvinism and nationalism predominant in the Palestinian textbooks, should be enough to indicate that this material is POV. We do not need a long list of quotes or misquotes intended to push an agenda.Danny 06:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anon commentary

I just stumbled onto this article (I usually try to steer clear of things like this). But it would be wrong to remain silent on this one, Danny. This is nothing whatsoever wrong or innacurate with the last sentence of the material you have censored (it is factually accurate, just read the textbooks; if you don't like the adjectives then change those, but they are actually understated!), nor with the bulk of the quotations. The material is entirely relevant to the subject at hand. It is shameful of you to have played the silly game of expunging the material time and again. I don't intend to play that game or get involved in this any further, but I do hope that others with not only add back the material but make sure that Danny agrees to no more censorship based on his obviously extreme political biases. This is a real test for Wikipedia. (anon)

Martin's objections

I've skimmed through some of the material, and a couple of section struck me as obviously inappropriate: Under the heading of Palestinians who think that the peace talks are temporary, Arafat is stated as comparing "the Oslo accords to peace treaties that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, signed and then later discarded". This seems roughly equivalent to taking Bush's comments about a crusade on terror and thus deducing that Bush supports Christian armies invading and conquering Islamic nations. To be sure, some people have interpreted Bush's words in that light, just as some have interpreted Arafat's words as implying rejection of a permanent peace. But Wikipedia shouldn't take either point of view, and by giving these particular words special significance, and by placing them in such a titled section, it does take a point of view.

I do not follow this; this cannot be true. These remarks were written before Bush made his remarks on the subject. The problem is that you refuses to believe Yassir Arafat when he describes his own beliefs, and you keep attributing beliefs to himt hat he explicitly denies. You have no justification for this. RK 14:21, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I am making an argument by analogy RK. Do keep up. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So, what's the correct reaction to this particular section? Well, deletion. NPOVing them would mean saying essentially "Arafat has compared the Oslo accords to peace treaties that Mohammed signed, and various people have speculated about what he might mean by this", which is entirely neutral, but completely useless at informing the reader about Palestinian views of the peace process.

It provides a lot of information about what he believes; he believes that the peace process is only temporary, like those treaties, and will result in the total destruction of his perceived enemies, the Jews. Leaving out his beliefs is censorship due to your left-wing pro-Arab views. As discussed on the Wiki-En list, this is censorship and is forbidden. RK

No, that is your point of view on what he believes. You're reading between the lines in a way that not everyone agrees with.

Here's another example: "In a 1995 speech, Arafat named two cities within pre-1967 Israel among those to which the Palestinian Arabs will be returning". Fantastic, but why is it an indication that Arafat thinks the peace process is temporary. Arafat could easily be referring to the right to return, hoping that Palestinians would peacefully be allowed to (re-)enter these cities. Placing it under the heading of Palestinians who believe the peace talks are temporary is potentially misleading. Again, some people might interpret those words in that way, but Wikipedia cannot take a view.

That would only make sense if you denied his explicit words. You cannot take sentence fragments out of context, and rewrite his statement to mean the opposite of what he said. Your "interpretation" is wishful thinking. RK

So show us the context that shows my interpretation must be wrong. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you want to demonstrate that Arafat (or others) believes (or believed) that the peace talks will be temporary, that's fine: find quotes where they say "these peace talks are temporary - eventually we hope to destroy Israel". That's clear, and provided a reference is given and it isn't taken out of context, everyone can agree what it means. Martin 23:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC) (breaking own advice, but what the hey)

We did find such quotes, yet you, Danny, Zero and others deleted them. As Jimbo repeatedly pointed out on the Wiki-En list, these actions are unjustifiable acts of censorship. Your censorship will be reverted. RK 14:25, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

No, you found quotes that you could interpret as saying that. Find quotes where Arafat explicitly says what you want him to have said, and all will be well. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The deleted material seems pretty POV to me, or at least some of it does. I'd also say that an encyclopedia has no particular business having long lists of completely out of context quotations. john 02:13, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Further discussion

I know little about this subject, but even I can see that the article, as it stands, is horribly biased. Let's see:

• Arafat said on the PA's Voice of Palestine radio station in 1995, "The struggle will continue until all of Palestine is liberated." (Voice of Palestine, November 11, 1995)

What does he mean by "Palestine"? Was he referring to historic Palestine (which would include Israel), or was he referring to the lands on which a modern state of Palestine would be set up (the West Bank and Gaza, parts of which are still under Israeli control)? The quote does not make this clear.

Your question is already answered in this and in our other articles on this topic. Arafta is explicitly referring to all of historic Palestine, which includes all of the State of Israel. In fact, Arafat's own maps, and the official maps of the PA, show this very clearly. You need to calm down and just read the article. I get the idea that you are trying to wish away inconvenient facts. RK

Israel's maps sometimes show the West Bank as part of Israel, but we know that when Israeli politicians talk about "Israel" they typically mean the state of Israel. The same applies here. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• In a 1995 speech, Arafat named two cities within pre-1967 Israel among those to which the Palestinian Arabs will be returning: "Be blessed, O Gaza, and celebrate, for your sons are returning after a long celebration. O Lod, O Haifa, O Jerusalem, you are returning, you are returning." (Ma'ariv, September 7, 1995)

Someone else already raised this question, but: is he referring to the right of return, or to the conquest by force of the cities named? Again, it's not clear.

Again, see above. His statements are crystal clear, as are his maps, as are the sermons of official PA Imams preached in PA funded mosques. They have made hundreds of speeches, sermons and essays about this. They are talking about the total destruction of the State of Israel. Please read the articles and follow the provided weblinks. Please take the time to do some research on this subject, and read the words of Palestinians, by Palestinians. You are substituing wishful thinking for their own words. RK

Some disagree with your point of view on how crystal clear these words are. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• In an interview with the Palestinian Arab newspaper Al Ayyam on January 1,1998, when asked his view of the Oslo agreement, Arafat replied: "Since the decision of the Palestinian National Council at its 12th meeting in 1974, the PLO has adopted the political solution of establishing a National Authority over any territory from which the occupation withdraws."

See first point above.

• PA cabinet minister Abdul Aziz Shaheen told the official PA newspaper Al-Havat Al-Jadida (January 4, 1998): "The Oslo accord was a preface for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Authority will be a preface for the Palestinian state which, in its turn, will be a preface for the liberation of the entire Palestinian land." Ditto.

Huh? Palestians define "the entire Palestinian land" as including all of historic Palestine, which includes all of the State of Israel. That is their own point of view. Please stop attributing beliefs to Palestinians which they themselves deny. That is not honest. RK

That's a generalisation. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Arafat was asked: "Do you feel sometimes that you made a mistake in agreeing to Oslo?" Arafat replied: "No .... no. Allah's messenger Mohammed accepted the al-Khudaibiya peace treaty and Salah a-Din accepted the peace agreement with Richard the Lion-Hearted."

Are there any other characteristics of these treaties that might be relevant? Look at this example from the article on Saladin, referring to the treaty with Richard:

"The two came to an agreement over Jerusalem in 1192, whereby it would remain in Muslim hands but would be open to Christian pilgrimages."

Hmm. . .

• "when the Prophet Mohammed made the Khudaibiya agreement. . .we must learn from his steps. . .We respect agreements the way that the Prophet Mohammed respected the agreements which he signed."

Muhammad broke the treaty, yes, but why? Wasn't it after the other signatories attacked his allies? (I assume this is the same "treaty of al-Hudaybiyah" referred to in the article on Muhammad.)

• Neither report denies, however, the extreme chauvinism and nationalism predominant in the Palestinian textbooks.

This is obvious POV. One man's "chauvinism and nationalism" is another's healthy patriotism, and you know that as well as I.

• The usage maps showing all of Israel labeled as "Palestine" by the PA is notorious.

See zero's objections above.

Zero's comments were shown to be incorrect.

So that's just the more obvious bias of the article. Suggestions for fixing it? --MIRV 19:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Responses to all of RK's comments on this section: My questions were asked in honest ignorance: I truly did not know what was meant by "Palestine" in the quotes from Arafat; I did not know whether he meant "historic Palestine" (i.e. including Israel) or not, and the obvious distortions of this article (the two quotes on the historic treaties, the "nationalism and chauvinism" -- note that my objections on these points are still unanswered) left me doubting the veracity of the remaining text. RK, could you answer my first, second, and third questions again, this time with specific references and citations instead of invective, abuse, and vague generalities? --MIRV (talk) 21:43, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)