Encyclopedia > Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state

Article Content

Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state

Comments from -- April:

Plan 1: when this says "and Israel," is the entire nation of Israel meant, or only the territories on which Palistinians have been settled?
Plan 2: "Cede" East Jerusalem? I thought that, under the U.N. resolutions which created Israel, East Jerusalem was not included?
Plan 3: Much of the Arab world supports Plan 1? Is this in the "Israel ceases to exist" sense, or some other sense? If the first, can this be supported? If the second, what exactly is meant?

As far as I know, "and Israel refers to the entire country." This is the position taken by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, neither of which accepts the legitimacy of a Jewish presence in the country.As far as Jerusalem, the Partition Plan of 1947, which led to Israel's independence proposed that Greater Jerusalem (including Bethlehem and Ramallah) remain under international control for a period of ten years, after which a plebiscite would be held to determine its final status. During the 1948 war, the partition plan was abandoned, the boundaries were temporarily redrawn at the armistice lines (from the date of the cease fire)and Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan. As an aside, it is worthwhile noting that virtually no one today seriously considers dividing the country according to the UN partition plan, since those borders were so untenable. The debate over the West Bank is whether Israel should withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines. As for point three, in the Israel "ceases to exist" sense. Negotiations with Syria, for instance, have been over de facto (but not de jure) recognition over Israel's right to exist.

Finally, Ed, the third option is considered in Israel to be a very extreme position. Yes, it has supporters in the Knesset, and in the wake of attacks, people will voice extremist opinions, but for the most part, Israelis reject that option as racist. Danny

What claim has Israel made to the West Bank (or to Gaza)? I thought they "ceded" those territories or agreed to give them up in the Oslo Accords; or at least offered them in another land for peace deal. Danny or anyone, do you know? Ed Poor

Er, aren't the Palistinians specifically asking for East Jerusalem to go to their hypothetical state, with West Jerusalem remaining part of Israel? -- April

This is what I had in mind when I simply changed "West" to "East". It seemed like the kind of mechanical error that we all made. For the sake of simplicity I repressed my reservations about the word "cede".

I also held my tongue on "cede", but I think it's entirely inappropriate. DanKeshet

The article says:

Another plan is to create a Palestinian State with only Gaza and the West Bank, but with its capital in Jerusalem. This would require Israel to cede West Jerusalem to the new nation. This idea forms the basis of a peace plan put forward by Saudi Arabia in March 2002.

But wasn't this idea put forward much earlier than this month? It seems to me I've heard the exact same thing all my life. (Am I just war-weary, or what?) When was this plan originally proposed, and by whom? Ed Poor

I don't think everyone would agree with the phrase

favoured by some extremist elements

because the word extremist sounds like a put down. I'd like to revert the text so it says regarded as extremist by X. This is essential for NPOV writing, don't you think, folks? Ed Poor

Why not just delete 'extremist'? The page has enough context to show the range of existing views, so people can judge for themselves which are the extremes.

--- This is the third attempt at putting down some answers here, but I keep losing what I want to say in an editing conflict. Ed, it is very much deemed an extremist view in Israel. In fact, Meir Kahane, who first advocated a policy of transfer, was barred from running for Knesset by the Supreme Court of Israel for espousing racism. The parties that promote transfer today have had to tone down their rhetoric, but the vast majority of Israelis do not accept transfer as an option. I would leave extremist in, lest it appear that transfer is a common view in Israeli society--it is not. Finally, the issue of Jerusalem is incredibly complex and requires considerable background history. I will try to put something together about it and the peace process over the weekend. Danny

So far as the above goes, I don't want to talk about the politics of it (nor would I be much able to), but: why not just state that the vast majority of Israelis do not accept transfer as an option? That is, don't argue the point yourself, but cite someone else's argument as being someone else's argument; then it's easily verifiable or not. The point is not to argue about the truth or falsiy of it, but just to state what everyone can agree on: X said Y about Z. Just a suggestion. Koyaanis Qatsi, Friday, April 5, 2002

creating a militarily stable situation

It's not obvious (and I believe wildly incorrect) that a forced mass population transfer would "create a militarily stable situation". Does somebody say it would? Who? Do they mean "stable" for all parties or only one? DanKeshet, Friday, April 5, 2002

I put it back to the way it was. Essentially, even in the Knesset and even among Israel's right-wing parties, it is considered an extremist view. Considering that there are more than 20 parties represented in the Knesset, you will find virtually every shade of opinion represented, including the first two options. Finally, Ed, the conflict is incredibly complex. I have been deeply involved in it personally for the past 20 years of my life. I speak from much experience when I say that wording is everything here. Oh, and I totally agree with DanKeshet above. Danny

General comments of DanKeshet:

Reviewing this article and Palestine, I find Palestine provides much of the background this one is missing and they both address some of the same content. I think both articles would be richer if they were combined.
This article is not about a "Palestinian homeland". It is about proposals for the creation of a Palestinian state. (This is part of the reason why I believe it should be combined with Palestine.) The Palestinians already have a "homeland". The fact that it is under occupation and that it is not organized as a modern state does not make it any less of one.

Specific comments of DanKeshet:

Israeli claims being "not generally recognized" internationally is a misleading understatement. "not recognized by any other country" would be more specific and accurate.
Israel's claims to "Judea and Sumaria" are varying. Only a few Israels claim the entire area. I believe the official government justification for the current military campaign is that they are defending the security of Israel proper, not that the West Bank is rightfully part of Israel, though you might draw some inferences from their behavior.
The third proposal listed cannot accurately be described as a proposal for a Palestinian homeland or state. It is a proposal for the non-existence of a Palestinian state and the destruction/annexation of the Palestinian homeland. However, with a note about how some Israelis believe Jordan to be a Palestinian state/homeland, it could be one.
As noted above, "cede" is a loaded word. "relinquish" or "renounce claims to" would be more appropriate. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=relinquish has some good notes on the connotations of this group of synonyms.
- Good suggestion. "Cede" also suggests that you are giving up a territory to which you had a right prior to the cession. e. g. Finland ceded some of its own territory to the USSR at the end of WW2. Eclecticology
most likely not welcome Jews is entirely speculative. Perhaps accurate, but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia.

- I have to add that I agree with all of DanKeshet's comments above; as to the last, perhaps it can be modified to something like, "Some Israeli Jews fear that the resulting Arab majority would be hostile to the Jewish population and/or antithetical to the idea of Israel as a Jewish state." Does that sound reasonable? -- April
  - Very! I've added the words "to the" which seemed an accidental omission.

There probably wouldn't be an Arab majority at present if all Palestinians were to return, although getting figures for the numbers of Palestinians is tricky. In future, this could potentially change because Palestinian population growth is higher; this might or might not be counteracted by further Jewish immigration into Israel.

I altered the first plan, making it clear (?) that the Palestinian homeland issue is polarized into those who want to destroy Israel completely (plan 1), those who favor some sort of compromise (plan 2), and those who want Israel expanded (plan 3).

The article still needs to explain why a Palestinian homeland is desired. Who wants a homeland? Why don't they have a homeland? What entitles a people to a homeland?

For example, the Kurds live in Iraq, as well as Turkey and other countries, while the Bedouins like in the Sinai. Do the Kurds or Bedouins want (or have) a homeland?

Please understand that these are not intended as rhetorical questions, and I am not advocating one thing or another. I just want to help make the article better.

Ed Poor

Ed, take a look at the homeland article for a start. It's an ethnic nationalist concept.--The Cunctator

I moved this to the present location, because that's what the content of the article is about. I also changed much of the wording, but realize now I should've copied the old one as is, then edited it so you could read the diff easily. I redirected Palestinian homeland to Palestine because everything you'd want in one article should probably be in the other as well. DanKeshet, Monday, April 8, 2002

Some advocates maintain that the "Palestinian homeland" is simply "Palestine" while other advocates present contrasting ideas. Indeed, the usage of the term "Palestine" has varied greatly during the 20th century.

The wikipedia, to maintain NPOV, must not take sides on this issue. Ed Poor, Monday, April 8, 2002

Dan, you wrote:

some argue that there is no such thing as "Palestinian" seperate from Arab

Would you please identify the advocates of this idea, and explain it in some more detail? (I don't understand the meaning of "no such thing as Palestinian separate from Arab".) Does it mean

all Palestinians are Arabs?
Arab is an actual ethnic group, but Palestinian is a made-up one?
or what?

Hi Danny, it means both the first and the second: there's no difference between a "Palestinian" Arab and any other Arab. The first example of this I could find using google: "[If Israel were replaced by an Arab state in the same land,] The present day "Palestinian nationalism" myth would overnight morph into some other non-entity and the "refugees" would miraculously become absorbed by their fellow Arabs, for in effect, the "Palestinians" are really no different ethnically or culturally than all the other "Arabs."" from http://www.masada2000.org/leftists

I'll try to find a better example, but it may take a while. Alternately, I could be totally misunderstand what he's trying to say (though I think I've read similar thoughts in other places).--DanKeshet

Actually, it wasnt me that asked that. However, both Masada 2000 and Naomi Regen are examples of an exteremist fringe in Israeli society. I have a problem with giving the same legitimacy to fringe elements (whether right or left) as to the more mainstream opinions of a society. In a similar vein, I wonder whether the Klan could be said to represent an American perspective equivalent to, say, the Democratic Party. Let's give opinions a voice, but let's also add some perspective. Danny

Oops, this page sure is getting frequent edits. :) Yeah, I know these are considered extremist and don't deserve alot of column space, except perhaps in their own articles. I'd avoid labeling them "extremist" in the article because we don't want to pass judgment. If you want to add perspective, how about including some facts re: public opinion polls, people elected to knesset, etc? Does that work? Peace, dk

A much better example: "Palestine is not, and never was, the name of a country, or the name of a people." http://www.naomiragen.com/Columns/TheBigLie.htm --dk

I'm interested by the assertion that part of "Palestine" is controlled by Jordan. What part of Jordanian land is being called Palestinian here, and on what historic Palestinian borders is this idea based? More on this would be welcome in the article. Enchanter

All of Jordan was part of the original British Mandate of Palestine, but separated from it to create a kingdom for the Hashemite Emir Abdullah in 1922.

Palestine covers a lot of the history.

I removed this:

Some groups in Israel argue that Palestinians in the West Bank should not have a right to a second Palestinian state because, they argue, Jordan is already a Palestinian state. Alternately, some argue that there is no such thing as "Palestinian" seperate from Arab and that Jordan is already an Arab state. Therefore, they argue, Israel should annex its historic homelands Judea and Sumaria and force the non-Jewish residents to emigrate. According to this plan, other Arab states would resettle the refugees and give them full citizenship. (Annexing the land without forcing the residents to emigrate is covered above, in the first proposal to create a united state.) This plan has virtually no support in the Arab world, and is regarded as racist by much of the Arab world as well as significant parts of Israel's Jewish population.

There are several reasons why, mainly based on the fact that this is totally inaccurate. The two arguments are confused. Whwether Jordan is a Palestinian state or not does not mean annexation is the only option. Menachem Begin, for example, proposed autonomy under Israeli rule. Then, of course, Israel keeping the West Bank and Gaza does not necessarily mean that the population would have to be moved either. By the way, there are also several other options that have been proposed and have no mention here. Option one, for example, does not include the option of a democratic, secular state, while no mention is made of a binational state, both of which have advocates among Israelis and Palestinians. Finally, the last option is about how to avoid a Palestinian state, not a proposal for the creation of one. Danny

I think that it was inappropriate for you to remove this section. There is nothing inaccurate about it. Rather, all you have pointed out is that this is not the only option. And it is not about avoiding the creation of a Palestinian state at all; you are misrepresenting its primary point: There is a large Arab Palestinian state in most of Palestine already: Currently this nation is controlled by a small number of Hashemite Arabs and is known as the Kingdom of Jordan. The Palestinian Authority is fighting Israel to create a second Arab Palestinian State in the West bank, in Gaza, and according to most of its leaders, eventually in all of Israel proper. The PLO itself agrees with this view, and it went to war with Jordan in the 1970s over this view. (The PLO lost.) RK

As for the binational state plan you mention, it already is listed under the main entry, with a different description. A binational state, by definition, would involve the destruction of the current State of Israel, and its subsequent flooding with millions of Arabs, and the dismantling of its Jewish character. Those who support this plan, it must be noted, never demand that any Arab state stop being Arab and instead become "a state of all its citizens" instead; the anti-ethnic attack goes one-way only - against the Jewish nation. This plan has no support among Israeli Jews at large, except for a small number of communists and socialists, because it fits their (utopian) political worldview. RK

Sorry RK, but we can go through this point by point. Jordan today is not a Palestinian state. It may have once been part of the British Mandate of Palestine (for a period of 5 years), it may have no legitimate reason to exist in its colonial boundaries except for the fact that it does. But it does exist and it has existed for 80 years. In that time, a national identity has emerged and the Palestinians, no matter what percentage of the population they constitute and no matter what ties there are between them and the Jordanians, are an ethnic minority. In fact, Jordan is primarily a Bedouin state. The PA is fighting to create a Palestinian state, not a second Palestinian state, so even the most extreme of Palestinians will not suggest an eventual merger with Jordan (although Israel has even offered this) and although it would make a Palestinian state more economically viable. Furthermore, King Hussein of Jordan disavowed his claim to the West Bank, which was only recognized by Britain and Pakistan in any event. Part of the Oslo Accords (and I agree that they are dead) was the recognition by the PLO of Israel within certain boundaries. Where they happy about that? Probably not, but negotiations are about give and take (in fact, that is the exact Hebrew word: masa u-matan). What happened in the 1970s, while tragic and frightening, does not necessarily reflect the reality of today. If it did there would never have been any peace negotiations.

As for the binational state, thre is historical precedent for it among the Jewish community of Israel as well. In fact, before independence, it was the view supported by a group called Ichud, led by philosopher Martin Buber and Hebrew University President Yehudah Magnes. Neither of their Zionist credentials can really be challenged seriously. By the way, there are also indications that this was the view of several members of the rightwing Stern Group, most notably Natan Yellin-Mor, who was part of the triumirate (with Yithak Shamir) that headed the group after Stern's assassination.

Finally, saying it has little support and should be treated accordingly, while granting legitimacy to a Kahanist-Kach argument of forcible transfer is inconsistent. Both are fringe elements today (and Zeevi and Moledet do NOT support forcible transfer, but transfer out of free will--kinda wishful thinking). You might also want to read Berdichevsky and Borochov (both mainstream Zionist socialist ideologues) on the Arab population (socialist redemption that will eventually supercede nationalism and encompass all peoples in the region) or even Zeev Jabotinsky, the spiritual father of Sharon's own Likud Party, who called for a presidential system for the Jewish state in the making, with a Jewish President and an Arab Vice President.

Partition was decided on by the UN because it was concluded that under the existing circumstances, the two national groups could not coexist peaceably. It was recognized that this might change. The Partition Plan also called for an economic union between Israel and Palestine, while even Menachem Begin spoke openly of a confederation uniting Israel, Jordan, and Palestine. Danny

I'm not sure I understand the answer to my question, but it sounds like advocates Masada 2000 and Naomi Regen, considered an "extremist fringe" (by whom?), dismiss the concept of "Palestinian" as a distinctive ethnic group.

This would have a bearing on the "homeland" issue, as follows: if the Arabs in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank are the same "people" as Arabs in bordering countries, then they aren't "homeless" -- it's just that a portion of the Levant where some Arabs lived was made into a Jewish homeland. And, presumably, these Arabs object to that, on ground of (a) general anti-semitism (Jews don't merit a homeland -- anywhere); (b) property rights (this is my house and farm, and no one has the right to confiscate it -- even if they pay double its market value); (c) other reasons I don't know yet.

Often, when reading press coverage of "Palestinians" I get the impression that they (or the whole Arab world) want Israel's complete and unconditional destruction; and that the "land for peace" notion is actually a trick: its only purpose is to make shrink Israel sufficiently so the next war will result in Israel's utter defeat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and note that I'm trying my best not to let my advocacy (I do have a position, of course) stop me from helping to create an NPOV article. Ed Poor

Hi Ed, I think you've pretty successfully summarized most of the Masada 2000/Noami Ragen argument. --dk

--- Sorry, Ed, but once again, that is a horrible oversimplification of differences, and it ignores the complexity of the problems involved. Blanket statements, especially inaccurate blanket statements, do very little to further the Israeli cause you claim to support. There is a lot of history and shades of opinion that go into the opinions. Please be careful when trying to describe them. Danny

I agree. I wrote the above several weeks ago or even longer ago than that. In recent weeks, I have begun to try even harder to avoid those household items that annoy you and so many others: "blanket" statements and "sweeping" generalizations. Making a top-notch encyclopedia article plainly requires much more than mere good will. Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

Uriyan, mah zeh ha-kishkush hazeh?! Once again, so many different positions have been jumbled together in an attempt to pigeonhole various solutions given at various times. There are hundreds of proposals out there, and there have been since 1880s. While they can be sorted into different categories, there are countless subcategories too. This needs a lot of sorting out. I will get to it tomorrow. Danny

If you had checked the version history, you'd be able to see that the changes that I introduced were (a) adding the list of current impediments to achieving a Palestinian state (and I hold that these are outlined well enough) and (b) Dividing the section about transforming both Israel and PA into a single new state. Now sure, there are some fine points that distinguish between general sub-options, but it's not like Israeli Jews will be likely to accept an Islamic sharia' state over here, so the main problem persists. In addition, over-specification is also bad - some of the options are nice but just impossible (e.g., the Israeli Left's dreams of a "New Middle East", which are nice to beleive in, but instead got ourselves into a bloody confrontation with the Palestinians). Agav, be-yahas le-kishkush - kzat nimus, bevakasha. --Uriyan

RK, thanks for adding the "original position" text. I had long thought that the concept of a "Palestinian state" was a pretext of some kind; this provides evidence for that POV. --Ed Poor

217.32.114.254, when you say "Israel characaterizes" or "Israel wants", would you please provide a bit more about the sources? You might say something like In August 2002 Netanyahu said that he would only accept... or Rabbi Lotsowitz wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece that he regards the Palestinians as wanting all of.... This kind of detail makes the article more enjoyable to read. --Ed Poor

Uri,

Having read your impassioned plea on the mailing list, I have a response albeit perhaps a weak one.

Dividing long controversial articles into two or more short controversial articles seems to help. Why? Because it isolates the "damage", and neutralizing the POV content is thereby made easier. Look at what I did with Dwight Eisenhower.

Another tactic that has had some limited success is conceding that an article (such as global warming) will inevitably contain much more information from the "other side" than information supporting the "true side" (i.e., my own near-infallible beliefs). In this kind of situation, I focus on welcoming the other side and turning flat statements of "fact" into properly cited "opinion" or "hypothesis" or "report", plus adding comments on these POVs' degree of veracity or reliability from opposing sources.

There is no easy answer, no quick fix, I'm sorry to say.

Sincerely,

Ed Poor

Well, thank you for advice and support. I'll consider spliting e.g., Palestine into several parts. What I dislike most is the need to remove discussions of all sorts of issues for the different pages (e.g. RoR or legality of settlements) - I feel the discussion is much more fair and comprehensive if done in a single page (Perhaps I'll make a page like Palestinian Right of Return[?]). However, I am only one man and there are too many things that I don't know. --Uri

Uri - your actions here are disgraceful. You are deliberately and wilfully misrepresenting the Palestinian position, and preventing corrections. Example: The changes shown here [1] (http://www.wikipedia.com/w/wiki.phtml?title=Proposals_for_a_Palestinian_state&diff=0&oldid=132115) were described by you as "removing Palestinian trolls". What, though, have you altered?

You have changed the accurate statement, "In addition, they want a "fair resolution" to the problem of Palestinian refugees." to to Israeli propaganda, "In addition, the majority demands the granting of complete right of return to all Palestinian refugees."

More glaringly biased was the original statement, "including terrorist attacks by Palestinians and by individual acts of vengeance by Israeli settlers", which is glaringly written from an Israeli POV. I changed that around, basically to point out the bias of the original statement ("including terrorist attacks by Israeli settlers and by individual acts of vengeance by Palestinians"). Your response? To restore the original statement, which speaks solely from an Israeli POV.

With regard to concerns about access to holy places, the original article referred only to Israeli concerns under "Palestinian occupation". I left that in place, but added a paragraph on Palestinian concerns for access under "Israeli occupation". Your response? To change "Israeli occupation" to "Israeli control" (I note that "Palestinian occupation" was left unchanged) and then to add a rider to the Palestinian concerns.

There are numerous other examples of your use of an Israeli, rather an Neutral, POV, and removing alternate POVs from the articles. In short, you are demonstrably unfit to control this article, by your efforts at enforcing an Israeli POV and actively deleting any other. --Jacob

I am glad that Jacob points out this consistent problem. The lists he makes could easily be expanded.

On particularly important point is the final section of this article. Much detail is given for the Arab option to destroy Israel. I left that in place, but added the following, for balance:

One Israeli plan is to deport all Palestinians from the West Bank and annex that land to Israel. On May 12 2002, Israel's ruling political party, Likud, voted to never permit the establishment of any Palestinian state in any form [2] (http://www.glocaleye.org/armageddon.htm) [3] (http://www.aquascript.com/psc/archives.asp?xid=868) [4] (http://www.salon.com/news/2002/05/14/likud/index_np?x)

What I have written is factually accurate, unbiased and referenced. Uri deleted it. Why?

Obviously, because it's false and anything but NPOV! The concept you mention ("transfer") does exist (it was at times part of the political agenda of Moledet, though the vast majority of the Israeli public rejected it outright), but it has nothing to do with Likud! Likud merely voted against a Palestinian state basing on the current Palestinian Authority administration. Mentioning it was libel and falacy. --Uri

I am glad that Jacob points out this consistent problem. The lists he makes could easily be expanded. Note that it is stated (on talk page of Intifada): "As to NPOV, would you deny the average Arab hates Jews guts? --Uri" I think this opinion explains a lot. -- Neutral

Oh, I see, according to your perception, I must be a Palestinian propaganda drone to be right and NPOV? --Uri

Further it is worth considering that virtually each and every country in the world considers the West Bank and Gaza to be occupied. However, Israel feels they are "territories under Israeli control". As a result, the pro-Israeli maffia here at Wikipedia has enforced the Israeli viewpoint calling it NPOV, while those using the word "occupation" are branded as Palestinian trolls.

Perhaps I'd acted a bit rashly; your changes, however, were intended as pure flamebaits. Let's look at them:

"In addition, the majority demands the granting of complete right of return to all Palestinian refugees."

That statement is truthful. Arafat has never officially accepted anything less than granting of full right of return to tall refugees. He did so because that is the opinion upheld by the majority of the Palestinians. He rejected specifically an offer which you define as "just compensation".

"including terrorist attacks by Israeli settlers and by individual acts of vengeance by Palestinians"

How many Palestinians were killed by settlers, during the last 10 years? Maybe 50, of them 30 by a single maniac - that's Baruch Goldstein. How many settlers have been killed by Palestinians? Several hundred. If you somehow classify Goldstein and his company to be terrorist, even then what you will have on the settler side is only a faint reflection of the empire of terror on the Palestinian side. There's absolutely no justification for the change you introduced in the first place.

"Israeli occupation" vs. "Israeli control"

As has been described elsewhere (and I really don't want to have exactly the same discussion in two places), the term "occupation" is a loaded one, and it is contested by Israel. "Control" doesn't have that disadvantage. The fact that I left "Palestinain occupation" is an omission; it also should read "Palestinian control".

and then to add a rider to the Palestinian concerns.

... which failed to distinguish between the actions of Israel as a state, and numerously-persecuted faulty attempts of extremists to vandalize Muslim holy sites.

There are numerous other examples of your use of an Israeli, rather an Neutral, POV, and removing alternate POVs from the articles

I did not remove alternate POVs. Most of your statements still remain inside. Yes, I care to represent the Israeli POV, and to represent what I percieve as the truthful (e.g. not propagandist) Palestinian POV. For example, the Palestinian POV so far denies a compromise on the Right of Return, when it comes to negotiations.

In short, you are demonstrably unfit to control this article

I do not seek to control it, there are others who would do it in my stead (in this case); I do seek to present the truthful Israeli position and the truthful aspects of the Arab one. The only thing that I'd done so far is to blow away Palestinian propagandist rhetoric, which you planted here. --Uri

Pages are currently edited so that Israel is always described as reasonable, while Palestinians are always unreasonable. That is the single most important reason why Wikipedia fails to reach the standard of NPOV.

Stick to the point: have I explained the Palestinian position wrongly? If yes, say why (here). We'll work out a better text. If no, what the hell are we arguing about? --Uri

Occupation vs control: So if essentially the whole world uses the word "occupation" but Israel does not like it, then its use should be avoided. In that case, if the whole world has an opinion and Palestinians disagree, then we should follow the Palestinian opinion. Otherwise we are not being consistent. --Neutral

The problem with occupation is not that it upsets Israel, but because it is incomplete in describing the current situation on the territories. Was Oslo occupation? But it was bilateral, with "the rest of the world" very happy. I would agree, though, to classify the period prior to Oslo as occupation (provided that Israel's aspirations for trading the lands for peace are mentioned). --Uri

Uri, you seem to have fallen into a mode in which you cannot bear for the article to express "wrong" POVs, even for an hour. While your heart is certainly in the right place, I fear that you are employing ineffective tactics. You can't simply delete every mistake.

Why not devote a portion of your time to NPOVifying (as opposed to deleting) contrary points of view? Change Palestinians have always wanted into According to <title> <name>, the Palestinian people want X.

I hope this suggestion helps. --Ed Poor

I heartily second Ed's suggestion and commend him for his diplomacy in making the point. When matters are this controversial, rather than trying to establish a "right" view, it's most productive to ascribe the variety of views to those groups which espouse them. If you believe certain viewpoints widely held, you can at least give examples of spokesmen or groups which have championed them. -- April

Well, I guess you're probably right (I should have been less obsessed about the articles' constantly being coherent), but at times the flaming (and one of the authors above did admit adding flames deliberately) pisses me off rather seriously. Well, I sure hope I'll be able to control myself better the next time, better for my health anyway. --Uri]

When I'm angry, I can't write from the NPOV. I've let articles I care deeply about languish for over a week at a time, until I could calm down enough to conform to wikipolicy. The more important the issue, and the more "right" I am, the fiercer my anger. Some issues require Olympian detachment to describe properly. My hat's off to anyone who can do it. (And where's Larry when you need him? <snivel, sob>) --Ed Poor

Yeah, I guess you're right, the truth can wait (:-). I've made some revisions to the parent page that our pro-Arab colleagues would probably like. As to Larry, indeed he could do marverls <Larry, come back to us unworthy sinners!> --Uri

Uri - Small improvements, but still plain pro-Israel bias. For example, I note that Israel's grave concern over holy sites now claims no serious incidents at al-aqsa for twenty years, when in fact (and mentioned on the link I added in the Palestinian concerns on holy sites) Israeli archeologists re-opened controversial excavations beneath the mosque in 1996, which non-Israeli archeologists argue have caused subsidence, with cracks appearing in neighbouring walls.

I said no serious incidents. Israel's archaeological activity on the Temple Mount has been unofficially coordinated with the Waqf for a long time now. So even if there were cracks there, the digs were approved by the Waqf. This is not even mentioning the whole subject of illegal Muslim digging on the mountain (not archaeological).

I note also that there is *still* no mention of the Likud vote (which I added and referenced, see above), while the "Arabs want to destroy Israel" segment still has four sub-bullet points. The Israeli ethnic cleansing plan has been added (well done!), but only as something raised "from time to time" by "extremists", rather than as an implication of Likud party policy, as voted on in recent months. On your spin of the likud vote, read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1985088.stm This BBC report on the vote] or This report (http://www.beloitdailynews.com/502/pale13.htm). Because a fact is inconvenient for Israel does not make it untrue.

The Likud vote is completely irrelevant to the question of a Palestinian state. What is says is that Likkud rejects the concept of a Palestinian state based on the current Palestinian Authority (for instance Netanyahu said in a speech prior to the vote, that if reforms are implemented, the question will be re-opened). It does not imply anything about the whole concept of a Palestinian state, other than the Likud's reluctancy to see Arafat and his men leading it. Compare it to World War II in Europe: the fact that the Allies wanted Hitler and his Nazi gang out did not mean they were planning to cancel out Germany's independence for good. As to your link, note that it says nowhere that the decision is permanent; by context, it relates simply to the current Palestinian Authority. You fail to distinguish between "no state by PA", "no state ever" and "transfer". Your last sentence is ludicrous and does not deserve an answer.

On your point on settler terrorism. There are plenty of documented instances of attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinian locals. For a recent example, see both major pieces of news from the Gaza strip in the past week. B'Tselem's report on settler violence against Palestinians can be found here: [5] (http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlers_Violence/index.asp)

While I do admit that some settlers are hardly innocent lambs, the scale of violence coming from among them is smaller by an order of magnitude than the scale of violence on the Palestinian side. There are no settlers who arrange drive-by shootings against Palestinians (there were two attacks that the settlers claimed responsibility for, but no hard evidence and conclusive pattern). It hardly needs proof that Palestinian gunmen arrange daily drive-by shootings against settlers.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point, which is that if you take it upon yourself to delete and expand upon entries here then you need to leave your Israeli citizenship at the door. You can pick it up again on the way out. Oh, and a POV which isn't pro-Israel isn't necessarily "arab trolling" - and calling it such is insulting and patronising.

No thank you. The art of being NPOV does not include giving up your beliefs. It includes stating them in reasonable amounts, and in an understandable way. Introducing large sections of content with an obvious propagandist bottom line is Wikipedia's way of trolling, and you've done it many times. So maybe it wasn't "Arab trolling" but "pro-Arab trolling", but it was trolling all right.

One final thing - I have no doubt that, despite efforts to get towards a NPOV in my editing, I strayed occasionally away from neutrality. To characterise minor lapses as propaganda, though, is stretching it more than a bit. Particularly in the context of the overwhelming pro-Israel bias which is apparent through this Israel/Palestine segment of Wiki. And which, whether you admit to it or not, you appear - from your actions in deleting segments which are not pro-Israel and qualifying items which present legitimate Palestinian concerns, while leaving Israeli propaganda intact - to want to control.

--Jacob

You copy-and-pasted a section out of a Palestinian propaganda site. That is a very severe NPOV sin. Your "neutrality" may only be presumed by you, as the lapses are not so minor. In fact, as of now, you are deep on the Palestinian side of the spectre, as far as I read the map. The fact that you percieve a pro-Israel bias does not free you from the need to adjust matters point by-point. As to my desires, I do have basic demands to the other-side content that you posted. Yours did not qualify, which means you've got to rewrite it. That's what NPOV is all about. As to "patronizing" - your message is the definition of this word. --Uri

In May 2002, Israel's ruling Likud Party[?] defying its titular leader Ariel Sharon, resolved never to accept a Palestinian state. Likud said that any agreement to establish a Palestinian state "is dangerous to the state of Israel." [6] (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020513-80315970.htm)

First of all, with all the due respect, Likud's vote was centered specifically on the current Palestinian Authority. Secondly, it lacks any real political power, just look at how Sharon rejected it the next day. So it cannot be considered an impediment to the peace process in any way, it was a non-event from any POV one might adopt. All the vote said was "Netanyahu doesn't like Arafat". Here's a revelation for you. --Uri

is this neutral enough? A prominent Palestinian regards it as an obstacle

Saeb Arekat, a.k.a. "Chief negotiator" declares everything done by Israel to be an obstacle (that's his daily rite). So it's either you put in the 10,000 things he has declared obstacles, or delete this as well, because I find very little objective value in his sayings. An impediment has to be more substancial than a propagandist statement. --Uri

A strictly Arab or Islamic state (the Islamic Movement).

The Islamic movement does not advocate an Arab state unless it's a religious one.

Obviously Jews will have the status of Dhimmis, and for natural reasons will be pushed out of such a state. As some claim, the majority of Palestinians are likely to reject this proposal. Others disagree, point out at the stability of Saudi Arabian and Iranian regimes.

This is pure speculation. If there's a non-speculative gage of Palestinian support, let's say it.

From the proposal for a federation:

Such a political system would be enormously unstable, especially on the Palestinian side.

This is also pure speculation. Perhaps accurate, but still it's inappropriate to speculate.

BTW, for all the arguing, this article is still mildly informative.

djk 15:39 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)

Is this NPOV? No, it is not. Large chunks of this article consists of Israeli propaganda and half-truths and comments by an Israeli - all presented as fact, and largely unsubstantiated by authoritative cross-references. An encyclopaedia needs to be more than that. Anything which reflects the views of Israel alone (or Israel and the USA alone) is presented as a statement, while that which represents the majority of world opinion is stated as "Palestinians claim" or "Palestinians say". Some *more* examples:

"In addition, the majority [of Palestinians] demands the granting of complete right of return to all Palestinian refugees. ... Israel disagrees with any large-scale Palestinian refugee return, though it would agree to humanitarian reunions, and compensation of the rest." ignores the Saudi proposal.

It's Israel I'm speaking about. Israel does disagree with granting RoR. What's the relevance of the Saudi proposal?

"Israel agrees to a compromise in Jerusalem, but one that would leave the security control (as opposed to civil administration) over the city's east in its hands." Ignores the recent history of Jerusalem (from British Mandate onwards).

Barak's Camp David proposals? It's the future we're talking about, see?

On non-contiguity of territory: "According to Palestinians this makes it impossible to create a viable nation and fails to address Palestinian security needs" This "view" is shared by more than just Palestinians - and, in fact, the only states to come out in favour of a non-contiguous state are Israel & the US.

What you fail to take into account that Israel does not support, at least initially, the Palestinian state's full status. This is a separate issue and needs to be addressed separately; the fact that this implies something on the question of contiguity is merely a consequence.

"Israel has expressed its agreement to withdrawal from some Areas B, resulting in the division of the Palestinian areas to from several to about a dozen distinct parts (the numbers vary), and the institution of a safe pass system, without Israeli checkpoints, between these parts." Where did this happen? Who expressed that agreement, and when? What does a "safe pass" system mean, if there are no checkpoints? Or does "no Israeli checkpoints" mean checkpoints, but not directly manned by Israelis? In other words - without references to substantiate the points made here, it's just another piece of propaganda.

Camp David proposals?

"Israel wants the new border lines to be shaped in such a way, that the very existence of a Palestinian state would not have a life-threatening grip on the existence of Israel" *This* is NPOV?

Did you notice the words Israel wants? Can you characterize a 17-kilometer depth as anything but life-threatening in the case of a serious war?

"The border before the Six-Day War, or Green Line, passed at some point no more than 17 kilometers (12 miles) from Israel's Mediterranean coast, meaning that a hostile army in the West Bank (like the Jordanian forces at that time), could divide the country into two parts." And where, exactly, does this bit of neutral text deal with Palestinians' security concerns?

Aside from their conflict with Israel (which is being resolved in this article), there aren't any nations that plan to invade Palestine and destroy it. This is not the case with Israel. Israel by definition has graver security conerns than the Palestinians.

Holy sites - one isolated incident ("Joseph's Tomb") is highlighted and magnified, while a series of related Israeli incidents ("al-aqsa") is marginalised. Even after re-edit upon re-edit, this still has a line "The Israeli government has officially repudiated this view (needs source), and claims it treats the Muslim and Christian holy sites with utmost respect" in there. My question is - if this is supposed to be a NPOV then how come this unsourced text, once again presenting the Israeli govt in a nice light, is assumed to be true and left to stand *even though it is not sourced*. If this truly is an academic-type project, aimed at NPOV articles, such a statement should surely not be included until an authoritative source is provided to back it up.

Wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress. References are added when time allows. As to the subject in question, Israeli security services have had a hard time preventing any serious harm to the mosques; on the other hand, just as soon as the Palestinians took over a single holy site, they immediately vandalized it.

Right of Return - "a similar concept [fair resolution] was offered by the Israeli government, but outright rejected by the Palestinians in the Summer 2000 Camp David negotiations" On what evidence is this claim made? The "just resolution" from Saudi is based on a UN resolution which Israel rejects.

Nope; Israel rejects General Assembly Resolution 194 which advocates the full return of refugees. Barak agreed to humanitarian reunions and compensation of the rest. See here (http://www.mideastweb.org/CampDavid2.htm) and here (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/000720/2000072019).

There is one consistency in this article, and throughout the Israel/Palestine section of Wiki:

Items which present Israel in a good light are presented as fact, included in the encyclopaedia and assumed to be true until proven otherwise.

Feel free to change those to 'Israel[is] believe[s] that...'

Items which are inconvenient for Israel are presented as comment (even if sourced), deleted from the encyclopaedia or given an explicit pro-Israel spin and assumed to be comment until proven otherwise.

There is no sense in which this approach will, or can, lead to a NPOV article on the subject. If that truly is the goal here then the methods need a re-think: So long as Israeli trolls post unsubstantiated comment as fact and add spin, without having to justify it, to inconvenient items, what you will end up with is what you have here - an article told from an Israeli POV.

I substanciate my comments. It's just that you are more concerned with pushing the Palestinian propaganda than actually dealing with the article. That's quite regrettable, in my opinion.

Here's an experiment to try - go through this article and delete anything which is not backed by a cross-reference to a neutral third party (which would exclude any web sites or books which are predominantly pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, anti-Palestine or anti-Israel), no matter how "obviously true" it seems to be to you. Now take what is left and try to find other third-party references which state the exact opposite of what is claimed in the article (or at least something different). Do that with each point - place it in the article if and only if it can be backed up with evidence.

LOL. All sources are biased, to this extent or other. For instance, you can either declare killing people for a political gain (terrorism) to be generally wrong or generally right. This by definition means you adopt a certain position in the conflict.

A lot of work, I know. But the current approach of leaving the Israel/Palestine articles largely in the hands of an Israeli apologist is clearly not producing a NPOV article, and I doubt newbies (such as myself) are going to spend hours or weeks working on such an article only to see it deleted or given an unsubstantiated Israeli propaganda spin soon after it appears.

The fact that you (and your colleagues) have prefered to copy-and-paste large pieces of Palestinian propaganda sites isn't exactly helpful. When you do some unbiased, creative, writing, I keep that. But else, I cry "bull" and delete it. Is it an "appologist" position? I don't think so. --Uri

P.S. For all those of you who like linking to nad-plo.org (http://www.nad-plo.org). Note what happened to Israel PM Yitzhak Rabin on the photo on the title page. Doesn't this say something about the nature of this site? Or you don't care? --Uri

Serious disagreement exists regarding the possible Palestinian state. The Palestinians argue that they have already compromised greatly by accepting Israel within the pre 1967 borders; as such they will not "compromise the compromise". They demand Eastern Jerusalem as their capital, complete dismantling of all settlements as well as total control of external borders, air space and water resources. In addition, the majority demands the granting of complete right of return to all Palestinian refugees.

Israel is not willing to award the Palestinians security control over East Jerusalem, it intends to retain at least the settlements that are close to Israel's border proper, and wishes to retain at least some degree of control over the external borders, air space and water resources. Israel disagrees with any large-scale Palestinian refugee return, though it would agree to humanitarian reunions, and compensation of the rest.

I think that these two paragraphs are redundant, considering the fact that a full comprehensive discussion with exactly the same facts follows. If you feel that's not the case, please explain below why and feel free to return them. --Uri

I don't think they are redundant as they briefly summarize the content and gives an overview.

Yes, but they summarize it in an incomplete fashion. The devil is in the details!

Also, this is completely central to the Palestinian position: "Palestinians argue that they have already compromised greatly by accepting Israel within the pre 1967 borders; as such they will not "compromise the compromise". "

Ah, I actually left that sentence in the article. Does that suit you now? --Uri

No, not happy at all because you hid this crucial aspect way down in an obscure place. This is absolutly central to the Palestinian position. The recent adjustments have made the page yet more biased.

This point (albeit a nice punch-line) is relevant solely to the question of land, where there already was a compromise; it is not relevant, say, to the question of refugees, as theere wasn't a compromise there. So it belongs only to the discussion of the question of land. --Uri

Disagree. The Palestinan viewpoint that all of the West Bank and Gaza should be a Palestinian state is absolutely central. It should be stated clearly. The compromise was only about the interim agreement.

The viewpoint is as central as the question of refugees, Jerusalem or army. Therefore it belongs in the same list with them. I think moving the sentence (and removing the rest) was an adequate response to the problem worded above as "BTW, for all the arguing, this article is still mildly informative". We do need to minimize the amount of rhetoric on this page. I'd like to use this opportunity to ask other Wikipedians for a third opinion on this subject, since the current discussion is not likely to be resolved between us.

Again, the same thing as usual is happening. First there is a heated debate about the massive pro-Israeli tone. Especially Uri stresses the need to debate calmly and discuss. People agree, and calm down. Then pro-Israeli people stick around and make everything yet more pro-Israeli.

Most of the changes I'd introduced were there because of the debate on this page. I had not anyhow damaged the wording of the Palestinian positions; I worked with the Israeli ones. If you feel they need improvement, improve them. If you feel my changes somehow affected the Palestinian positions, remove them (preferably with an explanation). But please don't complain about me (or the all-seing "pro-Israeli people") making changes - it's all in your hands. --Uri

It is crucial that the offical Palestinian viewpoint is that they are not prepared to go further than accepting Israel and be given the West Bank and Gaza. This aspect is lost in the following breakup where the various aspects are discussed in detail one by one, and in essentially each case the appearance is that the Israelis are reasonable and the Palestinians are not. The important thing is that Palestinians feel that they have compromised by only having the West Bank and Gaza and further restrictions are unacceptable. Obviosuly Israelis disagree about this description and that information should be given as well.

I agree with Q. Let's find a way to emphasize this crucial point in the article. --Ed Poor

Joseph's Tomb is holy to arabs too because they think a prophet is buried in there. Joseph himself and the story about him, is a story that is included in both the Qu'ran (sp?), Torah and Bible. --BL

Nevertheless, fact is that Arabs vandalized it completely and then turned it over to their own use. That's the paragon of religious intolerance. --Uri

I reverted some of the editing done by Quasar. Here are the reasonings:

Equally, some in Israel, for instance the Shas party which is part of the current governing coalition, is wholly against any Palestinian state.

Shas doesn't have an independent external agenda. In the past, it complied with the external policies of all prime ministers it was in coalition which. So your statements are quite unfounded, (being based on several populist quotes rather than either formal document or analisys of Shas's influence on the peace process before or after). I also changed a number of direct quotes to "Palestinians say/believe that X". Also, settler population didn't double, it increased from about 250,000 to 380,000.

Palestinians welcome joint adminstration, while Israel insists on complete Israeli control.

Could you bring sources? On the sites that I looked up, I found another formula, which I put in the article.

It should be noted that all the Arab states around Israel are secular and would surely oppose an Islamist Palestine.

False! Saudi Arabia is the main backer of Hamas. Syria doesn't mind Islamists either (or else it wouldn't be the Iranian channel to Hizballah). --Uri

There are already two mosques located closely to the shrine and I doubt that they turned it into a shrine. I haven't found any sources that claim that they did.

--BL

Yeah, I was going to ask about that, too. What is the current status of Joseph's tomb? (a) destroyed beyond repair; (b) Jewish and Muslim shrine; (c) mosque. It should not be hard to describe its current status in a way that Jews and Muslims would agree on. --Ed Poor

That would be (c) mosque. See here (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/002/11.62). --Uri

Regarding settlement of refugees, or the "right of return", a pro-Israel advocacy group says, "It should also be remembered that the roughly 550,000 Palestinian refugees created by the war were not alone - there were a similar number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries. At great expense and effort the newly born state of Israel settled these Jewish refugees. Unfortunately, the Arab states, many of them flush with oil wealth, made no such effort, often acting to keep the Palestinian refugees in festering poverty, all the better to use them as a weapon against Israel." (source (http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/backg/rret)) --Ed Poor

rejected on the grounds that it would further fragment any nascent Palestinian state, hence reducing its viability

I have never come accross such an argument with regard to the exchange-of-land proposal; in any case, such an exchange would decrease fragmentation rather than increasing it, since the territory will add to the size of the southern chunk while not significantly increasing its border length. Moreover, the question of territorial contingency is a valid one, but it is separate from the exchange proposal, and has been discussed at the previous bulletpoint. --Uri

From article:

Over the last 50 years Palestinian Arabs have become recognized as a national entity.

This sentence is vague at best, and does not make a good opening sentence for the article. Perhaps the writer was tring to say that a group of people with nationalistic aspirations has gained acceptance and legitimacy in certain quarters, and that they feel justified in creating a new nation or homeland.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they have _sought_ recognition for their nationalistic aspirations; their ultimate goal is to establish a new state which WILL get recognized as a national entitiy.

From beginning of article:

(The neutrality of this article is disputed.)

Palestine is an historic area in the Middle East (an extended discussion of the definition of this territory can be found in the article on Palestine).

The article seems balanced enough as of 1 Oct 2002, but if you disagree, obviously there's dispute, so you can put it back! --Ed Poor

I tried to fix the grammar without affecting the meaning. I also fixed a few spelling errors (like "Palestinan" for Palestinian). I can't make sense out of the discussion of airspace control, so I left it alone. Can anyone who knows what the various proposals on this are take a look? (It's not clear what the PLO disagrees with, or whether they're saying shared control is necessary or impossible.) Vicki Rosenzweig

Jacob, thank you for your edits this week. The "neutrality is disputed" thing was, I note, the first thing you put back in!

I liked nearly all of your edits, but one deletion puzzled me:

Israel has claimed that the Palestinian paramilitary "police" has already demonstrated that a large Palestinian armed force is a menace to regional stability.

Did you remove that because you think Israel did not make this claim? Or because you personally disagree with the claim? Or what? (You don't have to answer, and I won't revert the deletion -- I'm just wondering.) --Ed Poor

I removed it because (1) is is clearly not NPOV, however much it is couched in "foo says bar" terms, and (2) The only NPOV options I could see were to delete it or to expand upon the topic while considering the security concerns of Israelis and Palestinians and the present and past behaviour of the IDF, Israeli settlers and the Israeli legal system as well as of Palestinian groups. Since the latter would require a sizable digression from the point of the article, deletion was the simplest way to approach NPOV. Jacob

I think I see. Security concerns due to PA and IDF military, paramilitary or "police" is too large a subject for a one-sentence mention.

How about a new article called Security concerns in the occupied territories[?]? --Ed Poor

Thanks, Dan. It's probably not for us to diminish any issue as "minor" unless the contending parties themselves have clearly called it minor. And what, if any issue, has yet to be made clear? --Ed Poor

Jacob, your removal of my phrasing was disgraceful (particularly, considering the fact that you "forgot" to remark why you did so). In effect, you're trivializing Israel's position to desire to remain a Jewish state; let me give you a clue: if 90% of all Israelis leave, then Israel will cease to exist. The same goes to the other points. --Uri

What did he remove? And how is "removal without explanation" disgraceful? --Ed Poor

Also, the section entitled Historical Views and its 2 little subsections seems to be addressing a separate (though perhaps related) question, i.e., Is there such a thing as a Palestinian people?

I think this question deserves an article of its own, which I suggest we call "Palestinian people[?]". If any contributor can help by defining the characteristics, such as ethnicity, language, customs and so forth of the Palestinian people, that would be a good start. Also the statements by Arab and Israeli leaders expressing their opinions that the concept of Palestinian people is a politically-motivated invention, should also be in the article.

If there is no objection, I'm going to move the "Palestinian people" text into the proposed article -- say, today or tomorrow. --Ed Poor

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!